Drones Core
Written by: Manu Meel and Isaiah Sirois #MAGS LAB
Note
This file is essentially a drones core and the cards under the pockets
“Curtailing Decreases Drones” and “Curtailing increases drones” have
cards that can be used both for aff and neg depending on which way you
plan on writing your scenario. View this file as a toolbox from which you
can construct a bunch of drones good/bad arguments regardless of whether
you are aff or neg.
-Manu and Isaiah
**DRONES GOOD Args**
Curtailing Decreases Drones
Borders
---Generic
Decreasing border surveillance has to decrease drones
Hoffman 14 [Meredith Hoffman, journalist for vice news and cites many CBP experts, “More Drones
on US Borders Create Privacy Concerns for Its Neighbors,” https://news.vice.com/article/more-droneson-us-borders-create-privacy-concerns-for-its-neighbors, November 2014, mm]
The US will soon launch widespread drone surveillance on its border with Canada, after blanketing half its
border with Mexico with the unmanned aerial vehicles in place of border patrol agents. But the
drones — which officials told VICE News cost $10 million each and take high-resolution videos while soaring over remote areas — violate people's right to
privacy and will further "militarize" the line between the US and Canada, analysts told VICE News. "This creates a virtual wall between the countries,"
Don Alper, the director of Western Washington University's Center for Canadian-American Relations and Border Policy Research Institute, told VICE News. "It doesn't make
Drones
already cover 900 miles of the border with Mexico and have also patrolled parts of the northern border
since 2004, information from US Customs and Border Protection shows. Alper said the northern drones had been presented as part of ramped-up security efforts in the
sense to me. There are other ways of security, like close cooperation between Canadian and American enforcement — and they already do cooperate really well."
US "War on Terror." No known terrorists have been apprehended coming from Canada, but marijuana seizures have skyrocketed — quadrupling from 2008 to 2009 with the use
of the technology. Over that year border apprehensions actually dropped, from 7,925 to 6,806, according to the Toronto Star. "The [US government] will obviously justify these
kind of activities with there being a potential threat of terrorists coming into the US but they're not finding terrorists — they're really finding drugs," Alper said. The technology
has indeed led to "the interdiction of 7,500 pounds of cocaine" and "230,500 pounds of marijuana," a representative for US Customs and Border Protection told VICE News. He
noted that 27,000 "illicit movements" had also been detected at the borders. And a 2010 government report claimed that the northern border was most vulnerable to terrorist
The drones not only patrol US borders, but they can be lent to local and national law enforcement
— prompting serious civil liberty concerns, Privacy Coalition coordinator for the Electronic Research Center's National Security Counsel Jeramie
infiltration.
Scott told VICE News. A North Dakota cattle rancher was recently sentenced to jail time after he was located by a drone. The more drones Customs and Border Protection has,
The use of drones for border surveillance presents a substantial civil
liberties risk for people," Scott continued, adding that the federal government has not devised clear enough guidelines for the drones' use. "Customs and Border
the more likely this kind of occurrence, Scott said. "
Protection should conduct a public rule making to establish privacy regulations for their use of drones in the United States." A representative from Customs and Border
Protection responded that the Department of Homeland Security had conducted a privacy review that was released this fall. The review said that Customs and Border Protection
"has
issued or plans to issue the procedures that help protect personal and civil liberties ." How a Pakistani village found
The privacy concerns can be more alarming for non-US citizens
and sold a crashed American drone. Read more here.
. Canadian
privacy lawyer David Fraser told VICE News it was unclear whether the American law would grant Canadians across the border the right to privacy since they fell outside US
the Department of Homeland Security assured they would grant people out
of the US the same privacy rights, as stated in their 2009 policy guide . He did not comment on whether Canada was consulted in
borders. But the US Customs representative said
the decision to ramp up drone use. US officials insisted to the Associated Press that the use of drones was the most effective way to patrol the border, since they could place
Border Patrol agents in high concentrations at the most heavily trafficked crossings. So far the amount of agents has not decreased with drone use. Drones may not be a money
saver, but Marc Rosenblum, the Migration Policy Institute's deputy director of its US immigration program, told VICE News that their use was a way to focus resources more
I agree that it makes sense for the Border Patrol to focus their resources, and
drones are a part of that strategy," Rosenblum said. And Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Richard Gil Kerlikowske told AP the unmanned
"strategically and efficiently" along the border. "
aircraft were a way to "deploy your resources where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." Officials from the Mexican and Canadian federal governments did not respond to
requests for comment on the US policy. But Fraser said he hoped his government was pressing the US for more information. "I'd hope that the Canadian government would ask
about what is happening with the images, how long are they being kept, and what's going to happen with the data?"
Drones are a major part of border surveillance
Holt 12 [Kelly Holt, Reporter for the New American and cites Rick Perry and CBP officials,
“Surveillance Drones Don't Live Up To Expectations,” May 2012,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/11185-surveillance-drones-dont-live-up-toexpectations, mm]
Predator B drones were deployed along the Texas/Mexico international border , the unmanned
The drones were intended to augment the presence of border agents and
physical barriers such as some 700 miles of intermittent border fencing along the Rio Grande River. The Hill reported on June 10, 2010 that setting up a single
drone in Corpus Christi, Texas (on the Gulf Coast), would have an estimated cost of between $20 and $80 million to focus
on the Texas border alone. Even the governor of the Lone Star State, Rick Perry had more faith in the aircraft than has been borne out. He told a New
Hampshire audience last August, "Because if we will commit to that, [using predator drones] I will suggest to you that we will
be able to drive the drug cartels away from that border.” But, according to the Los Angeles Times for April 30, 2012 “Mixed results show a
Nearly two years after
surveillance aircraft have proven to be, well, not worth it.
glaring problem for Homeland Security officials who have spent six years and more than $250 million building the nation's largest fleet of domestic surveillance drones. The
very useful in stopping contraband or illegal immigrants
nine Predators that help police America's borders have yet to be
.” The newspaper
referenced a 2012 audit of the drone program by the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general, revealing some problems. In 2010 the fleet flew about half the number
of hours scheduled by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on both the northern and southern borders and the Caribbean, as well as costing more than expected to operate,
and, just like other aircraft, the units are subject to grounding by unfavorable weather. In addition, they require an hour of maintenance for every hour they fly, and cost about
$3000 per hour to fly. T.J. Bonner, former president of National Border Patrol Council claims, “The big problem is that they are more expensive than traditional methods.” In
fact, the Los Angeles Times reported October, 2011 that Homeland Security was provided by Congress with three unrequested new drones to patrol the Mexican border; they’re
struggling to finance and provide ground-based pilots for the drones they already have. Congressional approval for the aircraft funding was for only the drones, not hiring or
training of pilots, or for spare parts. The article added, “
The new drones are being purchased after lobbying by members of the
so-called drone caucus in Congress, many from districts in Southern California, a major hub of the
unmanned aircraft industry.” But to help pay for them, CBP “raided budgets of its staffed aircraft. One result: Flight hours were cut by 10 percent for the P-3
Orion maritime surveillance planes that hunt smuggling ships on the West Coast and in the Caribbean.” On the Texas border, the drones are often lent to the
FBI, the Texas Rangers, or for disaster relief, therefore are sometimes unavailable for border agents to use
for surveillance. Retired Air Force major general Michael Kostelnik, who heads the drone supervision office, acknowledged that the amount of drugs seized in
Predator raids is “not impressive”, but said it’s premature to criticize their use. He claims a terrorist attack to Washington or New York City could result
in drone deployment in five hours, to help policy makers and first responders. "It is not about the things we are doing today," Kostelnik said. "It is about the things we might be
able to do." In times of budgetary stress such as these,
critics are calling for wiser expenditures and immediate results, and the
border is especially vulnerable.
DHS has incorporated drones into border surveillance- the aff has to curtail
drone use
Barry 13 [Tom Barry- senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy where he directs
TransBorder project, May 2013, “Drones Over the Homeland: From Border Security to National Security,”
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16422-drones-over-the-homeland-from-border-security-tonational-security, mm]
DHS) says it is the "leading edge" of drone deployment in the United States. Since
DHS has been purchasing Predator drones - officially called unmanned aerial systems (UAS) - to
"secure the border," yet these unarmed Predator drones are also steadily creeping into local law
enforcement, international drug-interdiction and national security missions - including across the border
into the heart of Mexico. DHS will likely double its drone contingent to two dozen unmanned UAS produced by General Atomics as part of the border security
The Department of Homeland Security (
2005,
component of any immigration reform. The prominence of border security in immigration reform can't be missed. The leading reform proposal, offered by eight US senators, is
border security"
measures, mostly high-tech surveillance by drones and ground surveillance systems. Most of the concern about the domestic deployment of
the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 - which proposes to spend $6.5 billion in additional "
drones by DHS has focused on the crossover to law-enforcement missions that threaten privacy and civil rights, and that, without more regulations in place, the program will
accelerate the transition to what critics call a "surveillance society." Also alarming is the mission creep of border drones, managed by the DHS' Customs and Border Protection
increasing interface between border drones, international drug interdiction operations and
other military-directed national security missions. The prevalence of military jargon used by US Customs and Border (CBP) officials - such as
(CPB) agency with
"defense in depth" and "situational awareness" - points to at least a rhetorical overlapping of border control and military strategy. Another sign of the increasing coincidence
between CBP/Office of Airforce and Marine (OAM) drone program and the military is that the commanders and deputies of OAM are retired military officers. Both Major
General Michael Kostelnik and his successor Major General Randolph Alles, retired from US Marines, were highly placed military commanders involved in drone development
and procurement. Kostelnik has been involved in the development of the Predator by General Atomics since the mid-1990s and was an early proponent of providing Air Force
funding to weaponize the Predator. As commander of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, Alles was a leading proponent of having each military branch work with military
contractors to develop their own drone breeds, including near replicas of the Predator manufactured for the Army by General Atomics. In promoting - and justifying - the DHS
drone program, Kostelnik has routinely alluded to the national security potential of drones slated for border security duty. On several occasions Kostelnik has pointed to the
seamless interoperability with Department of Defense (DOD) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) forces. At a moment's notice, Kostelnik said, that OAM (Office of Airforce and
Marine) could be "CHOP'ed" - meaning undergo a Change in Operational Command from DHS to DOD. DHS has not released operational data about CBP (Customs and Border
Protection)/OAM drone operations. Therefore, the extent of the participation of DHS drones in domestic and international operations is unknown. But statements by CBP
officials and media reports from the Caribbean point to a rapidly expanding participation of DHS Guardian UAVs in drug-interdiction and other unspecified operations as far
south as Panama. CBP states that OAM "routinely provides air and marine support to other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies" and "works with the US military in
joint international antismuggling operations and in support of National Security Special Events [such as the Olympics]." According to Kostelnik, CBP planned a "Spring 2011
deployment of the Guardian to a Central American country in association with Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-South) based at the naval station in Key West,
Florida." JIATF-South is a subordinate command to the United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), whose geographical purview includes the Caribbean, Central
America and South America. In mid-2012, CBP/OAM participated in a JIATF-South collaborative venture called "Operation Caribbean Focus" that involved flight over the
Caribbean Sea and nations in the region - with the Dominican Republic acting as the regional host for the Guardian operations, which CBP/OAM considers a "prototype for
CBP has been secretly deploying Predators into Mexican territory.
OAM works in collaboration with the Government of Mexico in
addressing border security issues." But it has never publicly specified the form and the objectives of this collaboration. Nor has it publicly acknowledged
that its Predator drones have entered Mexican territory. As part of the US global drug war and as an extension of border security, the US Northern Command
acknowledged that the military was deploying - with the approval of the Mexican government - the $38
million Global Hawk drone into Mexico as part of the joint US-Mexico attempt to suppress the Mexican
drug cartels. CBP says that OAM drones have not been deployed within Mexico, but notes that "OAM works in collaboration with the
Government of Mexico in addressing border security issues, "without specifying the form and objectives of this collaboration." As part
of the US global drug war and as an extension of border security, unarmed drones are also crossing the border into Mexico . The US
future transit zone UAS (drone) deployments."
In its description of the OAM operations, CBP states, "
Northern Command has acknowledged that the US military does fly a $38-million Global Hawk drone into Mexico to assist the Mexico's war against the drug cartels. An April
28 Washington Post article by Dana Priest raises new questions and concerns about the increasing mission creep of homeland drones into foreign missions involving the U.S.
military, CIA and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). President Felipe Calderón began requesting US drone flights into Mexico on targeted killings missions soon after he
became president in December 2006. However, it wasn't until the July 2009 killing of a US Border Patrol agent by suspected Mexican drug smugglers that the US government
began deploying unarmed Predator drones. According to Washington Post reporter Priest, "[H]ours after Mexican smugglers shot and killed a U.S. Border Patrol agent while
. authorities were given permission to fly an unarmed Predator drone into
Mexican airspace to hunt for suspects. Intelligence from the flights was passed to the Mexican army. Within 12 hours, the army brought back more
trying to steal his night-vision goggles, U.S
information, according to two U.S. officials involved in the operation. Eventually, four suspects were captured. Three pleaded guilty, one is awaiting trial and a fifth remains at
large." "That first flight dispelled Mexican fears that U.S. authorities would try to take control of drone operations,” noted the Washington Post article, "An agreement was
reached that would temporarily give operational control to Mexican authorities during such flights. U.S. pilots sitting in the states would control the planes remotely, but a
Mexican military or federal police commander would be able to direct the pilot within the boundaries of a Mexico-designated grid. By late 2010, drones were flying deeper into
Mexico to spy on the cartels ..."
Drones Aff
---Int’l Precedent
Domestic curtailment decreases international drone use
Nedzarek 13 [Rafal Nedzarek- Analyst for Atlantic-Community which is an open think tank on
foreign policy, October 2013, “Developing Drone Norms Through Domestic Legislation,”
http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/developing-drone-norms-through-domestic-legislation, mm]
Any constructive debate on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) ought to begin with an assertion that these platforms are here to stay. As such, they are not just an international
issue but will very soon become a national issue, raising concerns about privacy and law enforcement. It is therefore necessary for any norms for drones to first of all be initiated
Domestic principles and norms should then be transferred to
international operations . Already constituting a large part of the US Air Force, drones are also gradually proliferating among other NATO
at the national level.
members. UAVs serve as valuable Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, keeping servicemen out of harm's way for a relatively low price-tag. Although
the use of UAVs offers many advantages, it also poses various problems that, if disregarded, could collectively outweigh the overall
military utility of these platforms. In the post-Cold War world of trans-border asymmetric threats drones offer a tempting prospect of flexible monitoring and timely
interventions without "embroilment." However, chasing this promise has led to a state of affairs which puts the transatlantic partners in a bad light. To many critics, the well-off
"core" countries use drones to surveil and castigate – through forcible measures – individual citizens of the countries of the ‘periphery'. Although securing the world's undergoverned regions may often seem like the right course of action, this might create an ominous impression of Western domination. An aspect of drone use which seems to be the
most detrimental to international reputation is the practice of targeted killing. Although not a novelty, this procedure has grown in frequency in the last decade. As part of a
larger initiative targeted killings prove problematic on the legal front. A myriad of largely independent operations are framed collectively as a single coherent campaign of the
"global war on terror." Combined with the low intensity of contemporary armed conflicts, this framework obscures judgment on concurrent applicability of international
humanitarian law and international human rights law. Apart from legal issues, there is also the question of overall fairness of the pursued policies. Conducting covert operations
across the globe is bound to result in "blowback." In the case of UAVs, Western governments faced vocal domestic opposition from their own citizens. Popular uneasiness about
possible uses of battle-tested systems for domestic purposes has been confirmed by the law-enforcement agencies' growing interest in UAVs. Dystopian visions are reinforced by
These unsettling
current trends call for greater transparency and democratic oversight . It seems
the rapid development of sophisticated video surveillance platforms offering real-time footage of unprecedented resolution.
absolutely crucial to discontinue armed drone use by intelligence agencies. Once restricted to respective militaries, the combat use of drones should be further barred from areas
If targeted killings are to continue, they must be subject to
meticulous supervision of relevant congressional or parliamentary committees. Also,
information pertaining to the use of targeted killings – including a description of the employed criteria as well as statistics
on enemy combatant and civilian casualties – should be made obtainable to citizens within the "freedom of
information" framework. Finally, as the use of drones by law-enforcement agencies
intensifies, legal regulations will soon need to be imposed on the limits of domestic
aerial surveillance. All these improvements are ways of assuring the public opinion that
individual liberties will not be threatened and that Western governments respect human
rights of the citizens of belligerent countries. Another UAV-related issue that looms on the horizon is the possibility of granting full
outside clearly designated war zones.
autonomy to robotic combat platforms. Increasing numbers of critics argue that autonomous drones could deploy force indiscriminately. To avoid this, the installed weapons
systems should remain under human control – both to rule out deadly glitches and to prevent the dissolution of legal responsibility. Effective curbs on fully autonomous combat
platforms could be introduced relatively easily through domestic legislation. However, there is little chance to introduce any effective international regulations on this matter.
There will be no international push for any legally-binding measures until the indiscriminateness of autonomous weapons has been proven on the field of battle. Even then, any
The only positive
global influence we will have to contend with is to lead by example through imposing
domestic regulations on our own use of unmanned aerial vehicles, autonomous or not.
possible treaty could share the fate of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which has not been signed by several major powers.
Domestic drone use sets a precedent that causes more drone use abroadcurtailment hurts the precedent
Gucciardi 2013 (Anthony Gucciardi, creator of Storyleak, accomplished writer, producer, and seeker
of truth. His articles have been read by millions worldwide and are routinely featured on major alternative
news websites like the infamous Drudge Report, Infowars, NaturalNews, G Edward Griffin's Reality Zone,
and many others, “NEW PRECEDENT: ARMED DOMESTIC DRONE STRIKES WILL SOON BE
REALITY”, http://www.storyleak.com/armed-domestic-drone-strikes-reality/, May 23, 2013)
A new precedent has been set. Despite extensive denial that drone strikes would endanger Americans, Attorney General Eric Holder has now openly
admitted that four US citizens were killed through overseas drone strikes since 2009. While not on United States soil, the deaths of the US citizens in nations like Yemen
and Pakistan highlight the new precedent being set by US government heads who wish to
use drones as a form of lethal enforcement on US soil. With Holder admitting that Americans have already died via drone
strikes following his statements that Obama can already initiate drone strikes on US soil , we are now seeing the
way paved to go ahead and announce armed drones to fight terrorism here in the US. We all remember the initial
rhetoric that drones were ‘no real threat’, and that they were simply unarmed scouting machines used to save lives overseas. Then, we saw them rapidly enter the nation, and we
heard the same tired reassurances. We saw them killing innocents overseas with the high powered weaponry being attached to these ‘scouting’ drones, and we see them still
doing so today. But, once again, we’re told not to worry. Political talking heads like Eric Holder assure us that domestic drones, for which over 1,400 permits have been issued,
are not meant to be used as weapons. Well, that is unless Obama decides to use the drones as a weapon of war on US soil. ARMED DOMESTIC DRONES IN THE NEAR
Holder decided to
announce that it would actually be entirely ‘legal’ for Obama to issue a drone strike on a US
citizen on domestic soil. In fact, CNN reports that Holder does not ‘rule out’ the possibility of domestic drone
strikes, and that a scenario could occur in the future. And to strike someone with a drone, of course, you would need weaponry. You would need an
armed drone. In other words, Holder is going against the major promise by the FAA official who ‘promised’ that no
armed drones will be flying on domestic soil . But don’t worry, Holder says the government has ‘no intention’ right now of issuing drone strikes on
FUTURE Despite the message of assurance regarding the promise that domestic drones would never turn into government-controlled war machines, Eric
go ahead and
US soil. Just like the government never targeted Constitution and conservative-based groups through the IRS and would never use domestic drones to spy on you. Quite simply,
if any power is given to these individuals in government, be sure of one thing: they will use it. And knowing the track record of drone strikes overseas and how they greatly affect
drone strikes on US soil against citizens is an even more serious threat.
the innocent,
The 3,000 plus deaths from drone strikes
overseas in Pakistan alone, which vastly affect the innocent and non-threatening, have even prompted Google employees and big firms alike to develop charts and interactive
maps to detail the deaths in a manner that portrays the reality of the situation. One design firm known as Pitch recently went and created an interactive chart that, along with
We continue to hear these
major announcements from Holder regarding drone strikes, and each time it pushes the precedent
further. Each time, he warps the ‘law’ to justify what is being done with drone attacks, and each time we come closer to the announcement that we ‘need’ to use armed
drones against domestic terrorists. Just wait for the next terrorist hunt in the US for a high profile crime case to hear
more from Holder and the gang on why we need armed domestic drones to keep us safe. It already
happened with Dorner and others.
detailing how less than 2% of strike victims are high priority targets, documents the drone strike deaths throughout recent years.
Domestic drone policy shapes international drone policy
Regan 13 [John Paul Regan- columnist who focuses on privacy concerns, “How International Drone
Policy Shapes Domestic Drone Use” April 2013, http://jurist.org/hotline/2013/04/samar-warsi-dronepolicy.php#, mm]
For laws to be effective, they must have ascertainable limits. Clear limits are determined by definitions contained within laws and the meanings we attribute to words within
those definitions. If international law can be violated through manipulating key conflict definitions, constitutional parameters can be similarly manipulated to encroach on the
To think that the drone policy overseas has no impact on local policies is
misguided, as the "permanent 'war on terror' sets precedents that slowly find their way to be used
domestically for largely the same reasons they are deployed abroad ." When it comes to foreign policy, the entire drone
narrative has been fraught with ambiguous language, making it difficult for the American public to pin
down President Obama's policy. For example, a few weeks ago, the Obama Administration heeded the bi-partisan demand for more information and
civil liberties of Americans right here at home.
released a statement [PDF] saying that the president does not have the authority to kill "an American not engaged in combat on American soil." However, what does "not
engaged in" truly mean? Then there were the targeted killing "white papers" [PDF]; a thicket of flimsy and ill-defined terms intended to obfuscate any legal criticism of the
president's actions. The document raised more questions than it answered: what does it mean to be a "senior" al Qaeda official? What constitutes "operational?" What is
Who is considered a "high-level official" permitted to order the drone strike? What
Now it is someone who appears
dangerous. The new "imminent threat" of violence does not require the US to have clear evidence that an
attack on the US will take place in the immediate future. Impendency can be decided on the whim of the president. While every definition
"imminent?" What establishes a "threat?"
is the criterion for "feasible?" An imminent threat used to be someone who represented a clear and present danger.
has parameters, those parameters are usually ascertainable. Here, the definition of impendency is so broad the limits are essentially meaningless. Collateral damage used to be
defined as anyone who was not a target — now it is only women and children. The narrowed definition of "collateral damage" renders "all military-age males in a strike zone as
combatants ... unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." In effect, we determine whether you were innocent after we kill you. There is justice,
after all. In essence, there is a presumption of guilt attached to individuals in physical proximity of al Qaeda members. That the proximity could be due to a number of factors
(rescue work, journalism, research and so on) other than involvement in terrorist activities seems to be an irrelevant detail to the administration. There is a power in the use of
such partisan language that tends "to embed itself in everyday discourse and, thus, appear natural, neutral and objective. There are "good guys" and "bad guys"; there is "us"
versus "them." Who would not want to kill the "bad guys?" Undoubtedly, there are some individuals that should be killed — but, the sweeping and dangerous generalizations
. The result is a fractured and ambiguous policy
occurring at the highest government level make it difficult to tell whom
. A recently leaked White
House document, acquired by McClatchy, reveals that "at least 265 of up to 482 people who the US intelligence reports estimated the CIA killed during a 12-month period
Americans must demand
concrete definitions which provide us with ascertainable limits of the international drone program. While
the establishment of concrete definitions would not eradicate all inconsistencies in how the US deals with
terror threats, it would be a step towards transparency. Details would give the drone program a
legitimacy it currently lacks. It would allow us to retroactively analyze how accurate our defense programs are, assess and address policy concerns,
ending in September 2011 were not senior al Qaeda leaders but instead were 'assessed' as Afghan, Pakistani and unknown extremists."
truthfully research how our relationships with other countries are developing as a result of such programs and allow families who have been wronged to seek redress and
Without any determinable guidelines, there can be neither objective evaluation nor progress.
Failing to ask for ascertainable limits of the international drone program sends one of two messages: 1) we
compensation.
are not paying attention to how the government is manipulating laws, or 2) we know, but we do not care.
Either option sets the stage for the manipulation of laws at home. When it comes to the issue of domestic drones, the foreign drone
policy sets the tone. In the context of criminal justice, specifically the "war on terror," the use of domestic drones can quickly strip away one's civil liberties under
the guise of national security. The Fourth Amendment safeguards the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches
Whether government
surveillance constitutes a "search" depends upon the reasonableness test set forth in Justice Harlan's
concurrence in Katz v. US. The test considers whether the person has a subjective expectation of privacy
in the area to be searched and whether society is prepared to deem that expectation reasonable . One's home
and seizures" by the government. This means police need a warrant to search a person or their property, with a few exceptions.
always falls within the scope of protected areas under the Fourth Amendment. One exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, explained in National Treasury
Employees Union v. Von Rabb, is the "special needs" doctrine which requires the government to demonstrate that the government interest outweighs the intrusion. The "special
needs" exception could give law enforcement a free pass to monitor specific homes when looking for domestic terror threats. Without written guidelines, law enforcement could
justify any number of surveillance initiatives under the pretext of fighting the "war on terror." In addition, given the political and social stigmatization of Islam, the potential for
misuse of the "special needs" exception to disproportionately target American Muslims is great. Last year's unlawful surveillance of Muslims throughout New York by the New
York Police Department is evidence of this risk. It is imperative to have clear and unambiguous written policies regarding the parameters of domestic drone use. As Noam
Chomsky famously stated, we must engage in "intellectual self-defense" by staying informed. Specifically, we must scrutinize words, their meanings and their implications.
Words create perceptions which form the basis for government policy, create narratives that contribute to public complacency and most importantly, dictate the scope of laws.
Samar Warsi is a Senior Volunteer Attorney for the Muslim Civil Liberties Union. She holds a BA in Political Science from McMaster University and graduated with a JD from
the Oklahoma City University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in the state bar of Texas.
---Market
Curtailing drone surveillance undermines the drone sector – funding
Wolfgang 13 [Ben Wolfgang- reporters for Washington times and cites experts, “Drone Industry
Predicts Explosive Economic boost,” March 2013,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/drone-industry-predicts-explosive-economicboost/?page=all, mm]
Drones as weapons and drones as spies remain matters of intense debate across the country, but the
controversial aircraft are poised to
make an impact as something else: economic engines. Private-sector drones — also called unmanned aerial systems or UAVs
— will create more than 70,000 jobs within three years and will pump more than $82 billion into the U.S. economy by 2025,
according to a major new study commissioned by the industry’s leading trade group. But the report, authored by aerospace specialist and former
George Washington University professor Darryl Jenkins, assumes that the White House and Congress stick to the
current schedule and have in place the necessary legal and regulatory frameworks. Current law calls for full
drone integration into U.S. airspace by September 2015, but many key privacy questions surrounding UAVs have yet to be answered. There’s also
growing doubt that the Federal Aviation Administration can meet the congressionally mandated timetable. If deadlines are met and drones become
commonplace in American skies, some states will be especially big winners. Virginia, for example, stands to gain nearly 2,500 jobs by 2017. It also could
take in $4.4 million in tax revenue and see more than $460 million in overall economic activity by 2017, the report says. Virginia would gain the eighthmost jobs of any state as a result of drone integration. Maryland isn’t far behind, with projections of more than 1,700 new jobs by 2017. California
would be by far the biggest winner in terms of jobs, with more than 12,000 expected. Florida, Texas, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Kansas,
Arizona and Pennsylvania are also expected to be benefit greatly from the coming drone economy. “This
is an incredibly exciting time
for an industry developing technology that will benefit society, as well as the economy,” said Michael Toscano,
president and CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group that has existed for more than 40 years but has come
into the public eye only recently. Drone expansion “means the creation of quality, high-paying American jobs,” Mr.
Toscano continued. But the motivation behind Tuesday’s report — arguably the most sweeping look ever at the economic potential of drones — runs
deeper than just dollars and cents. The
industry faces an uncertain future in light of growing public
paranoia surrounding the craft — paranoia that has only been heightened by the debate over whether the Obama administration
would ever consider using a drone to kill an American on U.S. soil. While the drones that will be employed by U.S. companies
or law enforcement agencies are far different than the military-style UAVs equipped with Hellfire missiles,
those distinctions aren’t always clear. Tuesday’s report not only offered the industry a chance to shine the
spotlight on drones’ positive uses and economic potential, but also served as an opportunity — or, perhaps
a warning — to lawmakers seeking to limit UAVs. More than 20 states are considering bills to establish strict guidelines for what
drones can do. Virginia is mulling a measure that would put a two-year moratorium on all government use of
drones. Such a measure would be especially harsh because first-responders such as police and fire
departments are expected to be one of the largest markets for UAVs. Like other growing and thriving
sectors of the economy, the drone business likely will set up shop in friendly environments. “While we project more than 100,000 new jobs by 2025,
states that create favorable regulatory and business environments for the industry and the technology will likely siphon jobs away from states that do
not,” said Mr. Jenkins, the report’s lead author who used to head George Washington University’s Aviation Institute and also is a former professor at
Embry-Riddle University. On another front, the FAA appears to be in danger of missing the congressionally mandated 2015 deadline for drone
integration. The agency just recently began taking applications for its test-site program, where drones will be studied to see how they respond in
different climate conditions and at different altitudes. More than 30 states have expressed interest in the program, but it’s unclear when it will be fully
established; further delays put the 2015 date in even greater jeopardy. “ Every
year that we delay integration, the U.S.
will lose more than $10 billion in total economic impact,” Mr. Jenkins said.
Restrictions will hamper drone growth – especially law
Toesland, 15
Finbarr Toesland, Web Content Editor, “Global commercial drone market sees US State Department set
new guidelines for exporting drones,” Companies and Markets, 3/2/15,
http://www.companiesandmarkets.com/News/Information-Technology/Global-commercial-dronemarket-sees-US-State-Department-set-new-guidelines-for-exporting-drones/NI10114 // IS
The global commercial drone market is expected to total about US$1.3bn by 2020, with a CAGR of 109%,
due to constantly improving technology and design. The main end-users of commercial drones are retail,
media, advertisement companies and environmental surveillance. As drones gain new features, such as
HD video, improved operating ranges and more functional designs, they will become more useful to a
broad variety of consumers.Global commercial drone market
The global commercial drone market is currently in its growth stage, with increasing awareness of the
many uses drones have boosting this market. However, there are a number of factors that will hamper
overall growth in the market, such as increasing government policy restrictions, based around safety
issues. The key growth segment in the commercial drone market is the law enforcement sector, which is
forecast to control around 25% of the market.
Law enforcement is key to continued drone market growth
Palermo, 14
Elizabeth Palermo, Staff Writer, citing analysts at the Teal Group, “Drones Could Grow to $11 Billion
Industry by 2024,” livescience, 7/29/14, http://www.livescience.com/47071-drone-industry-spendingreport.html // IS
The growth of the drone market is mostly fueled by military organizations in the United States and other
countries, according to the report. The United States already uses a wide range of unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) systems — ranging from micro UAVs small enough to fit in the palm of a soldier's hand, to large
UAVs such as the Air Force's Predator drone, which is used for both reconnaissance and air attacks.
This latter type of drone, known as a "hunter-killer" UAV, is where the analysts at Teal Group expect the
U.S. military will be investing most of its drone dollars over the next decade.
The United States has already developed unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) that could one day
replace conventional warplanes, such as piloted fighter jets, according to the report. Boeing's X-45
Phantom Ray, developed for the U.S. Air Force, and Northrop Grumman's X-47 Pegasus are just two
examples of UCAVs that have already been designed and built for the military. Information on how these
drone projects are progressing is hard to come by, the report notes, most likely because the U.S. military
has deemed the projects classified.
Civilian drones
According to the report, drones used for nonmilitary purposes make up a relatively small portion of
today's UAV market, with only 11 percent of all drone technologies currently being developed and
produced for civilian uses. However, the report states that by the end of the decade, the share of the
market devoted to nonmilitary drones is expected to grow to at least 14 percent of the total market for
drones.
"Our coverage of the civil UAV market continues to grow with each annual report, mirroring the gradual
increase in the civil market itself," Philip Finnegan, one of the authors of the study and director of
corporate analysis with the Teal Group, said in a statement.
The report breaks down civilian use of drones into three main categories:
Government UAVs: In the next decade, the world can expect to see more drones used for things like
border control, law enforcement and wildlife research.
Commercial UAVs: Agriculture, mapping and natural resource extraction are expected to see increased
drone use.
Hobbyist UAVs: The report finds that the number of mass-produced drones, ranging in cost from several
hundred to several thousand dollars, will also likely increase in the coming decade. These drones will be
used by hobbyists and certain professionals, such as real estate agents looking to showcase homes.
While Teal Group analysts expect growth in all three of these sectors over the next decade, the group said
that the government is the most likely sector to increase investment in UAV systems in the years to come.
Law enforcement agencies and other civil government organizations will have to spend more on drones
than will hobbyists, for example, because the types of drones these organizations use will probably be
much more expensive.
Law enforcement key – statistics
Markets and Markets, 15
Markets and Markets, “UAV Drone Market for Commercial Applications by Type (Fixed Wing, Rotary
Blade, Quad Rotor), Technology (Energy & Propulsion System, Automation, Collision Avoidance),
Application (Government, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retail) & Geography - Global Forecast to 2020 –
Summary,” February 2015, Markets and Markets, http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/MarketReports/commercial-drones-market-195137996.html // IS
The global commercial drones market is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 109.31% to reach $1.27 billion by
2020. The UAVs have been evolving over the years with improved design, significant operating ranges
and tenure, and better data processing capabilities. They can transfer high-resolution video and images,
and other surveillance data to base station in real-time. The various applications of commercial drones
not only help the end-user save big in terms of cost and time of operation but also mitigate the risk of
human involvement. The commercial drone industry has also been expanding in applications such as
retail industry, environmental surveillance, and the media and advertisement industry.
The key applications included in the report are law enforcement, energy and power, manufacturing,
infrastructure, media and entertainment, agriculture, and scientific research. Among all, the law
enforcement application is expected to hold the largest share of the market at ~25%.
The commercial drones market has also been segmented by technology into energy and propulsion
systems, automation system, collision avoidance system, cyber-security and jamming, on-board data
processing, and communication data links and radio frequency spectrum capacity. The report also
segments the Commercial drones market based on geography into the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and
Rest of the World (RoW). In 2014, the Americas comprised the largest region in terms of market revenue
for the commercial drone market and are projected to grow at the highest CAGR of 111.93% between
2014 and 2020
Law is the lynchpin of the market – studies
StorageServers, 15
StorageServers, “Commercial drone market to be $1.27 billion worth by 2020!” StorageServers, 4/13/15,
https://storageservers.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/commercial-drone-market-to-be-1-27-billion-worthby-2020/ // IS
Commercial drone market will be $1.27 billion worth by the year 2020 and this was predicted by a
research firm MarketsandMarkets. The study also confirmed that the total commercial drones market was
valued at $15.22 million, which is expected to rise to $1.27 billion, at an estimated CAGR of 109.31%.
Commercial drones are the unmanned flying vehicles which are either operated with human induced
intelligence or via remote management services. The increase in demand for drones in law enforcement
applications such as security surveillance and technological advancement are the key drives pumping this
market.
-----AT: UQ Overwhelms
Drones are at risk from regulation – law enforcement is key to market
stability
Markets and Markets, 15
Markets and Markets, “UAV Drone Market for Commercial Applications by Type (Fixed Wing, Rotary
Blade, Quad Rotor), Technology (Energy & Propulsion System, Automation, Collision Avoidance),
Application (Government, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Retail) & Geography - Global Forecast to 2020 –
Report Description,” February 2015, Markets and Markets,
http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/commercial-drones-market-195137996.html // IS
The major drivers identified for the growth of the commercial drones market are the increase in demand
from commercial applications, significant technological advancements over the last few years, and
effective adoption of drones for law enforcements. There are also some factors which act as a restraint on
the growth of the market, such as stringent government regulations along with, security and safety
issues. However, overall, the market is expected to witness a prominent growth during the forecast period,
primarily due to the increasing adoption of commercial drones for law enforcement applications.
Drone growth isn’t inevitable – regulations are concerns
Kleinman, 15
Zoe Kleinman, Technology reporter at BBC, ‘CES 2015: Why the future of drones is up in the air,” 1/8/15,
BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30721339 // IS
In a few years the trade group expects it to be a billion-dollar market. But not all is stable in the world of
drones. Two key issues are dogging the field - regulation and power. In the US the Federal Aviation
Authority (FAA) has very strict rules around their commercial use. Jim Williams, manager of the FAA's
integration office, said its regulations for commercial use were strict for good reasons. "People who are
being paid to do a job are more likely to take risks to accomplish that," he said. Away from commercial
use, there is much anxiety around the world about amateur drones and privacy, as most of the craft come
equipped with cameras.
Embassies
---Generic
Curtailing embassy surveillance hurts drone market
Gellman et al., 13
Barton Gellman, Julia Tate, Greg Miller *writer for the national staff. He has contributed to three Pulitzer
Prizes for The Washington Post, most recently the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. **research
correspondent, ***intelligence reporter, “Documents reveal NSA’s extensive involvement in targeted
killing program,” The Washington Post, 10/16/13, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/documents-reveal-nsas-extensive-involvement-in-targeted-killingprogram/2013/10/16/29775278-3674-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html // IS
The file is part of a collection of records in the Snowden trove that make clear that the drone campaign —
often depicted as the CIA’s exclusive domain — relies heavily on the NSA’s ability to vacuum up enormous
quantities of e-mail, phone calls and other fragments of signals intelligence, or SIGINT.
To handle the expanding workload, the NSA created a secret unit known as the Counter-Terrorism
Mission Aligned Cell, or CT MAC, to concentrate the agency’s vast resources on hard-to-find terrorism
targets. The unit spent a year tracking Ghul and his courier network, tunneling into an array of systems
and devices, before he was killed. Without those penetrations, the document concluded, “this opportunity
would not have been possible.”
At a time when the NSA is facing intense criticism for gathering data on Americans, the drone files may
bolster the agency’s case that its resources are focused on fighting terrorism and supporting U.S.
operations overseas.
“Ours is a noble cause,” NSA Director Keith B. Alexander said during a public event last month. “Our job
is to defend this nation and to protect our civil liberties and privacy.”
The documents do not explain how the Ghul e-mail was obtained or whether it was intercepted using legal
authorities that have emerged as a source of controversy in recent months and enable the NSA to compel
technology giants including Microsoft and Google to turn over information about their users. Nor is there
a reference to another NSA program facing scrutiny after Snowden’s leaks, its metadata collection of
numbers dialed by nearly every person in the United States.
To the contrary, the records indicate that the agency depends heavily on highly targeted network
penetrations to gather information that wouldn’t otherwise be trapped in surveillance nets that it has set
at key Internet gateways.
The new documents are self-congratulatory in tone, drafted to tout the NSA’s counterterrorism
capabilities. One is titled “CT MAC Hassan Gul Success.” The files make no mention of other agencies’
roles in a drone program that escalated dramatically in 2009 and 2010 before tapering off in recent years.
Even so, former CIA officials said the files are an accurate reflection of the NSA’s contribution to finding
targets in a campaign that has killed more than 3,000 people, including thousands of alleged militants
and hundreds of civilians, in Pakistan, according to independent surveys. The officials said the agency has
assigned senior analysts to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and deployed others to work alongside CIA
counterparts at almost every major U.S. embassy or military base overseas.
“NSA threw the kitchen sink at the FATA,” said a former U.S. intelligence official with experience in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, referring to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the region in northwest
Pakistan where al-Qaeda’s leadership is based.
NSA employees rarely ventured beyond the security gates of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, officials said.
Surveillance operations that required placing a device or sensor near an al-Qaeda compound were
handled by the CIA’s Information Operations Center, which specializes in high-tech devices and “close-in”
surveillance work.
“But if you wanted huge coverage of the FATA, NSA had 10 times the manpower, 20 times the budget
and 100 times the brainpower,” the former intelligence official said, comparing the surveillance
resources of the NSA to the smaller capabilities of the agency's IOC. The two agencies are the largest in
the U.S. intelligence community, with budgets last year of $14.7 billion for the CIA and $10.8 billion for
the NSA. “We provided the map,” the former official said, “and they just filled in the pieces.”
In broad terms, the NSA relies on increasingly sophisticated versions of online attacks that are wellknown among security experts. Many rely on software implants developed by the agency’s Tailored Access
Operations division with code-names such as UNITEDRAKE and VALIDATOR. In other cases, the agency
runs “man-in-the-middle” attacks in which it positions itself unnoticed midstream between computers
communicating with one another, diverting files for real-time alerts and longer-term analysis in data
repositories.
Through these and other tactics, the NSA is able to extract vast quantities of digital information, including
audio files, imagery and keystroke logs. The operations amount to silent raids on suspected safe houses
and often are carried out by experts sitting behind desks thousands of miles from their targets.
The reach of the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations division extends far beyond Pakistan. Other
documents describe efforts to tunnel into systems used by al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa, each
breach exposing other corridors.
An operation against a suspected facilitator for al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen led to a trove of files that
could be used to “help NSA map out the movement of terrorists and aspiring extremists between Yemen,
Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Libya and Iran,” according to the documents. “This may enable NSA to better
flag the movement of these individuals” to allied security services that “can put individuals on no-fly lists
or monitor them once in country.”
NSA
---Generic
Curtailing NSA surveillance undermines drone strikes
Tomlinson 13 [Simon Tomlinson- reporter for the dailymail and cites leaked documents from the
NSA, Oct 2013, “US drone killed Bin Laden chief after CIA intercepted his wife's email that revealed his
whereabouts,” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2464192/CIA-drone-strikes-rely-heavily-NSAsdata-mining-program.html, mm]
The National Security Agency has been extensively involved in the U.S.
government's targeted killing program, collaborating closely with the CIA in the
use of drone strikes against terrorists abroad, leaked documents have revealed. In one instance,
an email sent by the wife of an Osama bin Laden associate contained clues as to her husband's whereabouts and led to a CIA drone strike that killed
him in Pakistan in October 2012, the Post reported in its online edition Wednesday night. While citing documents provided by former NSA systems
the Post reported that it was
withholding many details about the drone-strike missions at the request of U.S.
intelligence officials. They cited potential damage to ongoing operations and national security for their request, the paper reported.
The documents make clear that the CIA-operated drone campaign relies heavily
on the NSA's ability to vacuum up enormous quantities of e-mail, phone
calls and other fragments of signals intelligence, or SIGINT, the newspaper said.
The NSA created a secret unit known as the Counter-Terrorism Mission Aligned Cell, or CT MAC, to
concentrate the agency's vast resources on hard-to-find terrorism targets, the Post reported. The
analyst Edward Snowden - the American is hiding out in Russia after being granted asylum there -
documents provided by Snowden don't explain how the bin Laden associate's email was obtained or whether it was obtained through the controversial
NSA programs recently made public, including its metadata collection of numbers dialed by nearly every person in the United States. Instead, the Post
said its review of the documents indicates that the agency depends heavily on highly targeted network penetrations to gather information that wouldn't
otherwise be trapped in surveillance nets that the NSA has set at key Internet gateways. The U.S. has never publicly acknowledged killing bin Laden
associate Hassan Ghul, according to the Post. The Al Qaeda operative had been captured in 2004 and helped expose bin Laden's courier network, a key
development in the effort to locate bin Laden. Ghul then spent two years in a secret CIA prison and returned to Al Qaeda after the U.S. sent him to his
native Pakistan in 2006. U.S. forces killed bin Laden at his Pakistan hideout in 2011. That same year, the Treasury Department named Ghul a target of
U.S. counter-terrorism sanctions after he had helped al-Qaeda re-establish logistics networks, enabling Al Qaeda to move people and money in and out
NSA document described Ghul as Al Qaeda chief of military
operations and detailed a broad surveillance effort to find him. Obtained during a months-long effort to
of the country. The Post said an
find Ghul, the email from his wife erased doubts U.S. forces had found him, the Post said.
NSA data plays a major role in the WOT- curtailment hurts WOT
Gander 14 [Kashmira Gander- Reporter for the independent and cites Glenn Greenwald, Feb 2014,
“NSA 'drone strikes based on mobile phone data',”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/nsa-drone-strikes-based-on-mobile-phone-data9119735.html, mm]
NSA) uses electronic surveillance rather than human
intelligence in lethal drone strikes , it has been reported. The new publication headed by Glenn
Greenwald, the journalist who broke the news of US government surveillance in The Guardian, claims the revelations were
made by a former US drone operator. The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operator, who also allegedly
worked for the NSA, told The Intercept that the NSA uses data and mobile-phone tracking
technology to confirm the locations of targets. The JSOC is responsible with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist
suspects in countries including Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. He also told the publication that tactics used by the NSA
include “geolocating” a suspected terrorist via the SIM card in their phone. This
information is then passed on to the CIA or US military as a basis for strikes and
night raids. NSA Documents leaked by whisteblower Edward Snowden also support the reports, as well as claims by another former US Air
The US National Security Agency (
Force drone sensor operator and anti-lethal operation spokesperson, Brandon Bryant, the publication claims. The Obama administration maintains
its operations only target terrorists
that
. In a speech last May, President Obama declared that “before any strike is taken, there
must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.” However, the former drone operator claims that
innocent people have “absolutely” been killed as a result of the electronic surveillance, he told reporters at The Intercept. He added that the tactic had
also been used to kill terrorists and people using explosives against US forces in Afghanistan. The former drone operator said strikes are sometimes
Suspected
terrorists are increasingly aware of the tactic, he said, and avoid detection by having up
to 16 different SIM cards linked to their identity at a time. In other cases, family members and friends,
targeted at locations, despite forces not being certain that the individual in possession of a SIM card is in fact the correct person.
including children, borrow mobile devices and are mistakenly targeted. Senior Taliban leaders thwart the system by mixing SIM cards in bags at
The NSA also often directs drone attacks according to the activity of a
SIM card rather than call content, which he said amounts to deaths being based on unreliable metadata. He called the practice
meetings to confuse the NSA.
“very shady”. “They might have been terrorists,” he says. “Or they could have been family members who have nothing to do with the target’s activities,”
he warned. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism also estimates that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by
unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. The NSA declined to respond The Intercept.
Decreasing NSA capabilities undermines drone strikes
Richter, 14
Greg Richter, Freelance writer for Newsmax.com and The Clyde Fitch Report, “Latest Snowden
Revelations: NSA Surveillance Key to Targeted Killings,” Newsmax, 2/9/14,
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/greenwald-snowden-nsa-targeted/2014/02/09/id/551768/ // IS
"The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human
intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that
results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people," the article states. Without the crucial geolocation
data, the article suggests it would be nearly impossible to target suspected terrorists, since the
human intelligence is apparently often not that reliable. But in terms of definitively proving the targets are
in fact terrorists, the abstract location data is even less reliable. "Rather than confirming a target’s identity
with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the
activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using," the article continues. JSOC
would be helpless "without the NSA conducting mass surveillance on an industrial level,” the story
states, quoting a former Air Force drone operator named Brandon Bryant. “That is what creates those
baseball cards you hear about,” featuring potential targets for drone strikes or raids.
The NSA is the key ally in drone strikes – inside sources
Franceschi-Bicchierai, 13
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, graduate of Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism Lorenzo is also a
Law graduate at University of Barcelona. “Report:
NSA Snooping Plays Key Role in Drone
Strikes Against Terrorists,” 10/17/13, http://mashable.com/2013/10/17/nsas-internet-surveillanceused-in-drone-strikes-program/ // IS
The CIA has a secret ally in its controversial drone strikes program that kills suspect terrorists around the
world: the National Security Agency. New documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal that the NSA's
Internet surveillance and hacking capabilities in fact play a crucial role , as reported by The
Washington Post. The NSA contributes to efforts to hunt down terrorists with a wide variety of cyberespionage tools. Sometimes, they intercept Internet traffic and emails; other times, its elite hackers team
— the Tailored Access Operations division — hacks into a target's computer to intercept files, chat logs
and even record keystrokes. The role of the intelligence agency in the drone program had not been
previously reported, and the scoop reveals the existence of the "Counter-Terrorism Mission Aligned Cell,"
or CT MAC, the NSA's unit that focuses on collecting intelligence to aid the CIA's drone strikes. It's
unclear, however, if the NSA's two most controversial programs revealed over the summer — Internet
communications snooping program PRISM and the telephone metadata collection program — have
played any role in the operations' support of drone strikes. In any case, the documents leaked by Snowden
underline the effectiveness of the NSA's operations. Just one single operation may lead to a treasure trove
of documents Just one single operation may lead to a treasure trove of documents. In one operation, the
NSA obtained files that could be used to help the NSA map the movement of terrorists and aspiring
extremists in Yemen , Syria , Turkey , Egypt , Libya and Iran . Another single penetration
yielded 90 encrypted al-Qaeda documents, 16 encryption keys, 30 unencrypted messages and "thousands"
of chat logs, the Post reported, citing an inventory contained in a document leaked by Snowden.
NSA is key to drone strikes- curtailment would trigger the link
Meyer 14 [David Meyer- senior writer for Gigaom, covering Europe and issues relating to privacy and
security, Feb 2014, “Drone strikes increasingly rely on NSA surveillance data, report suggests,”
https://gigaom.com/2014/02/10/drone-strikes-increasingly-rely-on-nsa-surveillance-data-reportsuggests/, mm]
CIA and U.S. military are increasingly relying on surveillance information from the
NSA to locate and attack drone targets, with innocent people being killed as a result, according to allegations made in a new
publication, The Intercept. It was already known that the NSA is involved in U.S. drone activities , but Monday’s
article uses Edward Snowden documents and a new source — a former drone operator — to allege that the increasingly exclusive
use of signals intelligence (SIGINT) for drone strikes with no traditional human
intelligence (HUMINT) operatives on the ground costs more innocent lives than might
otherwise be the case.“The Intercept” is the first site to come out of eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s new First Look Media stable, and its
The
editors are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras – two of the key journalists associated with NSA leaker Snowden – and national security writer Jeremy
Scahill. This first story from the site was written by Greenwald and Scahill. The main problem with relying on SIGINT so much appears to be that
Taliban targets, for example, are wise to the NSA’s tactics, leading them to shuffle SIM cards around their groups and, by extension, their associates and
families. With no HUMINT, the NSA’s cameras and fake cellular base stations attached to the drones then sometimes identify the wrong people for
killing. These surveillance units attached to drones are, according to the story, part of an NSA program called Gilgamesh. Another operation called
Shenanigans “utilizes a pod on aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts of data from any wireless routers, computers, smart phones or other
electronic devices that are within range” and has apparently been used to map the “Wi-Fi fingerprint” of most major towns in Yemen. Meanwhile on
described the dirty tricks
capabilities of GCHQ, the NSA’s British counterpart. According to the quoted documents, the agency has at least
considered carrying out “false flag” cyber-attack operations on its own side in order to
discredit adversaries using social media to spread disinformation. All this suggests GCHQ is
becoming more active and aggressive than SIGINT organizations have traditionally been. And on
Friday NBC also published a Snowden-derived story (again co-authored by Greenwald) that
Saturday the New York Times published claims, apparently emanating from the NSA, that Snowden had used web crawler software to collect all the
information he took with him when he fled to Hong Kong. The piece suggested that the NSA systems didn’t pick up on this, perhaps because Snowden’s
Hawaii facility had not yet received certain security upgrades at the time of the leak.
Drone strikes are increasingly dependent on the NSA
Meyer, 14
David Meyer, a senior writer for Gigaom, covering Europe and issues relating to privacy and security. He
has been a technology journalist since 2006 and has written for publications such as the BBC, The
Guardian and ZDNet, “Drone strikes increasingly rely on NSA surveillance data, report suggests,”
Gigaom, 2/10/14, https://gigaom.com/2014/02/10/drone-strikes-increasingly-rely-on-nsa-surveillancedata-report-suggests/ // IS
The CIA and U.S. military are increasingly relying on surveillance information from the NSA to
locate and attack drone targets, with innocent people being killed as a result, according to allegations
made in a new publication, The Intercept. It was already known that the NSA is involved in U.S. drone
activities, but Monday’s article uses Edward Snowden documents and a new source — a former drone
operator — to allege that the increasingly exclusive use of signals intelligence (SIGINT) for drone strikes
with no traditional human intelligence (HUMINT) operatives on the ground costs more innocent lives
than might otherwise be the case. “The Intercept” is the first site to come out of eBay founder Pierre
Omidyar’s new First Look Media stable, and its editors are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras – two of
the key journalists associated with NSA leaker Snowden – and national security writer Jeremy Scahill.
This first story from the site was written by Greenwald and Scahill. The main problem with relying on
SIGINT so much appears to be that Taliban targets, for example, are wise to the NSA’s tactics, leading
them to shuffle SIM cards around their groups and, by extension, their associates and families. With no
HUMINT, the NSA’s cameras and fake cellular base stations attached to the drones then sometimes
identify the wrong people for killing. These surveillance units attached to drones are, according to the
story, part of an NSA program called Gilgamesh. Another operation called Shenanigans “utilizes a pod on
aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts of data from any wireless routers, computers, smart phones or
other electronic devices that are within range” and has apparently been used to map the “Wi-Fi
fingerprint” of most major towns in Yemen.
NSA electronic surveillance k.t drone strikes
Fox news 14 [“US government reportedly ordering drone strikes based on cell phone location,” feb
2014, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/10/us-government-reportedly-ordering-drone-strikesbased-on-cell-phone-location/, mm]
The U.S. government reportedly is ordering some drone strikes based on the location of
terror suspects' cell phones -- without necessarily confirming the location of the suspects themselves -- raising concerns about
missiles hitting unintended targets. The details were included in a report published Monday by journalist Glenn Greenwald's newest venture, The
National Security Agency data-tracking is used in
locating and targeting terror suspects, the Intercept article raised new questions about the accuracy of that data. The report,
citing an unnamed former drone operator and other sources, said the NSA uses a "complex analysis of
electronic surveillance" to pinpoint drone strike targets . However, the report said, the CIA and
Intercept. Though it previously has been reported that
U.S. military don't always confirm who the target is with informants on the ground. This raises the concern that the flagged phone could be in the hands
of someone else -- a friend, a family member, someone who's holding the wrong phone at the wrong time -- when the missile is fired. "It's really like
we're targeting a cell phone," the former drone operator was quoted as saying. "We're not going after people -- we're going after their phones." The
Intercept report also detailed how some Taliban leaders have caught onto the NSA's methods, and have tried to evade tracking by purchasing multiple
SIM cards and mixing them up. A spokeswoman with the National Security Council defended the administration's approach to these strikes, without
going into fine detail. "For obvious reasons we can't discuss the specific sources and methods we use to establish near certainty, but our assessments are
We gather and scrutinize
information from a variety of sources and methods before we draw conclusions." She said
officials take "extraordinary care" to make sure counterterrorism actions are within the
law and, "before we take any counterterrorism strike outside areas of active hostilities,
not based on a single piece of information," spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told Fox News. "
there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set." According to the Intercept article, the same
spokeswoman declined to say on the record whether strikes are ordered without the use of human intelligence. The CIA and NSA declined to comment
on the report. Greenwald was among the first journalists to report last year on NSA documents provided by leaker Edward Snowden. The latest report
comes as the Obama administration claims to be tightening its standards for conducting drone strikes -- particularly when an American is the terror
suspect. In one example of these apparent deliberations, the Associated Press reported that officials are wrestling with whether to approve a drone
strike against an Al Qaeda-tied U.S. citizen. While the administration is not commenting publicly on the report, senior U.S. officials acknowledged that
the individual is one of several Americans overseas whom the U.S. government is watching closely. They acknowledged that any targeted killing now
requires "additional layers of review." One official described the individual in question as one of the "al-Awlaki's" of the world -- a reference to Anwar
al-Awlaki, an American citizen killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen. In a speech last May at the National Defense University, President Obama
outlined a more constricted drone policy overseas which, among other changes, made it more difficult to use drones to kill U.S. citizens overseas.
Any such strike, like other drone attacks, would have to be approved by the president.
Asked about the reports at Monday's daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary
Jay Carney declined to comment on the specific case. But he said the administration has
set a "high threshold" for taking lethal action against any target.
-----AQAP
Curtailment undermines drone strikes on AQAP
Greenwald and Scahill, 14
Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, *Snowden-exposé leaker, founder of the Intercept **investigative
reporter, war correspondent and author of the international bestselling books Dirty Wars: The World Is a
Battlefield and Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. “THE NSA’S
SECRET ROLE IN THE U.S. ASSASSINATION PROGRAM,” The Intercept,
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/ // IS
The NSA has played an increasingly central role in drone killings over the past five years. In one topsecret NSA document from 2010, the head of the agency’s Strategic Planning and Policy Division of the
Counterterrorism Mission Management Center recounts the history of the NSA’s involvement in Yemen.
Shortly before President Obama took office, the document reveals, the agency began to “shift analytic
resources to focus on Yemen.” In 2008, the NSA had only three analysts dedicated to Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. By the fall of 2009, it had 45 analysts, and the agency was producing “high
quality” signal intelligence for the CIA and JSOC. In December 2009, utilizing the NSA’s metadata
collection programs, the Obama administration dramatically escalated U.S. drone and cruise missile
strikes in Yemen.
---Metadata
Decreasing meta data collection devastates drone strikes
Greenwald and Scahill, 14
Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, *Snowden-exposé leaker, founder of the Intercept **investigative
reporter, war correspondent and author of the international bestselling books Dirty Wars: The World Is a
Battlefield and Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. “THE NSA’S
SECRET ROLE IN THE U.S. ASSASSINATION PROGRAM,” The Intercept,
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/ // IS
The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human
intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that
results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people. According to a former drone operator for the
military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often
identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies.
Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the
U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is
believed to be using. The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the condition
of anonymity, was a member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task force, which is charged with identifying,
capturing or killing terrorist suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. His account is
bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also
supported by a former drone sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become
an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Yemen. In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist’s mobile
phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the
individual in possession of the device. The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology
has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive
device attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely”
been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic.
NSA data key to drone strikes- plan triggers the link
Macri, 14
Giuseppe Macri, Tech editor, “NSA surveillance data used for unconfirmed drone targeting,” 2/10/14, The
Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/10/nsa-surveillance-data-used-for-unconfirmed-dronetargeting/ // IS
National Security Agency spying programs are used for more than just passive surveillance according to
one former drone operator, who says the data surveilled from targets is used in lethal U.S. drone
strikes. The Intercept – a news startup from former Guardian journalist and NSA story breaker Glenn
Greenwald – reports the CIA and U.S. military use the metadata and phone location tracking capabilities
of the NSA to launch attacks against targets, forgoing any other means of identification and often
incurring civilian casualties. According to the former operator out of Joint Special Operations Command,
civilians have “absolutely” been the victims of drone strikes, which have otherwise been effective in
neutralizing known terrorist targets in Afghanistan. “People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of
people,” the former drone operator said. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after
people, we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the
bad guy.”
Metadata key to drone strikes – target identification
Russia Today, 14
Russia Today, “Use of NSA metadata to find drone targets kills civilians – Greenwald,” Russia Today,
2/10/14, http://rt.com/news/nsa-drones-civilian-casualties-383/ // IS
The US is relying upon NSA metadata to identify targets for drone strikes, reports the Intercept. A former
NSA operative said the tactic is flawed and the agency targets phones “in the hopes that the person on the
other end of the missile is the bad guy.” Citing documents leaked by Edward Snowden and testimonies
from former Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) members, Glen Greenwald and colleague Jeremy
Scahill have revealed the extent which the US military is using NSA intel to establish targets for drone
strikes in an article in the Intercept. The most common tactic employed by the NSA is known as
‘geolocation’, which entails locking on to the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist. A former drone
sensor operator with the US Air Force, Brandon Bryant, told the Intercept that using the metadata led to
inaccuracies that killed civilians. The NSA uses a program called Geo Cell to follow potential targets and
often do not verify whether the carrier of the phone is the intended target of the strike. .“It’s really like
we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes
that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy,” Bryant told the Intercept – the nascent
news site created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar to “to hold the most powerful governmental and
corporate factions accountable.” Over the past five years the NSA “has played an increasingly central role
in drone killing,” but the growing reliance on metadata to find insurgents is also targeting civilians. The
analysis of the electronic surveillance leaves a lot of room for error and can kill “the wrong people.”
---PRISM
Curtailing PRISM decreases drones
Bump 13 [Philip Bump- Reporter for Washington post and he cites experts, July 2013, “How the NSA
Is Using Cell Phone Data to Drone Civilians (In Pakistan),”
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/07/how-nsa-using-cell-phone-data-drone-civilianspakistan/67436/, mm]
In late 2001, a
National Security Agency analyst was asked to do something unusual. Instead of locating a target's cell
was asked for the phone's location in real-time. It was apparently
phone to eavesdrop on his conversation, the analyst
the beginning of the NSA's role in the CIA's drone operations that, a new report compiled
by Pakistan suggests, had killed nearly 200 civilians by 2009. The details of that first NSA-supported strike appear in a new
story from The Washington Post. A Navy SEAL, standing in a trailer that was once home to the CIA's child care program, asked the analyst where the
NSA's target was located. “We just want you to find the phone!” the SEAL urged. No one cared about the conversation it might be transmitting. … The
NSA collector in Georgia took what was then considered a gigantic leap — from using the nation’s most sophisticated spy technology to record the
words of presidents, kings and dictators to using it to kill a single man in a terrorist group. This, The Post suggests, spurred
the NSA's rapid
expansion in the last decade, building and expanding its facilities around the world . Meanwhile, the technology used
by the agency to track targets also expanded. The Post: By September 2004, a new NSA technique enabled the agency to find
cellphones even when they were turned off. JSOC troops called this “The Find,” and it gave them thousands of new
targets, including members of a burgeoning al-Qaeda-sponsored insurgency in Iraq, according to members of the unit. At the same time, the NSA
developed a new computer linkup called the Real Time Regional Gateway into which the military and intelligence officers could feed every bit of data or
seized documents and get back a phone number or list of potential targets. It also allowed commanders to see, on a screen, every type of surveillance
available in a given territory. This
appears to be a different tool than Boundless Informant, the graphical interface of the NSA's
PRISM data collection revealed in the leaks from Edward Snowden. But that 2004 innovation may explain Snowden's
insistence that visitors stash their cell phones in his fridge when visiting. The
side effects of the NSA-fueled drone strikes has
been a point of dispute since the program began. The United States government has been vague about its estimates of civilian
casualties from the strikes. During the president's first speech acknowledging the program, he stated that "it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have
resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war" — without putting a number on it. Documents released in April of this year included
language from the CIA stating that civilian deaths were "exceedingly rare." A report just leaked from the Pakistani government is a bit more specific.
Acquired by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, it offers that country's assessment of the civilian casualty risk. Drawn from field reports by local
officials in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the document lists over 70 drone strikes between 2006 and late 2009, alongside a small
number of other incidents such as alleged Nato attacks and strikes by unspecified forces. Of 746 people listed as killed in the drone strikes, at least 147
of the dead are clearly stated by the leaked report to be civilian victims. Some 94 of these are said to be children. That figure is slightly lower than the
comprehensive data compiled by the New America Foundation, which puts the total for that time period in the range of 190 — with scores more listed
as "unidentified." Last fall, Columbia University's Human Rights Institute tried to assess the accuracy of reports on civilian and militant casualties,
finding that "estimates are incomplete and may significantly undercount the extent of reported civilian deaths." The number released by Pakistan, it's
worth noting, also include fewer strikes than reported by the New America Foundation. Last week, representatives of the government's surveillance
infrastructure testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Chris Inglis, deputy director of the NSA, was asked about a key concern of privacy
advocates: if the agency's sweep of phone metadata included location data for those calls. (That data
collection program was renewed on Friday.) Inglis' response: "We are not collecting that data under this program." For at least one other program, they
are — as of late 2001.
---Wiretapping
Wiretapping and audio files are key to drone strikes- aff hurts drones
Miller et al 13 [Greg Miller- covers intelligence for the Washington post, Julia Tate- research
correspondent for Washington post, Greg Gellman- reporter based in new York, “Documents reveal NSA’s
extensive involvement in targeted killing program,” Oct 2013,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/documents-reveal-nsas-extensiveinvolvement-in-targeted-killing-program/2013/10/16/29775278-3674-11e3-8a0e4e2cf80831fc_story.html, mm]
The U.S. government has never publicly acknowledged killing Ghul. But documents provided to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor
Edward Snowden confirm his demise in October 2012 and reveal
the agency’s extensive involvement in the
targeted killing program that has served as a centerpiece of President Obama’s counterterrorism
strategy. The NSA is “focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence
targets,” an NSA spokeswoman said in a statement provided to The Post on Wednesday, adding that the agency’s operations “protect the nation and
its interests from threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” In the search for targets, the NSA has draped
a surveillance blanket over dozens of square miles of northwest Pakistan . In Ghul’s case, the agency deployed an
arsenal of cyber-espionage tools, secretly seizing control of laptops, siphoning audio files and other
messages, and tracking radio transmissions to determine where Ghul might “bed down.” The file is part of a collection of
records in the Snowden trove that make clear that the drone campaign — often depicted as the CIA’s exclusive domain — relies heavily on
the NSA’s ability to vacuum up enormous quantities of e-mail, phone calls and other fragments of
signals intelligence, or SIGINT. To handle the expanding workload, the NSA created a secret unit known as the Counter-Terrorism
Mission Aligned Cell, or CT MAC, to concentrate the agency’s vast resources on hard-to-find terrorism targets. The unit spent a year tracking Ghul and
his courier network, tunneling into an array of systems and devices, before he was killed. Without those penetrations, the document concluded, “this
opportunity would not have been possible.” At a time when the NSA is facing intense criticism for gathering data on Americans, the drone files may
bolster the agency’s case that its resources are focused on fighting terrorism and supporting U.S. operations overseas. Even so, former CIA officials said
the files are an accurate
reflection of the NSA’s contribution to finding targets in a campaign that has killed
more than 3,000 people, including thousands of alleged militants and hundreds of civilians, in Pakistan,
according to independent surveys. The officials said the agency has assigned senior analysts to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and deployed others
to work alongside CIA counterparts at almost every major U.S. embassy or military base overseas.
Wiretapping is essential to drone strikes- reverse causal
Scahill and Greenwald 14 [Glenn- journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York
Times best-selling books on politics and law, Jeremy Scahil- investigative reporter, war correspondent
and author of the international bestselling books, “THE NSA’S SECRET ROLE IN THE U.S.
ASSASSINATION PROGRAM,” https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/, Feb
2014, mm]
The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human
intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that
results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people. According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command
(JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the
agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cellphone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or
the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is
believed to be using. In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist’s
mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or
capture the individual in possession of the device. One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s
reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the
High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to friends, children,
spouses and family members. Some
top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have purposely
and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. “They would do things like
go to meetings, take all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former
drone operator says. “That’s how they confuse us.” As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror
suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is then killed in a strike. According to the former drone operator, the geolocation cells
at the NSA that run the tracking program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without knowing whether the individual in possession of a
tracked cell phone or SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike. “Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is there,”
he says. “But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it. It’s of course assumed that the phone belongs to a human being who is nefarious and
considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where it gets very shady.” But the increased reliance on phone tracking and other
fallible surveillance tactics suggests that the opposite is true. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track
drone strikes, estimates that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama
administration. A recent study conducted by a U.S. military adviser found that, during a single year in Afghanistan – where the majority of drone
strikes have taken place – unmanned vehicles were 10 times more likely than conventional aircraft to cause civilian casualties.
Racial Profiling
---Generic
Curtailing religious surveillance undermines the drone program
Yemen Times Staff 14 [Yemen Times is the national Yemeni news agency, the author cites many
empirics and experts, July 2014, “US GOVERNMENT SPYING ON PROMINENT MUSLIM AMERICANS,
REPORT SAYS,” http://www.yementimes.com/en/1799/report/4112/US-government-spying-onprominent-Muslim-Americans-report-says.htm, mm]
The US government has been monitoring the emails of prominent Muslim Americans,
according to documents released by ex-National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden. A report released by the Intercept, a website started by former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, explores
the background of Muslim American men who were monitored by the FBI and the NSA. Among the men are a former Republican Party candidate for public office who served in the Department of Homeland
Security under President George W. Bush, as well as academics, attorneys and civil rights activists. The monitoring ostensibly targets those involved in terrorism or espionage. The three-month investigation by the
Intercept, which “[includes] interviews with more than a dozen current and former federal law enforcement officials involved in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process—reveals that in practice,
the system for authorizing NSA surveillance affords the government wide latitude in spying on US citizens,” according to the website. The spreadsheet lists 7,485 email addresses that were monitored between
2002 and 2008. Five Muslim Americans are profiled in the report: Faisal Gill, a Republican Party candidate and former Department of Homeland Security employee Asim Ghafoor, a lawyer who represented
clients in terrorism-related cases Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor at Rutgers University Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University Nihad Awad, the
executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations The NSA and Department of Justice responded to the report by saying the emails of Americans are only accessed if there is probable cause of
involvement in terrorism or espionage, denying that the religious or ethnic backgrounds of the men had anything to do with the monitoring of their emails. “I just don’t know why,” Gill told the Intercept. His AOL
and Yahoo! email accounts were monitored while he was a Republican candidate for public office in Virginia. “I’ve done everything in my life to be patriotic. I served in the Navy, served in the government, was
active in my community—I’ve done everything that a good citizen, in my opinion, should do.” None of the five men named in the report have been charged with a crime. The report has brought up questions
regarding the standards the government must meet to monitor US citizens. Critics of the agencies and these monitoring tactics argue that under current policy it is enough for a prominent Muslim American to
simply disagree with the government to earn them a spot on the list of those being monitored. Yemeni-American writer and activist, and the co-founder of the Support Yemen media collective, Rooj Alwazir, told
the Yemen Times she was not surprised that the government has been monitoring Muslim Americans who have not been charged with any crime. “I am not one bit surprised that my government is gathering
information and spying on people, particularly those of us who are brown with Muslim names. Post-racial America is a joke. Right after 9/11 with the patriot act, I knew immediately our rights were taken away
from us,” Alwazir said. The report was released in the wake of another recent release, this time by a federal appeals court as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the New York Times and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The release was of a State Department memo authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen in Yemen, Anwar Al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was killed in a US drone strike
in September 2011. He is the son of Nasser Al-Awlaki, the former Yemeni minister of agriculture and irrigation. Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer, told the New York Times that “the government claims authority to
carry out targeted killings of Americans deemed to threaten national security—the public surely has a right to know the breadth of the authority the government is claiming as well as the legal basis for that
The monitoring of Muslim Americans and the release of the memos have once
again focused attention on government secrecy under the Obama Administration. Jill Abramson,
authority.”
the former executive editor of the New York Times, has called the Obama administration the most secretive administration she has ever covered. This is not the first time data collection methods have fallen under
NSA was primarily using electronic surveillance , rather than human
intelligence, to locate targets for drone strikes . A former drone operator for the military’s
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) said the agency usually identifies targets
based on metadata analysis and cellphone tracking. The tactics have resulted in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people, the
Intercept said, because a target’s identity is not confirmed with operatives or informants on the ground. “The CIA or the US military then orders a
strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be
using,” according to the Intercept. “As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is
then killed in a strike. According to the former drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run the tracking
program—known as Geo Cell—sometimes facilitate strikes without knowing whether the individual in
possession of a tracked cell phone or SIM card is in fact the intended target of the
strike.” The Obama administration’s refusal to appeal the federal appeals court decision ordering it to release the memo has raised the hopes of some that the administration is increasing transparency.
scrutiny. In February, the Intercept revealed that the
AT Public Criticism
No risk that criticism of drones collapses the program
Wittes 13 [Benjamin Wittes- Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution,
2/27/13, “In Defense of the Administration on Targeted Killing of Americans,”
http://lawfareblog.com/defense-administration-targeted-killing-americans, MM]
This view has currency among European allies, among advocacy groups, and in the legal academy. Unfortunately for its proponents, it has no currency
The courts and the executive branch have both
taken the opposite view, and the Congress passed a broad authorization for the use of
force and despite many opportunities, has never revisited that document to impose
limitations by geography or to preclude force on the basis of co-belligerency—much less to clarify
that the AUMF does not, any longer, authorize the use of military force at all. Congress has been repeatedly briefed on
U.S. targeting decisions, including those involving U.S. persons.[5] It was therefore surely empowered to
among the three branches of government of the United States.
either use the power of the purse to prohibit such action or to modify the AUMF in a way that undermined the President’s legal reasoning. Not only has
Congress has also funded the relevant programs. Moreover, as I noted above,
Congress’s recent reaffirmation of the AUMF in the 2012 NDAA with respect to detention, once again contains
no geographical limitation. There is, in other words, a consensus among the branches of
government on the point that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict that
involves co-belligerent forces and follows the enemy to the new territorial ground it
stakes out. It is a consensus that rejects the particular view of the law advanced by numerous critics. And it is a consensus on which the executive
it taken neither of these steps, but
branch is entitled to rely in formulating its legal views.
Drone program is sustainable- assumes criticism
Chesney 12 [Robert Chesney- professor at the University of Texas School of Law, nonresident senior
fellow of the Brookings Institution, distinguished scholar at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International
Security and Law, August 2012, “Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond Al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal
Architecture of Counterterrorism,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2138623, mm]
multi-year pattern of cross-branch and cross-party consensus gives the impression
that the legal architecture of detention has stabilized at last. But the settlement phenomenon is not limited to
This
detention policy. The same thing has happened, albeit to a lesser extent, in other areas. The military commission prosecution system provides a good
example. When the Obama administration came into office, it seemed quite possible, indeed likely, that it would shut down the commissions system.
Indeed, the new president promptly ordered all commission proceedings suspended pending a policy review.48 In the end, however, the administration
worked with the then Democratic-controlled Congress to pursue a mend-it-don’t-end-it approach culminating in passage of the Military Commissions
Act of 2009, which addressed a number of key objections to the statutory framework Congress and the Bush administration had crafted in 2006. In his
National Archives address in spring 2009, moreover, President Obama also made clear that he would make use of this system in appropriate cases.49
He has duly done so, notwithstanding his administration’s doomed attempt to prosecute the so-called “9/11 defendants” (especially Khalid Sheikh
Mohamed) in civilian courts. Difficult questions continue to surround the commissions system as to particular issues—such as the propriety of charging
“material support” offenses for pre-2006 conduct50—but the system as a whole is far more stable today than at any point in the past decade.51
There have been strong elements of cross-party continuity between the Bush and
Obama administration on an array of other counterterrorism policy questions, including
the propriety of using rendition in at least some circumstances and, perhaps most notably, the legality of using lethal force not
just in contexts of overt combat deployments but also in areas physically remote from the “hot battlefield.” Indeed, the Obama administration quickly
outstripped the Bush administration in terms of the quantity and location of its airstrikes outside of Afghanistan,52 and it also greatly surpassed the
Obama administration
also succeeded in fending off a lawsuit challenging the legality of the drone strike
program (in the specific context of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and member of AQAP known to be on a list of approved targets for the
use of deadly force in Yemen who was in fact killed in a drone strike some months later).54 The point of all this is not to claim
that legal disputes surrounding these counterterrorism policies have effectively ended.
Far from it; a steady drumbeat of criticism persists, especially in relation to the use of
lethal force via drones. But by the end of the first post-9/11 decade, this criticism no longer seemed
Bush administration in its efforts to marshal public defenses of the legality of these actions.53 What’s more, the
likely to spill over in the form of disruptive judicial rulings, newly-restrictive
legislation, or significant spikes in diplomatic or domestic political pressure, as had repeatedly
occurred in earlier years. Years of law-conscious policy refinement—and quite possibly some degree of public fatigue or inurement when it comes to
this in turn left the impression
that the underlying legal architecture had reached a stage of stability that was good
enough for the time being.
legal criticisms—had made possible an extended period of cross-branch and cross-party consensus, and
Drones are inevitable- criticism doesn’t matter
Kohl 12 [Geoff Kohl- editorial director for Cygnus Security Media, and also serves as conference
director for Secured Cities, June 2012, “Here Come the Surveillance Drones,”
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/blog/10730239/here-come-the-surveillance-drones, mm]
Americans aren’t comfortable with drones in their hometowns. That was the short summary of a public opinion research poll about UAV drones
conducted by Monmouth University Polling Institute. The poll research said that while most people are OK with UAV drones for search and rescue,
they’re less excited, but generally OK with drones for border surveillance and tracking down criminals (2/3rds said they would support such use cases).
Where they draw the line was the use of drones on themselves. Only a quarter of the respondents supported use of UAV drones for issuing speeding
tickets, and about 4 out of 5 said they would have concerns with law enforcement loading on high-tech cameras and using the drones for surveillance.
The American public may have reservations, but I would say that “public opinion be
damned”, this technology is coming. We’ve already seen public officials
support for drone UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell
saying he would support police use of drones in his state for reasons of increased law
enforcement productivity. It’s not a far jump to the world of speeding tickets, I suppose, especially since it’s fairly common to see the
“Speed limit enforced by aircraft” signs on the state’s roads. (For a detailed discussion of how aerial speed limit enforcement works, I recommend this
The reason the technology is
coming is 3-fold. First, military-grade technology often moves downstream to law
enforcement and corporate security as it loses its classification level and as it becomes more affordable. Second, as we’ve
seen in our Secured Cities conference, cities have been very keen on investing in force-multiplier
technology. If you’re limited on officers, think like a chief. Once the technology matures, a drone and an officer would both be able to capture
discussion thread on aircraft-issuance of speeding tickets from our sister website Officer.com.)
speeders, but only an officer can interview witnesses and develop informants. You put your resources where they are best applied based on your
Third, there’s an upstream movement of this technology from hobbyists that
is at work as well. This upstream movement from hobbyists and from the cinematography/broadcast industry recently came to my
available funding.
attention when I heard of the company Quadrocopter that sells UAV systems for cinematography. Here’s why it’s heading upstream: Quadrocopter is
selling complete UAV systems from $3,000 to $6,500 for the CineStar solution (see a cool video of a CineStar UAV filming in snowy weather). The
$6,500 version not only allows for the flying UAV ability, but it also includes full gimbals control for the pan/tilt controls of the camera payload. These
units can handle payloads of up to three pounds and can fly up to about 10 minutes. That kind of payload supports high-quality cameras with great
long would it take to fly a
unit like that up to a window on a building to see if the suspects are in there making a
drug deal? That upstream movement, combined with the support from public
officials and the downstream movement of technology that came out of the military is going to mean that drones are
coming. They’re already heading to the southern border, which makes sense. According to the International Boundary & Water Commission, the
lenses and that amount of flying time allows for actual surveillance operations. Think about this: How
U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, which makes it a manpower monster. Last decade’s virtual fence concept SBInet was a failed project, so it
makes sense that drones are going to become a popular technology for border security – especially when you consider the drug cartel violence that is
occurring around the border. They’re already headed to the London Olympics, as well, so where is this coming next? It’s a big leap from using drones
for high security events, border patrol and military applications to using them in our hometowns and cities. There are FAA airspace issues and the
aforementioned privacy concerns. There are costs that have to come down. Just recently, we’ve seen bills introduced that would expressly require
But like it or not, that leap will happen, and I believe there
will be a day when the technology become ubiquitous.
warrants for domestic surveillance use of drones.
Drones Good Scenarios
Ag Scenario
1NC
Drone tech is the key to improving yields
Blake, 15
Cary Blake, associate editor with Western Farm Press, has 32 years experience as an agricultural
journalist. Blake covered Midwest agriculture for 25 years on a statewide farm radio network and through
television stories that blanketed the nation, “Agriculture to farm two-thirds of UAV-drone market,”
Western Farm Press, 5/1/15, http://westernfarmpress.com/miscellaneous/agriculture-farm-two-thirdsuav-drone-market // IS
He says, “ We can
improve yields with this technology.” UAVs will help growers
improve water-use efficiency, says Colby, locate pest and disease threats in fields and
orchards earlier leading to more timely treatments, plus more efficiently utilize farm
chemicals. At the end of the day, placing more green in producers’ wallets would be icing on the cake.
UAV sales revenue could eclipse the $82-billion level in the next 10 years, forecasts Colby. So far, more
than 70,000 jobs have been created in the UAV industry. Colby shared his UAV experience,
foresight, and predictions during a hands-on event at the 2015 American Society of Farm Managers and
Rural Appraisers’ California chapter’s Outlook Conference in Paso Robles, Calif. in April. He is
convinced that UAVs will improve how producers farm. In the walnut industry, for
example, Colby says a UAV could search for a specific light wavelength associated with
walnut blight disease, allowing the grower or pest manager to react faster to the issue,
reduce crop damage, and improve productivity . UAVs are easy to fly, says Colby and
several of the class participants, with a hand-held, video game-like controller. Different UAV models and
options can produce photos and video with varying quality featuring bird’s eye images of fields, orchards,
and livestock operations with far greater resolution than the human eye.
Famine is coming now and will cause terror, prolif, and war unless we
boost output
Lugar, 4
Richard G. Lugar, a US Senator from Indiana, is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
and a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, ”Plant power,” 2004,
http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/143/lugar.html // IS
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning
nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But
we do so at our peril . One of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s need
for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the
environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war
over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and
terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global
instability and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. With the world population
expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for
affordable food will increase well beyond current international production levels. People
in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric
intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the
same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat.
Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West:
developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As
good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more
arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the
entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50
years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the
land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average
8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by
2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost
output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water,
improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields
since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture
has seen similar increases.
2NC – Internal Link
Drones boost ag – work allocation and pesticide reduction
Kennedy, 15
Douglas Kennedy, correspondent for FOX, citing farmers in the field, “Farmers eye drones as key to future
of agriculture,” Fox News, 2/27/15, http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/02/27/farmers-eye-drones-askey-to-future-agriculture/ // IS
The drone could be ready to take its place alongside the tractor and combine harvester,
as the next indispensable piece of farming equipment. The Federal Aviation Administration
recently released new rules governing the use of drones, and farmers, who see drones as a way to get a
birds-eye view of their fields and monitor crops, to precisely deliver fertilizer and
pesticides were watching carefully. Commercial use of drones is still widely banned in the U.S., but
many farmers are using them over their property anyway, daring federal regulators to put a stop to it. An
eye in the sky can help a farmer know what his or her crops need, and what might be
afflicting them. “I know that I have aphids in the chard, and I know that I have aphids in the kale,” said
Steve Sprinkel, an organic farmer in Ojai, Calif., as he inspected rows of crops recently. As an organic
farmer, Sprinkel spends much of his time looking for disease and insects. "We are
always out there watching," he said. "We are constantly observing." Sprinkel looks forward
to the time when he can use drones to monitor his crops. Experts say it is a matter of time until
drones revolutionize agriculture. "The future of farming certainly involves technologies
like drones,” said Brandon Basso recently, as he demonstrated the X8M, one of the latest innovations in
drone technology for farms. “[They] really gain us an additional perspective from the air on
what's going on both on a micro-scale and a macro-scale." Basso runs research and
development for 3D Robotics, a San Francisco-based company that is leading the way in farm drones. He
says the mechanized remote control flying machines can use infared imaging to check
crops for infestations as well as proper water irrigation. He says they'll even make non-organic
farms more healthy. The X8M, for instance, can fly over a large area and detect discoloration that might
elude the human eye. "So we can, through the use of drones, understand how pesticides are
working, understand pest problems better and potentially eliminate the need for
pesticides in areas where it actually was a fungal problem and not a pest problem," Basso
said. That's good news to Sprinkel, who believes technology can mean less chemicals in the
world. "I think it's a great opportunity to diminish chemicals,” says Sprinkel, as he takes a
break from examining his beets, “and [for] a farmer to focus on the more important things."
Drones boost ag yields – growth and photography
Atherson, 15
Kelsey D. Atherson, technology writer based in Washington, DC. He primarily covers defense technology
and unmanned vehicles, “Farmers Eye Drones for the Future,” Popular Science, 2/20/15,
http://www.popsci.com/farmers-eye-drones-future // IS
Even though humans have been farming for thousands of years, there’s always a new trick to learn
or a new technology to try. In modern times, these tricks often come attached to small
flying aircraft, a fact evidenced by the continued and growing presence of drones at
agricultural expositions. Successful drone use might lead to better yields in the future,
with an emphasis on the future: while the FAA just proposed new drone rules, it’ll likely be 18 months to
two years before they come into effect. That's 18 months until farmers can fly drones in a legally
unambiguous way. Here’s what drones promise: cheap aerial photography, with regular
and infrared cameras, combined with programs that stitch together and analyze the
photos, to give farmers information that was previously unattainable or too costly. In
2013, a vineyard in California used drone photography to find a section of vines that was ripening sooner
than expected, prompting an earlier harvest of that area. Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
looked into acquiring and testing a drone for farming purposes. Drones can do more for farming
than just photographing crops. Sugar alternative giant Stevia considered flying drones
with lights over its crops at night to spur extra growth. And a student contest in
Maryland last summer considered drone designs to protect corn from insect predators,
including a design that landed on corn stalks and picked grubs off of it with mechanical
arms.
2NC – ! UQ
Food production crunch is coming now – new techniques are key
Connor, 11
Steven Connor, Science Editor of The Independent, five-times winner of the prestigious British science
writers’ award; the David Perlman Award of the American Geophysical Union; four times highly
commended as specialist journalist of the year in the UK Press Awards; UK health journalist of the year
and a special merit award of the European School of Oncology for his investigations into the tobacco
industry. He has a degree in zoology from the University of Oxford, “2.4 billion extra people, no more
land: how will we feed the world in 2050?” 1/22/11, The Independent,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/24-billion-extra-people-no-more-land-how-will-we-feedthe-world-in-2050-2191260.html // IS
The finite resources of the Earth will be be stretched as never before in the coming 40
years because of the unprecedented challenge of feeding the world in 2050, leading
scientists have concluded in a report to be published next week. Food production will
have to increase by between 70 and 100 per cent, while the area of land given over to
agriculture will remain static, or even decrease as a result of land degradation and climate
change. Meanwhile the global population is expected to rise from 6.8 billion at present to
about 9.2 billion by mid-century. The Government-appointed advisers are expected to warn that
"business as usual" in terms of food production is not an option if mass famine is to
be avoided, and to refer to the need for a second "green revolution", following the one that helped to
feed the extra 3 billion people who have been added to the global population over the past 50 years. In the
hard-hitting report, commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the scientists
will warn that the era of cheap food is over, and that governments around the world must
prepare to follow the leads of China and Brazil by investing heavily in r esearch and the
development of new agricultural techniques and practices.
2NC – AT: Bees
CHILL OUT DUSTIN – EVERYTHING WILL BEE ALRIGHT
Dokoupil, 7/9
Tony Dokoupil, M.A. in American Studies from Columbia University, and I earned a fellowship towards a
PhD in media studies, “Why we can stop panicking about the honeybees,” msnbc, 7/9/15,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-we-can-stop-panicking-about-the-honeybees // IS
Bees are not going extinct : Honeybees aren’t native to United States. They were brought here
by European settlers, and today they are our tiniest livestock, trucked around the country to pollinate
every kind of food we grow. These are the bees that have been dying in huge numbers. About half of the
estimated 2.7 million colonies in this country have collapsed at least once in the last decade. But dire
predictions about a drop in bee population, leading to a food crisis, have been way
overblown. Bee keepers simply replace their dead hives — for the price of a movie
ticket you can buy a queen online right now — so there are just as many commercial
bees in America today as there were in 2006. Dennis vanEngelsdorp, a leader of the federal effort
to understand bee health, told The New York Times exactly what this means: “ We are not worried at
all that bees are going to go extinct in this country, or the world.” We know why some
bees are dying: It sucks to be a bee. Jerry Seinfeld and Pixar made it look fun “Bee
Movie,” but in reality commercial bees live grinding, miserable lives of nonstop work in
often toxic conditions. Oddly, these conditions didn’t come up much in the early coverage of the great
bee die offs. It was like we wanted the answer to the mystery to be simple and singular: It’s climate
change, or flu vaccines, or wireless internet, or cellphone towers, or GMO food, or some dastardly new
breed of agro-terrorists. To be fair, scientists were indeed stumped about the cause. None of the usual
suspects could account for the mortality rate. That is, until the scientists began to look at how the usual
suspects seemed to be reinforcing one another, driving up the death toll. In a review published in Science
this February, researchers concluded that the great bee decline was caused by the “combined stress” of
parasites, pesticides, and habitat loss. They concluded, in essence, that bees were dying because of
overwork and illness. The likely culprit of both? Modern farming practices. Bees used to have it good.
They pollinated smaller, more diverse fields. They contacted plants with fewer pesticides. They did their
buzzing in abundant pasture land. That’s no longer the case, and a lot of them have been dying. But at
least now we seem to get why. In May, the Obama administration unveiled the first “National
Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.” It’s a bureaucratic
title, but a simple plan: More pasture land, less pesticide, and better remedies for
disease. Problem solved.
Arctic Scenario
1NC
Drone use is key to the Arctic – litany of warrants
Hsu 13 [Jeremy Hsu, science and tech journalist for nbc who cites industry experts, “Drones handle all
kinds of work in Arctic -- and there's lots more to do,” http://www.nbcnews.com/science/drones-handleall-kinds-work-arctic-theres-lots-more-do-8C11012648, August 2013, mm]
drones may soon take to the skies above Earth's top with the aim of making survival
there easier for both humans and wild animals. Such unmanned aircraft represent the
first in a coming wave of Arctic drones that could watch out for oil spills, track ice
floes and migrating whales, or help the U.S. Coast Guard in search-and-rescue
operations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently gave its first restricted approval for two
commercial drone operations in the Arctic — a first step toward routine use of drones by
companies aiming to monitor rich fisheries, expand oil-drilling operations and send
more shipping across the increasingly ice-free summer waters of the Arctic Ocean. But several companies had already partnered with the
Small
University of Alaska Fairbanks to conduct experimental tests of drones in Alaska under FAA waivers or certificates of authorization. "We've done work
for oil companies, but it's also research because they and we are trying to figure out if unmanned aircraft are effective and good for the job," said Ro
Bailey, deputy director of the Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. [9 Totally Cool Uses for
Such work can benefit scientists and Alaskan citizens as well as oil companies.
Unmanned aircraft operated by the University of Alaska Fairbanks have helped check
out oil pipelines for energy giant BP, counted Stellar sea lions in the Aleutian Islands and
guided a Russian fuel tanker to deliver emergency supplies to Nome, Alaska. Human interest in
the Arctic has skyrocketed as the melting ice opens up new opportunities for energy
exploration and shipping. Small drones weighing less than 55 pounds (25 kilograms) offer the promise of both
helping and monitoring such commercial activities in the territories once ruled by polar bears, sea lions and whales
Drones]
— all while keeping an eye out to prevent unhappy encounters between humans and wildlife. An unmanned Aeryon Scout drone flown by the University
of Alaska Fairbanks stayed on the lookout for polar bears during a fuel resupply mission to Nome in January 2012. The small drone (on loan from BP
Alaska) also helped monitor ice conditions as the Russian fuel tanker Renda and the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy made their way into Nome's
harbor. [How Unmanned Drone Aircraft Work (Infographic)] "We helped lay out the path for the fuel hose from the fuel tanker to the storage tanks,
and we did some monitoring to help humans wandering around to not encounter polar bears," Bailey told LiveScience. "A polar bear encounter is not
good for the humans, as you might guess." Drones may also help oil companies watch out for wildlife movements when planning where to drill for oil or
drones could spot mammals or birds affected by oil spills and help out cleanup
efforts by keeping an eye on the oil spills themselves. The two recent FAA approvals for commercial operations
lay out pipelines. In a worst-case scenario,
have focused on this type of work. Conoco Phillips plans to use an Insitu ScanEagle drone to survey ice floes and migrating whales in Arctic oil
exploration regions off the Alaska coast this summer. Similarly, an AeroVironment Puma drone received the go-ahead to help emergency responders
monitor oil spills and wildlife over the Beaufort Sea just north of Alaska. Small drones have proven surprisingly tough in the face of the harsh Arctic
unmanned
aircraft tested by the University of Alaska Fairbanks have performed well overall. The university has even helped engineer
climate. The extreme cold temperatures reduce the battery life of drones and cut down on flying times, but Bailey said the
improvements for some drones and the instruments they carry. "In our experience, the unmanned aircraft work fine in temperatures 30 (degrees F)
The sturdiness comes in
handy for studying the natural hazards found in the Arctic environment. Drones can help spot the
below," Bailey said. "We have more problems with our laptops, because laptops don't like the cold at all."
heat signatures of wounded people trapped in collapsed buildings in the aftermath of an earthquake, or map the borders of Alaskan wildfires with
Such
drone activities may become even more frequent if the FAA can eventually finalize the
rules for type-certified unmanned aircraft — a certification of safety and airworthiness that would allow anyone to buy
and operate the certified drones without special waivers or certificates. (Pilot licenses would still be a separate issue.) The FAA is also
looking to create permanent airspace corridors for drone operations in the Arctic, as charged
infrared vision. They can also evaluate the risk of avalanches or monitor glacier lakes capable of unleashing sudden floods. Cutting the red tape
by Congress through the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Those corridors would be open to drone flights for research, commercial or
government purposes. The University of Alaska Fairbanks has submitted an application to become one of six new FAA test sites for drones chosen at
the end of this year. University researchers expect the demand for small drone operations to rise whenever drones can finally fly with less regulatory
hurdles. "We are already tapped with more work than we can handle," Bailey said. "Once the rules are established, they'll cut down on paperwork, but
won't cut down on work."
Arctic collapse spills over and causes extinction
WWF, 10
World Wildlife Foundation, “Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky,” 12/1/10, WorldWildLife,
http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling_for_Oil_in_the_Arctic_Too_So
on_Too_Risky.pdf?1345753131 // IS
The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons.
One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes
supporting millions of migrating birds and charismatic species such as polar bears,
walruses, narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the
richest in the world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood
counters of supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is not just
important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is
generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes
affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation
to the rest of the world. With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and
influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat. Heat
balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its regulatory
and carbon storage functions. Disrupt these functions and we effect far-reaching
changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years.
In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem for the entire planet .
Drilling for Oil in the Arctic 6 Unfortunately, some of these disruptions are happening already as
climate change melts sea ice and thaws the Arctic tundra. The Arctic’s sea ice cover reflects
sunlight and therefore heat. As the ice melts, that heat is absorbed by the salt water, whose temperature,
salinity and density all begin to change in ways that impact global ocean circulation patterns. On land,
beneath the Arctic tundra, are immense pools of frozen methane—a greenhouse gas far more potent than
carbon dioxide. As the tundra thaws, the risk of this methane escaping increases.4 Were this to happen,
the consequences would be dire and global in scope. As we continue not just to spill but to burn the fossil
fuels that cause climate change, we are nudging the Arctic toward a meltdown that will make
sea levels and temperatures rise even faster, with potentially catastrophic consequences
for all life on Earth—no matter where one lives it.
Disease Scenario
1NC
Drones are key to solve disease – litany of warrants
Fornance, et al., 14
Kimberly M. Fornace, Chris J. Drakeley, Timothy William, Fe Espino, Jonathan Cox *Faculty of Infectious
and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, **Faculty of
Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK,
***Infectious Diseases Society Sabah, Menzies School of Health Research Clinical Research Unit, Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia, ****Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Department of Health, Filinvest,
Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Philippines, *****Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, “Mapping infectious disease landscapes: unmanned
aerial vehicles and epidemiology,” ScienceDirect, 10/24/14,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471492214001469 // IS
There are also numerous potential applications for UAVs in public health. UAVs can be
used to locate people and monitor human population movements of nomadic and
migrant groups to allow targeting of surveillance and public health interventions [10].
UAVs have also been used to facilitate access to and sample collection from remote
locations. For example, a UAV was developed to allow the transportation of test samples from remote
rural clinics to national laboratories in South Africa [11]. UAVs can also be used for disaster
management and emergency relief operations to monitor situations as well as to deliver
medical supplies to inaccessible or dangerous locations. During the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in
the Philippines, UAVs were used by aid organisations to assess the extent of the typhoon damage and plan
relief measures and reconstruction [Klaptocz, A. (2014) Mapping the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan.
Drone Adventures (http://www.droneadventures.org/2014/05/07/mapping-the-philippines-aftertyphoon-haiyan/)]. Aid organisations have also started piloting the use of UAVs to deliver medical
supplies to areas inaccessible by road in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Lesotho [Hickey, S. (2014)
Humanitarian drones to deliver medical supplies to roadless areas. The Guardian
(http://http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/30/humanitarian-drones-medical-supplies-noroads-technology)].
UAVs can also be used to collect other types of environmental data of public health
relevance. Environmental factors such as radiation and air pollution vary spatially, with
important consequences for human health. Monitoring equipment has been fitted to
UAVs to measure levels of environmental toxins and pollutants 12 and 13. Further
applications could include mapping health infrastructure, such as water and sanitation
systems and locations of health facilities.
Within infectious disease epidemiology, UAVs provide a new alternative to collect
detailed georeferenced information on environmental and other spatial variables
influencing the transmission of infectious diseases. Land-use change, for example
through deforestation or agricultural expansion, has been widely documented as a
major driver of infectious disease emergence and spread 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Anthropogenic environmental changes can modify the transmission of zoonotic and
vector-borne diseases by disrupting existing ecosystems and altering the geographic spread of
human populations, animal reservoirs, and vector species 19 and 20. For example, the emergence of
malaria in new areas of South America and Southeast Asia has been associated with the clearing of
tropical forests resulting in changes in anopheline mosquito densities and contact with people [21].
Changes in forest cover affect the life cycle and distribution of disease vectors by altering
microclimates, availability of breeding sites, and ecological community structures [22].
Simultaneously, deforestation is associated with higher levels of human activity within forest
environments, leading to increased exposure to forest-breeding vectors [23]. Understanding rapidly
changing patterns of human settlement and vector distribution in this context is vital
for predicting disease risks and effectively targeting disease-control measures.
2NC – Internal Link
Drone tech key to check disease spread
Scutti, 14
Susan Scutti, graduated from Yale, reporter for Medical Daily and contributes on occasion to Newsweek
magazine. “Drones Track Spread Of Infectious Disease Through Ecological Pattern Recognition,” Medical
Daily, 10/22/14, http://www.medicaldaily.com/drones-track-spread-infectious-disease-throughecological-pattern-recognition-307687 // IS
Specifically, Fornace and her co-researchers are using drones to collect
data and map
changes in mosquito and monkey habitats. Following surveillance, the team compares
the gathered UAV data with hospital case records to understand the ways in which
evolving habitats affect human infection and disease risk. Among the many benefits of
drones is their ability to detect patterns, to obtain data in real-time, and to map areas of
interest as frequently as required. At a site in Malaysia, under observation by Fornace and her crew, a
forest was being cleared to establish a rubber plantation; using UAVs, the researchers could update the
progress of deforestation quickly and routinely. In fact, real-time surveys of forests and
habitation areas are crucial for understanding disease-carrying organisms.
“Land-use change, for example, through deforestation or agricultural expansion, has
been widely documented as a major driver of infectious disease emergence and spread,”
wrote the authors in their article. Lyme disease follows this pattern. Research suggests
suburbanization, specifically turning exurbs into suburbs, results in an increased
number of small animals, while also bringing infected tics into greater contact with
humans.
Along with real-time surveys, drones offer other benefits. Compared to satellites, UAVs
sidestep cloud contamination and low spatial resolution, yet they similarly can produce
“stereo” images used for 3D visualizations and generation of digital elevation models. However, UAVs
also have limitations unkown to satellites; they cannot fly in all weather conditions, and high
temperatures may cause them to overheat. Finally, drones are not yet capable of gathering data provided
by remote-sensing methods such as radar.
Hegemony
1NC
Drones are key to military readiness
Rushforth 12 [Elinor J. Rushforth- JD candidate University of Arizona, Fall 2012, “NOTE: THERE'S
AN APP FOR THAT: IMPLICATIONS OF ARMED DRONE ATTACKS AND PERSONALITY STRIKES BY
THE UNITED STATES AGAINST NON-CITIZENS,” Arizona Journal of International and Comparative
Law, mm]
The drone program is a fixture in the Obama administration's fight against terror n163 and
the moral and legal defense the administration offers serves as an indication that these
attacks will continue. n164 Further, proponents of the drone program argue their use reduces risk to
U.S. service members, decreases American weariness at foreign intervention, and
minimizes civilian casualties during attacks and missions. First, because asymmetric
warfare has increased, the United States has sought out creative ways to fight terrorists,
insurgents, and asymmetric wars more generally. n165 Despite controversy surrounding the drone program, it
allows surveillance and lethal missions without putting U.S. troops in harm's way. n166 This is
an almost incontrovertible positive factor when considering American public support for a new and technologically incredible program. n167 Due to the
Drone operators are
on the front lines of a new and more sophisticated type of war and the information their
surveillance missions provide can prove invaluable to service members on the ground.
n168 This dual benefit weighs heavily in favor of drone proliferation . Drones can be [*649] deployed to
lingering Overseas Contingency Operations, Americans are eager for some good news, and this program can deliver.
survey and attack where it would otherwise be impractical for troops, and a single pilot, to venture. n169 However, the analysis of this benefit must be
separated between the two organizations employing drones: the military and the CIA. n170 Drones are used for surveillance and killing by both
organizations but usually with different purposes in mind. n171
The military has focused its drones primarily on
tactical support of ground forces, n172 either by providing information about enemy tactics or eliminating combatants
entrenched in defended positions. n173 The CIA uses drones to eliminate specific targets in remote areas in which
conventional U.S. military action would be impossible. n174 During Operation Southern Watch, the military used drones to police no-fly zones in Iraq
and they were eventually used to target Iraqi radar systems during the second Iraq War. n175 In Operation Enduring Freedom, the military has
By providing
immediate battle damage assessment, drones enable commanders to determine if
further action is necessary, and provide a new perspective on the field. n177 In Operation Iraqi
Freedom, the armed drone retained and expanded its roles targeting anti-aircraft vehicles,
performing as a decoy revealing enemy positions, and aiding in a rescue mission. n178 Based
on these successes, military leaders maintain the value of drones . n179 The CIA's use [*650] of drones
facilitates U.S. attacks in environments where it is deemed too dangerous for ground troops to have a physical presence. n180 The ability to
protect American lives, keep military costs down, and damage terrorist infrastructure
and leadership is central to proponents' view of this program. Second, the American public has grown tired
of drawn-out conflicts and foreign intervention, and the drone program offers a more palatable form of foreign
involvement. n181 President Obama claims that "it is time to focus on nation-building here at home" and, presumably, the drone
program allows the government to operate without deployment of ground troops to areas in
expanded its use of armed drones to provide air support to ground operations and to act as "killer scouts." n176
which intervention is deemed necessary, be it for humanitarian or military purposes. n182 Lethal operations, surveillance for U.S. military operations,
With a weary electorate, the Executive
can maintain a presence abroad militarily, while remaining able to argue that its
full focus is on protecting and growing our nation at home.
and less costly intervention all become possible when robots are the actual tools.
That solves great power conflict
Kagan, 2/19/2015 (Robert, Senior fellow with the Project on International Order and Strategy in the
Foreign Policy program at Brookings, Ph.D. in American history from American University, “The United
States must resist a return to spheres of interest in the international system”, Brookings,
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/02/19-united-states-must-resist-returnto-spheres-of-interest-international-system-kagan)//JBS
Great power competition has returned . Or rather, it has reminded us that it was always lurking in the
background. This is not a minor development in international affairs, but it need not mean the end of the world order as we know it.
The real impact of the return of great power competition will depend on how the United
States responds to these changes. America needs to recognize its central role in
maintaining the present liberal international order and muster the will to use
its still formidable power and influence to support that order against its inevitable
challengers. Competition in international affairs is natural. Great powers by their very nature seek
regional dominance and spheres of influence. They do so in the first instance because influence over others is
what defines a great power. They are, as a rule, countries imbued with national pride and imperial ambition. But, living in a
Hobbesian world of other great powers, they are also nervous about their security and seek defense-in-depth
through the establishment of buffer states on their periphery. Historically, great power wars
often begin as arguments over buffer states where spheres of influence intersect —the
Balkans before World War I, for instance, where the ambitions of Russia and Austria-Hungary clashed. But today’s great powers are
rising in a very different international environment, largely because of the unique role the United States has played since the end of
the Second World War. The
United States has been not simply a regional power, but rather a
regional power in every strategic region. It has served as the maintainer of
regional balances in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East . The result has been
that, in marked contrast to past eras, today’s great powers do not face fundamental threats to their
physical security. So, for example, Russia objectively has never enjoyed greater security in its
history than it has since 1989. In the 20th century, Russia was invaded twice by Germany, and in the
aftermath of the second war could plausibly claim to fear another invasion unless adequately protected. (France, after all, had the
same fear.) In the 19th century, Russia
was invaded by Napoleon, and before that Catherine the Great is supposed to
that
is not true. Russia faces no threat of invasion from the West. Who would launch such an invasion? Germany,
have uttered that quintessentially Russian observation, “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.” Today
Estonia, Ukraine? If Russia faces threats, they are from the south, in the form of militant Islamists, or from the east, in the form of a
billion Chinese standing across the border from an empty Siberia. But for the first time in Russia’s long history, it does not face a
strategic threat on its western flank. Much
the same can be said of China, which enjoys far greater
security than it has at any time in the last three centuries. The American role in East Asia protects it
from invasion by its historic adversary, Japan, while none of the other great powers around China’s periphery have the strength or
desire now or in the foreseeable future to launch an attack on Chinese territory. Therefore, neither
Chinese nor
Russians can claim that a sphere of influence is necessary for their defense. They may feel it
necessary for their sense of pride. They may feel it is necessary as a way of restoring their wounded honor. They may seek an
expanded sphere of influence to fulfill their ambition to become more formidable powers on the international stage. And they may
have concerns that free, nations on their periphery may pass the liberal infection onto their own populaces and thus undermine their
autocratic power. The
question for the United States, and its allies in Asia and Europe, is whether we
should tolerate a return to sphere of influence behavior among regional powers that are not
seeking security but are in search of status, powers that are acting less out of fear than out of ambition. This question, in the
end, is not about idealism, our commitment to a “rules-based” international order, or our principled opposition to territorial
aggression. Yes, there are important principles at stake: neighbors shouldn’t invade their neighbors to seize their territory. But
we need to understand how such behavior affects the
world in terms of basic stability On that score, the historical record is very clear. To
return to a world of spheres of influence—the world that existed prior to the era of American
before we get to issues of principle,
predominance—is to return to the great power conflicts of past centuries .
Revisionist great powers are never satisfied . Their sphere of influence is never
quite large enough to satisfy their pride or their expanding need for security. The “satiated”
power that Bismarck spoke of is rare—even his Germany, in the end, could not be satiated. Of course, rising great powers always
express some historical grievance. Every people, except perhaps for the fortunate Americans, have reason for resentment at ancient
injustices, nurse grudges against old adversaries, seek to return to a glorious past that was stolen from them by military or political
defeat. The world’s supply of grievances is inexhaustible. These grievances, however, are
rarely solved by minor
border changes. Japan, the aggrieved “have-not” nation of the 1930s, did not satisfy itself by swallowing Manchuria in 1931.
Germany, the aggrieved victim of Versailles, did not satisfy itself by bringing the Germans of the
Sudetenland back into the fold. And, of course, Russia’s historical sphere of influence does not
end in Ukraine. It begins in Ukraine. It extends to the Balts, to the Balkans, and to heart of Central Europe. The
tragic irony is that, in the process of carving out these spheres of influence, the ambitious
rising powers invariably create the very threats they use to justify their actions. Japan did
exactly that in the 30s. In the 1920s, following the Washington Naval Treaty, Japan was a relatively secure country that through a
combination of ambition and paranoia launched itself on a quest for an expanded sphere of influence, thus inspiring the great power
enmity that the Japanese had originally feared. One sees a similar dynamic in Russia’s behavior today. No one in the West was
thinking about containing Russia until Russia made itself into a power that needed to be contained. If history is any lesson, such
behavior only ends when other great powers decide they have had enough. We know
those moments as major power wars . The best and easiest time to stop such a
dynamic is at the beginning. If the United States wants to maintain a benevolent world
order, it must not permit spheres of influence to serve as a pretext for aggression . The
United States needs to make clear now—before things get out of hand—that this is not a world order that it will accept. And we need
to be clear what that response entails. Great
powers of course compete across multiple spheres—
economic, ideological, and political, as well as military. Competition in most spheres is necessary and
even healthy. Within the liberal order, China can compete economically and successfully with the
United States; Russia can thrive in the international economic order uphold by the
liberal powers, even if it is not itself liberal. But security competition is different . It is
specifically because Russia could not compete with the West ideologically or economically
that Putin resorted to military means. In so doing, he attacked the underlying security and
stability at the core of the liberal order. The security situation undergirds everything—without it nothing else
functions. Democracy and prosperity cannot flourish without security. It remains true today as it has
since the Second World War that only the United States has the capacity and the unique
geographical advantages to provide this security . There is no stable balance
of power in Europe or Asia without the United States . And while we can talk
about soft power and smart power, they have been and always will be of limited value
when confronting raw military power. Despite all of the loose talk of American decline,
it is in the military realm where U.S. advantages remain clearest. Even in other great
power’s backyards, the United States retains the capacity, along with its powerful allies,
to deter challenges to the security order. But without a U.S. willingness to use military
power to establish balance in far-flung regions of the world, the system will buckle
under the unrestrained military competition of regional powers.
Mars Scenario
1NC
Drone tech is key to Mars colonization in the short-term
Hernandez, 15
Vittorio Hernandez, reporter for the International Business Times, citing NASA officials, “Drone
Technology Makes Trip to Mars Possible,” 7/3/15, http://www.ibtimes.com.au/drone-technology-makestrip-mars-possible-1454207 // IS
A flight to Mars may be possible as NASA is building a drone airplane to send to the Red
Planet by 2024, NBC reported. Due to new technologies, NASA is developing a small,
lightweight craft which is built to perform aerial surveys and locate landing areas .
A prototype of the Preliminary Research Aerodynamic Design to Land on Mars, or
Prandtl-m, according to the report, will be launched via a high altitude balloon by the
end of 2015. The Prandtl–m will then be let go at a 100,000 feet altitude to replicate the flight
conditions at the Red Planet.
The aircraft would be part of the ballast that would be ejected from the aeroshell that takes the Mars rover
to the planet," Al Bowers, NASA Armstrong chief scientist and Prandtl-m programme manager, said in a
news statement.
“It would be able to deploy and fly in the Martian atmosphere and glide down and land.
The Prandtl-m could overfly some of the proposed landing sites for a future astronaut
mission and send back to Earth very detailed high resolution photographic map images
that could tell scientists about the suitability of those landing sites," he said.
The drone technology is only one of the few plans to eventually send humans to Mars.
The planet is the fourth one from the Sun, and because research have shown that it has the similar season
cycle to those of the Earth, the possibility of sending humans to Mars is greater than the
other planets in the solar system.
Orbiters and rovers have been sent to Mars since the 1950s, which have been studying the planet’s
atmosphere. In fact, several projects are being conceptualised to send humans to Mars by 2025.
The ever-evolving technologies will make human mission to Mars a possibility. NASA’s
project to send unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, to the planet can help further research and determine
suitable landing sites for the mission.
Short-term colonization is key to avert extinction
Schulze-Makuch & Davies 10
Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies, *Ph.D., School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington
State University, **Ph.D., Beyond Center, Arizona State University; “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human
Mission to Mars,” Journal of Cosmology, vol.12, October-November, 2010,
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html // IS
The exploration of Mars has been a priority for the space programs of several nations for decades, yet the
prospect of a manned [staffed] expedition continually recedes in the face of daunting and
well-recognized challenges. The long travel time to Mars in zero gravity and high radiation
conditions would impose a serious health burden on the astronauts. The costs of developing the launch
vehicle and assembling the large amount of equipment needed for the astronauts to survive the journey
and their long sojourn on the Martian surface, together with a need to send all the fuel and supplies for a
return journey make a manned Mars expedition at least an order of magnitude more expensive than the
Apollo program.
In our view, however, many of these human and financial problems would be
ameliorated by a one-way mission. It is important to realize that this is not a "suicide
mission." The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of
their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony. They would be resupplied
periodically from Earth, and eventually develop some "home grown" industry such as food
production and mineral/chemical processing (Zubrin and Baker 1992; Zubrin and
Wagner 1997). Their role would be to establish a "base camp" to which more colonists
would eventually be sent, and to carry out important scientific and technological
projects meanwhile. Of course, the life expectancy of the astronauts would be substantially reduced,
but that would also be the case for a return mission. The riskiest part of space exploration is take-off and
landing, followed by the exposure to space conditions. Both risk factors would be halved in a one-way
mission, and traded for the rigors of life in a cramped and hostile environment away from sophisticated
medical equipment. On the financial front, abandoning the need to send the fuel and supplies for the
return journey would cut costs dramatically, arguably by about 80 percent. Furthermore, once a Mars
base has been established, it would be politically much easier to find the funding for
sustaining it over the long term than to mount a hugely expensive return mission.
There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony.
We are a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as
major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to
life on Earth, especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats to our
culture, if not our survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or
biological warfare, runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and
supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the colonization of other worlds is a must if the human
species is to survive for the long term. The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids,
the Moon and Mars. The Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves),
but in all other respects falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is
true for asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained colonization and
development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a
moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together
with a range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and
a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about six months with current chemical rocket
technology.
2NC – Mars key
Mars is the only thing we’ll have after Earth
Zubrin 96
Robert Zubrin, former Chairman of the National Space Society, and President of the Mars Society, “The
Case for Colonizing Mars,” Ad Astra, July/August, http://nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html
// IS
Among extraterrestrial bodies in our solar system, Mars is singular in that
it possesses all the
raw materials required to support not only life, but a new branch of human civilization.
This uniqueness is illustrated most clearly if we contrast Mars with the Earth's Moon, the most frequently
cited alternative location for extraterrestrial human colonization. In contrast to the Moon, Mars is rich
in carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, all in biologically readily accessible forms
such as carbon dioxide gas, nitrogen gas, and water ice and permafrost. Carbon, nitrogen,
and hydrogen are only present on the Moon in parts per million quantities, much like gold in seawater.
Oxygen is abundant on the Moon, but only in tightly bound oxides such as silicon dioxide (SiO2), ferrous
oxide (Fe2O3), magnesium oxide (MgO), and aluminum oxide (Al2O3), which require very high energy
processes to reduce. Current knowledge indicates that if Mars were smooth and all its ice and permafrost
melted into liquid water, the entire planet would be covered with an ocean over 100 meters deep. This
contrasts strongly with the Moon, which is so dry that if concrete were found there, Lunar colonists would
mine it to get the water out. Thus, if plants could be grown in greenhouses on the Moon (an unlikely
proposition, as we've seen) most of their biomass material would have to be imported. The Moon is also
deficient in about half the metals of interest to industrial society (copper, for example), as well as many
other elements of interest such as sulfur and phosphorus. Mars has every required element in abundance.
Moreover, on Mars, as on Earth, hydrologic and volcanic processes have occurred that are
likely to have consolidated various elements into local concentrations of high-grade
mineral ore. Indeed, the geologic history of Mars has been compared to that of Africa,
with very optimistic inferences as to its mineral wealth implied as a corollary. In contrast,
the Moon has had virtually no history of water or volcanic action, with the result that it is basically
composed of trash rocks with very little differentiation into ores that represent useful concentrations of
anything interesting. You can generate power on either the Moon or Mars with solar panels, and here the
advantages of the Moon's clearer skies and closer proximity to the Sun than Mars roughly balances the
disadvantage of large energy storage requirements created by the Moon's 28-day light-dark cycle. But if
you wish to manufacture solar panels, so as to create a self-expanding power base, Mars
holds an enormous advantage, as only Mars possesses the large supplies of carbon and
hydrogen needed to produce the pure silicon required for producing photovoltaic panels
and other electronics. In addition, Mars has the potential for wind-generated power
while the Moon clearly does not. But both solar and wind offer relatively modest power potential —
tens or at most hundreds of kilowatts here or there. To create a vibrant civilization you need a
richer power base, and this Mars has both in the short and medium term in the form of
its geothermal power resources, which offer potential for large numbers of locally
created electricity generating stations in the 10 MW (10,000 kilowatt) class. In the longterm, Mars will enjoy a power-rich economy based upon exploitation of its large
domestic resources of deuterium fuel for fusion reactors. Deuterium is five times more
common on Mars than it is on Earth, and tens of thousands of times more common on Mars than on the
Moon. But on Mars there is an atmosphere thick enough to protect crops grown on the surface from solar
flare. Therefore, thin-walled inflatable plastic greenhouses protected by unpressurized UV-resistant hardplastic shield domes can be used to rapidly create cropland on the surface. Even without the problems of
solar flares and month-long diurnal cycle, such simple greenhouses would be impractical on the Moon as
they would create unbearably high temperatures. On Mars, in contrast, the strong greenhouse effect
created by such domes would be precisely what is necessary to produce a temperate climate inside. Such
domes up to 50 meters in diameter are light enough to be transported from Earth initially, and later on
they can be manufactured on Mars out of indigenous materials. Because all the resources to make
plastics exist on Mars, networks of such 50- to 100-meter domes couldbe rapidly
manufactured and deployed, opening up large areas of the surface to both shirtsleeve
human habitation and agriculture. That's just the beginning, because it will eventually
be possible for humans to substantially thicken Mars' atmosphere by forcing the regolith
to outgas its contents through a deliberate program of artificially induced global
warming. Once that has been accomplished, the habitation domes could be virtually any
size, as they would not have to sustain a pressure differential between their interior and exterior. In fact,
once that has been done, it will be possible to raise specially bred crops outside the domes.
The point to be made is that unlike colonists on any known extraterrestrial body,
Martian colonists will be able to live on the surface, not in tunnels, and move about
freely and grow crops in the light of day. Mars is a place where humans can live and
multiply to large numbers, supporting themselves with products of every description
made out of indigenous materials. Mars is thus a place where an actual civilization, not
just a mining or scientific outpost, can be developed. And significantly for interplanetary
commerce, Mars and Earth are the only two locations in the solar system where humans
will be able to grow crops for export.
Pakistan Scenario
1NC
Drone strikes in Pakistan good
Weitz 11 [Richard Weitz- Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the
Hudson Institute, Fed 2011, “WHY UAVS HAVE BECOME THE ANTI-TERROR WEAPON OF CHOICE
IN THE AFGHAN-PAK BORDER,” http://www.sldinfo.com/why-uavs-have-become-the-anti-terrorweapon-of-choice-in-the-afghan-pak-border/, mm]
most important argument in favor of using UAV strikes in northwest Pakistan
and other terrorist havens is that alternative options are typically worse . The
Pakistani military has made clear that it is neither willing nor capable of repressing the
terrorists in the tribal regions. Although the controversial ceasefire accords Islamabad earlier negotiated with tribal leaders have
Perhaps the
formally collapsed, the Pakistani Army has repeatedly postponed announced plans to occupy North Waziristan, which is where the Afghan insurgents
and the foreign fighters supporting them and al-Qaeda are concentrated. Such a move that would meet fierce resistance from the region’s population,
which has traditionally enjoyed extensive autonomy. The recent massive floods have also forced the military to divert its assets to humanitarian
purposes, especially helping the more than ten million displaced people driven from their homes. But the main reason for their not attacking the
Afghan Taliban or its foreign allies based in Pakistan’s tribal areas is that doing so would result in their joining the Pakistani Taliban in its vicious fight
sending in U.S. combat troops on recurring raids or a protracted
occupation of Pakistani territory would provoke widespread outrage in Pakistan and perhaps
with the Islamabad government. Yet,
in other countries as well since the UN Security Council mandate for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan only
when U.S. Special Forces actually conducted a
ground assault in the tribal areas in 2008, the Pakistanis reacted furiously. On September 3, 2008, a U.S. Special
authorizes military operations in Pakistan. On the one known occasion
Forces team attacked a suspected terrorist base in Pakistan’s South Waziristan region, killing over a dozen people. These actions evoked strong
Pakistani protests. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who before November 2007 had led Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), issued a
written statement denying that “any agreement or understanding [existed] with the coalition forces” [in Afghanistan] allowing them to strike inside
The general pledged to defend Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity “at
all cost.” Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari also criticized the U.S. ground operation on Pakistani territory. On
September 16, 2008, the Pakistani army announced it would shoot any U.S. forces attempting to
cross the Afghan-Pakistan border. On several occasions since then, Pakistani troops and militia have
fired at what they believed to be American helicopters flying from Afghanistan to deploy Special Forces on their
Pakistan.”
territory, though there is no conclusive evidence that the U.S. military has ever attempted another large-scale commando raid in Pakistan after the
Further large-scale U.S. military operations into Pakistan could easily
rally popular support behind the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It might even precipitate the
collapse of the Islambad government and its replacement by a regime in nucleararmed Pakistan that is less friendly to Washington. Given these alternatives,
continuing the drone strikes appears to be the best of the limited options
available to deal with a core problem, giving sanctuary to terrorists striking US and
coalition forces in Afghanistan and beyond.
September 2008 incident.
Pakistan collapse causes global tensions and nuclear war
Morgan 2007
Stephen John Morgan, Former Member of British Labour Party Executive Committee; political
psychologist; researcher of Chaos/Complexity Theory, “Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a
Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?” http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639 // IS
Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11,
the most popular name given to male children born that year was “Osama” (not a Pakistani name) is a
small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition
parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d’état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army
and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military
Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law
would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted
crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with
nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia
populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across
the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq
would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan
into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly, this would also spill over
into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes,
terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war,
and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could no be ruled out. Atomic
Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with
strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a
“Pandora's box” for the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical
and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal,
not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the
acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan
would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real
strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It
could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US.
2NC – Internal Link
Pakistani strikes are key to solve instability
Johnston and Sarbahi, 15
Patrick B. Johnston and Anoop K. Sarbahi, *RAND Corporation, **UMN, “The Impact of U.S. Drone
Strikes on Terrorism in Pakistan,” 4/21/15, http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf // IS
This article offers a systematic analysis of the relationship between U.S. drone strikes and militant
violence in northwestern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. Our analysis suggests that drone strikes
are negatively associated with various measures of militant violence, both within
individual FATA agencies and their immediate neighborhoods. As should be expected,
our findings show that the results presented in this study of the effects of drone strikes
on militant behavior, albeit strong, are primarily contemporaneous, and there is only
limited evidence of their persistence over longer periods of time. Such a temporal dynamic
may explain the U.S.’ persistent use of drone strikes in militant strongholds in the Tribal Areas of
northwestern Pakistan and southern Yemen, suggesting the possibility that persistent
counterterrorism pressure needs to be applied against militant organizations to counter
their cycles of violence effectively. Nonetheless, the plausible exogeneity of the week-to-week
timing and location of drone strikes, as discussed earlier, suggests that these findings can be plausibly
interpreted as causal. Despite the econometric techniques used to mitigate selection bias in our analysis,
caution in inferring causality is necessary due to the possibility of selection bias, which is inherent in any
observational study. The implication of these findings, of course, is that as technology
continues to become increasingly sophisticated, warfare is likely to become increasingly
“virtual,” if not bloodless. Adversaries—not only governments, but also non-state actors
such as insurgents, terrorists, and criminal organizations—will adapt their
organizational strategies and behavior in an attempt to reduce their vulnerability to
state countermeasures, and some are likely to try to leverage new technologies—possibly
including drones, whether armed or unarmed—for their own use. Indeed, Islamic State
militants in Iraq and Syria have already begun flying small UAVs, both for aerial
surveillance and as propaganda that demonstrates the Islamic State’s sophisticated
capabilities. In the near term, however, powerful states are likely to continue to exploit
the technological advantages they currently enjoy. As long as they remain an effective
counterterrorism tool, drones are here to stay.
2NC – Drones = Better
Alternative to drone strikes is military invasion- far worse
Llenza 11 [Michael Llenza- Senior Navy Fellow at the Atlantic Council and Foreign affairs specialist at
NATO, Spring 2011, “Targeted Killings in Pakistan: A Defense,”
http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Targeted%20Killings.pdf, mm]
if the United States continues its policy of targeted killings, which by all
signs it appears to, then the humanitarian benefits of drone strikes far outweigh their
costs of the alternative . Predator strikes introduce greater discrimination in
targeting than full-scale military assault or large-scale warfare would permit (Anderson, 2009, p.8). They allow the United States to seek
out those who mean it harm without having to launch a full-scale invasion or placing U.S. forces at risk. Without placing U.S. and coalition
forces at risk, the government can go after the terrorist without the fear of a
counterassault that might increase the use of force and cause more collateral damage (Anderson, 2009, pp.7-8). Although some may see military action on the
ground more palatable than a standoff killing, invading a hostile area that is predominantly civilian would
inevitably result in the death and injury of far more innocent people than those caused
by targeted drone strikes. In addition, this measure is more commensurate with the conditions of self-defense, that those killed be responsible for the
threat being posed (Statman). Furthermore, as a strategic option, drone strikes are a prudent alternative to what may
otherwise result in a larger, costlier and undesirable conflict (Anderson, 2010, p.32). Some critics of the drone
operations would rather see Pakistan go after these terrorists, but from a humanitarian standpoint, one need only consider the political
unreliability of their government along with the ineffectiveness of the Pakistani army and its
penchant for long range artillery barrages over counterinsurgency (The Daily Times, 2010; Anderson, 2009, pp.8-9). Pakistani researchers’ state
that attacks by the Pakistani military have caused far more collateral deaths than those
by drones with relatively no success (Rodriguez & Zucchino).
Regardless of the possibility of civilian deaths,
Terrorism Scenario
1NC
Drone strikes key to fight counterterrorism- disrupts leadership
Anderson 13 [Kenneth Anderson- Prof of International Law at American University, “The Case For
Drones,” June 2013, Published in Washington College of Law Journal,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2047537, mm]
Targeted killing of high-value terrorist targets, by contrast, is the end result of a long, independent intelligence process. What the drone adds to that
the drone’s contribution will be
tactical, providing intelligence that assists in the planning and execution of the strike
itself, in order to pick the moment when there might be the fewest civilian casualties.
Nonetheless, in conjunction with high-quality intelligence, drone warfare offers an unparalleled means
to strike directly at terrorist organizations without needing a conventional or
counterinsurgency approach to reach terrorist groups in their safe havens. It offers an
offensive capability, rather than simply defensive measures, such as homeland security alone. Drone
warfare offers a raiding strategy directly against the terrorists and their leadership. If one
intelligence might be considerable, through its surveillance capabilities—but much of
believes, as many of the critics of drone warfare do, that the proper strategies of counterterrorism are essentially defensive—including those that eschew
the paradigm of armed conflict in favor of law enforcement and criminal law—then the strategic virtue of an offensive capability against the terrorists
themselves will seem small. But that has not been American policy since 9/11, not under the Bush administration, not under the Obama
administration—and not by the Congress of the United States, which has authorized hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the war on terror
aggressively. The United States has used many offensive methods in the past dozen years: Regime change of states offering safe havens,
counterinsurgency war, special operations, military and intelligence assistance to regimes battling our common enemies are examples of the methods
Drone warfare today is integrated with a much larger strategic
counterterrorism target—one in which, as in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, radical Islamist groups seize governance of whole
that are just of military nature.
populations and territories and provide not only safe haven, but also an honored central role to transnational terrorist groups. This is what current
conflicts in Yemen and Mali threaten, in counterterrorism terms, and why the United States, along with France and even the UN, has moved to
Drone warfare is just one element of overall strategy, but it has a clear
utility in disrupting terrorist leadership . It makes the planning and execution of complex plots difficult if only
because it is hard to plan for years down the road if you have some reason to think you will be struck down by a drone but have no idea when. The
unpredictability and terrifying anticipation of sudden attack, which terrorists have
acknowledged in communications, have a significant impact on planning and
organizational effectiveness.
intervene militarily.
2NC – Internal Link
Prefer our ev- drones strikes are effective- critics are wrong
Young 13 [Alex Young- Associate staff member at Harvard International Review, 2/25/2013, “A
Defense of Drones,” http://hir.harvard.edu/a-defense-of-drones, mm]
The War on Terror is no longer a traditional conflict. The diffuse, decentralized nature of terrorist organizations
had already made this an unconventional war; now, the use of unmanned aircraft has added another nontraditional layer. Conventional military strategies have failed in Iraq and Afghanistan: the United
States has, in many cases, stopped sending people into combat, opting instead for airstrikes by
unmanned aerial vehicles. Over the past decade, US military and intelligence agencies have expanded their use of unmanned
Predator and Reaper drones; these robotic aircraft are generally used to carry out targeted strikes against
known members of terrorist groups. US reliance on drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Yemen, and other countries has changed the nature of the war on terror. This strategy is not without
controversy. The Obama administration’s heavy use of unmanned drones in the War on Terror has come
under fire from a variety of opponents, including human rights groups, think tanks, and even foreign governments. Critics
claim that drone strikes cause civilian casualties, incorrectly target only the most prominent leaders of terrorist groups, and create backlash against the
The reality is not so bleak:
drones are very good at what they do. Unmanned attacks are highly effective when
it comes to eliminating specific members of terrorist organizations, disrupting terrorist networks
without creating too much collateral damage. Their effectiveness makes drone strikes a vital part of US
counterterrorism strategy. Predator and Reaper drones are not the indiscriminate civilian-killers
that some make them out to be: strikes are targeted and selective. This has become increasingly true as
drone technology has improved, and as the military has learned how best to use them. A confluence of factors has made
drone strikes much better at eliminating enemy militants while avoiding civilians:
drones now carry warheads that produce smaller blast radiuses, and the missiles
carrying those warheads are guided using laser, millimeter-wave, and infrared seekers.
The result has been less destructive drone strikes that reach their intended target more reliably. A number of nonUS. To hear some tell it, the use of drones exacerbates, rather than solves, the problem of terrorism.
technological shifts have also made drones a more useful tool: Peter Bergen, a national security analyst for CNN, summarized on July 13th, 2012 that
careful oversight, a deeper network of local informants, and better coordination
between the US and Pakistani intelligence communities have also contributed to better
accuracy. Data gathered by the Long War Journal indicates that the civilian casualty rate for 2012 and the
beginning of 2013 is only 4.5 percent. Even Pakistani Major General Ghayur Mehmood acknowledges that, “most of the targets [of drone
more
strikes] are hard-core militants.” Imprecise drone strikes that cause many civilian casualties are now a thing of the past. This improved accuracy may
also help to mitigate anti-American sentiment that stems from civilian casualties.
Drones are key---militants can’t replace senior leaders
Johnston 13 [Patrick B. Johnson- Associate Political Scientist at RAND Corporation, cites Anoop
Sarbahi- Postdoc scholar in Dept. Political Sci @ UCLA, July 2013, “The Impact of U.S. Drone Strikes on
Terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf, mm]
drone strikes that kill terrorist leaders will be associated with reductions in
terrorist attacks . Previous research convincingly demonstrates that conducting effective
terrorist attacks requires skilled individuals, many of whom are well-educated and come from upper middle- class
We expect
backgrounds. 21 Indeed, captured documents containing detailed biographical data on foreign al Qa’ida militants in Iraq illustrate that among the
foreign terrorists—who are conventionally known to be more sophisticated than local fighters—their most commonly listed “occupation” prior to
arriving in Iraq was that of “student.” For militants for whom information on “experience” was available, “computers” was the most commonly listed
experience type, just ahead of “weapons.”22
In the context of northwest Pakistan, where militant freedom
of movement is limited by the threat of drone strikes, we expect that militant groups will
be unable to replace senior leaders killed in drone strikes because recruiting
and deploying them, perhaps from a foreign country with a Salafi jihadist base, will be costly and difficult. This is not
to say that leaders killed in drone strikes are irreplaceable. On the contrary, other militants are likely to be elevated within their organization to replace
those elevated to replace killed leaders will be, on average, of lower
quality to the organization than their predecessors. Thus, we predict that the loss of leaders will be associated
with the degradation of terrorists’ ability to produce violence. This logic implies Hypothesis 3: H3: All else
them. But we also anticipate that
equal, drone strikes that kill one or more terrorist leader(s) will lead to a decrease in terrorist violence.
Data supports our drone args
Johnston 13 [Patrick B. Johnson- Associate Political Scientist at RAND Corporation, cites Anoop
Sarbahi- Postdoc scholar in Dept. Political Sci @ UCLA, July 2013, “The Impact of U.S. Drone Strikes on
Terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf, mm]
we evaluate whether patterns
of militant attacks differ following strikes in which a militant leader was killed. Table 3 provides
tests of Hypotheses 3 and 4 against the four metrics of militant violence examined here using the same 2FESL specifications as in table 2. The
results are largely consistent with Hypothesis 3—that killing militant leaders is
associated with decreased violence . There is little support for Hypothesis 4, that
killing HVIs has counterproductive effects on violence. Controlling for the number of
drone strikes per agency-week, the first column of table 3 shows that drone strikes that
kill a HVI are associated with reductions in the number of militant incidents that occur .
Given that killing terrorist leaders or HVIs in terrorist organizations is the purpose of drone strikes,
This result is statistically significant at the one-percent level. There is, however, weaker evidence that HVI removals reduce militant lethality and IED
the evidence is somewhat consistent with the argument that individuals matter
for a terrorist organization’s ability to produce violence at sustained rates. Along with other
evidence from macro-level studies of leadership decapitation, the present results suggest that critics who argue against the
efficacy of removing key figures may be overemphasizing the extent to which such
individuals can be readily replaced.46
attacks.45 Overall,
Drone strikes deter terrorists and resolves criticism
Blum and Heymann 10 [Gabriella Blum- Assistant Prof of Law at Harvard Law School, Phillip
Heymann- James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, June 2010, “Law and Policy of
Targeted Killing,” http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Vol-1_BlumHeymann_Final.pdf, mm]
targeted killings, which are generally undertaken with less risk to the attacking force than are arrest operations,
may be effective. According to some reports, the killing of leaders of Palestinian armed groups
weakened the will and ability of these groups to execute suicide attacks against Israelis. By
deterring the leaders of terrorist organizations and creating in some cases a structural
vacuum, waves of targeted killing operations were followed by a lull in subsequent
terrorist attacks, and in some instances, brought the leaders of Palestinian factions to call for a ceasefire. The Obama administration
At the most basic level,
embraced the targeted killing tactic, holding it to be the most effective way to get at Al-Qaeda and Taliban members in the ungoverned and
Despite the adverse effects such
operations may have on the attitudes of the local population toward the country employing targeted killings,
the demonstration of superiority in force and resolve may also dishearten the supporters
of terrorism. Publicly acknowledged targeted killings are furthermore an effective way of appeasing domestic audiences, who expect the
ungovernable tribal areas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or in third countries.
The visibility and open aggression of the
operation delivers a clearer message of “cracking down on terrorism” than covert or
preventive measures that do not yield immediate demonstrable results. The result in Israel has been to make a vast majority of citizens
government “to do something” when they are attacked by terrorists.
supportive of targeted killings, despite the latter’s potential adverse effects. And, perhaps surprisingly, of all the coercive counterterrorism techniques
employed by the United States,
targeted killings have so far attracted the least public criticism.
Drone strikes only reinvigorate terrorists
Cronin 13 [Audrey Kurth Cronin- Distinguished Service Professor; Director, International Security
Program George Mason University, July 2013, “Why Drones Fail,”
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/somalia/2013-06-11/why-drones-fail, mm]
The war-weary United States, for which the phrase “boots on the ground” has become politically toxic, prefers to eliminate its terrorist foes from the skies. The tool of choice:
unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones. In Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen -- often far away from any battlefield where American troops are engaged -- Washington has
responded to budding threats with targeted killings. Like any other weapon, armed drones can be tactically useful. But
are they helping advance the
strategic goals of U.S. counterterrorism? Although terrorism is a tactic, it can succeed only on the strategic level, by leveraging a
shocking event for political gain. To be effective, counterterrorism must itself respond with a coherent strategy. The problem for Washington
today is that its drone program has taken on a life of its own, to the point where tactics
are driving strategy rather than the other way around. The main goals of U.S.
counterterrorism are threefold: the strategic defeat of al Qaeda and groups affiliated with it, the containment
of local conflicts so that they do not breed new enemies, and the preservation of the security of the American
people. Drones do not serve all these goals . Although they can protect the American people from attacks in the short term,
they are not helping to defeat al Qaeda, and they may be creating sworn enemies
out of a sea of local insurgents . It would be a mistake to embrace killer
drones as the centerpiece of U.S. counterterrorism. AL QAEDA’s RESILIENCE At least since 9/11, the United States has
sought the end of al Qaeda -- not just to set it back tactically, as drones have surely done, but also to defeat the group completely. Terrorist organizations can meet their demise
in a variety of ways, and the killing of their leaders is certainly one of them. Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist separatist group in the Philippines, lost its political focus, split into factions,
and became a petty criminal organization after the army killed its leaders in 2006 and 2007. In other cases, however, including those of the Shining Path in Peru and Action
Directe in France, the humiliating arrest of a leader has been more effective. By capturing a terrorist leader, countries can avoid creating a martyr, win access to a storehouse of
Washington is still using
them to try to defeat al Qaeda by killing off its leadership. But the terrorist groups that
have been destroyed through decapitation looked nothing like al Qaeda: they were hierarchically
intelligence, and discredit a popular cause. Despite the Obama administration’s recent calls for limits on drone strikes,
structured, characterized by a cult of personality, and less than ten years old, and they lacked a clear succession plan. Al Qaeda, by contrast, is a resilient, 25-year-old
organization with a broad network of outposts. The group was never singularly dependent on Osama bin Laden’s leadership, and it has proved adept at replacing dead
operatives. Drones have inflicted real damage on the organization, of course. In Pakistan, the approximately 350 strikes since 2004 have cut the number of core al Qaeda
members in the tribal areas by about 75 percent, to roughly 50–100, a powerful answer to the 2001 attacks they planned and orchestrated nearby. As al Qaeda’s center of gravity
has shifted away from Pakistan to Yemen and North Africa, drone strikes have followed the terrorists. In September 2011, Michael Vickers, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for
intelligence, estimated that there were maybe four key al Qaeda leaders remaining in Pakistan and about ten or 20 leaders overall in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Drones have
also driven down the overall level of violence in the areas they have hit. The political scientists Patrick Johnston and Anoop Sarbahi recently found that drone strikes in
northwestern Pakistan from 2007 to 2011 resulted in a decrease in the number and lethality of militant attacks in the tribal areas where they were conducted.
Such
strikes often lead militants simply to go somewhere else, but that can have value in and of itself. Indeed, the drone threat
has forced al Qaeda operatives and their associates to change their behavior, keeping them preoccupied with survival and hindering their ability to move, plan operations, and
carry them out.
The fighters have proved remarkably adaptable: a document found left behind in February 2013 by Islamist
fighters fleeing Mali detailed 22 tips for avoiding drone attacks, including using trees as cover, placing dolls and statues outside to mislead aerial intelligence, and covering
vehicles with straw mats. Nonetheless, the prospect of living under the threat of instant death from above has made recruitment more difficult and kept operatives from
the benefits end there, and there are many
reasons to believe that drone strikes are undermining Washington’s goal of
destroying al Qaeda . Targeted killings have not thwarted the group’s ability to replace
dead leaders with new ones. Nor have they undermined its propaganda efforts or
recruitment. Even if al Qaeda has become less lethal and efficient, its public relations campaigns still allow it to
reach potential supporters, threaten potential victims, and project strength. If al Qaeda’s ability to
perpetuate its message continues, then the killing of its members will not further the long-term goal of ending the group. Not only has al Qaeda’s
propaganda continued uninterrupted by the drone strikes; it has been significantly
establishing close ties to local civilians, who fear they might also be killed. But
enhanced by them . As Sahab (My Butts), the propaganda branch of al Qaeda, has been able to
attract recruits and resources by broadcasting footage of drone strikes, portraying them
as indiscriminate violence against Muslims. Al Qaeda uses the strikes that result in civilian deaths, and even those that don’t, to frame Americans as
immoral bullies who care less about ordinary people than al Qaeda does. And As Sahab regularly casts the leaders who are killed by drones as martyrs. It is easy enough to kill an
individual terrorist with a drone strike, but the organization’s Internet presence lives on. A more effective way of defeating al Qaeda would be to publicly discredit it with a
political strategy aimed at dividing its followers. Al Qaeda and its various affiliates do not together make up a strong, unified organization. Different factions within the
movement disagree about both long-term objectives and short-term tactics, including whether it is acceptable to carry out suicide attacks or kill other Muslims. And it is in
Muslim-majority countries where jihadist violence has taken its worst toll. Around 85 percent of those killed by al Qaeda’s attacks have been Muslims, a fact that breeds
revulsion among its potential followers. The United States should be capitalizing on this backlash. In reality, there is no equivalence between al Qaeda’s violence and U.S. drone
strikes -- under the Obama administration, drones have avoided civilians about 86 percent of the time, whereas al Qaeda purposefully targets them. But the foolish secrecy of
Washington’s drone program lets critics allege that the strikes are deadlier and less discriminating than they really are. Whatever the truth is, the United States is losing the war
of perceptions, a key part of any counterterrorism campaign. Since 2010, moreover, U.S. drone strikes have progressed well beyond decapitation, now targeting al Qaeda leaders
and followers alike, as well as a range of Taliban members and Yemeni insurgents. With its so-called signature strikes, Washington often goes after people whose identity it does
The strikes end up killing enemies of the
Pakistani, Somali, and Yemeni militaries who may not threaten the United States at all.
Worse, because the targets of such strikes are so loosely defined, it seems inevitable that
they will kill some civilians. The June 2011 claim by John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser at the time, that there had
not been a single collateral death from drone attacks in the previous year strained credulity -- and badly undermined U.S.
credibility . The drone campaign has morphed, in effect, into remote-control repression: the direct application of brute force by a state, rather than an attempt to
not know but who appear to be behaving like militants in insurgent-controlled areas.
deal a pivotal blow to a movement. Repression wiped out terrorist groups in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and tsarist Russia, but in each case, it sharply eroded the government’s
It works best in places where group
members can be easily separated from the general population, which is not the case for
most targets of U.S. drone strikes. Military repression also often results in violence
spreading to neighboring countries or regions, which partially explains the expanding al Qaeda footprint in the Middle East and
legitimacy. Repression is costly, not just to the victims, and difficult for democracies to sustain over time.
North Africa, not to mention the Caucasus.
AT: Terrorism Good
Relations low now – Ukraine tensions
Ellyat, 6/16
Holly Ellyat, Assistant Producer at CNBC, citing government officials, “Russia warns of 'new military
confrontation' in Europe,” CNBC, 6/16/15, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/russia-warns-of-newmilitary-confrontation-in-europe.html // IS
Russia-West relations took a downturn this week when Moscow warned that any
stationing of military equipment along its border with Europe could have "dangerous
consequences" and President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would add more
than 40 ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal this year. At a military and arms fair on
Tuesday, Putin announced the addition of the intercontinental ballistic missiles which, he
said, were able to overcome "even the most technically advanced anti-missile defense
systems." After the announcement, Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary-general of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), said that Putin's statement was one reason why
the international military alliance was upping its deterrence measures.
Relations low now – treaty withdrawal
Lozansky,6/14
Dr. Edward Lozansky President and Founder of the American University in Moscow, “Solving the crisis in
U.S.-Russia relations,” The Washington Times, 6/14/15,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/14/edward-lozansky-solving-the-crisis-in-us-russiare/ // IS
It is unrealistic at the moment to expect a speedy improvement of U.S.-Russia relations.
This is regrettable, but it is a fact: The relations between the two countries today may
be even worse than during Soviet times — a really disturbing development. Russians
and Americans alike are aware that their leaders are facing off on the political, economic
and informational fronts, but they are also confronting each other in another area only followed by a
narrow circle of experts. Tension there, though, bears directly on the most important security issues
facing the whole planet. The reference is, of course, to major arms control treaties. These
took many years and tremendous efforts to negotiate, and yet they now dissolve one
after another. Washington and Moscow keep accusing each other of violating and
abrogating these treaties and plan new and often drastic retaliatory countermeasures.
AT: Drones Good Scenarios
AT: Ag
Alt Causes
Alt cause – water scarcity
Martelle, 11/3/13 – Veteran journalist Scott Martelle has written books on the Ludlow Massacre and
the Red Scare clampdown on civil liberties, directly quoting the WRI (Scott, “Climate Change to Cut
Global Food Production, Increase Water Demand,” TruthDig,
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/climate_change_to_cut_global_food_production_incre
ase_water_demand)// IS’14
The second report, by the nonprofit World Resources Institute, warns that more than a quarter of
the planet’s food production comes from “highly water-stressed areas,” according to Salon’s
coverage of the study. “That includes half of irrigated cropland, which itself is responsible
for 40 percent of the global food supply,” Salon says, defining water stress as a region in
which 40 percent or more of the renewable water supply is used up each year. The WRI
sees significant global stresses, which you can assess here using the organization’s interactive Web tool.
The tension between crop production and available water supply is already great, as
agriculture currently accounts for more than 70 percent of all human water withdrawal.
But the real problem is that this tension is poised to intensify. The 2030 Water Resources Group
forecasts that under business-as-usual conditions, water demand will rise 50 percent by
2030. Water supplies, however, will not—and physically cannot—grow in parallel.
Agriculture will drive nearly half of that additional demand, because global calorie production
needs to increase 69 percent to feed 9.6 billion people by 2050. The food-water tension won’t just be felt
by agriculture, either. Agriculture’s growing thirst will squeeze water availability for
municipal use, energy production, and manufacturing. With increasing demand in all
sectors, some regions of the world, such as northern China, are already scrambling to
find enough water to run their economies.
Alt cause – migrating pests
Roberts, 9/2/13 – graduated from the University of Southampton, Carbon Brief Assistant
Researcher/Writer, former intern at the Environmental Justice Foundation, former data analyst at the
Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (Freya, “Pests moving polewards threaten global food security,”
The Carbon Brief, http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/pests-moving-polewards-increase-the-riskto-global-food-production-(1)/)// IS’14
Fungi, insects and bacteria look set to pose an increasing threat to global food
production in years to come, new research reveals. As temperatures rise, cropdestroying pests and diseases are spreading from the tropics toward the poles at a rate of
nearly three kilometres per year. The rising problem of pests in some of the world's most
productive farmland presents a real threat to global food security, as climate change
makes higher latitudes like the US and Europe more hospitable to pests that wouldn't
otherwise survive. How bad is the pest problem? For farmers worldwide, pests are already a
serious problem. They are responsible for the loss of between 10 and 16 per cent of all
crops during production, and result in further losses after harvest i.e. due to infestations in
food stores. From microscopic fungi, bacteria and viruses to insects and other animals,
there are numerous different species which affect everyday staples like cereals, potatoes,
fruit and vegetables. These pests have evolved to breed quickly and disperse easily,
allowing them to move readily to find new hosts.
Bees
Bees are dying – that collapses agriculture
Rupp, 15
Rebecca Rupp, Ph.D. in cell biology and biochemistry, and is the author of more than 200 articles for
national magazines and nearly two dozen books, “Dying Bees Spell Trouble for U.S. Agriculture,” National
Geographic, 1/12/15, http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/12/bees/ // IS
Bees Control Our Food Supply Honeybees pollinate plants that account for over a
third of our food supply, such as: apples, pears, peaches, almonds, okra, alfalfa, beans,
berries, broccoli, cauliflower, cantaloupes, watermelons, cabbages, peppers, eggplants,
tomatoes, citrus fruits, and grapes. Without bees, there would be no strawberry shortcake, no
blueberry pancakes, no salsa, and no wine. In an interview with Scientific American, entomologist May
Berenbaum points out that, lacking bees, there would be nothing left of a Big Mac but the bun. (Wheat is
wind-pollinated.) Cows (beef and cheese) are fed on bee-pollinated alfalfa and clover; lettuce and onions
are bee-pollinated, as are the cucumbers used to make the pickles. “I don’t know what’s in special sauce,”
adds Berenbaum, “but I’ll bet it requires bees.” The bad news is that we’re rapidly losing bees. In
the fall of 2006, beekeeper David Hackenberg discovered that 360 of his 400 Florida
hives were beeless. Such bee disappearances aren’t unprecedented; ever since people
started keeping bees, they’ve been plagued by bee diseases, deaths, and disasters. In the
general scheme of things, beekeepers can expect to lose up to 15 percent of their bees
each winter. However, Hackenberg’s discovery proved to be the tip of a global iceberg.
Suffering from what is now known as Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD, bees are
vanishing from hives worldwide. Data from the winter of 2012-2013 showed an average
loss of about 45 percent of hives across the United States, and in some places losses are
even higher. Worried beekeepers refer to this as “beepocalyse” and
“beemageddon.”
Drones fail
Drones fail but the status quo solves – helicopters
Wald, 13
Matthew Wald, reporter at The New York Times, B.A. in urban studies from Brown University, “Domestic
Drones Stir Imaginations, and Concerns,” The New York Times, 3/17/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/business/domestic-drones-on-patrol.html // IS
The technology seems so flexible and promising that even some companies involved in conventional
aviation are interested. For example, at Applebee Aviation, which flies 11 helicopters out of
Banks, Ore., mostly to spray crops, Warren Howe, the sales manager, said a remotely
piloted vehicle might never replace a conventional one for that purpose. In a drone , he
said, “you’re limited to looking with a camera; you wouldn’t be able to see necessarily the
wind changes that control drift, or a spotted owl or something, or beehives in a
neighboring yard.”
“You may not see that kid coming down the street to take a look because he thinks a helicopter is really
cool,” Mr. Howe said.
But at the same time, he said, his light helicopters cost $1,100 an hour to charter, and a lot of survey work
could be done with a drone instead, mapping out what a manned helicopter would be needed for.
Mr. Anderson, in contrast, said that later this year,
his company would introduce a helicopter
for agricultural surveillance that would sell for less than $1,000. “That’s not per hour,
that’s for the helicopter,” he said.
No impact
No impact to food shortages – civilization can survive
Beach, 6/6/14 – Toronto-based freelance writer and political activist (Justin, “Stop Worrying,
Humans Aren't Going Extinct Any Time Soon,” The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-beach/human-extinction_b_5457038.html)// IS ‘14
In 2014 there are more nuclear weapons than ever, but we don't really talk about them very much. Instead
we talk, primarily about the possibility of human extinction due to climate change, food
shortages, ocean acidification or, occasionally, super-volcanos or comet collisions. All
of these things are possible, and all of them are very unlikely to cause the extinction of
humanity. Given our current population, if something killed 99.99 per cent of the human
population, 700,000 people would survive and those people would have the knowledge
necessary to make drinking water safe, create sanitation systems, advanced
communication systems, make medicines, transportation systems and generate
electricity. During the 20th century, we experienced the dust bowl and the great
depression, two world wars, worldwide pandemics, numerous genocides and still
managed to triple our population and double life expectancy in 100 years. We are a
resilient species. It is likely that, by the end of this century, we'll inhabit a second planet and vastly
increase our life expectancy rather than face extinction.
Food wars don’t happen
Salehyan 08/13/07 – Professor of Political Science – University of North Texas (Idean, “The New
Myth About Climate Change”, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922)// IS ‘14
First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that
resource scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several
studies have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute
to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and
insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and
the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts
around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end,
including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes
conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend.
Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of
environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the
U.N. World Food Programme warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been
experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has
yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of
thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter,
food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in
recent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much
more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
AT: Arctic
! UQ
No impact uniqueness – Russia’s drilling and spilling now
Adams, 14
Emily E. Adams, Staff Researcher at Earth Policy Institute, “Fossil Fuel Development in the Arctic is a Bad
Investment,” 9/17/14, http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2014/update125 // IS
Currently, about 10 percent of the world’s oil and one-quarter of its natural gas
production come from the Arctic region, which has warmed by more than 2 degrees Celsius since
the mid-1960s. Countries that border the Arctic Ocean are staking claims to expand their rights beyond
the traditional 200-mile exclusive economic zone in anticipation of future oil and gas prospects.
According to current estimates, the United States has the largest Arctic oil resources,
both on and offshore. Russia comes in second for oil, but it has the most natural gas.
Norway and Greenland are virtually tied for third largest combined oil and gas resources. Canada comes
in fifth, with almost equal parts oil and natural gas. In developing these resources, Russia is
leading the pack. Production has started at almost all of the 43 large oil and natural
gas fields that have been discovered in the Russian Arctic, both on land and offshore.
Russia drew its first oil from an offshore rig in Arctic waters in December 2013. On
August 9, 2014, ExxonMobil and Russia’s Rosneft together began drilling Russia’s
northernmost oil well offshore of Siberia. Russia’s Novatek is working with France’s
Total and the China National Petroleum Corp to develop a liquefied natural gas plant in
the Arctic. However, tightening U.S. and European sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine crisis
threaten the future of these joint ventures. Norway—where the oil and gas industry accounts for almost a
third of government revenues—currently boasts the only operating liquefied natural gas facility north of
the Arctic Circle, operated by Statoil in the Barents Sea. Along with Italy’s Eni, Statoil is also involved with
the development of the Goliat oil field, expected to come online in 2015. This will be the first oil
production in the richly endowed Barents Sea, bordered by Norway and Russia. To the north and west,
Greenland eagerly auctioned off drilling licenses first in the late 1970s and more recently in the 2000s,
but so far all of its wells have turned up dry. Canada had exploratory drilling in its Arctic territory in the
1970s and 1980s, but this dropped off in the 1990s. Since then, only one offshore exploratory well has
been drilled, in 2005–06, but it was subsequently abandoned. One impediment to further development is
the lack of infrastructure to bring the fossil fuels to market, which often requires large resource finds in
order to finance its construction. In Alaska, the onshore Prudhoe Bay oil field—one of North America’s
largest—has served this role. Discovered in 1967, it was large enough to finance construction of the
TransAlaska Pipeline. Once that was built, development of smaller nearby oil fields became commercially
viable. Royal Dutch Shell has come the closest to developing Alaska’s offshore oil. As oil prices rose in the
2000s, so did Shell’s interest. Then Shell’s plans were delayed by court cases and a U.S. government
moratorium on Arctic activity following BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Further
delays followed the damage to a Shell containment dome, which is designed to catch oil in the event of a
spill, during testing in Puget Sound in Washington State. In 2012, Shell had a stop-start drilling season,
interrupted by drifting icebergs, which was capped off by one of its drill rigs running aground in a heavy
storm. The company opted to skip drilling entirely in 2013. In early 2014, a federal court ruled that the
U.S. government made a fundamental mistake when calculating the impact of oil and gas development on
the Arctic environment. Therefore Shell’s licenses to drill were invalid and it missed another drilling
season. Thus far, Shell does not have a drop of oil to show for the $5 billion it spent on its recent efforts off
of Alaska, yet it has taken the first steps to try again in 2015. As Shell has seen, operating in the Arctic
brings great risks. The shrinking Arctic sea ice allows waves to become more powerful.
The remaining ice can be more easily broken up into ice floes that can collide with
vessels or drilling platforms. Large icebergs can scour the ocean floor, bursting
pipes or other buried infrastructure. Much of the onshore infrastructure is built on
permafrost—frozen ground—that can shift as the ground thaws from regional warming,
threatening pipe ruptures. Already, official Russian sources estimate that there
have been more than 20,000 oil spills annually from pipelines across Russia
in recent years. Arctic operations are far away from major emergency response support. The freezing
conditions make it unsafe for crews to be outside for extended periods of time. Even
communication systems are less reliable at the far end of the Earth. Why take such risks to pursue these
dirty fuels when alternatives to oil and gas are there for the taking?
Impact defense
Biodiversity loss doesn’t cause extinction – other species will adapt
Dodds 7 [Donald J. Dodds- M.S. P.E., President of the North Pacific Research, “The Myth of
Biodiversity,” northpacificresearch.com/downloads/The_myth_of_biodiversity.doc , mm]
at least ten times biodiversity fell rapidly; none of these extreme reductions in
biodiversity were caused by humans. Around 250 million years ago the number of
genera was reduce 85 percent from about 1200 to around 200, by any definition a
significant reduction in biodiversity. Now notice that after this extinction a steep and rapid rise of biodiversity. In fact, if you
look closely at the curve, you will find that every mass-extinction was followed by a massive
increase in biodiversity . Why was that? Do you suppose it had anything to do with the number
environmental niches available for exploitation? If you do, you are right. Extinctions are necessary for creation. Each time a
mass extinction occurs the world is filled with new and better-adapted species. That is the way
Notice next that
evolution works, its called survival of the fittest. Those species that could not adapted to the changing world conditions simply disappeared and better
Those that could adapt to change continued to thrive
species evolved. How efficient is that?
. For example, the
cockroach and the shark have been around well over 300 million years. There is a pair to draw to, two successful species that any creator would be
creatures have successful survived six extinctions, without the aid of
humans or the EPA.
proud to produce. To date these
Empirics disprove Biod impacts
Campbell 11 [Hank Campbell- creator of Science 2.0, a community of research professors, post-docs,
science book authors and Nobel laureates collaborating over scientific projects, “I Wouldn't Worry About
The Latest Mass Extinction Scare,” March 2011,
http://www.science20.com/science_20/i_wouldnt_worry_about_latest_mass_extinction_scare-76989,
mm]
You've seen it everywhere by now - Earth's sixth
mass extinction: Is it almost here? and other articles discussing an article in Nature
(471, 51–57 doi:10.1038/nature09678) claiming the end of the world is nigh. ¶ Hey, I like to live in important times. So do most people. And something so important it has
only happened 5 times in 540 million years, well that is really special. But
is it real? ¶ Anthony Barnosky, integrative biologist at the University of California at
Berkeley and first author of the paper, claims that if currently threatened species, those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable, actually
went extinct, and that rate of extinction continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive in 3-22 centuries. ¶ Wait, what?? That's a lot of helping verbs confusing what
If you know anything about species and extinction, you have
already read one paragraph of my overview and seen the flaws in their model. Taking a few extinct mammal
species that we know about and then extrapolating that out to be extinction hysteria right now if we don't do something
about global warming is not good science. Worse, an integrative biologist is saying evolution does not happen. Polar bears did not exist forever, they
came into existence 150,000 years ago - because of the Ice Age. ¶ Greenpeace co-founder and ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore told a global
warming skepticism site, “I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they
published a similar 'sixth mass extinction' article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this
theme” and "The fact that the study did make it through peer-review indicates that the peer
review process has become corrupted.” ¶ Well, how did it make it through peer review? Read this bizarre justification of their
should be a fairly clear issue, if it were clear. ¶
methodology; "If you look only at the critically endangered mammals--those where the risk of extinction is at least 50 percent within three of their generations--and
assume that their time will run out and they will be extinct in 1,000 years, that puts us clearly outside any range of normal and tells us that we are moving into the mass
greater extinctions occurred when Europeans visited the Americas and
in a much shorter time. And since we don't know how many species there are now, or have ever been, if someone makes a model and claims tens of
thousands of species are going extinct today, that sets off cultural alarms. It's not science, though. ¶ If only 1% of species have gone
extinct in the groups we really know much about, that is hardly a time for panic,
especially if some 99 percent of all species that have ever existed we don't know anything
about because they...went extinct. And we did not. ¶ It won't keep some researchers, and the mass
extinction realm." ¶ Well,
media, from pushing the panic button. Co-author Charles Marshall, also an integrative biologist at UC-Berkeley wants to keep the
panic button fully engaged by emphasizing that the small number of recorded extinctions to date does not mean we are not in a crisis. "Just because the magnitude is low
compared to the biggest mass extinctions we've seen in half a billion years doesn't mean they aren't significant." ¶
logic and questionable science, though.
It's a double negative, bad
Biodiversity Bad
Biod is bad – it increases the risk of collapse
Naeem, 02 (Shahid Naeem - Director of Science at Center for Environmental Research and
Conservation (CERC), Professor and Chair of Columbia University Department of Ecology, Evolution and
Environmental Biology, 07 March 2002, Nature Magazine, “Biodiversity: Biodiversity equals instability?,”
pg. 23, CM)
Pfisterer and Schmid [3] studied biomass production in a combinatorial plant-diversity experiment,
which consisted of an array of replicate grassland plots that varied both in their number of plant species
(from 1 to 32) and in their combination of species. The authors used their results to test the venerable
'insurance' hypothesis of ecosystem stability. This hypothesis is one of several that have featured in the
long-standing ecological debate over the relationship between complexity (diversity) and stability [4].
Over the course of this debate, the prevailing view has see-sawed between the thesis that
diversity begets stability, and the antithesis that diversity either leads to instability or is
irrelevant. Chief among the 'begets-stability' theories is the insurance hypothesis -- the
impeccably logical notion that having a variety of species insures an ecosystem against a
range of environmental upsets. For example, suppose an ecosystem faces a drought, then a flood,
which in turn is followed by a fire. According to the insurance hypothesis, if that ecosystem is diverse -- if
it has some species that can tolerate drought, some that are flood-resistant and some that are fire-tolerant
-- then two scenarios are likely. The ecosystem may show resistance, remaining broadly unchanged,
because its many species buffer it against damage. Or it may show resilience: if it does get hammered, it
may bounce back to its original state quickly because the tolerant species ultimately drive the recovery
process and compensate for the temporary loss of their less hardy compatriots. But Pfisterer and
Schmid [3] found that, when challenged with an experimentally induced drought,
species-poor communities were both more resistant and more resilient (as reflected by
their ability to sustain and recover pre-drought biomass production) than plots of higher
diversity. The higher-diversity plots were originally more productive, but their
resistance and resilience -- that is, their stability -- was low (Fig. 1). This is the opposite of
what the insurance hypothesis predicts. It also contrasts with what combinatorial 'microcosm'
experiments have found [5, 6] and what theoretical models of biodiversity have claimed [4]. Pfisterer
and Schmid's findings [3] appear to support those who claim that diversity does not lead
to stability. But there's a twist, and those on each side of the debate run the risk of
having their own pet theories turned against them. Pfisterer and Schmid suggest that
the observed inverse association between diversity and stability is due to a theoretical
mechanism known as niche complementarity. This mechanism, however, is the very same as that
touted as the chief cause of the positive biodiversity-productivity relationships found in other
combinatorial biodiversity experiments, such as those at Cedar Creek [7] and those run by the BIODEPTH
consortium [8]. The central idea of niche complementarity is that a community of species
whose niches complement one another is more efficient in its use of resources than an
equivalent set of monocultures. For example, a uniform mixture of early- and lateseason plants and shallow- and deep-rooting plants that are spread over 4 m2 will yield
more biomass than combined 1-m2 monocultures of each species [7, 9]. So niche
complementarity can explain why higher diversity tends to lead to higher productivity,
and has also been adopted by those in the 'diversity leads to stability' camp because one
would expect that more efficient communities would fare better in the face of stress.
Those on the other side, however, feel that existing data better support a mechanism known as sampling,
where diverse communities produce more biomass simply because they are more likely to contain
productive species [10, 11]. In other words, we can't read too much into experiments in
which higher diversity leads to greater productivity. What Pfisterer and Schmid suggest
is that complementarity among species in a diverse plot could be its downfall when
faced with perturbation. Niche complementarity is disrupted and so the whole
community suffers. But this is not a problem for less diverse plots. So those in the
'diversity begets stability' camp risk being hoist on the petard of their own theory of
niche complementarity. Meanwhile, although Pfisterer and Schmid's findings support the idea that
diversity does not lead to stability, the authors reject a large role for sampling -- the theory generally
favoured by the camp that disagrees with the idea that biodiversity leads to stability.
Failing to check biodiversity causes ecosystem collapse – biodiversity
inevitably peaks and then implodes
Boulter, 02 (Michael Boulter - professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the
University of East London, former editor to the Palaeontological Association, former secretary to the
International Organization of Palaeobotany, and UK representative at the International Union of
Biological Sciences, “Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man,” pg. 147, CM)
We know very little detail of such interactions between environmental biology and cell biology and how they hear on evolution. Here
is one possible scenario. When
a new group originates, with a small number of individuals
successfully invading newly available territory and their new genome provides the
biochemistry that best fits the new surroundings, diversification gathers pace. After a slow
start, rapid diversification readies a clear peak, followed by a slow, long fall in the range
of diversity, leading to extinction . It follows that for large clades with greater diversity at the time of
maximum expansion, it will take longer for that clade to become extinct. Nevertheless, it is
inevitable that extinction will occur.
There is a complete lack of evidence for the position that biodiversity
increase stability – if anything studies show the opposite is true
Mertz et al 03 (Leslie Mertz – biologist and veteran freelance science writer, editor, and consultant,
Science in Dispute Vol. 2, “ Does greater species diversity lead to greater stability in ecosystems,”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5204/is_2003/ai_n19124307/?tag=content;col1, CM)
Diversity Is No Prerequisite As Daniel Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity
controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a connection
between greater diversity and stability. He added, "We conclude that there is no simple relationship between
diversity and stability in ecological systems." Those words still hold today. In 1998 another group of scientists
(Chapin, Sala, and Burke) reviewed much of the literature surrounding the connection between diversity and stability in their paper
"Ecosystem Consequences of Changing Biodiversity," which appeared in the journal BioScience. They concluded that research
that had inferred relationships between diversity and stability had relied on simple systems and may not
translate well to the more complex systems common in nature. Although they noted that several studies imply a
relationship between diversity and ecosystem stability, they added, "At present, too few experiments have been
conducted to draw convincing generalizations." In summary, none of the studies presented here proves beyond doubt
that less species diversity produces a more stable natural ecosystem. However, the combination of studies does provide
considerable evidence that greater diversity is not a requirement for ecosystem stability . Several of the
studies also suggest that the stability of the system may be the driving factor in whether a community has
high or low species diversity. Despite decades of research, the question of what makes a system stable remains largely
unanswered.
AT: Disease
Drones fail
Drones fail – overheating, weather, and radar solves
Scutti, 14
Susan Scutti, graduated from Yale, reporter for Medical Daily and contributes on occasion to Newsweek
magazine. “Drones Track Spread Of Infectious Disease Through Ecological Pattern Recognition,” Medical
Daily, 10/22/14, http://www.medicaldaily.com/drones-track-spread-infectious-disease-throughecological-pattern-recognition-307687 // IS
Along with real-time surveys, drones offer other benefits. Compared to satellites, UAVs sidestep cloud
contamination and low spatial resolution, yet they similarly can produce “stereo” images used for 3D
visualizations and generation of digital elevation models. However, UAVs also have limitations
unkown to satellites; they cannot fly in all weather conditions, and high temperatures
may cause them to overheat. Finally, drones are not yet capable of gathering data
provided by remote-sensing methods such as radar.
While scientists explore the benefits of UAVs, others lie awake at night worrying about their expanding
use and what this means for nations.
Impact defense
No impact to disease – they either burn out or don’t spread
Posner 05 – Senior Lecturer at University of Chicago (Richard A, “Catastrophe: the dozen most significant
catastrophic risks and what we can do about them.”, Winter,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmske/is_3_11/ai_n29167514/pg_2?tag=content;col1)//WL
Yet the
fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in the
200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of genuine comfort, at least if the focus is
on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues, such as the Black
Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but none has come close to destroying the entire
human race. There is a biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of limited
lethality; they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to
be spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly. The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus,
wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes its spread. Yet there is no danger that AIDS will
destroy the entire human race. The
likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the
extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric
times, when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite wider human
contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease. The reason is
improvements in medical science. But the comfort is a small one. Pandemics can still impose enormous losses and
resist prevention and cure: the lesson of the AIDS pandemic. And there is always a lust time.
No impact to disease- no empirical evidence and multiple other stressors
also contribute
McCallum 12 [Hamish, PHD in infectious disease, Sept 2012, “Disease and the dynamics of
extinction,” http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1604/2828.full?citedby=yes&legid=royptb;367/1604/2828, mm]
For other historical extinctions that have been blamed on disease, evidence is much
weaker. It has been suggested that disease was responsible for the most notorious of Australia's mammal extinctions, that of the thylacine or
Tasmanian tiger Thylacinus cynocephalus. The suggestion was first made by Guiler [23], who claimed that the decline in thylacine scalps brought in
through the then bounty programme (figure 2) was too rapid to have been a result of overhunting but was consistent with what might be observed as a
result of epidemic disease. There were also some anecdotal records of a ‘distemper like’ disease among both thylacines [24] and other marsupial
carnivores (dasyurids) [25]. Canine distemper certainly poses an extinction threat to some populations of placental carnivores [26,27] but I can find no
. It is relatively unusual for
infectious disease to be the sole cause of endangerment for a species [34]. In most cases,
there will be multiple stressors contributing to decline, such as habitat destruction
and fragmentation or overexploitation. Chytridiomycosis is unusual in that it has led to declines in frog species in otherwise
published evidence to confirm that dasyurids are susceptible to canine distemper ¶
pristine environments. Although there have been suggestions that climate change has been responsible for increasing the impact of the disease in
central and South America [118], this hypothesis has not stood up to detailed analysis [119]. Tasmanian DFTD is threatening a species that, until the
appearance of disease, appeared to be secure and increasing in numbers. However, extremely low genetic diversity, possibly as a result of a previous
selective sweep [47,73], has predisposed the species to be susceptible to an allograft.¶ Loss of genetic diversity and pathogen pollution are increasing,
The effects of anthropogenic climate change on
infectious diseases are complex [120], but climate change is likely to lead to disease
emergence in at least some cases [121], including through host range shifts and changes
in migration patterns [122]. While approaches to address these threats are being
developed, the range of tools currently available is limited. There is an urgent need both
with concomitant increase in risk of novel disease threats.
to address the factors likely to cause disease emergence in wildlife populations and to
develop new approaches to manage the disease threats to biodiversity that will
inevitably arise in the future.
AT: Mars
Squo solves
Squo solves – 3D printing
Great Falls Tribune, 15
Great Falls Tribune, “3-D printers could lead to Mars colonization,” The Great Falls Tribune, 5/30/15,
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/life/2015/05/31/printers-lead-mars-colonization/28134229/ //
IS
Imagine being an astronaut stranded in space with a damaged spaceship and having no proper tools to be
able to fix your ship. But wait, you have a 3-D printer and can easily just print off whatever
parts you need. Wrench, screws, you name it! After fixing your spaceship, maybe you’re in the
mood for some pizza so just request some, and in a bit your 3-D printer will have it ready. The whole thing
sounds a bit futuristic right? Well, leave it to NASA to take a step forward to make this happen. This 3-D
printer was installed in November and has been put to the test several times since then.
NASA is further exploring and developing this extraordinary idea to one day, hopefully
be able to print food in space. This has already been used on Earth to print a variety of
foods including chocolate and pizza. The printer powdered food also has a very long
shelf life, which is necessary for long voyages that can take many years. How does it work?
Well, this isn’t your typical printer. Inside the printer are cartridges, but instead of holding ink of varying
colors like a usual printer, this printer’s cartridges hold oils, powdered food, proteins and different
nutrients. The ingredients are mixed below, where the robot-like printer eventually assembles it all. Once
complete, the food is baked on the printer’s heated surface. A detailed video of exactly how this is done
can be found on YouTube by searching “NASA food printer.” How tools such as ratchets, screws and other
pieces are made is explained in this quote from NASA: “On Nov. 24, ground controllers sent the printer
the command to make the first printed part: a faceplate of the extruder’s casing. This demonstrated that
the printer can make replacement parts for itself. The 3-D printer uses a process
formally known as additive manufacturing to heat a relatively low-temperature plastic
filament and extrude it one layer at a time to build the part defined in the design file
sent to the machine.” While this idea is nowhere near flawless, it is a start for a simpler
way for astronauts to obtain whatever they need without having to wait months, or
simply do without. NASA is currently planning to send people to Mars in 2020 and with this
technology — hopefully a bit more developed by then — it will make this trip all the more possible for the
astronauts going. The catch for this trip? It’s a one-way flight, which means this is also the start of human
settlement outside Earth. Very risky, but the idea in itself is also very exciting, which is why 200,000
people have already volunteered. This quote from the website mars-one.com discusses the possible risks a
venture to Mars could involve: “Human space exploration is dangerous at all levels. After more than fifty
years of humans traveling from Earth to space, the risk of space flight is similar to that of climbing Mount
Everest. Mars is an unforgiving environment where a small mistake or accident can result in large failure,
injury, and death. Every component must work perfectly. Every system (and its backup) must function
without fail or human life is at risk.” While Mars is still a ways out, this printer that makes
tools, pizza and chocolate is a stepping stone, and, if we’re lucky, signals the possible
start of human civilization on another planet. These are amazing examples of how much
technology is changing and moving forward. Who would have guessed any of this would
have been possible even a decade ago?
Mars col fails
Mars colonization can’t be independent
Brandt, 7
David Brandt, The Hard SF, arcticles focusing on delineating science from science fiction, “Can Space
Colonization Guarantee Human Survival?” 5/10/07, http://www.hardsf.org/IssuSpac.htm // IS
To consider how well space colonization is likely to solve our problems we need to ask what the timescales of sustainable, independent space colonies are. If, after disaster strikes Earth, Earth is still
able to supplement the needs of space colonies, then those space colonies aren't
necessarily essential to continuing the human race. We have to ask when space colonies
would be functioning without need of any assistance from Earth. Truly independent
space colonies must not simply provide bare nutrition, air, heat, and habitat repair for
100 years. They should have a non-traumatizing environment with enough people to
protect against dangerous levels of inbreeding – able to last and progress indefinitely.
There will also be a minimum number of people required for any space colony in order
to provide needed manpower in various occupations (one person with multiple
occupations doesn’t help if you need two of those occupations in different places at the
same time). How does that compare to the time-scales of threats from climate change,
environmental crisis, nuclear / bio weapons and accidents, possible nanotech weapons
or accidents, overpopulation, etc.? We also have to consider threats to the global
economy, since an economic collapse would presumably at least interrupt efforts
towards establishing space colonies. Economic crises also increase risks of war, which could have
apocalyptic consequences. Even assuming the ultimate solution of human survival is space colonization,
we may need to find a way to extend the lifespan of human civilization and economy on Earth in order to
have time to accomplish sustainable space colonization. Consider the possible habitats. Space
stations in orbit around Earth or at L5 have little natural resources at their location
other than solar energy. The Moon has no atmosphere, a limited amount of water at
best, which part of the Moon has access to solar energy varies during the month, and it's
not considered one of the solar system's better sources of minerals. Venus is extremely
hot, the atmosphere is dangerous and with the cloud cover I'm not sure how practical
solar energy would be at the surface. Mars has too little atmosphere and accessible water
is questionable, etc. Some of the outer planets' moons may have enough ice and raw
materials, but are very cold, lack usable atmospheres and get limited solar energy. And so
on. We may be able to establish bases at some of these places in a realistically short
amount of time, but not independent ones. Any colony that wants to get resources from
post-apocalyptic Earth will need to have spaceships that can land on Earth and later
achieve escape velocity from Earth while carrying cargo without help from Earth.
Otherwise, the needed resources may not be available from a single astronomical body. That could
require longer-distance travel between bodies - whether that's between asteroids, between moons,
between planets or some other combination. Significant space travel ability may be essential. A colony
would need an industrial base capable of extracting and refining raw materials, and making useful things
from them.
AT: Pakistan
No Collapse
No Pakistani collapse
AP 10 [Associated Press, August 2010, “Pakistan's stability, leadership under spotlight after floods and
double dealing accusations,” http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/06/pakistans-stabilityleadership-spotlight-floods-double-dealing-accusations/, mm]
Not for the first time, Pakistan appears to be teetering on the edge with a government
unable to cope. Floods are ravaging a country at war with al-Qaida and the Taliban. Riots,
slayings and arson are gripping the largest city. Suggestions are flying that the intelligence agency is aiding Afghan insurgents. The crises raise
questions about a nation crucial to U.S. hopes of success in Afghanistan and to the global campaign against Islamist militancy. Despite the recent
few here see Pakistan in danger of collapse or being overrun by
militants — a fear that had been expressed before the army fought back against insurgents advancing from
their base in the Swat Valley early last year. From its birth in 1947, Pakistan has been dogged by military
coups, corrupt and inefficient leaders, natural disasters, assassinations and civil unrest.
Through it all, Pakistan has not prospered — but it survives . “There is plenty to be worried
headlines,
about, but also indications that when push comes to shove the state is able to respond," said Mosharraf Zaidi, an analyst and writer who has advised
foreign governments on aid missions to Pakistan. "The military has many weaknesses, but it has done a reasonable job in relief efforts. There have been
gaps in the response. But this is a developing a country, right?" The recent flooding came at a sensitive time for Pakistan, with Western doubts over its
loyalty heightened by the leaking of U.S. military documents that strengthened suspicions the security establishment was supporting Afghan insurgents
the United States has made it clear it intends to
stick with Pakistan. Indeed, it has used the floods to demonstrate its commitment to the
country, rushing emergency assistance and dispatching helicopters to ferry the goods. The Pakistani government's response to the floods has been
while receiving billions in Western aid. With few easy choices,
sharply criticized at home, especially since President Asif Ali Zardari departed for a European tour. With so many Pakistanis suffering, the trip has left
the already weak and unpopular leader even more vulnerable politically. The flooding was triggered by what meteorologists said were "once-in-acentury" rains. The worst affected area is the northwest, a stronghold for Islamist militants. Parts of the northwest have seen army offensives over the
last two years. Unless the people are helped quickly and the region is rebuilt, anger at the government could translate into support for the militants. At
least one charity with suspected links to a militant outfit has established relief camps there. The extremism threat was highlighted by a suicide bombing
in the main northwestern town of Peshawar on Wednesday. The bomber killed the head of the Frontier Constabulary, a paramilitary force in the
northwest at the forefront of the terror fight. With authorities concentrating on flood relief, some officials have expressed concern that militants could
regroup. The city of Karachi has seen militant violence and is rumored to be a hiding place for top Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. It has also been
plagued by regular bouts of political and ethnic bloodletting since the 1980s, though it has been calmer in recent years. The latest violence erupted after
the assassination of a leading member of the city's ruling party. More than 70 people have been killed in revenge attacks since then, paralyzing parts of
While serious, the unrest does not yet pose an immediate
threat to the stability of the country. Although the U.S. is unpopular, there is little
public support for the hardline Islamist rule espoused by the Taliban and their allies. Their
the city of 16 million people.
small movement has been unable to control any Pakistani territory beyond the northwest, home to only about 20 million of the country's 175 million
people.
Squo solves
Squo solves – Pakistan’s got its own drones
Craig, 15
Tm Craig, The Post’s bureau chief in Pakistan. He has also covered conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and
within the District of Columbia government.“Pakistan says it will deploy its own armed drone against
terrorists,” The Washington Post, 3/13/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-says-itwill-deploy-its-own-armed-drone-against-terrorists/2015/03/13/ac0a9008-c98d-11e4-bea5b893e7ac3fb3_story.html // IS
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan —The global proliferation of armed aerial drones took a major leap
forward Friday when Pakistan’s military said it had successfully tested its own version
and would soon deploy them against terrorists. The drone, designated the Burraq, will be equipped
with a laser-guided missile capable of striking with pinpoint accuracy in all types of
weather, the military said. In the Koran, Burraq is the name of the white horse that took the Islamic
prophet to -heaven. Gen. Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, witnessed the test and
commended the country’s engineers and scientists for “untiring efforts to acquire stateof--the-art technology” that puts “Pakistan in a different league.” “It’s a great national
achievement and momentous occasion,” Sharif said. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif, who is not related to the army chief, said the weapons would “add a new
dimension to Pakistan’s defenses.”
Pakistan Collapse Good
Pakistan collapse key to solve terror, stabilize Central Asia, and prevent
Chinese expansionism
Verma, 8
Bharat Verma, A former Cavalry Officer and former Editor, Indian Defence Review (IDR), and author of
the books, India Under Fire: Essays on National Security, Fault Lines and Indian Armed Forces, “Stable
Pakistan not in India's interest,” Indian Defence Review,
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest/ // IS [KINGMEEL
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ]
It is factually correct that Islamabad has enjoyed brief periods of stability in the span of
sixty years of its existence. However, during these phases of stability, it continued to
export terrorism, fake currency, narcotics, and indulged in attempts to change demographics on
our borders, cultivated sleeper cells and armed groups inside our territory to create an
uprising at an appropriate time. Also, it aligned with Beijing and other powers, in a mutually
beneficial scheme, to tie-down and ultimately cause a territorial split of the Union. With Pakistan on
the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as international contradictions, it is
matter of time before it ceases to exist. Multiple benefits will accrue to the Union of
India on such demise. If ever the national interests are defined with clarity and prioritised, the
foremost threat to the Union (and for centuries before) materialised on the western periphery,
continuously. To defend this key threat to the Union, New Delhi should extend its
influence through export of both, soft and hard power towards Central Asia from where
invasions have been mounted over centuries. Cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates
furtherance of this pivotal national objective. The self-destructive path that Islamabad chose will
either splinter the state into many parts or it will wither away-a case of natural progression to its logical
conclusion. In either case Baluchistan will achieve independence. For New Delhi this opens a window of
opportunity to ensure that the Gwadar port does not fall into the hands of the Chinese. In this, there is
synergy between the political objectives of the Americans and the Indians. Our existing goodwill in
Baluchistan requires intelligent leveraging. Sindh and most of the non-Punjabi areas of
Pakistan will be our new friends.Pakistan’s breakup will be a major setback to the Jihad
Factory, as the core of this is located in Pakistan, and functions with the help of its army
and the ISI. This in turn will ease pressures on India and the international
community.With China’s one arm, i.e. Pakistan disabled, its expansionist plans will
receive a severe jolt . Beijing continues to pose primary threat to New Delhi. Even as we continue to
engage with it as constructively as possible, we must strive to remove the proxy. At the same time,
it is prudent to extend moral support to the people of Tibet to sink Chinese expansionism in the morass of
insurgency.For a change, let us do to them what they do to us! The chances of Central Asia getting
infected with the Jihadi fervour will recede. Afghanistan will gain fair amount of
stability. India’s access to Central Asian energy routes will open up. With disintegration
of ISI’s inimical activities of infiltration and pushing of fake currency into India, from
Nepal and Bangladesh will cease. Within the Union social harmony will improve
enormously. Export of Islamic fundamentalism, with its 360-degree sweep from
Islamabad, will vanish. Even a country like Thailand will heave a sigh of relief! Above all,
the gathering storm of threat from a united group of authoritarian regimes along our 14,000 km borders,
orchestrated and synchronised by Pakistan will dissolve. At the height of the recent disturbances in the
Valley, when a general asked me for a suggestion to resolve the issue, I said: “
Remove
Pakistan. The threat will disappear permanently .” Today the collapse
of Pakistan as a state is almost certain . All the King’s men cannot save it from itself.Looking
ahead, New Delhi should formulate an appropriate strategy for ‘post-Pakistan scenario’ to secure India’s
interests in Central Asia.
AT: Terrorism
Drones fail
Drone strikes spur insurgency – they can strike back
Boyle, 13
Michael Boyle, Associate Professor of Political Science at La Salle University in Philadelphia and a Senior
Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, “The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare,” 2013,
Wiley // IS
Yet the evidence that drones inhibit the operational latitude of terrorist groups
and push
them towards collapse is more ambiguous than these accounts suggest.57 In Pakistan, the
ranks of Al-Qaeda have been weakened significantly by drone strikes, but its members
have hardly given up the fight. Hundreds of Al-Qaeda members have fled to battlefields in
Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.58 These operatives bring with them the skills,
experience and weapons needed to turn these wars into fiercer, and perhaps longer-lasting, conflicts.59 In
other words, pressure from drone strikes may have scattered Al-Qaeda militants, but it
does not neutralize them. Many Al-Qaeda members have joined forces with local
insurgent groups in Syria, Mali and elsewhere, thus deepening the conflicts in these states.60 In
other cases, drones have fuelled militant movements and reordered the alliances and
positions of local combatants. Following the escalation of drone strikes in Yemen, the
desire for revenge drove hundreds, if not thousands, of Yemeni tribesmen to join Al-Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), as well as smaller, indigenous militant networks.61 Even in
Pakistan, where the drone strikes have weakened Al-Qaeda and some of its affiliated movements, they
have not cleared the battlefield. In Pakistan, other Islamist groups have moved into the
vacuum left by the absence of Al-Qaeda, and some of these groups, particularly the cluster of
pose a greater threat to
the Pakistani government than Al-Qaeda ever did.62 Drone strikes have distinct political
effects on the ecology of militant networks in these countries, leaving some armed
groups in a better position while crippling others. It is this dynamic that has accounted for the US
groups arrayed under the name Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), now
decision gradually to expand the list of groups targeted by drone strikes, often at the behest of Pakistan.
Far from concentrating exclusively on Al-Qaeda, the US has begun to use drone strikes against Pakistan’s
enemies, including the TTP, the Mullah Nazir group, the Haqqani network and other smaller Islamist
groups.63 The result is that the US has weakened its principal enemy, Al-Qaeda, but only
at the cost of earning a new set of enemies, some of whom may find a way to strike
back .64 The cost of this expansion of targets came into view when the TTP inspired and trained Faisal
Shahzad to launch his attack on Times Square.65 Similarly, the TTP claimed to be involved, possibly with
Al-Qaeda, in attacking a CIA outpost at Camp Chapman in the Khost region of Afghanistan on 30
December 2009.66
Terrorism Good
Terror threat key to US-Russian relations
Hooson, 08
Paul Hooson, former lobbyist and writer for Progressive Values, “New Wave of Terrorism may Draw
Russia & U.S. closer again,” 11/30/14, http://wizbangblue.com/2008/11/30/new-wave-of-terrorism-maydraw-russia-us-closer-again.php // IS
Interestingly, VOICE OF
RUSSIA, the Russian news-service which is a virtual mouthpiece for the Russian government Putin
be taking a much less confrontational opinion
of the U.S. in the last few days since the violence in Mumbai, India as well elsewhere in the world. Since the Russian
military offensive in Georgia in August, American and Russian relations had been greatly strained, but
now Russia views a recent uptick in international terrorism as evidence that the United States, Russia and
the EU must work together as allies to prevent a spread of this epidemic of violence around the world.
regime and the Putin dominated United Russia political party seems to
Russia might also be realizing that with a fresh administration coming into power in Washington soon, that it might just be more
pragmatic to paper-over the recent bad relations since Georgia, and work together for a better relationship with Washington . And
the shared international fears of terrorism just might give both Washington as well as Moscow good
enough of a reason to forget each nation's problems with the other somewhat, and work together to stem
rising international terrorism. Besides the terrorist violence in Mumbai, terrorism in Georgia claimed the life a pro-Moscow
mayor, and a U.S. embassy in Kabul was attacked as well. VOICE OF RUSSIA notes that these actions came recently when RussianWestern relations have suffered in the wake of the Georgia conflict. Russia seems to be opening the door to improved relations with
Washington and the EU by running such a feature on VOICE OF RUSSIA, where it appears that they are inviting an improvement in
relations, perhaps viewing the incoming Obama Administration as less confrontational to Russia than the Bush administration.
Interestingly, the news coverage on VOICE OF RUSSIA appears to be far less anti-Washington in tone as
well in recent days, a sharp contrast from the more heated opinions in Russia around the time of the
August actions in Georgia. Surprisingly, it appears as though Moscow might have blinked first here . And if
anything, this is an important signal to the incoming Obama Administration that better relations with Russia built on common
ground issues such as combating international terrorism are very possible. An improvement in relations with Russia is very
important because it is the only nation in the world with a nuclear weapons force large enough to battle the U.S. to draw or worse.
The two world military superpowers. Russia and the U.S. need to work together on many issue s, and not allow events
like Georgia to put the two nations at dangerous odds with other, especially when world terrorism just might be on the rise once
again, taking some advantage of the problems that Washington and Moscow have been having since the Georgia incident. There is
the saying that the, "Enemy of my enemy is my friend". And since Russia, the U.S. and the EU are all three
disgusted with worldwide terrorist violence, then this may well provide the common ground required for
better relations between the states.
**DRONES BAD Args**
Curtailing increases Drones
Resource Overstretch
Curtailing surveillance solves resource overstretch- increases international
drone use
Insinna 14 [Valerie Insinna- writer for national defense magazine and cites drone industry experts,
March 2014, “Military Taking Larger Role in Drone Sustainment ,”
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2014/March/Pages/MilitaryTakingLargerRoleinDron
eSustainment.aspx, mm]
Defense Department finds itself having to maintain
unmanned aircraft fleets with less money and fewer resources. Experts and industry officials
forecast a growing need for sustainment services, but the budget crunch is prompting theservices to look for
creative ways to shoulder the logistics burden, including performing some of the work in military depots. The wars in
As the conflict in Afghanistan draws to a close, die
Afghanistan and Iraq prompted the Pentagon to rapidly field a menagerie of unmanned aerial systems in largequantities. The need to quickly put such
capabilities into the hands of troops outweighed long term sustainability planning, which often occurred late in development, according to the Defense
Department's unmanned systems integrated roadmap released last December. "Many programs have been procured as vertically integrated, vendorproprietary solutions relying on a single prime contractor who was often held accountable to meet many criteria, including a compressed delivery
schedule," it said. "These rapidly-fielded programs are often immature in terms of reliability and support- ability and are heavily relianton contractor
As budget pressures increase, programs must develop more cost-effective
sustainment solutions," the roadmap said. Calculating the market for UAS sustainment can be difficult because most of those dollars
logistics support." "
come from operations and maintenance funding, which isn't always itemized, said Michael Blades, aerospace and defense senior industry analyst for
The U.S. military drone market - which includes procurement and research, development, testing and evaluation
will be increasing
Frost& Sullivan.
funding about 2.2 percent a year for the next five years, he said. When taking inflation into account, that's aflat market.
If the military is not procuring as many remotely piloted aircraft, it will need to focus on supporting what it has, Blades said. "I could probably guess
that the increase in sustainment is probably 2 to 5 percent per year," he said. "They have to increase the capabilities of these platforms without buying
new platforms. They're going to be putting different data linkson, different sensors and all that, so I think tiiat's going to be where your growth comes
in." The Pentagon spent $1.4 billion on UAS support in fiscal year 2012. That sum includes maintenance, repair, logistics and training costs, Blades
said. He did not have data for 2013. General Atomics in 2012 raked in $380 million for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle, and $350 million for the MQ-1 Predator
and MQ-9Reaper sustainment contracts, Blades said. AAI Corp. earned $270 million supporting the RQ-7 Shadow. The Defense Department also paid
In a time of fiscal austerity, the military's UAS sustainment
needs are growing, but defense contractors may not be able to fully take advantage of it .
$135 million to sustain Boeing Insitu ScanEagles.
[FIGURE OMITTED] An airman provides maintenance for an MQ-9 Reaper airforce As the Pentagon's roadmap points out, Tide 10 of the U.S. Code
dictates that die "Department of Defense maintain a corelogistics capability diat is government- owned and government-operated." The military
gradually moving its unmanned systems into
compliance with the law, industry officials said. The 2012 and 2013 National Defense Authorization Acts contained new rules that
resisted such limitations during the past decade of w'ar, but is
mandate sustainability planning occur earlier in UAS development. Approval for milestones A and B and low rate initial production will not be granted
to new programs diat have not gone through the process of estimating depot-level maintenance needs and forming detailed logistics requirements, die
Such planning will allow the military to reduce contractor logistics
support and be able to sustain its own drone fleets at an earlier timeframe , it
roadmap said.
said
Pub. Perception
Resolving public criticism of surveillance spurs drone development
Wood 13 [David Wood, senior military correspondent for The Huffington Post and won the Pulitzer
prize in 2012, “Drone Attacks Spur Legal Debate On Definition Of 'Battlefield’” February 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/drone-attacks-legal-debate_n_2687980.html, mm]
After a CIA Predator drone released its guided bomb high over Yemen on Nov. 3, 2002, the resulting explosion did more than kill six suspected al Qaeda terrorists riding in the
This strike, the first by an armed drone outside a traditional, recognized war zone, also blew apart
long-held notions of "war" and "battlefield" which had guided the application of the legal traditions,
treaties and laws of armed conflict for centuries . Until that day, armed drones had been used only in Afghanistan, easily identifiable as a
targeted car.
traditional battlefield or war zone because it had supported al Qaeda's 9/11 plotters and the U.S. armed response was justifiable self-defense. Any casual observer could see a war
was underway. Yemen was different. The White House was not sending tens of thousands of troops, and there was no solemn Oval Office speech summoning the nation to battle
there. However, though few knew it at the time, earlier that year Yemen had been officially designated as a "combat zone" making the killings legal, at least in the eyes of the CIA
ever since that first "non-battlefield" drone strike, generals and legal scholars,
pundits and politicians have argued passionately about what, exactly, constitutes an armed conflict, or a
war zone, or a battlefield, and what is outside armed conflict. The distinction matters. "Inside an armed conflict, you are allowed to kill
and the White House of George W. Bush. But
people without warning. Outside, you are not," says Notre Dame law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, a specialist in international laws of war and conflict. "That makes it pretty
important to know whether you're on a battlefield or not." And not just if you're standing on a battlefield. As difficult as it is to pin down the law of armed conflict, "it's really
important to raise these questions, because we've been lulled since 9/11 into the sense that our government has the ability to decide through its intelligence agencies who is a bad
guy and to kill him and the people around him," O'Connell told The Huffington Post. "I don't want to see them drag the law down and lose the world as a place in which the law
Difficult questions about international law are boiling up because of the Obama
administration's accelerating use of armed drones against what it says are suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and potentially
elsewhere as well. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama seemingly acknowledged the growing public unease about the
program's troubling secrecy and whether the strikes are justified and legal. He would , he promised, be
"even more transparent" about how the strikes comply with the law. That vague wording promises that the bitter disagreements
is held as a high standard."
over what the law says, and how it applies, are only going to get more heated. "I don't think we are ever going to have a precise answer," says Laurie R. Blank, director of the
International Humanitarian Law Center at Emory University School of Law and the author of several books on war and international law. In the long history of warfare, there
have been clear-cut cases where existing law applies, mostly when two governments are at war in a geographically defined area. "But the nature of the world today is that it
makes it difficult to put war into neat and tidy packages," Blank says. War and the law have come a long way from that muddy day in October almost 600 years ago when British
infantry and archers memorably clashed with French knights near the Normandy village of Maisoncelles. It was a modest, neatly-defined battle, or armed conflict: the
belligerents were drawn up at either end of a small wheat field; the bristling battle lines were barely 1,000 yards apart, and when the carnage was over in a few hours, a pair of
professional referees declared British King Henry V the winner and named the battle Agincourt, after a nearby castle. By contrast, many of today's conflicts range over time and
space, and belligerents morph from terrorist to civilian to warrior. Do a few suicide bombings in Islamabad define a war zone? Does the taking of hostages at an Algerian gas
plant constitute an international armed conflict? Does a skyjacking plot conceived in Afghanistan and planned in Germany, which kills 3,000 people in New York and
Washington, create legal war zones or armed conflicts in all four places? What if one of the plotters is hiding in Cleveland? How far does the concept of self-defense go? Can
someone just declare an area to be a free-fire "battlefield"? If the United States is at war with terrorists, and there are terrorists inside the United States, can they be targeted
with armed drones? If a Taliban sneaks across the Afghan border with Iran, can the U.S. target him there? And is Iran then justified under the U.N. rule of self defense to plant a
terrorist bomb in Times Square? Could an al Qaeda terrorist protect himself by becoming an American citizen? These are among the questions that remain for the Obama White
House to clear up. But there are no simple answers. The administration has argued, for instance, that in some places like Paris, or Cleveland, the police can handle an al Qaeda
suspect as a matter of law enforcement. But when a terrorist is operating in a place like Yemen, where the government "is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat," the
president has the authority to order a strike, according to the Department of Justice white paper on the legal basis for drone attacks, which surfaced last week. That explanation - that killing is okay in a "weak" state -- hardly quieted the debate on Capitol Hill. If geography doesn't settle the matter of what is an armed conflict, what does? The
International Committee of the Red Cross, the independent, neutral organization which oversees the 1949 Geneva Conventions and associated international humanitarian law,
recognizes two types of armed conflict: international conflict, between two nations, and "non-international conflict," involving a state and an armed group, or two armed groups
-- basically everything else but international conflict. According to the ICRC, to qualify as a non-international armed conflict, the fighting must be protracted and intense. As it is,
for example, in Afghanistan. Given that the fighting between the United States and anyone in Yemen is neither protracted nor intense -- but rather consists of sporadic drone
attacks and other targeted killings -- it would seem that the U.S. drone attacks in Yemen do not qualify and thus are illegal. That's the argument advanced by O'Connell, and it
was noted and abruptly dismissed by the Obama lawyers who wrote the white paper. Their argument was not that the fighting was protracted and intense. They argued that the
"There is little judicial or other authoritative precedent that speaks directly to the question of
the geographic scope of a non-international armed conflict in which one of the parties is a transnational,
non-state actor and where the principal theater of operations is not within the territory of the nation that
is a party to the conflict," the anonymous authors of the white paper wrote. This back-and-forth argument, about whether a conflict can be defined by its battle
law doesn't apply.
space or intensity, is irrelevant, says Geoffrey Corn, a career Army officer who served as the senior Army advisor on the law of war. A conflict ought to be defined by the threat,
he told The Huffington Post. "Trying to define the military hot zone is inconsistent with military logic, with the history of warfare and inconsistent with the laws of armed
conflict," said Corn, who teaches at South Texas College of Law, in Houston. "Plus, it invests your opponent with the perverse incentive to conduct operations from some place
not involved in the struggle, in order to gain immunity." In other words, to skip across the border into sanctuary. According to Corn, the idea of a geographical battle zone was
dismissed in 1982, when the Argentine cruiser Belgrano was sunk by British forces during the Falklands War. While the Argentines claimed the attack was a war crime because
the cruiser was not in the Falklands exclusion zone and had in fact turned away from the British fleet, London asserted it was legal because once Britain and Argentina engaged
in hostilities, any target was fair game, no matter where. Needless to say, legal scholars and others are still bitterly arguing over the Belgrano case. History aside, Corn says the
problem is that we've never really dealt with this issue of
transnational armed conflicts, such as what we're engaged in now," he says, "and it definitely raises troubling
questions, like how do we decide who the enemy is, and does the law allow you to go into somebody else's
territory and kill him?"
issue is that the current nature of U.S. conflicts is unprecedented. "The
Current public backlash will undermine the domestic drone industry- plan
resolves that criticism- increases drones
Lowy 13 [Joan Lowy, Reporter for AP news and cites drone industry experts, “Drone industry worries
about privacy backlash,” http://bigstory.ap.org/article/drone-industry-worries-about-privacy-backlash,
March 2013, MM]
It’s a good bet that in
the not-so-distant future aerial drones will be part of Americans’ everyday lives,
performing countless useful functions. A far cry from the killing machines whose missiles incinerate
terrorists, these generally small unmanned aircraft will help farmers more precisely apply water and
pesticides to crops, saving money and reducing environmental impacts. They’ll help police departments to find missing
people, reconstruct traffic accidents and act as lookouts for SWAT teams. They’ll alert authorities to people stranded on rooftops by hurricanes, and
monitor evacuation flows. Real estate agents will use them to film videos of properties and surrounding neighborhoods. States will use them to inspect
With
military budgets shrinking, drone makers have been counting on the civilian market to spur the industry's
growth. But there's an ironic threat to that hope: Success on the battlefield may contain the seeds
of trouble for the more benign uses of drones at home. The civilian unmanned aircraft
industry worries that it will be grounded before it can really take off because of fear among the
public that the technology will be misused. Also problematic is a delay in the issuance of government safety regulations that are
needed before drones can gain broad access to U.S. skies. Some companies that make drones or supply support equipment
and services say the uncertainty has caused them to put U.S. expansion plans on hold, and they are
looking overseas for new markets. "Our lack of success in educating the public about unmanned aircraft is coming back to bite
us," said Robert Fitzgerald, CEO of The BOSH Group of Newport News, Va., which provides support services to drone users. " The U.S. has been
at the lead of this technology a long time," he said. "If our government holds back this technology, there's the
freedom to move elsewhere ... and all of a sudden these things will be flying everywhere else and
competing with us." Since January, drone-related legislation has been introduced in more than 30 states,
largely in response to privacy concerns. Many of the bills are focused on preventing police from using drones for broad public
bridges, roads and dams. Oil companies will use them to monitor pipelines, while power companies use them to monitor transmission lines.
surveillance, as well as targeting individuals for surveillance without sufficient grounds to believe they were involved in crimes. Law enforcement is
expected to be one of the bigger initial markets for civilian drones. Last month, the FBI used drones to maintain continuous surveillance of a bunker in
Alabama where a 5-year-old boy was being held hostage. In Virginia, the state General Assembly passed a bill that would place a two-year moratorium
on the use of drones by state and local law enforcement. The bill must still be signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. The measure is supported
by groups as varied as the American Civil Liberties Union on the left and the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation on the right. " Any
legislation
that restricts the use of this kind of capability to serve the public is putting the public at risk ," said Steve Gitlin,
vice president of AeroVironment, a leading maker of smaller drones, including some no bigger than a hummingbird Seattle abandoned its drone
program after community protests in February. The city's police department had purchased two drones through a federal grant without consulting the
city council. Drones "clearly have so much potential for saving lives, and it's a darn shame we're having to go through this right now," said Stephen
Ingley, executive director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association. "It's frustrating."
Public concerns over privacy undermine drone industry- plan solves back
Kaste 13 [Martin Kaste, National correspondent and he has written about many privacy issues and has
reported on major foreign policy events, “Will Bureaucracy Keep The U.S. Drone Industry Grounded?”
April 2013 http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/05/06/179843540/will-bureaucracykeep-the-u-s-drone-industry-grounded, mm]
public backlash against drones have raised worries that the U.S. unmanned aerial
vehicle industry will be left behind foreign competitors. Developers say the U.S. light drone industry is
being overtaken by manufacturers in Israel and Australia. Americans are suspicious of drones. Reports of
the unmanned aerial vehicles' use in war zones have raised concerns about what they might do here at
home. For instance, in Seattle earlier this year, a public outcry forced the police department to abandon plans for eye-in-the-sky UAV helicopters. The backlash
worries Paul Applewhite, an aerospace engineer with 10 years of experience at companies like McDonnell Douglas and Sikorsky. He now runs his
Tough federal aviation rules and
own startup company, Applewhite Aero, in an industrial park on the south side of Seattle. Applewhite is developing drones — or UAVs, as the industry calls them. He shows off a
3-pound Styrofoam plane he has dubbed the Invenio. "We bought the airframe and the motor off of an online hobby shop," he says. To make it a UAV, he added a GPS antenna
and a circuit board that allows it to fly autonomously. He hopes to sell it to aid agencies; medical teams could use it to fly tissue samples back to a lab, for instance. They'd enter
the coordinates, and the Invenio would find its way back. That's the theory. The reality is, Applewhite can't know for sure what his plane can do, because he's not allowed fly it.
The Federal Aviation Administration bars the use of UAVs for commercial purposes. That means, even though it's perfectly legal for hobbyists to fly small UAVs, Applewhite may
not, because he's in business. He has applied for a special test permit, called a certificate of airworthiness, but that process has dragged on since last August. "We've generated a
62-page document that we've submitted to the federal government," he says, and he assumes he'll have to meet personally with regulators in Washington, D.C., before he's
allowed to make a few short flights with his modified toy. "Quite frankly, I could do what I need to do in a cow pasture," he says. "I just need some legal and efficient way to test
this aircraft." Applewhite is quick to stress his respect for the FAA's thoroughness in the interest of safety. But in the case of lightweight experimental UAVs, he says, that
thoroughness threatens to stifle startups like his — and perhaps a whole nascent industry. He says he's losing valuable time while potential customers go elsewhere. "A lot of our
universities that are developing [UAV] training programs, they're buying a vehicle from Latvia," he says. "I think I could compete on that, but I just can't test mine in the United
States." Developers say the U.S. light drone industry is being overtaken by manufacturers in Israel and Australia; Seattle's controversial police UAVs came from Canada. The
FAA won't comment on the permitting process for UAV tests. Heidi Williams, vice president for air traffic services and modernization at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association, defends the FAA's cautious approach. "Their primary mission is ensuring that the airspace environment that we all operate in is safe," says Williams, who is also a
pilot. "Things that are really tiny or small to see, sometimes can be very close before you actually have time to see them and react and avoid them." UAV developers admit there's
still no reliable way to "teach" small drones to avoid other aircraft, but they say there's little danger as long as they're tested at low altitudes, away from airports — the same rules
that already apply to radio-controlled hobby aircraft. Juris Vagners, a professor emeritus of aeronautics at the University of Washington, helped pioneer UAVs in the 1990s.
"There was some paperwork, but it wasn't anything like what's going on today," he says. Now the permitting process verges on the absurd. During a recent application, he says, it
Vagners blames the red tape on the
public's hostility toward drones. "As everyone can't help but be aware, there's the whole big flap about privacy
issues," Vagners says. "And the approach that is being taken by the FAA is basically a one size fits all ." For example,
took a couple of months to satisfy the FAA that the University of Washington is, in fact, a public institution.
commercial developers of 3-pound modified toy airplanes find themselves having to apply for an "N-number" — the same flying license plate that's required for Cessnas and
747s. Some frustrated American companies are now taking their prototypes to Mexico and Australia for testing. In Canada, the Canadian Centre for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
is offering access to a test site among the flat farm fields of southern Alberta. One American drone developer has already used the facility, which is run by Sterling Cripps. He
Our governments allow us to fly UAVs over
war-stricken, terrified civilians in other lands, but the moment you bring them back to our precious neck
of the woods, where we're not getting shot at, where we have insurance, we have lawyers, they won't allow
it," Cripps says. Regulators say they will allow it — eventually. Congress has given the FAA until September 2015 to come up with a plan for integrating commercial UAVs to
marvels at the bureaucratic hurdles for UAVs, both in Canada and in the U.S. "Here's the hypocrisy:
the domestic airspace. As part of that process, the FAA will pick six sites around the country for UAV testing. The sites are expected to be selected by the end of the year. That's
an eternity to UAV developers like Paul Applewhite. "We have a technology — we have an industry — that could be ours for the taking," Applewhite says. "We're losing it because
we can't test the vehicles."
Drones Aff
---Market
Drone market predictions are wrong – studies are flawed
Snow, 15
Colin Snow, CEO and Founder of Drone Analyst, “Diversity and Hype in Commercial Drone Market
Forecasts,” SuasNews, 6/9/15, http://www.suasnews.com/2015/06/36485/diversity-and-hype-incommercial-drone-market-forecasts/ // IS
All forecasts are wrong
No one argues that forecasts and market projections are a critical part of business
planning, management, and strategy. However, the first thing you learn as a forecaster (I
was one) is that forecasts are always wrong – it’s just a matter of how wrong. You also learn
that the further out in time you forecast (1 year vs. 10 years), the greater the error. And
while that might sound gloomy, it is reality, and if you are looking to start or invest in a
commercial drone business and you are relying on these forecasts, you should recognize an important
trap.
Proper forecasts are created by taking actuals (historical unit sales, purchases, revenue,
etc.) and projecting forward in time some kind of trend – either flat, up, or down.
Statisticians know that the more historical data you have the greater likelihood your
projection will be accurate. But what happens when there is no history to go by? Such is
the case with the commercial drones market. It’s a nascent industry, and we have little
to no historical data. So here’s the trap. Forecasters have to either borrow historical data
from a similar industry or size a market potential with a proxy.
No link – other sectors are key to the drone market
Ballve, 7/2
Marcelo Ballve, Editorial Director for Business Insider's paid subscription research service BI Intelligence
from late 2012 to early 2015. He is now research director at CB Insights, a data startup focused on venture
capital and private companies. Ballvé is a graduate of Brown University and Columbia University's school
of international and public affairs, “THE DRONES REPORT: Market Forecasts, Regulatory Barriers, Top
Vendors, And Leading Commercial Applications,” Business Insider, 7/2/15,
http://www.businessinsider.com/drones-report-market-forecast-2015-3 // IS
A growing ecosystem of drone software and hardware vendors is already catering to a
long list of clients in agriculture, land management, energy, and construction .
Many of the vendors are smallish private companies and startups — although large defense-focused
companies and industrial conglomerates are beginning to invest in drone technology, too.
In this report from BI Intelligence, we take a deep dive into the various levels of the growing global
industry for commercial drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This 32-page report provides
forecasts for the business opportunity in commercial drone technology, looks at advances and persistent
barriers, highlights the top business-to-business markets in terms of applications and end users, and
provides an exclusive list of dozens of notable companies already active in the space. Finally, it digs into
the current state of US regulation of commercial drones, recently upended by the issuing of the Federal
Aviation Administration's draft rules for commercial drone flights. Few people know that many
companies are already authorized to fly small drones commercially under a US government "exemption"
program.
Here are some of the main takeaways from the report:
The global commercial drone market will take shape around applications in a handful of
industries: agriculture, energy, utilities, mining, construction, real estate, news media,
and film production.
Most growth in the drone industry is on the commercial/civilian side, as the shift away
from the military market gains momentum. The market for commercial/civilian drones will grow
at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19% between 2015 and 2020, compared with 5% growth on
the military side.
E-commerce and package delivery will not be an early focus of the drone industry.
Legacy drone manufacturers focused mostly on military clients do not have a natural
advantage in the fast-evolving civilian drone market.
-----Warrants solve
Warrants check market collapse
Johnson, 14
Sandy Johnson, executive editor of Stateline.org, a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. She is the former
Managing Editor at the Center for Public Integrity. “Balancing Privacy, Jobs in Drone Debate,” Pew
Trusts, 4/11/14, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2014/04/11/balancing-privacy-jobs-in-drone-debate // IS
In Utah, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill that sets limits on law enforcement use
of drone technology. The law requires law officers to obtain a search warrant before
using a drone in most situations. It would also regulate what kinds of data can be collected
and how long it can be stored, and it requires the data to be made public after an investigation is over.
In Wisconsin, the legislature passed a bill that requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using
drones except in emergency situations, and outlaws drone surveillance of people who have a reasonable
expectation of privacy. Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed the bill Tuesday.
One sponsor said the bill struck a balance between privacy rights and public safety. “It is
important that our laws advance as technology progresses. Even inexpensive drone
technology is capable of capturing high-resolution pictures of people's homes and areas
we consider most private and worthy of protection,” Republican Sen. Jerry Petrowski said.
He said the legislation was written so
related to drones.
it does not cut off commercial development
-----UQ Overwhelms
Nothing can stop the drone market
Snyder, 14
Christopher Snyder, Producer at Fox News Channel, “US commercial drone market set to explode,” Fox
News, 12/11/14, http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/12/11/get-set-for-more-commercial-drone-flights/
// IS
The Federal Aviation Administration‘s decision to allow four companies to fly
commercial drones has the private sector buzzing over the possibility of expanded
commercial drone flights in the near future.
One of the companies, Clayco, is planning to use California-based drone startup Skycatch to fly multirotor drones to survey its construction sites.
Skycatch’s Head of Policy Gabriel Dobbs told FoxNews.com “ this is a fantastic sign for all the
players in the commercial UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] industry.” Dobbs is in charge of
working with federal agencies in the U.S. and abroad to craft policy for the next generation of UAVs.
"We’re going to see this commercial market
explode in the United States within the
next year ."
Dobbs’ company has been working with the FAA for nearly two years to get approval. Before this
announcement, he saw a “huge bottleneck in the official use of drones in the U.S. because of the FAA's
current ban on commercial drones and pending regulations.”
He added, “in spite of the regulatory obstacles, the future of drones is clearly bright … this
new technology is simply too great for regulators to contain.”
-----AT: Law enforcement
No link – ag market comparatively outweighs
Ackerman, 13
Spencer Ackerman, winner of the 2012 National Magazine Award for Reporting in Digital Media, citing
the Vice President of AUVSI, “Drone Boosters Say Farmers, Not Cops, Are the Biggest U.S. Robot
Market,” Wired, 2/3/13, http://www.wired.com/2013/02/drone-farm/ // IS
No, Predators and Reapers aren’t going to scan large swaths of vegetation for suspected militants. And
there’s tremendous interest from state and local law enforcement in drones as
surveillance tools. But to Chris Mailey, a vice president with the drone promotion
organization known as AUVSI, the cop shops represent short money.
“Agriculture,” Mailey tells Danger Room, “is gonna be the big market.”
To Mailey, it’s a question
of where the growth opportunities are. Military drone purchases
are plateauing, even as the drones become increasingly central to U.S. counterterrorism.
And there are limits, financial and otherwise, to the ability of police departments to
purchase drones. Farming looks like a drone market with both fewer impediments and
bigger incentives for early technological adoption.
Law enforcement isn’t key
Snow, 15
Colin Snow, CEO and Founder of Drone Analyst, “Diversity and Hype in Commercial Drone Market
Forecasts,” SuasNews, 6/9/15, http://www.suasnews.com/2015/06/36485/diversity-and-hype-incommercial-drone-market-forecasts/ // IS
Markets and Markets – sells a 180+ page report on the commercial drones market
by type, technology, application, and geography for $4,560. They expect the global market for
small UAS to reach $1.9 billion by the end of 2020. They state the obvious and say the increase in civil and
military applications remains the driving factor for the global small UAV market. They go on to say that
among all the key applications (law enforcement, energy and power, manufacturing,
infrastructure, media and entertainment, agriculture, and scientific research) law
enforcement will hold the largest market share at ~25%. My research says the
opposite it true – at least in the U.S. That’s because adoption by local and state police
agencies here already is and will continue to be fraught with controversy over privacy
and Fourth Amendment rights.
Law enforcement adoption won’t impact the market
Snow, 15
Colin Snow, CEO and Founder of Drone Analyst, “FAA Proposed Drone Rules: Market Opportunity
Winners and Losers,” Drone Analyst, 2/16/15, http://droneanalyst.com/2015/02/16/faa-drone-rulesmarket-winners-and-losers/ // IS
The DOT evaluation dedicates an entire section to “Search and Rescue/Law
Enforcement” (see section IV.A.1.c. page 19 ff). It describes how small UAS missions can create
significant cost savings to federal, state, and local government entities because they offer a more
economical alternative to manned helicopters. The report estimates (page 20):
“…a significant number of public entities will contract the services of a small UAS operator. … The FAA
and industry expect that some of the larger public entities would train their own operators and purchase
and operate their own small UAS. The majority of the smaller public safety departments that could not
afford to train their officers to fly a small UAS would contract these services out to commercial small UAS
enterprises as the need arises.”
there a few catches. The first catch is the
proposed rule does not allow sUAS operations at night. The second is there are or will be
local rules to contend with that prohibit certain types of operations, like surveilling
criminal suspects. The third is the recent Presidential Memo creating standards for how
government agencies and some recipients of federal funds will address the privacy
issues associated with drones.
If true, this would create a viable market. But
Bottom line: Under the proposed rules, demand for turnkey drone solutions and
services for police, fire, and emergency medical services is uncertain. Technology
adoption by fire and rescue may be good, but adoption by local and state police agencies
will no doubt be fraught with continued controversy over privacy and Fourth
Amendment rights.
NSA
---Generic
Curtailing NSA surveillance resolves faulty data- results in effective drone
strikes
Storm 14
Darlene Storm, freelance writer with a background in information technology and information security,
“Whistleblower: NSA targets SIM cards for drone strikes, 'Death by unreliable metadata,'”
ComputerWorld, 2/10/14, http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475921/dataprivacy/whistleblower--nsa-targets-sim-cards-for-drone-strikes---death-by-unreliable-metadata-.html //
IS
Some targets know about the NSA geolocating SIM cards and “have as many as 16
different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system.”
Taliban leaders would toss SIM cards in a bag and mix them up, so everyone left with a different SIM
card. But some targets don’t know about it and might lend their phone to a family member
or friend who gets taken out in a drone strike. As high value targets also know, switching
a phone to “airplane mode” to disable all wireless connections doesn’t cut it. After
photographer and writer Michael Yon, a former Green Beret, was embedded with U.S. combat troops Iraq and Afghanistan, he
talked about how smartphones are pocket spies that provide actionable intelligence for tracking. He said even "if location
services/GPS-aware apps are turned off," or the cell phone itself is shut off, “if there is any juice to the battery at all” then the phone
acts as a “homing beacon.” While overseas with U.S. troops, an officer told him that if you leave the battery in your phone, “you can
practically watch it drain as the Iranians ping the phone.“ The
anonymous former JSOC drone operator
estimated that 90% of the drone strikes in Afghanistan relied on the SIGINT, “signals
intelligence, based on the NSA’s phone-tracking technology.” Mission reports would state, “triggered
by SIGINT, which means it was triggered by a geolocation cell.” But he claims that too often the wrong people
are killed ; “Tracking people by metadata and then killing them by SIM card is inherently flawed.”
---Metadata
Metadata-based strikes fail- plan makes drones more reliable- resolves
criticism
Greenwald and Scahill, 14
Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, *Snowden-exposé leaker, founder of the Intercept **investigative
reporter, war correspondent and author of the international bestselling books Dirty Wars: The World Is a
Battlefield and Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. “THE NSA’S
SECRET ROLE IN THE U.S. ASSASSINATION PROGRAM,” The Intercept,
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/ // IS
One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s reliance on
geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different
SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware
that their mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to
friends, children, spouses and family members.
Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have purposely and
randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers.
“They would do things like go to meetings, take all their SIM cards out, put them in a
bag, mix them up, and everybody gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former
drone operator says. “That’s how they confuse us.”
As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM
card belonging to
a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is then killed
in a strike. According to the former drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run
the tracking program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without
knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cell phone or SIM card is in
fact the intended target of the strike.
“Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is there,” he says.
“But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it. It’s of course assumed that the phone
belongs to a human being who is nefarious and considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where
it gets very shady.”
Metadata too unreliable- plan makes drones more reliable
No Author 2014 [Cites Glenn Greenwald, “New Whistleblower Reveals NSA Picking Drone Targets
Based On Bad Data: 'Death By Unreliable Metadata',”
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140209/22440726160/new-whistleblower-reveals-nsa-pickingdrone-targets-based-bad-data-death-unreliable-metadata.shtml, 2014, mm]
Late last night, the new publication from Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill launched. It's called The Intercept, and I imagine that it's going to be a must-follow
Its first major article digs deep into the NSA's role in killing people with
drones (often innocent people) based on questionable metadata . Remember how NSA defenders kept
for a variety of reasons.
insisting that "it's just metadata" as if that was no big deal? Well, what about when that metadata is being used to kill people? Just last week, we wrote about Rep. Mike Rogers
new "red tape" that was making it more difficult to indiscriminately kill people
with drones. That "red tape" is actually just a new set of guidelines designed to try to
prevent more killing of innocent people with drones. This new report highlights how the US government's infatuation with
drones, combined with the NSA's obsessive collection of metadata, means that drones are frequently used to kill people based
complaining about
on very little evidence that the people being killed are actually terrorist threats. One noteworthy
point about this article: it relies on two new sources, one named, one kept secret, backed up by Snowden documents. That is, it appears that at least one other source (in this
case, a recent member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task force -- the group that's in charge of figuring out who to capture and kill) has come forward to Greenwald and others,
calling foul on what the US government is doing. This person was privy to how targets are selected, and it's pretty scary how little info they're going on. The fact that the NSA was
heavily involved in picking targets was revealed a while back, but this person explains how much those
choosing targets rely on bad
metadata from the NSA to kill people -- often revealed later to be totally innocent. One problem, he explains, is that
targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to
thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their
mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to friends, children, spouses and family members. Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s
targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take all their
SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator says. “That’s how they confuse us.” The guy
metadata is often somewhat questionable in itself: What’s more, he adds, the
NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the
actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the
drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata. “People get hung up that
also points out that the
there’s a targeted list of people,” he says. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person
on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.” You would think that someone like Rep. Rogers would be happy that we were trying to improve our targeting and to stop killing
innocent people, but apparently making sure the people we target are actually guilty is just too much "red tape." But it hasn't stopped these killings. The source in the article
notes that the "overwhelming majority" of the strikes they're doing these days are based almost entirely on the NSA's signals intelligence.
--Spending
Drones are demilitarizing now but law enforcement spending is key to the
transition- plan checks enforcement spending
R&M 13
Research and Markets, “Emerging Applications for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Across Global
Government and Commercial Sectors,” Research and Markets, December 2013,
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/75xhxl/emerging // IS
The significant potential and benefits of UAS have led to increasing implementation since the mid-1980s.
Through the years, these platforms have proven successful on numerous missions, leading to growing
popularity. UAS now has a significant role for numerous military units worldwide. A
decrease in military expenditure has, however, nudged UAS manufacturers to look
towards commercial markets. The shift from military implementation has and will be
gradual. Government and law enforcement have begun the shift, pressuring
regulatory bodies to finalise interim legislation. This will facilitate the
commercialisation of the UAS and application thereof to fields such as precision
agriculture and journalism.
Government spending is driving the drone market now
NACDL, 13
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, “Domestic Drone Information Center,” NACDL,
December 2013, http://www.nacdl.org/domesticdrones/ // IS
Emerging Applications for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Across Global Government and Commercial
Sectors - Research and Markets The significant potential and benefits of UAS have led to increasing
implementation since the mid-1980s. Through the years, these platforms have proven successful
on numerous missions, leading to growing popularity. UAS now has a significant role for numerous
military units worldwide. A
decrease in military expenditure has, however, nudged UAS
manufacturers to look towards commercial markets. The shift from military
implementation has and will be gradual. Government and law enforcement have begun
the shift, pressuring regulatory bodies to finalise interim legislation. This will facilitate
the commercialisation of the UAS and application thereof to fields such as precision
agriculture and journalism.
Law enforcement is integral to the commercial market – there’s
opportunity now but no guarantees
R&M 13
Research and Markets, “Emerging Applications for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
Across Global Government and Commercial Sectors,”
http://www.reportlinker.com/p01938919-summary/Emerging-Applications-for-Unmanned-AerialSystems-UAS-Across-Global-Government-and-Commercial-Sectors.html // IS
Executive Summary •Regulatory processes restrain commercial growth in all but a select few countries.
•Next Generation (NextGen) Air Traffic Management systems such as automatic dependent surveillance
broadcast (ADS-B) are critical pieces of the puzzle to integrate UAS into the National Airspace (NAS).
•Technological developments are mission enablers in the same way that mission
requirements drive technological changes. Technological milestones have yet to be met
to enable the safe integration of UAS into non-segregated airspace. •Green technologies
and technologies giving enhanced power and endurance, coupled with higher payload
capacities, will further encourage adoption of UAS. •Improved computing power and
higher speed data links will allow for more sophisticated control and management
techniques. •Modularity of systems and standardisation of middleware will allow for flexibility and
configurability of systems. •Law enforcement and first responders lead the pack, with cautious
uptake for agriculture and forestry. •Costs and inconsistent demand limit
commercial buy-in, though this is expected to change gradually as UAS continue to become more
efficient and less costly. •In other words, more capability at less cost encourages more market growth.
AT Drones Inevitable
Restriction in squo hurt the drone market
LBB Editorial 14 [LBB editorial- independent company that covers issues concerning business
privacy rights, 2014, “Above the Law: How Drone Laws Around the World Are Affecting Production,”
http://www.lbbonline.com/news/above-the-law-how-drone-laws-around-the-world-are-affectingproduction/, mm]
Drones are still not legal in our industry
anywhere in the US. They are only legal for hobbyists,” explain the team at Park Pictures. According to the
The land of the free? Not if you want to use drones to shoot commercials. “
Federal Aviation Authority, flying a drone for commercial purposes in the States is illegal – sucks for film production, sucks for Amazon – but things
are set to change. Congress has set a September 2015 deadline for the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to issue regulations for commercial drones.
Even when these laws come into place, it looks like operators will face heavy
restrictions, medical tests and licenses. However, delve a little deeper and you soon find that things are not so
straightforward – the FAA’s authority on the matter was severely undermined earlier this year. In 2011
filmmaker Raphael Pirker was fined $10,000 for using a drone to capture shots of the University of Virginia for PR firms Lewis Communications. In
while the FAA has said frequently that commercial drones are
categorically illegal, judge Patrick Geraghty found that there were no specific laws preventing
commercial UAVs and argued that the FAA’s authority over drones and model aircraft
was questionable. In any case it’s a political hot potato , and the FAA are themselves challenging Judge Geraghty’s
ruling… so unless you fancy an expensive, three year lawsuit it’s advisable to hang back on
any plans to shoot with a drone in the USA until at least Autumn 2015 (although when any regulations might actually
come into force is anyone’s guess). Oh and to make matters even more complicated, individual states are drawing up their
own laws about how drones can and can’t be used – though these mainly relate to law
enforcement agencies and restrictions on drones for use in surveillance. According to Lorenzo
Benedick from Vagabond Films, the restrictions have had a negative impact on projects that his
company has worked on and he believes that if the FAA can integrate commercial
drones into US airspace then it will make a huge difference for the US production
industry. “We had to kill a beautiful aerial shot for a client out in Pennsylvania, even though we were only shooting over and above their
March a federal judge overturned the ruling;
headquarters,” he says. One potential alternative for those hoping to get their drone on in North America is to head across the border into Canada,
where commercial drones have been permitted since 1996. Operators need a licence called an Air Operator Certificate that specifically permits the use
of UAVs. What’s more, every commercial drone flight requires a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) that outlines the geographic area in which
the drone is permitted to fly. It takes at least 20 working days for an SFOC to be granted, so producers need to bear that in mind.
also required for commercial images taken of private property.
Consent is
Drones Bad Scenarios
Privacy
1NC
The drone market is awful for privacy
Smouse, 14
Becca Smouse, columnist for ASU, “Private drone market threatens our privacy,” The State Press,
12/4/14, http://www.statepress.com/article/2014/12/private-drone-market-threatens-our-privacy/ // IS
The market for drones has significantly dropped in price and risen in popularity,
allowing the intrusive devices to fall in the wrong hands of troublemakers and cause
public unrest over privacy. A recent report by The New York Times shows police are increasingly
responding to incidents involving the invasive use of drones in interrupting sporting events, stalking
hunters and recording public prank attempts. “It’s now in the hands of all types of people —
good people, bad people, tricksters, pranksters, kids,” Patrick Egan, editor at sUAS News, told
The New York Times. “All
hell is going to break loose as far as the shenanigans that are
perpetrated with drones.” While the footage seems harmless, the public is starting to question
the legality of individuals using drones to record without the subject’s consent. Drones have become a
one-stop-shop for spying and snooping on others. However, little regulation impacts the use of drones in a
public setting, especially those who fly for fun. The Federal Aviation Administration lists three types of
aircrafts allowed in public: civil unmanned aircraft systems, public UAS, and model aircraft, according to
Business Insider. These devices can be flown freely without regulation, but businesses must get approval
from the F.A.A. All devices must remain below 400 feet. The F.A.A. stops there, leaving the door wide
open for mischief-makers to pick up a drone and peep into the lives of the public without any cause for
worry. “There’s very little in American privacy law that would limit the use of drones for surveillance,”
Ryan Calo, an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Law, told The New York
Times. Drones have become a staple in research and investigations and have provided great coverage of
sights from above. The use of drones shouldn’t be terminated, but strictly regulated for the average joe.
The public is entitled to its privacy, and that should include protection from flying
cameras peeping in and out of our lives. Drones could become real-life flying monkeys
that follow us around if someone doesn’t put a foot down for privacy. "There are drones
flying over the air randomly that are recording everything that’s happening on what we consider our
private property,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said while speaking at Oklahoma City
University. “That type of technology has to stimulate us to think about what is it that we cherish in privacy
and how far we want to protect it and from whom." Careless drone flying has also put other aircrafts in
danger when in flight. Getting in the path of a large aircraft puts the lives of many at risk, a concern that
would disappear with reasonable laws. Drone technology is quickly advancing and the dangers
they pose are escalating at an even faster rate. The benefits of the device in the right
hands are evolving the technology industry, but in the wrong hands, drones
jeopardize our rights.
AQAP Scenario
1NC
Drone are spurring AQAP – continuation creates a terror safe haven
Boyle, 13
Michael Boyle, Associate Professor of Political Science at La Salle University in Philadelphia and a Senior
Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, “The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare,” 2013,
Wiley // IS
Just as in Pakistan, the result
of a drone-first policy in Yemen has been to increase the
ranks of the government’s enemies. Drone strikes against AQAP have fostered antiAmerican sentiment in the tribal regions of the country and encouraged friends and
family of civilians killed to join AQAP or other militant networks. The drone strikes have
bred ‘psychological acceptance’ of AQAP among Yemenis, in part because they appear to
confirm its narrative of a bloodthirsty US dropping bombs from afar with no concern for
who is killed.107 A prominent Yemeni youth activist, Ibrahim Mothana, has argued that ‘drone
strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants;
they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair’.108 As Zenko
has reported, AQAP has increased its membership from a few hundred in 2010 to a ‘few thousand’
today.109 It is impossible to know how many of these recruits have come to AQAP as a result of the drone
strikes or because of other factors, but this trend raises the worrying possibility that AQAP
may gain several recruits for every leader killed in a drone strike.110 As one local human
rights leader put it, ‘the drones are killing al Qaeda leaders, but they are also turning
them into heroes’.111 Another beneficiary of drone strikes in Yemen has been Ansar al-Sharia, a
Yemeni group affiliated with AQAP which has waged an increasingly vicious insurgency against the
government since the beginning of the Arab Spring.112 As the Yemeni government has relied more on
American drones to patrol its ungoverned spaces, Ansar al-Sharia has stepped into the vacuum and begun
to provide social services in its place. The danger, as former CIA official Robert Grenier put it, is that the
increasing reliance on signature drone strikes may create a ‘larger terrorist safe
haven’ in Yemen.113
2NC – ME Stability
AQAP strikes are driving both Yemeni and broader Middle East instability
Corombos, 15
Greg Corombos, news director for Radio America, citing retired US Navy Capt. Chuck Nash, “MILITARY
ANALYST: OBAMA PLAYING 'DANGEROUS GAME',” 1/31/15, WND,
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/01/military-analyst-obama-playing-dangerous-game/ // IS
Chaos in Yemen is leading to even greater Middle East instability , shines the
spotlight of failure on a nation President Obama hailed as a foreign policy success just four months ago
and forces an even tougher negotiating position with the Iranians, according to retired U.S. Navy Capt.
Chuck Nash.
As he laid out his approach to confronting the Islamic State, or ISIS, in September, Obama cited
numerous operations targeting terrorists in Yemen as a major success of his effort to
take the fight to the terrorists.
“We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al-Qaida’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Obama
said. “We’ve targeted al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its
affiliate in Somalia.”
Nash said that’s looking pretty bad in hindsight.
“It just adds to the overall instability and the mess that the Middle East has become ever
since the Arab Spring,” he said. “This was the knife in the heart of Yemen, which the
president has been holding out as a way of modeling our success post-Arab Spring.”
Yemen has a complicated history in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. Even before the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole as it refueled in Yemen, killing 17 Navy personnel. Since
9/11, the Yemeni government sporadically assisted in the fight against al-Qaida even as
the terror group’s Yemeni chapter, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, grew in
size and effectiveness. The U.S. has conducted numerous drone strikes in Yemen,
including the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen who inspired the Fort
Hood massacre and the attempted Christmas Day underwear bombing of an
international flight. Even years after his death, AQAP credits al-Awlaki with planning
the deadly Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris earlier this month.
Ali Abdullah Saleh was effectively forced from power during the Arab Spring after losing
support from the U.S. and other Western nations. His vice president, Abd Rabbuh
Mansur Hadi, was forced to resign last week as Iranian-backed Houthi rebels stormed
much of the capital and forced most of the government to step down. Nash said while the
Houthis are kindred spirits with the Iranians, they are their own group with their own ambitions.
2NC – Internal Link
Drone strikes are fueling AQAP – the solution is departure
Jarrell, 14
Matthew Jarrell, International Relations concentrator and Associate World Section Manager of the Brown
Political Review, “Yemen: The Importance of Success in a Failed State,” 10/30/14, Brown Political
Review, http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/10/yemen-the-importance-of-success-in-a-failedstate/ // IS
Second, in regards to US interference, it is insufficient to focus on “foreign missteps in Yemen” in terms of
the American administration’s support of Saleh. Counterterrorism, in the form of a covert drone
war, is a key issue. For this reason, you cannot state that “Yemenis should form a
common front against AQAP,” when in fact the US’ escalation of the drone war plays a
role in fueling both support and sympathy for AQAP—this is especially true in rural
areas, where illiteracy, poverty, and drone strikes prevail. For example, the most recent
attack on the airport in Sana’a was in response to a US drone strike. By continuing to
ramp up airstrikes on AQAP, the US is putting civilians in danger. With every drone
strike that kills an innocent Yemeni, AQAP takes advantage of the situation by using
Yemen’s tribal-based society to gain support and “legitimacy” in the area. In short, the US
counterterrorism model in Yemen, which Obama ironically dubs a “success,” is beyond
counterproductive.
If anything, the first step
to a more stable society in Yemen not only includes the removal of
“destructive foreign interests” but also includes efforts to de-Saleh the Yemeni government,
which still includes many loyalists to Saleh—leading to various internal power struggles. Further, the
recent appointment of new ministers is a good step; however, the sanctions against Saleh that were
announced in November 2014 are too little too late. Overall it’s too simplistic for the author to suggest
dialogue and the removal of foreign interests as a solution.
AT: Drones Solve
Their evidence is inherently flawed – they don’t assume the long-term
Boyle, 13
Michael Boyle, Associate Professor of Political Science at La Salle University in Philadelphia and a Senior
Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, “The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare,” 2013,
Wiley // IS
As this discussion illustrates, each of the most common claims for the effectiveness
of drones
is based on shaky empirical evidence, questionable assumptions and logical
fallacies. Several of them conflate arguments about efficiency—that is, the relative
ratio of inputs (measured in dollars or risk to US personnel) to outputs (measured in killed terrorists)
with arguments about effectiveness. Drones are only ‘effective’ if they contribute to
achieving US strategic goals in a region, a fact which is often lost in analyses that point
only to body counts as a measure of their worthiness. More generally, arguments in favour of
drones tend to present only one side of the ledger, measuring the losses for groups like
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban without considering how many new recruits they gain as a
result of the escalation of drone strikes. They ignore the fact that drones have replaced Guantánamo Bay as the number one recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda today.72 The gruesome
mathematics of assessing drone strikes, especially when measured only in the dead bodies of
those associated with terrorist movements, ignores the impact that drones are having on how
the US is perceived among the populations of these states. Drone warfare may be
considered ‘effective’ only if one operates with an attenuated notion of effectiveness that
focuses on short-term tactical successes— that is, dead terrorists who might some day
have posed a threat to the United States—while ignoring or underplaying long-term
strategic costs.
Azerbaijan Scenario
1NC
Drone strikes collapse Azerbaijan and the broader Caucusus
Clayton ’12 [Nicholas Clayton, “Drone violence along Armenian-Azerbaijani border could lead to war”,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/121022/drone-violence-along-armenianazerbaijani-border-could-lead-war, October 23, 2012, MM]
Armenia and Azerbaijan could soon be at war if drone proliferation on both
sides of the border continues. YEREVAN, Armenia — In a region where a fragile peace holds over three frozen conflicts, the
nations of the South Caucasus are buzzing with drones they use to probe one another’s
defenses and spy on disputed territories. The region is also host to strategic oil and
gas pipelines and a tangled web of alliances and precious resources that
observers say threaten to quickly escalate the border skirmishes and airspace
violations to a wider regional conflict triggered by Armenia and Azerbaijan that
could potentially pull in Israel, Russia and Iran. To some extent, these countries are
already being pulled towards conflict. Last September, Armenia shot down an Israeli-made
Azerbaijani drone over Nagorno-Karabakh and the government claims that drones have
been spotted ahead of recent incursions by Azerbaijani troops into Armenian-held
territory. Richard Giragosian, director of the Regional Studies Center in Yerevan, said in
a briefing that attacks this summer showed that Azerbaijan is eager to “play with its new
toys” and its forces showed “impressive tactical and operational improvement.” The
International Crisis Group warned that as the tit-for-tat incidents become more
deadly, “there is a growing risk that the increasing frontline tensions could lead to
an accidental war.” “Everyone is now saying that the war is coming. We know that it
could start at any moment.” ~Grush Agbaryan, mayor of Voskepar With this in mind, the UN and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) have long imposed a non-binding arms embargo on both countries, and both are under a de facto arms ban from the United States. But, according to the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), this has not stopped Israel and Russia from selling to them. After fighting a bloody war in the early 1990s over the
disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been locked in a stalemate with an oft-violated ceasefire holding a tenuous peace between them. And
drones are the latest addition to the battlefield. In March, Azerbaijan signed a $1.6 billion arms deal with Israel, which consisted largely of advanced drones and an air defense
system. Through this and other deals, Azerbaijan is currently amassing a squadron of over 100 drones from all three of Israel’s top defense manufacturers. Armenia, meanwhile,
employs only a small number of domestically produced models. Intelligence gathering is just one use for drones, which are also used to spot targets for artillery, and, if armed,
strike targets themselves. Armenian and Azerbaijani forces routinely snipe and engage one another along the front, each typically blaming the other for violating the ceasefire. At
least 60 people have been killed in ceasefire violations in the last two years, and the Brussels-based International Crisis Group claimed in a report published in February 2011
“Each (Armenia and Azerbaijan) is apparently using the
clashes and the threat of a new war to pressure its opponent at the negotiations table,
while also preparing for the possibility of a full-scale conflict in the event of a
complete breakdown in the peace talks,” the report said. Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Institute in
the Armenian capital, Yerevan, said that the arms buildup on both sides makes the situation more
dangerous but also said that the clashes are calculated actions, with higher death tolls
becoming a negotiating tactic. “This isn’t Somalia or Afghanistan. These aren’t independent units. The Armenian, Azerbaijani and Karabakh
that the sporadic violence has claimed hundreds of lives.
armed forces have a rigid chain of command so it’s not a question of a sergeant or a lieutenant randomly giving the order to open fire. These are absolutely synchronized political
attacks,” Iskandaryan said. The deadliest recent uptick in violence along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and the line of contact around Karabakh came in early June as US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on a visit to the region. While death tolls varied, at least two dozen soldiers were killed or wounded in a series of shootouts along the front.
The year before, at least four Armenian soldiers were killed in an alleged border incursion by Azerbaijani troops one day after a peace summit between the Armenian,
Azerbaijani and Russian presidents in St. Petersburg, Russia. “No one slept for two or three days [during the June skirmishes],” said Grush Agbaryan, the mayor of the border
village of Voskepar for a total of 27 years off and on over the past three decades. Azerbaijan refused to issue accreditation to GlobalPost’s correspondent to enter the country to
report on the shootings and Azerbaijan’s military modernization. Flush with cash from energy exports, Azerbaijan has increased its annual defense budget from an estimated
$160 million in 2003 to $3.6 billion in 2012. SIPRI said in a report that largely as a result of its blockbuster drone deal with Israel, Azerbaijan’s defense budget jumped 88
Israel has long used arms deals to gain strategic
leverage over its rivals in the region. Although difficult to confirm, many security
analysts believe Israel’s deals with Russia have played heavily into Moscow’s suspension
percent this year — the biggest military spending increase in the world.
of a series of contracts with Iran and Syria that would have provided them with more
advanced air defense systems and fighter jets. Stephen Blank, a research professor at the United States Army War College, said
that preventing arms supplies to Syria and Iran — particularly Russian S-300 air defense systems — has been among Israel’s top goals with the deals. “There’s always a quid pro
In Azerbaijan in particular, Israel has traded its highly
demanded drone technology for intelligence arrangements and covert footholds against
Iran. In a January 2009 US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks, a US diplomat reported that in a closed-door conversation, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
quo,” Blank said. “Nobody sells arms just for cash.”
compared his country’s relationship with Israel to an iceberg — nine-tenths of it is below the surface. More from GlobalPost: Are Iran's drones coordinating attacks in Syria?
Although the Jewish state and Azerbaijan, a conservative Muslim country, may seem like an odd couple, the cable asserts, “Each country finds it easy to identify with the other’s
geopolitical difficulties, and both rank Iran as an existential security threat.” Quarrels between Azerbaijan and Iran run the gamut of territorial, religious and geo-political
In the end, “Israel’s
main goal is to preserve Azerbaijan as an ally against Iran, a platform for reconnaissance
of that country and as a market for military hardware,” the diplomatic cable reads. But, while
these ties had indeed remained below the surface for most of the past decade, a series of leaks this year exposed the extent of
their cooperation as Israel ramped up its covert war with the Islamic Republic. In February, the
disputes and Tehran has repeatedly threatened to “destroy” the country over its support for secular governance and NATO integration.
Times of London quoted a source the publication said was an active Mossad agent in Azerbaijan as saying the country was “ground zero for intelligence work.” This came amid
accusations from Tehran that Azerbaijan had aided Israeli agents in assassinating an Iranian nuclear scientist in January. Then, just as Baku had begun to cool tensions with the
Islamic Republic, Foreign Policy magazine published an article citing Washington intelligence officials who claimed that Israel had signed agreements to use Azerbaijani airfields
as a part of a potential bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear sites. Baku strongly denied the claims, but in September, Azerbaijani officials and military sources told Reuters
"Israel has a problem in that if it is going to
bomb Iran, its nuclear sites, it lacks refueling," Rasim Musabayov, a member of the
Azerbiajani parliamentary foreign relations committee told Reuters. “I think their plan
includes some use of Azerbaijan access. We have (bases) fully equipped with modern
navigation, anti-aircraft defenses and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary
they can be used without any preparations." He went on to say that the drones Israel sold to Azerbaijan allow it to “indirectly watch
that the country would figure in Israel’s contingencies for a potential attack against Iran.
what's happening in Iran.” More from GlobalPost: Despite modern facade, Azerbaijan guilty of rights abuses According to SIPRI, Azerbaijan had acquired about 30 drones from
Israeli firms Aeronautics Ltd. and Elbit Systems by the end of 2011, including at least 25 medium-sized Hermes-450 and Aerostar drones. In October 2011, Azerbaijan signed a
deal to license and domestically produce an additional 60 Aerostar and Orbiter 2M drones. Its most recent purchase from Israel Aeronautics Industries (IAI) in March
reportedly included 10 high altitude Heron-TP drones — the most advanced Israeli drone in service — according to Oxford Analytica. Collectively, these purchases have netted
Azerbaijan 50 or more drones that are similar in class, size and capabilities to American Predator and Reaper-type drones, which are the workhorses of the United States’
campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. Although Israel may have sold the drones to Azerbaijan with Iran in mind, Baku has said publicly that it intends to use its new
hardware to retake territory it lost to Armenia. So far, Azerbaijan’s drone fleet is not armed, but industry experts say the models it employs could carry munitions and be
Drones are a tempting tool to use in frozen conflicts, because, while
their presence raises tensions, international law remains vague at best on the
legality of using them. In 2008, several Georgian drones were shot down over its rebel region of Abkhazia. A UN investigation found that at least
programmed to strike targets.
one of the drones was downed by a fighter jet from Russia, which maintained a peacekeeping presence in the territory. While it was ruled that Russia violated the terms of the
The
incident spiked tensions between Russia and Georgia, both of which saw it as evidence
the other was preparing to attack. Three months later, they fought a brief, but
destructive war that killed hundreds. The legality of drones in Nagorno-Karabakh is even less clear because the conflict was stopped in 1994
ceasefire by entering aircraft into the conflict zone, Georgia also violated the ceasefire for sending the drone on a “military operation” into the conflict zone.
by a simple ceasefire that halted hostilities but did not stipulate a withdrawal of military forces from the area. Furthermore, analysts believe that all-out war between Armenia
and Azerbaijan would be longer and more difficult to contain than the five-day Russian-Georgian conflict. While Russia was able to quickly rout the Georgian army with a much
analysts say that Armenia and Azerbaijan are much more evenly matched and
therefore the conflict would be prolonged and costly in lives and resources. Blank said
that renewed war would be “a very catastrophic event” with “a recipe for a
very quick escalation to the international level.” Armenia is militarily allied
with Russia and hosts a base of 5,000 Russian troops on its territory. After the
summer’s border clashes, Russia announced it was stepping up its patrols of Armenian
airspace by 20 percent. Iran also supports Armenia and has important business
ties in the country, which analysts say Tehran uses as a “proxy” to circumvent
international sanctions. Blank said Israel has made a risky move by supplying
Azerbaijan with drones and other high tech equipment, given the tenuous balance of
superior force,
power between the heavily fortified Armenian positions and the more numerous and
technologically superior Azerbaijani forces. If ignited, he said, “[an ArmenianAzerbaijani war] will not be small. That’s the one thing I’m sure of.”
Azerbaijani instability is the mega impact – causes substantial unrest in
nuclear powers and the Middle East while igniting global wars
Callahan, 11
John Callahan is a consultant to US Transportation Command, and a PhD candidate in International
Studies and U.S. Foreign Policy at Old Dominion University in Virginia. “Future Central Asia
Instability,”6/28/11, http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/articles-and-analysis/future-central-asiainstability // IS
Azeri protests and overthrow pose a particularly interesting problem in the 2020s time frame.
Azerbaijan is uniquely placed to impact oil prices, regional stability , and ethnic
governance. Given its dominating position on the Caspian Sea oil reserves, such instability would
instantly attain global significance . Western reaction may be predicated on lessons learned
from the 2011 intervention in Libya, but, regardless of what lessons are learned, there would be pressure
to do SOMETHING about Azerbaijan. This could take on the form of western sanctions, but seems
unlikely to involve military intervention because of the proximity of Russia. ¶ Russia would be the great
power most directly impacted by unrest in the region. Given the ongoing issues Russia faces with its
ethnic minorities, it is not out of the realm of possibility that a Chechnya or Georgia-like intervention
could take place. The threat of such unrest rekindling the flames in Chechnya, or igniting them in
Dagestan and across Russia's southern flank would be too big to be ignored. Learning the lessons of
Georgia, such an intervention would need be rapid and massive in order to succeed, while failure would
simply fan the flames further for violent overthrow across the region.¶ Ethnically, Armenia would find
itself in a difficult situation, particularly given its isolation as a Christian state in the region (Georgia
notwithstanding) and the incentive for Armenia to appeal for aid, and resort to force, would be heightened
if a radical Azeri regime demanded access to Nagorno-Karabakh, or claimed other Armenian territories.¶
Such a struggle would widen the instability, since Iran and Turkey are both intimately tied by history,
proximity, and culture, to the area. Given the ongoing resurgence of Turkey as a regional player, the
incentive to either back the new Azeri Regime (if Islamists hold power in Ankara) or to back Armenia (if
moderates hold sway) would allow Turkey to re-assert itself as an overt leader in the region. Presumably
(again, assuming that Turkey remains somewhat moderate), Iran, which contains ethnic Azeri's in its
population could either support the Azeri's unreservedly, or take an opposite stance to Turkey out of
principle. If Turkey has gained EU membership by 2020, then a further layer of interconnectedness, and
potential for tension, would exist. Relations between Iran and Turkey would be further effected if the "Stan Spring" did indeed spread to the Kurdish regions of their respective countries. The two could work
together to suppress such a movement, or, Iran could back Kurdish ambitions in an effort to destabilize
Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. What is certain is that the Kurdish issue has the potential to massively
destabilize the middle east , and bring questions of ethnicity as well as dogma (Shia-Sunni) to
the fore, in a region that directly impacts the rest of the world in terms of oil production. If France and
Italy are screaming about Libyan oil in 2011, what happens when China and Japan scream about Iraqi oil
in the 2020's?¶ Growing this crisis outward, Azerbaijan's fall to extremists could be the beginning of a "Stan Spring" to rival the "Arab Spring" of 2011. If this happens, expect a wave of revolutions to spread
southward and eastward (South of Kazakhstan, East of the Caspian)
with a terminus in
Pakistan, India, and China , both of the latter of which have significant Muslim and or Turkic
minorities. The wave would certainly engulf the silk-road nations as described in the shock definition, and
test the strength of whatever Afghan regime rises in the wake of the NATO withdrawal. Given China's own
issues in its western provinces with it Muslims, and the intimate tensions between India and Pakistan,
violence seems certain to ensue across the region. China's proven violence in Sinkiang and Tibet
indicate that the response would be brutal. Worse, China could use "counter-terror" as an excuse for
further territorial aggrandizement, particularly into neighboring Kyrgyzstan. ¶ Given a NATO/U.S.
withdrawal from Afghanistan and rise of Russian and Chinese interests in the region, and ongoing
economic instability, U.S. interest should remain focused on the price of oil (given the unlikelihood of a
game changing move away from oil for the U.S., or, even more importantly, the rest of the industrialized
world,) and protecting, inasmuch as it can, the interests of its allies, such as Georgia, and strengthening
ties with India, while attempting to shore up any of the states in the region that appear to be
"salvageable," and preventing the "Spring" movement from spreading southward into Kurdistan. As
previously noted, Kurdish ambitions could easily incite a regional war. The U.S.,
which would remain at the least "First Among Equal" in terms of projectable power, would be forced to
either commit forces to prevent such a war, or to commit them in defense of its key interests in the area. ¶
Even more than the Middle East and North Africa, Central Asia contains ethnic (Turkic, Mongol, etc) and
religious (Muslim) identities which have been repressed and oppressed, in some cases, for half a
millennium. Taking the lid off of those pressures is not likely to happen in a controlled fashion. Since the
full impact of the "Arab Spring" is yet to be seen, it can only be supposed that a "-Stan Spring" would be
significantly more violent, and far more destabilizing, since it directly impacts numerous
powers.
major
2NC – ! U/Q
The brink is now – even current militarization makes conflict likely
Khojoyan, 7/9
Sara Khojoyan, Staff Writer, “Weapons of War: Expert says military buildup in Armenia, Azerbaijan
challenges peace prospects,” ArmeniaNow, 7/9/15,
http://armenianow.com/karabakh/65264/armenia_karabakh_war_weapons_azerbaijan_iskander_m_
missiles // IS
The more weapons are stocked by the sides to enhance their positions in the NagornoKarabakh conflict, the more of a challenge it will present to the possibility of signing a
peace agreement in the near future, a military expert says. “Obviously, the militarization of the
region will not contribute to a sustainable and lasting peace in the region,” Tigran
Abrahamyan told ArmeniaNow, commenting on possible new weapons purchases by Armenia with the
latest $200 million loan extended by Russia. Though, Abrahamyan acknowledges, the new deliveries
will indeed strengthen Armenian positions on the ground as Azerbaijan continues to
upgrade and increase its arsenal. Armenia’s Defense Ministry will spend the loan money
on buying, among other things, “long-range” Russian-made weapons, a spokesman said this
week. “With that sum we will acquire new military hardware, including both offensive and defensive
weapons, as well as new equipment as part of our program of a large-scale modernization of the army,”
Artsrun Hovhannisyan told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service without elaborating on types of weapons. A
Russian-Armenian agreement on the loan disbursement repayable in 13 years was signed on June 26 and
was ratified by Armenia’s parliament on July 2. The ratification coincided with a report by Russia’s official
TASS news agency saying that Moscow and Yerevan are now negotiating on the delivery of advanced
Iskander-M missiles to the Armenian army that would significantly boost Armenian defense capabilities.
With a firing range of around 500 kilometers, the Iskander-M systems are one of the
most potent weapons of their kind that could have important implications for the
military balance in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In particular, they would make
Azerbaijan’s vital oil and gas infrastructure even more vulnerable to Armenian
missile strikes in the event of a renewed war for Nagorno-Karabakh.
2NC – !
Caucus wars go nuclear
Blank ‘99 (Stephen, Director of Strategic Studies Institute at US Army War College, “Every Shark East
of Suez: Great Power Interests, Policies and Tactics in the Transcaspian Energy Wars”, Central Asian
Survey (18; 2),)
experience suggests Moscow will even threaten a Third World War if there is Turkish
intervention in the Transcaucasus and the 1997 Russo-Armenian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance
and the 1994 Turkish-Azerbaijani Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation suggest just such a possibility. Conceivably, the two larger states
could then be dragged in to rescue their allies from defeat. The Russo-Armenian treaty is a virtual
Past
bilateral military alliance against Baku, in that it reaffirms Russia’s lasting military presence in Armenia, commits Armenia not to join NATO, and could
justify further fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh or further military pressure against Azerbaijan that will impede energy exploration and marketing. It also
reconfirms Russia’s determination to resist an expanded U.S. presence and remain the exclusive regional hegemon. Thus, many structural conditions
Many Third World
conflicts generated by local structural factors have great potential for unintended
escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their proxies and protégés. One or another big
for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus.
power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence, commitments involving the use of nuclear
For instance, in 1993
Turkish noises about intervening in the Karabakh War on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to
threaten a nuclear war in such a case. This confirms the observations of Jim Hoagland, the international correspondent of the
Washington Post, that “future wars involving Europe and America as allies will be fought either over resources
in chaotic Third World locations or in ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia.” Unfortunately, many such
causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian . Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but
probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia, or if it could conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not
a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies), the
danger of major war is higher here than almost anywhere else in the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis
from the Balkans to China.
weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe.
Drone Prolif Scenario
1NC
Constraints influence global drone practices – the impact is global war
Dowd, 13 [Drone Wars: Risks and Warnings Alan W. Dowd, Alan W. Dowd writes on national defense,
foreign policy, and international security. His writing has appeared in multiple publications including
Parameters, Policy Review, The Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, World Politics Review,
American Outlook, The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Times, The National Post, The Wall Street
Journal Europe, The Jerusalem Post, and The Financial Times Deutschland, Parameters 42(4)/43(1)
Winter-Spring 2013, mm]
In short, it seems Washington has been seduced by the Jupiter Complex. Being seen in such a light—as detached and remote in every sense of the word, especially in waging
Reliance on drone strikes allows our opponents to cast our country as
a distant, high-tech, amoral purveyor of death,” argues Kurt Volker, former US ambassador
to NATO. “It builds resentment, facilitates terrorist recruitment and alienates those we should
seek to inspire.”40 Indeed, what appears a successful counterterrorism campaign to Americans may look very different to international observers. “In 17 of 20
war—should give Americans pause. “
countries,” a recent Pew survey found, “more than half disapprove of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and
Somalia.”41 Moreover, a UN official recently announced plans to create “an investigation unit” within the Human Rights Council to “inquire into individual drone attacks . . . in
which it has been alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted.”42 This is not to suggest that either side of the drone debate has a monopoly on the moral high ground; both
have honorable motives. UCAV advocates want to employ drone technologies to limit US casualties, while UCAV opponents are concerned that these same technologies could
make war too easy to wage. This underscores there exists no simple solution to the drone dilemma. Converting to a fully unmanned air force would be dangerous. Putting the
UCAV genie back in the bottle, on the other hand, would be difficult, perhaps impossible. There are those who argue that it is a false dichotomy to say that policymakers must
choose between UCAVs and manned aircraft. To be sure, UCAVs could serve as a complement to manned aircraft rather than a replacement, with pilots in the battlespace
wielding UCAVs to augment their capabilities. That does not, however, appear to be where we are headed. Consider Admiral Mullen’s comments about the sunset of manned
combat aircraft, the manned-versus-unmanned acquisition trajectories, the remote-control wars in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, and President Obama’s reliance on
The next
president will likely follow and build upon the UCAV precedents set during the
Obama administration, just as the Obama administration has with the UCAV precedents set during the Bush
UCAVs. Earlier this year, for instance, when France asked for help in its counterassault against jihadists in Mali, Washington initially offered drones.43
administration. Recall that the first shot in the drone war was fired approximately 11 years ago, in Yemen, when a CIA Predator drone retrofitted with Hellfire missiles targeted
Given their record and growing capabilities, it seems
unlikely that UCAVs will ever be renounced entirely; however, perhaps the use of
drones for lethal purposes can be curtailed or at least contained . It is important to recall that the
United States has circumscribed its own military power in the past by drawing the line at certain
technologies. The United States halted development of the neutron bomb in the 1970s and dismantled its neutron arsenal in the
and killed one of the planners of the USS Cole attack.
2000s; agreed to forswear chemical weapons; and renounced biological warfare “for the sake of all mankind.”44 That brings us back to The New York Times’ portrait of the
drone war.
Washington must be mindful that the world is watching . This is not an argument in defense of
international watchdogs tying America down. The UN secretariat may refuse to recognize America’s special role, but by turning to Washington whenever civil war breaks out, or
nuclear weapons sprout up, or sea lanes are threatened, or natural disasters wreak havoc, or genocide is let loose, it is tacitly conceding that the United States is, well, special.
the brewing international backlash against the
drone war reminds us that means and methods matter as much as ends. Error War If these geo-political
Washington has every right to kill those who are trying to kill Americans. However,
consequences of remote-control war do not get our attention, then the looming geo-strategic consequences should. If we make the argument that UCAV pilots are in the
battlespace, then we are effectively saying that the battlespace is the entire earth. If that is the case, the unintended consequences could be dramatic. First, if the battlespace is
the entire earth, the enemy would seem to have the right to wage war on those places where UCAV operators are based. That’s a sobering thought, one few policymakers have
nations are following America’s lead and developing their own
drones to target their distant enemies by remote. An estimated 75 countries have drone
programs underway.45 Many of these nations are less discriminating in employing
military force than the United States—and less skillful. Indeed, drones may usher in a new age of
accidental wars. If the best drones deployed by the best military crash more than any
other aircraft in America’s fleet, imagine the accident rate for mediocre drones deployed by mediocre militaries.
And then imagine the international incidents this could trigger between, say, India and
Pakistan; North and South Korea; Russia and the Baltics or Poland or Georgia; China
and any number of its wary neighbors. China has at least one dozen drones on the
contemplated. Second, power-projecting
drawing board or in production, and has announced plans to dot its coastline with 11
drone bases in the next two years.46 The Pentagon’s recent reports on Chinese military power detail “acquisition and development of longer-range UAVs and UCAVs
. . . for long-range reconnaissance and strike”; development of UCAVs to enable “a greater capacity for military preemption”; and interest in “converting retired fighter aircraft
into unmanned combat aerial vehicles.”47 At a 2011 air show, Beijing showcased one of its newest drones by playing a video demonstrating a pilotless plane tracking a US
the proliferation of drones could enable
nonpower-projecting nations—and nonnations, for that matter—to join the ranks of
power-projecting nations. Drones are a cheap alternative to long-range, long-endurance warplanes. Yet despite their low cost, drones can pack a punch.
aircraft carrier near Taiwan and relaying targeting information.48 Equally worrisome,
And owing to their size and range, they can conceal their home address far more effectively than the typical, nonstealthy manned warplane. Recall that the possibility of surprise
attack by drones was cited to justify the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.49 Of course, cutting-edge UCAVs have not fallen into undeterrable hands. But if history is any
guide, they will. Such is the nature of proliferation. Even if the spread of UCAV technology does not harm the United States in a direct way, it is unlikely that opposing swarms of
semiautonomous, pilotless warplanes roaming about the earth, striking at will, veering off course, crashing here and there, and sometimes simply failing to respond to their
remote-control pilots will do much to promote a liberal global order. It would be ironic if the promise of risk-free war presented by drones spawned a new era of danger for the
United States and its allies.
Unfettered drone prolif causes deterrence crises that lead to nuclear
conflict and Indo-Pak war
Boyle, 13 [“The costs and consequences of drone warfare”, MICHAEL J. BOYLE, International Affairs
89: 1 (2013) 1–29, assistant professor of political science at LaSalle University, mm]
The emergence of this arms race for drones raises at least five long-term strategic consequences, not all of which are favourable to
the United States over the long term. First, it is now obvious that other states will use drones in ways that are inconsistent with US
interests. One reason why the US has been so keen to use drone technology in Pakistan and Yemen is that at present it retains a
substantial advantage in high-quality attack drones. Many of the other states now capable of employing drones of near-equivalent
technology—for example, the UK and Israel—are considered allies. But this situation is quickly changing as other leading
geopolitical players, such as Russia and China, are beginning rapidly to develop and
deploy drones for their own purposes. While its own technology still lags behind that of the US, Russia
has spent huge sums on purchasing drones and has recently sought to buy the Israelimade Eitan drone capable of surveillance and firing air-to-surface missiles.132 China has begun to develop UAVs for
reconnaissance and combat and has several new drones capable of long-range surveillance and attack under development.133
China is also planning to use unmanned surveillance drones to allow it to monitor the disputed East
China Sea Islands, which are currently under dispute with Japan and Taiwan.134 Both Russia and
China will pursue this technology and develop their own drone suppliers which will sell to the highest bidder, presumably with fewer
export controls than those imposed by the US Congress. Once both governments have equivalent or near-equivalent levels of drone
technology to the United States, they will be similarly tempted to use it for surveillance or attack in the way the US has done. Thus,
through its own over-reliance on drones in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, the
US may be hastening the arrival
of a world where its qualitative advantages in drone technology are eclipsed and where this technology will be
used and sold by rival Great Powers whose interests do not mirror its own. A second consequence of the spread of
drones is that many of the traditional concepts which have underwritten stability in
the international system will be radically reshaped by drone technology. For example,
much of the stability among the Great Powers in the international system is driven by
deterrence , specifically nuclear deterrence.135 Deterrence operates with informal rules of the
game and tacit bargains that govern what states, particularly those holding nuclear weapons, may and
may not do to one another.136 While it is widely understood that nuclear-capable states will conduct aerial surveillance and
spy on one another, overt military confrontations between nuclear powers are rare because
they are assumed to be costly and prone to escalation. One open question is whether these states will
exercise the same level of restraint with drone surveillance, which is unmanned, low cost, and possibly deniable. States may
be more willing to engage in drone overflights which test the resolve of their rivals, or engage
in ‘salami tactics’ to see what kind of drone-led incursion, if any, will motivate a response.137
This may have been Hezbollah’s logic in sending a drone into Israeli airspace in October 2012, possibly to relay information on
Israel’s nuclear capabilities.138 After the incursion, both Hezbollah and Iran boasted that the drone incident demonstrated their
military capabilities.139 One
could imagine two rival states—for example, India and Pakistan—
deploying drones to test each other’s capability and resolve, with untold consequences if
such a probe were misinterpreted by the other as an attack. As drones get physically
smaller and more precise, and as they develop a greater flying range, the temptation to use them to spy
on a rival’s nuclear programme or military installations might prove too strong to resist. If this
were to happen, drones might gradually erode the deterrent relationships that exist
between nuclear powers , thus magnifying the risks of a spiral of conflict between
them. Another dimension of this problem has to do with the risk of accident. Drones are prone to accidents and
crashes. By July 2010, the US Air Force had identified approximately 79 drone
accidents.140 Recently released documents have revealed that there have been a number of drone accidents and crashes in the
Seychelles and Djibouti, some of which happened in close proximity to civilian airports.141 The rapid proliferation of drones
worldwide will involve a risk of accident to civilian aircraft, possibly producing an international incident if such an accident were to
involve an aircraft affiliated to a state hostile to the owner of the drone. Most of the drone accidents may be innocuous, but some will
carry strategic risks. In December 2011, a CIA drone designed for nuclear surveillance crashed in Iran, revealing the existence of the
spying programme and leaving sensitive technology in the hands of the Iranian government.142 The
expansion of drone
technology raises the possibility that some of these surveillance drones will be
interpreted as attack drones, or that an accident or crash will spiral out of control
and lead to an armed confrontation .143 An accident would be even more dangerous if the US were to
pursue its plans for nuclear-powered drones, which can spread radioactive material like a dirty bomb if they crash.144 Third,
lethal drones create the possibility that the norms on the use of force will erode, creating
a much more dangerous world and pushing the international system back towards the
rule of the jungle. To some extent, this world is already being ushered in by the United States,
which has set a dangerous precedent that a state may simply kill foreign citizens considered a threat without
a declaration of war. Even John Brennan has recognized that the US is ‘establishing a precedent that other nations may follow’.145
Given this precedent, there is nothing to stop other states from following the American
lead and using drone strikes to eliminate potential threats. Those ‘threats’ need not be terrorists, but
could be others— dissidents, spies, even journalists—whose behaviour threatens a government. One danger is that drone use might
undermine the normative prohibition on the assassination of leaders and government officials that most (but not all) states currently
respect. A greater danger, however, is that the US will have normalized murder as a tool of statecraft and created a world where
states can increasingly take vengeance on individuals outside their borders without the niceties of extradition, due process or
trial.146 As some of its critics have noted, the Obama administration may have created a world where states will find it easier to kill
terrorists rather than capture them and deal with all of the legal and evidentiary difficulties associated with giving them a fair
trial.147 Fourth, there is a distinct danger that the world will divide into two camps: developed states in possession of drone
technology, and weak states and rebel movements that lack them. States
with recurring separatist or insurgent
problems may begin to police their restive territories through drone strikes, essentially
containing the problem in a fixed geographical region and engaging in a largely punitive
policy against them. One could easily imagine that China, for example, might resort to drone
strikes in Uighur provinces in order to keep potential threats from emerging, or that
Russia could use drones to strike at separatist movements in Chechnya or elsewhere. Such
behaviour would not necessarily be confined to authoritarian governments; it is equally possible that Israel might use
drones to police Gaza and the West Bank, thus reducing the vulnerability of Israeli soldiers to Palestinian attacks
on the ground. The extent to which Israel might be willing to use drones in combat and surveillance was revealed in its November
2012 attack on Gaza. Israel allegedly used a drone to assassinate the Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari and employed a number of armed
drones for strikes in a way that was described as ‘unprecedented’ by senior Israeli officials.148 It is not hard to imagine Israel
concluding that drones over Gaza were the best way to deal with the problem of Hamas, even if their use left the Palestinian
population subject to constant, unnerving surveillance. All of the consequences of such a sharp division between the haves and havenots with drone technology is hard to assess, but one
possibility is that governments with secessionist
movements might be less willing to negotiate and grant concessions if drones allowed
them to police their internal enemies with ruthless efficiency and ‘manage’ the problem
at low cost. The result might be a situation where such conflicts are contained but not
resolved, while citizens in developed states grow increasingly indifferent to the suffering
of those making secessionist or even national liberation claims , including just ones, upon them. Finally,
drones have the capacity to strengthen the surveillance capacity of both democracies and authoritarian regimes, with significant
consequences for civil liberties. In the UK, BAE Systems is adapting military-designed drones for a range of civilian policing tasks
including ‘monitoring antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers’.149 Such drones are also envisioned as
monitoring Britain’s shores for illegal immigration and drug smuggling. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) issued 61 permits for domestic drone use between November 2006 and June 2011, mainly to local and state police, but also to
federal agencies and even universities.150 According to one FAA estimate, the US will have 30,000 drones patrolling the skies by
2022.151 Similarly, the European Commission will spend US$260 million on Eurosur, a new programme that will use drones to
patrol the Mediterranean coast.152 The risk that drones will turn democracies into ‘surveillance states’ is well known, but the risks
for authoritarian regimes may be even more severe. Authoritarian states, particularly those that face serious internal opposition,
may tap into drone technology now available to monitor and ruthlessly punish their opponents. In semi-authoritarian Russia, for
example, drones have already been employed to monitor pro-democracy protesters.153 One could only imagine what a truly
murderous authoritarian regime—such as Bashar al-Assad’s Syria—would do with its own fleet of drones. The
expansion of
drone technology may make the strong even stronger, thus tilting the balance of power in
authoritarian regimes even more decisively towards those who wield the coercive
instruments of power and against those who dare to challenge them. Conclusion Even though it has now been confronted
with blowback from drones in the failed Times Square bombing, the United States has yet to engage in a serious analysis of the
strategic costs and consequences of its use of drones, both for its own security and for the rest of the world. Much of the debate over
drones to date has focused on measuring body counts and carries the unspoken assumption that if drone strikes are efficient—that
is, low cost and low risk for US personnel relative to the terrorists killed—then they must also be effective. This article has argued
that such analyses are operating with an attenuated notion of effectiveness that discounts some of the other key dynamics—such as
the corrosion of the perceived competence and legitimacy of governments where drone strikes take place, growing anti-Americanism
and fresh recruitment to militant networks—that reveal the costs of drone warfare. In other words, the analysis of the effectiveness
of drones takes into account only the ‘loss’ side of the ledger for the ‘bad guys’, without asking what America’s enemies gain by being
subjected to a policy of constant surveillance and attack. In his second term, President Obama has an opportunity to reverse course
and establish a new drones policy which mitigates these costs and avoids some of the long-term consequences that flow from them.
A more sensible US approach would impose some limits on drone use in order to minimize the political costs and long-term strategic
consequences. One step might be to limit the use of drones to HVTs, such as leading political and operational figures for terrorist
networks, while reducing or eliminating the strikes against the ‘foot soldiers’ or other Islamist networks not related to Al-Qaeda.
This approach would reduce the number of strikes and civilian deaths associated with drones while reserving their use for those
targets that pose a direct or imminent threat to the security of the United States. Such a self-limiting approach to drones might also
minimize the degree of political opposition that US drone strikes generate in states such as Pakistan and Yemen, as their leaders,
and even the civilian population, often tolerate or even approve of strikes against HVTs. Another step might be to improve the levels
of transparency of the drone programme. At present, there are no publicly articulated guidelines stipulating who can be killed by a
drone and who cannot, and no data on drone strikes are released to the public.154 Even a Department of Justice memorandum
which authorized the Obama administration to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, remains classified.155 Such nontransparency fuels suspicions that the US is indifferent to the civilian casualties caused by drone strikes, a perception which in turn
magnifies the deleterious political consequences of the strikes. Letting some sunlight in on the drones programme would not
eliminate all of the opposition to it, but it would go some way towards undercutting the worst conspiracy theories about drone use in
these countries while also signalling that the US government holds itself legally and morally accountable for its behaviour.156 A
crucial , step towards mitigating the strategic consequences of drones would be to
develop internationally recognized standards and norms for their use and sale. It is not realistic to suggest
that the US stop using its drones altogether, or to assume that other countries will
accept a moratorium on buying and using drones. The genie is out of the bottle: drones will be a fact
of life for years to come. What remains to be done is to ensure that their use and sale are
transparent , regulated and consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards. The Obama administration
final, and
has already begun to show some awareness that drones are dangerous if placed in the wrong hands. A recent New York Times report
revealed that the Obama administration began to develop a secret drones ‘rulebook’ to govern their use if Mitt Romney were to be
elected president.157 The same logic operates on the international level. Lethal drones will eventually be in the hands of those who
will use them with fewer scruples than President Obama has. Without
a set of internationally recognized standards or
norms governing their sale and use, drones will proliferate without control , be misused by
governments and non-state actors, and become an instrument of repression for the strong. One remedy might be an international
convention on the sale and use of drones which could establish guidelines and norms for their use, perhaps along the lines of the
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) treaty, which attempted to spell out rules on the use of incendiary devices and
fragment-based weapons.158 While enforcement of these guidelines and adherence to rules on their use will be imperfect and
marked by derogations, exceptions and violations, the presence of a convention may reinforce norms against the flagrant misuse of
drones and induce more restraint in their use than might otherwise be seen. Similarly, a UN investigatory body on drones would
help to hold states accountable for their use of drones and begin to build a gradual consensus on the types of activities for which
drones can, and cannot, be used.159 As the progenitor and leading user of drone technology, the US now has an opportunity to show
leadership in developing an international legal architecture which might avert some of the worst consequences of their use.
2NC – Internal Link
Drone strikes cause escalatory wars
Dean 13 [Adriana Dean, degree from the University of Southern California in Philosophy, Politics and
Law, “Targeted Killings Behind the Veil of Ignorance,”
https://www.academia.edu/3832442/Targeted_Killings_Behind_the_Veil_of_Ignorance, mm]
there is something to be said
for the intuition that the possibility of a superpower state running rogue with a lethal
program that has little to no oversight and a high probability for civilian casualties
would be unnerving to anyone behind the veil of ignorance. Behind the veil, individual states cannot definitively determine if they
would be on the sending or receiving end of a Hellfire missile. This uncertainty alone would pose truly terrifying implications for every state involved. It can be just as
reasonably argued behind the veil of ignorance that al-Qaeda could have the drones and
the whole of the United States would be under attack. This reality would place the entire
American populace at risk. Al-Qaeda has definitively identified the United States as the single greatest threat to Islam. Unlike the United States, which has said repeatedly that
While there are some justifiable points for the targeted killing program that individuals behind the veil of ignorance may find appealing,
it is not at war with Islam or with Muslims in general; al-Qaeda would not discriminate between leaders, military members, and civilians. While flawed, there is still a general attempt by the United States to
the use of drones by
the United States has had a consequence that no one could have predicted .
Drones seem to have effectively erased the conventional understanding of “battlefields.”
minimize civilian casualties. Al-Qaeda would not be so kind. Perhaps even more chilling than simply the role reversal of the United States and al-Qaeda,
While the United States operates in Pakistan with some semblance of approval from the government, it is generally understood that Pakistan is not approving every single strike that is carried out on its soil. If the
The
incessant pursuit of terrorists by the United States has opened up the entire world to the
realm of drone strikes. Indeed, although not covered in this paper, the United States has also expanded its use of drones to both Yemen and Somalia, and these three states only
constitute the states in which that the international community knows drone strikes are taking place. If the United States is capable of riding
roughshod over the world and the general principles of engagement, it has set a
dangerous precedent for the future use of drones by other states. The global implications of modern drone
warfare would be fully realized if the conditions of the veil of ignorance were simply equalized, meaning that every state, and perhaps even all terrorist organizations, had access to drones. While it
can be easily argued that terrorist organizations would never abide by legal rules of
“drone engagement,” just as they do not follow military rules of engagement now, the United States has certainly done itself
no favors by not regulating itself with respect to drone usage. If states such as Iran, who
are openly hostile to the United States, had access to drones (a possibility that is not entirely far-fetched given Iran’s current
possession of a downed US drone) it could pose a threat even more terrifying than nuclear
proliferation . Drones are silent, precision weapons. In a world where numerous states had obtained drones, they could be utilized covertly without much risk of discovery. It is
easy to envision scenarios in which political figures could be assassinated, military
instillations targeted, and major civilian population centers attacked without any
indication as to who the perpetrator might be. The lack of oversight and accountability
championed by the United States in today’s targeted killing program only lends to this
horrifying scenario of globalized drone usage. If the United States cannot regulate itself in its own usage of drones, it cannot reasonably expect that
President only signs off on a third of personality strikes in Pakistan, how many strikes can we reasonably assume that the Pakistani government is informed of? And what of signature strikes?
any other state would listen to international cries for oversight once it obtained drones of its own. The view of targeted killings from behind the veil of ignorance should disturb any state or group. In the first place,
the equal likelihood that a state could be the exactor or victim of drone strikes should be enough to deter states from any inclination to utilize drone strikes in which there is no definitive oversight program and the
ose standards for using targeted killings within ones own
country could lead to unfettered global drone warfare among a host of different
states should be an even greater incentive for states to adopt more egalitarian means by which to utilize drones. This is not to say that the use of drones is outright unjustifiable. More to the point, it can
simply be said that certain components and the resulting implications of the program are categorically unfair. The unfairness inherent in the United
States’ lack of oversight and accountability, the use of signature strikes, and the
hypothetical role reversal between the United States and al-Qaeda, or the expansion of
possibility to use signature strikes. Secondly, the knowledge that the lo
drone strikes to a global model, behind the veil of ignorance indicates a need for
profound change within the United States’ targeted killing program. While there seems to be little to object to with regard to the use of strikes against clearly identified senior-level al-Qaeda
targets, the targeted killing program has expanded far beyond the bounds of permissibility behind the veil of ignorance. To this end, the United States must recognize that somewhere along its path of pursuing
terrorist is has lost the fundamental principles that defined its claim to self-defense. Senseless collateral loss of civilian life, as well as questionable targeting practices by the executive branch, aid only in
undermining the United States’ goal of national security. The drone program must be either drastically reformed in order to return it to a state of justifiability, or else it must be ended entirely. It is clear that the
program has departed entirely from the realm of fairness, and every day that the United States continues to utilize the current program is one step further down the path of a precedent that will one day come back
to haunt not only the executive, but the United States as a whole.
Legitimacy Scenario
1NC
Drones collapse U.S. legitimacy
Kennedy, 13 [“Drones: Legitimacy and Anti-Americanism”, Greg Kennedy is a Professor of Strategic
Foreign Policy at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, based at the Joint Services
Command and Staff College, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, in Shrivenham, Parameters
42(4)/43(1) Winter-Spring 2013, MM]
The exponential rise in the use of drone technology in a variety of military and non-military
contexts represents a real challenge to the framework of established international law
and it is both right as a matter of principle, and inevitable as a matter of political reality, that the international community should now be focusing
attention on the standards applicable to this technological development, particularly its deployment in counterterrorism and counter-insurgency
initiatives, and attempt to reach a consensus on the legality of its use, and the standards and safeguards which should apply to it.4 deliver deadly force
is taking place in both public and official domains in the United States and many other countries.5 The four key features at the heart of the debate
revolve around: who is controlling the weapon system; does the system of control and oversight violate international law governing the use of force; are
the drone strikes proportionate acts that provide military effectiveness given the circumstances of the conflict they are being used in; and does their use
Unless these four questions
are dealt with in the near future the impact of the unresolved legitimacy issues will have a
number of repercussions for American foreign and military policies: “Without a
new doctrine for the use of drones that is understandable to friends and foes, the United
States risks achieving near-term tactical benefits in killing terrorists while incurring potentially significant longerterm costs to its alliances , global public opinion , the war on terrorism and international
stability .”6 This article will address only the first three critical questions. The question of who controls the drones during their missions is
violate the sovereignty of other nations and allow the United States to disregard formal national boundaries?
attracting a great deal of attention. The use of drones by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct “signature strikes” is the most problematic
factor in this matter. Between 2004 and 2013, CIA drone attacks in Pakistan killed up to 3,461—up to 891 of them civilians.7 Not only is the use of
drones by the CIA the issue, but subcontracting operational control of drones to other civilian agencies is also causing great concern.8 Questions
remain as to whether subcontractors were controlling drones during actual strike missions, as opposed to surveillance and reconnaissance activities.
Nevertheless, the intense questioning of John O. Brennan, President Obama’s nominee for director of the CIA in February 2013, over drone usage, the
secrecy of their controllers and orders, and the legality of their missions confirmed the level of concern America’s elected officials have regarding the
legitimacy of drone use. Furthermore, perceptions and suspicions of illegal clandestine intelligence agency operations, already a part of the public and
official psyche due to experiences from Vietnam, Iran-Contra, and Iraq II and the weapons of mass destruction debacle, have been reinforced by CIA
management of drone capability. Recent revelations about the use of secret Saudi Arabian facilities for staging American drone strikes into Yemen did
nothing to dissipate such suspicions of the CIA’s lack of legitimacy in its use of drones.9 The fact that the secret facility was the launching site for drones
used to kill American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his son in September 2011, both classified by the CIA as al-Qaeda-linked threats to US security, only
deepened such suspicions. Despite the fact that Gulf State observers and officials knew about American drones operating from the Arabian peninsula
for years, the existence of the CIA base was not openly admitted in case such knowledge should “ . . . damage counter-terrorism collaboration with
Saudi Arabia.”10 The fallout from CIA involvement and management of drone strikes prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, to suggest the need for a court to oversee targeted killings. Such a body, she said, would replicate the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, which oversees eavesdropping on American soil.11 Most importantly, such oversight would go a long way towards allaying fears of
the drone usage lacking true political accountability and legitimacy. In addition, as with any use of force, drone strikes in overseas contingency
operations can lead to increased attacks on already weak governments partnered with the United States. They can lead to retaliatory attacks on local
governments and may contribute to local instability. Those actions occur as a result of desires for revenge and frustrations caused by the strikes.
Feelings of hostility are often visited on the most immediate structures of authority—local government officials, government buildings, police, and the
drone strikes are fuelling anti-American
resentment among enemies and allies alike. Those reactions are often based on questions regarding the legality,
ethicality, and operational legitimacy of those acts to deter opponents. Therefore, specifically related to the reaction of allies, the military
legitimacy question arises if the use of drones endangers vital strategic
relationships .13 One of the strategic relationships being affected by the drone legitimacy issue is that of the United States and the United
Kingdom. Targeted killing, by drone strike or otherwise, is not the sole preserve of the United States. Those actions, however,
attract more negative attention to the United States due to its prominence on the world’s
stage, its declarations of support for human rights and democratic freedoms, and ruleof-law issues, all which appear violated by such strikes . This complexity and visibility make such
military.12 It can thus be argued that, at the strategic level,
targeted killings important for Anglo-American strategic relations because of the closeness of that relationship and the perception that Great Britain,
therefore, condones such American activities. Because the intelligence used in such operations is seen by other nations as a shared Anglo-American
the apparent gap
between stated core policies and values and the ability to practice targeted killings appears to be a starkly
hypocritical and deceitful position internationally , a condition that once again makes British
policymakers uncomfortable with being tarred by such a brush.15 The divide between US policy and action is
exacerbated by drone technology, which makes the once covert practice of targeted killing commonplace and undeniable. It
may also cause deep-rooted distrust due to a spectrum of legitimacy issues. Such questions will, therefore,
undermine the US desire to export liberal democratic principles. Indeed, it may be
beneficial for Western democracies to achieve adequate rather than decisive victories,
thereby setting an example of restraint for the international order. 16 The United
asset, the use of such intelligence to identify and conduct such killings, in the opinion those operations.14 Finally,
States must be willing to engage and deal with drone-legitimacy issues across the entire spectrum of tactical, operational, strategic, and political levels
to ensure its strategic aims are not derailed by operational and tactical expediency.
2NC – Internal Link
SQUO drone strikes wreck US credibility
Cavallaro 12 [Professor James Cavallaro, the founding director of Stanford Law School’s
International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, has dedicated his career to human rights—in
both his scholarly research and his legal practice. His extensive expertise is derived from active
involvement in the defense of rights, in the development of international human rights law and the
human rights movement, particularly in the Americas, and in international human rights litigation, 2012,
“Living Under Drones,” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report-strategy/, MM]
Despite the vast foreign aid the US has invested in Pakistan, a 2012 poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitude project found that 7
4% of
Pakistanis consider the US an enemy, up from 64% three years ago.[71] Only 45% of Pakistanis felt it
important to improve relations with the US, down from 60% the previous year, and fewer support cooperation or even receiving aid from the US.[72]
The growing unpopularity of the US in Pakistan weakens the countries’ bilateral
relationship, makes it more difficult for Pakistani political leaders to work
collaboratively with the US, and risks undermining Pakistani democracy and
development. The deterioration of the Pakistani-US bilateral relationship may also place US security at risk. Dennis Blair, former Director of
National Intelligence, described how unilateral American drone attacks in Pakistan are eroding US
“influence and damaging our ability to work with Pakistan to achieve other important
security objectives like eliminating Taliban sanctuaries, encouraging Indian-Pakistani
dialogue, and making Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal more secure.”[73] Cameron Munter, who announced his
early resignation as US Ambassador to Pakistan in May 2012,[74] reportedly revealed to colleagues that he “didn’t realize his main job was to kill
criticized the US use of drones, arguing that the attacks need
to be more “judicious.”[ 76] Although Secretary of State Hilary Clinton strongly supports drone strikes, she reportedly also has
people.”[75] In previous interviews, he
“complained to colleagues about the drones-only approach at Situation Room meetings.”[77] The New York Times reported in May 2012, “some
] The focus
on drones also risks undermining Pakistan’s development by incentivizing
undemocratic decision-making and fostering instability. In 2009, Anne Patterson, US Ambassador to Pakistan,
discussed the risks of the US drone strategy in a cable sent to the Department of State. She noted, “ Increased unilateral
operations in these areas risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the
civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis
within Pakistan without finally achieving the goal [of eliminating the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership].”[79]
officials felt the urgency of counterterrorism strikes was crowding out consideration of a broader strategy against radicalization.”[78
Pakistan High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Wajid Shamsul Hasan told The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ): What has been the
whole outcome of these drone attacks is, that you have rather directly or indirectly contributed to destabilizing or undermining the democratic
government. Because people really make fun of the democratic government–when you pass a resolution against drone attacks in the parliament, and
The Americans don’t listen to you, and they continue to violate your
territory.[80] The US strikes have also contributed to the delegitimization of NGOs that
are perceived as Western, or that receive US aid, including those providing much-needed services, such as access to
nothing happens.
water and education, and those administering the polio vaccine; this perception has been exploited by Taliban forces.[81] The significant global
opposition to drone strikes also erodes US credibility in the international community. In 17 of the 20 countries polled by the Pew Global Attitudes
the majority of those surveyed disapproved of US drone attacks in countries
like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.[82] Widespread opposition spans the globe, from traditional
European allies such as France (63% disapproval) and Germany (59% disapproval) to
key Middle East states such as Egypt (89% disapproval) and Turkey (81% disapproval).[83] As with
other unpopular American foreign policy engagements, including the invasion of Iraq and the practice of torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere ,
drone strikes weaken the standing of the US in the world, straining its
Project,
relationships with allies, and making it more difficult for it to build
multilateral alliances to tackle pressing global challenges.
Pakistan Scenario
1NC
Drone use is spurring radicalization in Pakistan while decreasing
government credibility
Kilcullen and Exum 9
David Kilcullen, and Andrew Exum, *coin advisor to patreus, **fellow at Center for a New American
Security, “Death from above, outrage down below,” The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 // IS
The use of drones in military operations has steadily grown — we know from public
documents that from last September to this March alone, C.I.A. operatives launched more than three
dozen strikes. The appeal of drone attacks for policy makers is clear. For one thing, their effects are
measurable. Military commanders and intelligence officials point out that drone attacks have disrupted
terrorist networks in Pakistan, killing key leaders and hampering operations. Drone attacks create a sense
of insecurity among militants and constrain their interactions with suspected informers. And, because
they kill remotely, drone strikes avoid American casualties. But on balance, the costs
outweigh
these benefits for three reasons. First, the drone war has created a siege mentality
among Pakistani civilians. This is similar to what happened in Somalia in 2005 and
2006, when similar strikes were employed against the forces of the Union of Islamic Courts.
While the strikes did kill individual militants who were the targets, public anger over the
American show of force solidified the power of extremists. The Islamists’ popularity rose
and the group became more extreme, leading eventually to a messy Ethiopian military
intervention, the rise of a new regional insurgency and an increase in offshore piracy. While violent
extremists may be unpopular, for a frightened population they seem less ominous than a faceless enemy
that wages war from afar and often kills more civilians than militants. Press reports suggest that over
the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. But, according to
Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every
militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent — hardly “precision.” American officials vehemently
dispute these figures, and it is likely that more militants and fewer civilians have been killed than is
reported by the press in Pakistan. Nevertheless, every one of these dead noncombatants represents an
alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown
exponentially even as drone strikes have increased. Second, public outrage at the strikes is hardly
limited to the region in which they take place — areas of northwestern Pakistan where
ethnic Pashtuns predominate. Rather, the strikes are now exciting visceral opposition
across a broad spectrum of Pakistani opinion in Punjab and Sindh, the nation’s two
most populous provinces. Covered extensively by the news media, drone attacks are popularly
believed to have caused even more civilian casualties than is actually the case. The
persistence of these attacks on Pakistani territory offends people’s deepest sensibilities,
alienates them from their government, and contributes to Pakistan’s instability. Third,
the use of drones displays every characteristic of a tactic — or, more accurately, a piece
of technology — substituting for a strategy. These attacks are now being carried out
without a concerted information campaign directed at the Pakistani public or a real
effort to understand the tribal dynamics of the local population, efforts that might make
such attacks more effective.
Pakistan collapse causes global tensions and nuclear war
Morgan 2007
Stephen John Morgan, Former Member of British Labour Party Executive Committee; political
psychologist; researcher of Chaos/Complexity Theory, “Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a
Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?” http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639 // IS
Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11,
the most popular name given to male children born that year was “Osama” (not a Pakistani name) is a
small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition
parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d’état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army
and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military
Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law
would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted
crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with
nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia
populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across
the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq
would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan
into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly, this would also spill over
into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes,
terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war,
and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could no be ruled out. Atomic
Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with
strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a
“Pandora's box” for the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical
and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal,
not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the
acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan
would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real
strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It
could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US.
2NC – Internal Link
Drone strikes collapse Pakistan – two warrants
First, government legitimacy
Boyle, 13
Michael Boyle, Associate Professor of Political Science at La Salle University in Philadelphia and a Senior
Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, “The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare,” 2013,
Wiley // IS
First, the Pakistani government is under
intense pressure from growing popular hostility
to the drone strikes. The drone policy carries a number of serious dangers for the
regime, not the least of which is that it is seen as complicit in a policy where the US
bombs its territory every few days. A Pew Research Center poll in June 2012 revealed that 74
per cent of Pakistanis now consider the United States an enemy.82 Only 17 per cent
support drone strikes against extremist groups, even if they are conducted with the support of the
Pakistani government.83 The drones programme has had a spillover effect for other areas of cooperation,
as only 50 per cent of respondents still wish the US to continue to provide financial and humanitarian
assistance to the country.84 The drone strikes have carried clear strategic costs in making
the US widely hated within Pakistan and in jeopardizing support for US programmes
designed to build the capacity of the Pakistani state. In this combustible environment, highprofile events such as the release of CIA contractor Raymond Davis after the deaths by
shooting of two Pakistani citizens, the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in NATO strikes in
November 2011 and the protests over the film Innocence of Muslims in September 2012
have exploded into waves of antiAmerican protest. These events, and the latent anger they release,
have made it more costly for the government to comply with US demands to counter militant activity in
the border regions. This growing anti-US sentiment culminated in the protest march led by Imran Khan
in October 2012, where thousands of demonstrators tried to enter South Waziristan in a protest over
drone strikes.85 Khan has tapped into growing anti-American sentiment and anger over drones to
become a leading opposition figure for the next election. His actions, which have pushed the controversy
over drones to the forefront of Pakistani politics, have made it more difficult for the Zardari government
to support drone strikes that advertise both its complicity and its powerlessness. Sensing the
dangers associated with a close relationship with the US, a number of other Pakistani leaders have moved
to put some distance between themselves and the American drone policy. Even while he has secretly
supported some of the drone strikes, President Asif Ali Zardari has called for an end to them, though his
position was undermined when his associates called for more Pakistani control over the targets of
strikes.86 Similarly, Prime Minister Raza Gilani has regularly excoriated the US for its ‘illegal and
counterproductive’ use of drones, and has argued that it fuels the insurgencies against the central
government.87 After a review of the country’s relationship with the United States, the
Pakistani parliament called for an end to drone strikes and to any other operations on
its territory.88 Across the political spectrum, positioning oneself as a critic of the drone
programme and expressing hostility to the United States is increasingly becoming the
default position of the Pakistani political class. As this has happened, the US has offered
Pakistan more aid—some US$4.3 billion in 2010 alone, second only to the sum offered
to Afghanistan in amounts of US aid given worldwide—in part to build its
‘counterinsurgency capability’, even while continuing drone strikes signal a lack of faith in the
country’s capacity and will to tackle terrorism.89 Seen in this light, the US–Pakistani relationship is
riddled with hypocrisy: the US sidelines the Pakistani government with drones while
‘building its capacity’ with aid and military equipment transfers, while the Pakistani
government secretly cheers when drone strikes kill its enemies, publicly grandstands against
the US for the rest of the strikes, and then asks for more aid, much of which is lost through corruption or
diverted into wasteful military purchases to deter India.90 The consequence of a drone-first
counterterrorism policy has only heightened the hypocrisy of this already poisonous
relationship, with untold consequences for the future of a nuclear-armed country
seething with anti-American sentiment.
Second, enemy creation
Boyle, 13
Michael Boyle, Associate Professor of Political Science at La Salle University in Philadelphia and a Senior
Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, “The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare,” 2013,
Wiley // IS
Second, drone strikes have also multiplied the ranks of the enemies of
the Pakistani
government and deepened its growing sense of crisis. Pakistan has never had full control
over all parts of its territory, especially in the FATA and the Northwest Frontier province. The
problem of Islamist militant networks in these regions is an old one, but the scope of their
threat expanded dramatically when a number of competing groups coalesced under the
banner of the TTP in 2007.93 At this point, the Musharraf government’s policy of conciliation with the
various militant groups began to show its adverse effects. As the military tried to regain control
over these regions, the militants fought back and extended their reach deeper into
previously untouched urban areas. By 2008, the TTP and other groups were launching suicide attacks in
cities and capturing territory in Swat and Buner, only 70 miles from Islamabad.94 While the Pakistani
army managed to roll back their territorial advances in 2009, most of these militant groups were not fully
defeated. While weakened, many of these Islamist networks redoubled their efforts to challenge the
authority of central government and have increasingly resorted to terrorism to do so.95 While the sources
of mobilization and recruitment to militant networks are numerous, the drones have given them a
recruiting boost as the carnage has encouraged relatives and friends of the victims of
strikes to join the ranks of the TTP or other militant groups to fight the US or the
Pakistani government, holding the latter complicit in their deaths.96 Their wrath at
American drones is directed first and foremost at the Pakistani government rather than
at the United States or its direct interests abroad. While some recruits have joined Al-Qaeda and tried
to bring the fight to the United States, the majority of these new recruits have joined local
militant networks whose primary targets will be within the country.97 The previously
existing militant networks in these regions serve as ready receptacles for the radicalized
and angry after drone strikes; arguably, the biggest danger of these fresh recruits is not
to the United States, but to the government of the country where the strikes take place,
as the ranks of its enemies swell after drone attacks. The membership of the TTP, for
example, has increased to approximately 35,000 through both existing groups pledging
their allegiance to its leadership and the infusion of new recruits, some (but not all) of
whom were motivated by revulsion over drone strikes.98
AT Drones Bad Scenarios
AT: AQAP
Fails
AQAP empirically fails at targeting attacks
Rich 15 (Ben, PhD Candidate in Middle East Politics at the School of Social Sciences at Monash
University, 1/11/15, The Conversation, “Explainer: what is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula?,”
http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-al-qaeda-in-the-arabian-peninsula-36103, JHR)
support largely
collapsed after the group committed a major blunder in November 2003 in Muhayya. AQAP attempted to reproduce the
success of its first signature attack – detonating a vehicle in the centre of a residential compound. This time, however, the targeting went awry. Rather than
AQAP initially enjoyed a degree of local support inside Saudi Arabia thanks to its declared goal of ridding the holy land of “infidel invaders”. But this
slaughtering Western foreigners, the Muhayya incident mostly killed Arab Muslims.
This
immediately undermined AQAP’s message of protecting the Islamic community. While AQAP was to
stumble on for several years, its waning local support, combined with the increasing efficacy of Saudi
counter-terrorism policies, saw it ultimately flee Saudi Arabia south to Yemen and merge with a smaller AQ affiliate in 2009. While the group had
managed to kill several hundred civilians during its time inside Saudi Arabia
,
it had completely failed to credibly
challenge Saudi rule or remove outsiders from the country.
AQAP’s on the decline
Watts 15 (Clint, Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2/4/15, Foreign Affairs, “Al
Qaeda Loses Touch,” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2015-02-04/al-qaeda-losestouch, JHR)
If al Qaeda were a corporation today, it would be roughly equivalent to Microsoft: A big name but an aging
brand, one now strikingly out of touch with the 18–35-year-old-demographic. The group made its way back into the
headlines this past January, after its affiliate—al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP—took credit for a deadly attack on the Paris offices of the French magazineCharlie
Hebdo. But the claim of responsibility came a week after the fact, and lacked the sort of insider accounts or video footage that typically accompany such announcements, leading
, al Qaeda’s traditionally preeminent position in
the jihadi hierarchy, long on the wane, is slipping still further. U.S. officials, for their part, are increasingly focused on the Islamic State,
some to conclude that al Qaeda may not have known about the attackers’ intentions. Put simply
or ISIS, which continues to deliver a steady flow of battlefield victories and brutal beheadings. Yet al Qaeda has a clear path back to contention: a dramatic follow-up to the
Hebdo attack. And with the group’s need for a win so great, Washington would be mistaken to count it out. CONTROL KEY Al Qaeda’s latest chapter began with the death of
Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Shortly thereafter, Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s successor as al Qaeda’s global leader, found himself facing numerous constraints. Aggressive
U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts, buoyed by a deadly drone campaign, forced top al Qaeda commanders into hiding, limiting Zawahiri’s ability to communicate with al Qaeda’s
affiliates. Based in Pakistan rather than in Iraq, Zawahiri and his senior commanders lost touch with many fighters in Iraq. And with bin Laden dead, resources became tighter.
Al Qaeda’s affiliates, which were now receiving less guidance and fewer resources from al Qaeda central,
took on a new level of independence. Some four years later, al Qaeda is essentially a collection of relatively small, though still capable, affiliates. AQAP, under the leadership of
Nasir Wuhayshi, remained loyal to Zawahiri after bin Laden’s death. But with Zawahiri and al Qaeda’s senior leadership under siege from the drones in Pakistan, AQAP
effectively became al Qaeda central. AQAP came close to executing three plots against Western targets, in 2009, 2010, and 2011. And it became the first affiliate to build its own
insurgent force, Ansar al Sharia, which aimed to establish an Islamist emirate in Yemen. In Zawahiri’s absence, other affiliates began to look to AQAP for guidance. Among them
was al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or AQIM, which was making a separate push for an Islamic emirate in northern Africa. By the spring of 2012, AQAP had sent the group’s
leaders two instructional letters, one in May and another in August, covering both tactics and strategy. AQAP further cemented its role by essentially creating its own affiliate, al
Shabaab, in Somalia. Zawahiri confirmed al Shabaab’s membership in al Qaeda in February 2012, but evidence suggests that the group had little interaction with al Qaeda
central. Omar Hammami, an American member of the group, noted in his biography that al Shabaab’s al Qaeda contacts came from Yemen rather than Pakistan. And even a
Al Qaeda central,
meanwhile, has continued to struggle. In Pakistan, the U.S. drone program has kept Zawahiri tied down
and led to an exodus of his senior deputies to Egypt, Libya, and Syria in search of refuge and new opportunities. Despite the overthrow of a democratically elected Muslim
senior al Shabaab leader, Sheikh Ali Muhamud Raage, seemed confused, at one time publicly stating that the group was joining AQAP.
Brotherhood regime in Egypt—a confirmation of al Qaeda’s narrative—the group has failed to gain traction there. Its so-called Nasr cell, which has allegedly plotted various
attacks in the country, was disrupted in 2013, and its operatives in the Sinai have suffered losses at the hands of the Egyptian military and an attrition of followers to ISIS.
Not a Threat
AQAP’s done – Wuhayshi’s death seals the deal
Mullen 15 (Jethro, writes and edits for CNN Digital out of Hong Kong with a focus on news in the AsiaPacific region, 6/16/15, CNN, “Al Qaeda's second in command killed in Yemen strike; successor named,”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/middleeast/yemen-aqap-leader-killed/, JHR)
(CNN)Al Qaeda's second in command, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, has been killed in a drone strike in Yemen,
dealing a heavy setback to the leadership of the international terrorist group. Al-Wuhayshi was the top leader of al Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, one of the most dangerous and dynamic branches of the jihadist network. His death is "the biggest
blow against al Qaeda since the death of (Osama) bin Laden," said CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank. Al-Wuhayshi
was al Qaeda's "leading light" and was one day expected to take over from its current global chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri, said Cruickshank. Two Yemeni
security officials told CNN on Monday that al-Wuhayshi was killed Friday in a suspected U.S. drone strike in Yemen's Hadhramaut region.On Tuesday, AQAP released a video
statement announcing that its leader and two aides had died. The speaker said that al-Wuhayshi would be succeeded by the group's military chief, Qasm al-Rimi, also known as
The U.S. government confirmed al-Wuhayshi's fate
Tuesday, calling his death " a major blow to (al Qaeda's) most dangerous affiliate and to al Qaeda more broadly." Al-Wuhayshi "was
responsible for the deaths of innocent Yemenis and Westerners, including Americans," U.S. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said.
"While AQAP, al Qaeda and their affiliates will remain persistent in their efforts to threaten the United States, our partners and our interests, (al-Wuhayshi's)
death removes from the battlefield an experienced terrorist leader and brings us closer to degrading
and ultimately defeating those groups." Al-Wuhayshi, known as al Qaeda's crown prince, was a charismatic figure
who was adored by many of the terrorist group's jihadist fighters. In a video that surfaced in April of last year, al-Wuhayshiappeared
Abu Hureira al-Sanaani. Opinion: A death trap for al Qaeda leaders? 'Leadership matters'
brazenly out in the open, greeting followers in Yemen, the impoverished nation that the organization uses as a base. In a speech to the group, he makes it clear that he's going
after the United States, saying: "We must eliminate the cross. ... The bearer of the cross is America!" The video showed what looked like the largest and most dangerous
gathering of al Qaeda in years.
Al-Wuhayshi's death deprives al Qaeda of a dynamic heavyweight Successor seen as
'brains of the operation' Originally from Yemen, al-Wuhayshi assumed command of AQAP in 2009. He'd escaped a Yemeni prison in 2006 and had previously
worked as a personal secretary for Osama bin Laden.
AT: Azerbaijan
! U/Q
Instability now – there is literally no impact uniqueness
Mulcaire, 15
Jack Mulcaire, contributor to The National Interest and WarontheRocks.com. He holds a degree in
international relations from Occidental College and is an analyst at Harvey & Company. “Face Off: The
Coming War between Armenia and Azerbaijan,” The National Interest, 4/9/15,
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/face-the-coming-war-between-armenia-azerbaijan-12585 // IS
Another day, another deadly battle between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the southern
Caucasus mountains. This time at least three people were killed. There is a lot of attention-grabbing,
armed conflict in the world these days. Diplomacy is barely keeping the lid on a conventional war in
Ukraine; from Nigeria to the Fertile Crescent war is about as common as peace. But to make accurate
predictions about tomorrow’s conflicts, we need to look away from the preoccupations of the moment and
turn our attention to the places that trouble is festering unnoticed. To that end, let me introduce readers
to my choice for 2015’s sleeper hotspot: Nagorno-Karabakh. This obscure enclave in the Southern
Caucasus is heating up, and the possibility of military conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is increasing. Nagorno-Karabakh is a mountainous region of western Azerbaijan. In the
early 1990s, ethnic tensions between Christian Armenians and Muslim Azeris in the
area resulted in a war that in many ways resembled the simultaneous and better-known
wars in former Yugoslavia. Hundreds of thousands were displaced, but the Armenians were
eventually victorious. Nagorno-Karabakh has been de-facto independent since the end of the war between
the then-newly independent nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The mostly Armenian population of the
disputed region now lives under the control of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, a micronation that is
supported by Armenia and is effectively part of that country. Despite a Russian-brokered ceasefire,
the war never officially ended, and Azerbaijan still vigorously disputes the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh, to put it mildly. (Recommended: The Ultimate Nightmare: Are the U.S. and
China Destined for War?) What is it that makes Nagorno-Karabakh particularly dangerous?
First, there is virtually no room for compromise between the two sides: Azerbaijan
refuses to settle for anything less than full control of the entire area, while Armenia will not
countenance anything more than a purely symbolic restoration of Azeri sovereignty. It is
difficult to imagine Azerbaijan surrendering its claim to almost one-fifth of Azerbaijan’s official territory
for any reason. Azeri President Ilham Aliyev continues to assert Azerbaijan’s claim with increasing
forcefulness. Armenia is also unlikely to relinquish any land, because Nagorno-Karabakh effectively
increases the size of Armenian territory by one-third, which is very valuable for a small, thin and
landlocked nation with little strategic depth and historic enemies on almost all sides. The Karabakh
conflict is a zero-sum game. Secondly, the dispute is only growing more militarized
and dangerous. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have professionalized and rearmed their
forces significantly since the first war. The Azerbaijani Army and the Armenian NagornoKarabakh Defense Army face each other along over a hundred kilometers of a fortified, land-mined and
impassable border. Elaborate trenches, bunkers, revetments and artillery positions abound on both sides
of the disputed line of demarcation and the forward positions of the two sides are often less than one
hundred meters apart. Since the ceasefire, hundreds have died in frequent raids and
exchanges of fire across the lines that always contain the possibility for escalation. Raids
and skirmishes are increasing in frequency and intensity. Since the summer of 2014,
these limited but dangerous clashes have taken place almost daily, although they only
attract international attention when someone is killed. Azeri forces shot down an Armenian Mi-
24 helicopter in November and there was fighting on the ground as the Armenians attempted to recover
bodies from no-mans land. Most recently, on January 31 of this year, the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense
Army “launched a preemptive attack” on several Azeri positions and killed a number of Azeri soldiers.
Instability now – most recent evidence
RL, 15
Radio Liberty, citing Reuters and Interfax, “Armenia Says Soldier Killed In Clash On Border With
Azerbaijan,” Radio Liberty, 6/27/15, http://www.rferl.org/content/armenia-says-soldier-killed-in-clashon-azerbaijani-border/27097027.html // IS
An Armenian Defense Ministry spokeman said the soldier was killed "on the border"
late on June 26 and accused Azerbaijani forces of opening fire first. An Azerbaijani Defense
Ministry spokesman denied its forces had started any fighting or lost any of its own men. Azerbaijan
and Armenia have been feuding for decades over Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic
Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan. Some 30,000 people were killed in a war over the enclave in the
1990s. Nagorno-Karabakh has run its own affairs with military and financial backing from Armenia since
the war. Efforts to reach a permanent settlement have failed, despite mediation led by France,
Russia, and the United States.
Putin’s arming both sides
News.Az, 6/18
News.Az, Azerbaijan’s leading online news source, “Russia: We are arming Azerbaijan and Armenia
equally,” News.Az, 6/18/15, http://www.news.az/articles/karabakh/98924 // IS
While selling weapons to Armenia and Azerbaijan Russia adheres to the principle of
parity. According to Oxu.Az, the statement came from CSTO Secretary General Nikolai
Bordyuzha during the teleconference Moscow-Astana-Yerevan on June 18. Answering
the question about the fact that Russia sells arms to Azerbaijan, Nikolai Bordyuzha said
that the sale is carried out by the decision of the leadership of Russia, taking into
account the need to observe parity. "While making each decision the factor to observe
parity is considered. Besides the fact that Russia is selling weapons to Azerbaijan, she
also sells it to Armenia," the Secretary General of the Collective Security Treaty Organization recalled
Squo solves
Powers will work together to stabilize the region—security and economic
incentives
Gresh 12 [Dr. Geoffrey F. Gresh-Assistant Professor of International Security Studies at National
Defense University, “Russia, China, and Stabilizing South Asia,” March 2012,
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/12/russia_china_and_stabilizing_south_asia, mm]
As the U.S. begins to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Russia and China have both declared a
desire to increase their military presence throughout Central and South Asia. This new
regional alignment, however, should not be viewed as a threat to U.S. strategic national interests but seen
rather as concurrent with strategic and regional interests of the United States: regional peace,
stability and the prevention of future terrorist safe havens in ungoverned territories. As China and Russia begin to flex their military muscles, the U.S. military should harness
their expanded regional influence to promote proactively a new period of responsible multilateral support for Afghanistan and Pakistan. This past December it became clearer
that Russia had begun to re-assert its regional presence when the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) granted Russia the veto power over any member state's future
decision to host a foreign military. CSTO members, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, have become increasingly valuable U.S. partners in the
Northern Distribution Network after Pakistan shut down U.S. military supply routes running from the south into Afghanistan when NATO troops killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last
the United States must still adopt a new
strategy that works more closely with Russia and the CSTO to maintain the Northern
Distribution Network long into the future, which currently accounts for about 60
percent of all cargo transiting Central Asia en route to Afghanistan. Certainly, the U.S. risks being unable to
control many aspects of the Northern Distribution Network as it withdraws from the region, and this may in turn adversely affect Afghanistan's future success. However, if
the United States remains concerned about leaving the region to a historically obdurate
regional rival like Russia, it should also bear in mind that Russia has a vital strategic
interest in the future stability of the region . Russia has approximately 15 million Muslims living within its borders, with an
November in the border area of Salala. Though it appears the route may soon open again,
estimated 2 million Muslims in Moscow. Russia is fearful of what occurs on its periphery and wants to minimize the spread of Muslim extremism that may originate from an
unstable Afghanistan or Pakistan. In addition,
Russia does not want regional instability that threatens its oil
and gas investments. In particular, Russia wants to ensure that it continues to influence the planning and implementation of the potentially lucrative natural
gas pipeline that may one day traverse Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. In a recent meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed Russia's commitment to preserving peace and stability throughout the AfPak region, and rejected the use of violence by al-Qaeda and
he pledged to bolster bilateral ties and work
cooperatively with Pakistan to achieve stability in Afghanistan. A newly-elected President Vladimir Putin also
its affiliates that aim to undermine the current Afghan government. Furthermore,
recently wrote in a campaign brief that "Russia will help Afghanistan develop its economy and strengthen its military to fight terrorism and drug production." It is not lost on the
if Russia does succeed in helping
establish a secure Afghanistan and Pakistan that can prevent the spread of bases for
terrorism then it is a victory for everyone. Aside from Pakistan, and in line with promoting security throughout the region,
Russia announced recently that it will provide $16 million to Kyrgyzstan to assist with
border security in the south. Russia also agreed recently to pay $15 million in back rent for its four military facilities across the country, including an
air base, a torpedo test center on Lake Issyk-Kul, and a communications center in the south. Further, Russia signed a security pact with
Tajikistan last fall to extend its basing lease for 49 years, in addition to a bilateral
agreement that will enable Russia to become more integrated into Tajikistan's border security forces that oversee an 830-mile border with Afghanistan. Providing
U.S. government that Russia is proposing to succeed where the U.S. has struggled. However,
similar types of U.S. aid and security support will also help ensure that the valuable Northern Distribution Network remains open and secure for supply lines into Afghanistan. If
the northern trade routes are shut down it would adversely affect aid arriving to Afghanistan and therefore jeopardize the stability of Afghanistan and the region. It would also be
in opposition to Russia's regional interests. Rather than citing these examples in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan as a demonstration of how the U.S. will soon lose out in the region to
a resurgent Russia, policymakers can view them as an indication of how
Russian interests align with the U.S. to help
maintain regional security. More importantly, if Russia wants to take a more active future role in Central Asia, the U.S. should address this shift and
work directly with Russia and other CSTO members to ensure that the Northern Distribution Network remains operational in the distant future. Certainly, the U.S. should not
be naïve to think that Russia will not at times oppose U.S. regional interests and that there will not be significant areas of conflict. In 2009, Russia tried to convince then
President of Kyrgyzstan Kurmanbek Bakiyev to terminate the U.S. contract for its base in Manas. In this case, the U.S. fended off the threat of expulsion successfully through
promises of increased U.S. military and economic aid. Continuing to maintain significant amounts of aid to the Central Asia Republics will therefore provide additional
incentives to ensure the U.S. is less vulnerable to Russian whims, while at the same time remaining present and active for the benefit of regional security and the maintenance of
Another powerful regional player, China, also has a vested interest in
the stability of the AfPak region, and has already begun to play a more active security role. It was reported this past January, for example, that
the Northern Distribution Network.
China intends to establish one or more bases in Pakistan's Federally Administered
Tribal Areas. Subsequently, at the end of February, Beijing played host to the first China-Afghanistan-Pakistan trilateral dialogue to discuss regional
cooperation and stability. Due to China's shared borders and vibrant trade with both Afghanistan and Pakistan -- not to mention China's estimated 8 million Turkic-speaking
has a direct interest in ensuring that both Afghanistan and
Pakistan remain stable long into the future. Bilateral trade between China and Pakistan, for example, increased 28 percent in the past
Muslim Uyghurs living in western Xinjiang Province -- it
year to approximately $8.7 billion. China also signed an oil agreement with Afghanistan in December that could be worth $7 billion over the next two decades. Additionally,
China is concerned about the rise of its Uyghur separatist movement that maintains safe havens in both countries, in addition to the spread of radical Islam. The United States
should push China to become more actively engaged in Pakistan's security affairs as China has a direct interest in moderating radicalism in Pakistan and keeping it stable.
Indicative of Pakistan's strategic value to China, since 2002 China has financed the construction and development of Pakistan's Gwadar deep water port project. China has
contributed more than $1.6 billion toward the port's development as a major shipping and soon-to-be naval hub, which is located just 250 miles from the opening of the Persian
Gulf. A Pakistan Supreme Court decision in 2011 enabled China to take full control of Gwadar from a Singapore management company further establishing China's firm position
in the Pakistani port city. The creation of a new Chinese military network in Pakistan between Gwadar and the FATA would enable China to oversee the transit and protection of
China already has
an estimated 4,000 troops in Gilgit Baltistan, part of the larger and disputed Kashmir, and just recently it was reported after a
Chinese goods and investments that travel from both the coast and interior through the Karakorum corridor to China's Xinjiang Province.
January 2012 trip by Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani to China that Pakistan is considering leasing Gilgit Baltistan to China for the next 50 years. Such a move
would indeed escalate tensions with India to the south, but from a Pakistani perspective, China would be positioned better than it already is to assist with any future Pakistani
national security concerns. And from a Chinese perspective, it would improve their ability to monitor any illicit Uyghur activities aimed at inciting further rebellion in western
China. With interest comes responsibility, and in the wake of the recent reports predicting the establishment of a more robust Chinese military network across Pakistan, it is
time that China begins to supplement its increased involvement in Pakistan by helping to maintain peace and stability throughout the entire AfPak region. Certainly after
fighting two long wars, the United States can no longer be the sole world power responsible for the region, and
both China and Russia have
been U.S. security free-riders for too long. They have benefited financially while NATO continues to lose soldiers and accrue a massive
war debt. After 11 years of war, it is time the United States work more proactively with Russia, China,
Pakistan and the Central Asian Republics to create solutions for the future stability and
collective security of the region. Indeed, we may not have a choice, and the United States should embrace the transformation of a new era in
Eurasia's heartland.
Russia, China, and the U.S. maintain stability in Central Asia
Pantucci and Petersen 12 [Rafaello Pantucci- Visiting Scholar at the Shanghai Academy of Social
Sciences (SASS), Alexandros Petersen- author of The World Island: Eurasian Geopolitics and the Fate of
the West, May 2012, “The New Great Game: Development, Not Domination, in Central
Asia,”http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/the-new-great-game-developmentnot-domination-in-central-asia/256578/, mm]
It is cliché to talk about Central Asia in great-game terms, with battling rival powers elbowing each other to
assert their influence. Seeing the region as either as a buffer area to other powers or as a source of
natural wealth and instability, the surrounding large powers have long treated Central
Asia as little more than a chessboard on which to move pawns. These days, however, the strategic approach
taken by surrounding powers has shifted. Rather than talking about dominating the region, the discussion is
focused on differing approaches to development, all of them tied to great powers'
particular interests. Lead amongst these are China, Russia and the United States--all of which have
launched new initiatives intended to bring stability and security to the
region.
Countries will cooperate regardless of energy competition
Kofman 11 [Michael Kofman- Program Manager at the Center for Strategic Research at National
Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies, “Central Asia: Great Games or Graveyard?”
June 2011, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/central-asia/319, mm]
China
drastically expanded its investment in Kazakhstan. Not only in oil, but in a broad range of
areas including water, uranium, and transit infrastructure worth billions of dollars. The rapidly increasing level of
Chinese investment in Central Asia is not news, nor is the commonly noted decline of
Russian influence in the region, but its geopolitical implications and the future trajectory of development in Central Asia continue to
On February 22nd, in what the Financial Times characterized as “Central Asia’s gradual shift from Moscow and towards Beijing,”
Perhaps no phrase could be more anachronistic today, and less insightful,
than attempting to describe current politics in the region as a renewal of the Great
Game. If anything, the modern story of Central Asia is one where Central Asian states and
local elites are increasing integration with the rest of the continent and beyond through policies that
diversify economic ties and balance the influence of major powers, creating leverage and options for
themselves. Russia, China, and the U.S. have been competing for investment, particularly
access to energy resources. However, they all have common interests in maintaining
regional stability, countering narcotics trafficking and terrorism along with
improving the overall regional capacity for trade. Central Asian states themselves have emerged as the
arbiters of their fate. Having remained independent despite Russian efforts to bring them back into the fold, some have
made considerable economic progress by leveraging vast energy resources, but this
be hotly debated.
development has remained highly uneven. Political reform has been negligible since the collapse of the USSR. Most countries are still ruled by
strongmen intending to stay in power for life through skillful use of rigged elections and navigation of elite- or clan-based politics. Governments
remain corrupt, inefficient and nepotistic. They continue to muddle through with weak economies and poor regional economic integration.
Significant ethnic tensions and a disenfranchised population loom just below the surface of stability; a rapid flare of political unrest, as in
Kyrgyzstan last year, remains a real concern. This order will prove particularly fragile during times of leadership transition in the future.
Impact defense
No Caucasus impact
Ivashov 7 [Colonel General Leonid Ivashov- President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, 2007,
“Will America Fight Russia?” https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7na791q/Russia-does-not-champion-atotalitarian-ideology-intent-on-our-destruction-its/, mm]
Numerous scenarios and options are possible. Everything may begin as a local conflict that will rapidly deteriorate into a total
confrontation. An
ultimatum will be sent to Russia: say, change the domestic policy because human rights are
allegedly encroached on, or give Western businesses access to oil and gas fields. Russia will refuse and its objects
(radars, air defense components, command posts, infrastructure) will be wiped out by guided
missiles with conventional warheads and by aviation. Once this phase is over, an even stiffer ultimatum
will be presented - demanding something up to the deployment of NATO "peacekeepers" on the territory of Russia.
Refusal to bow to the demands will be met with a mass aviation and missile strike at Army and Navy
assets, infrastructure, and objects of defense industry. NATO armies will invade Belarus and western Russia. Two
turns of events may follow that. Moscow may accept the ultimatum through the use of some device
that will help it save face. The acceptance will be followed by talks over the estrangement of the
Kaliningrad enclave, parts of the Caucasus and Caspian region, international control over the Russian gas and oil
complex, and NATO control over Russian nuclear forces. The second scenario involves a warning from the
Kremlin to the United States that continuation of the aggression will trigger retaliation with
the use of all weapons in nuclear arsenals. It will stop the war and put negotiations into
motion.
No draw in
Sikorski 11 [Tomasz Sikorski- Scholar at the The Polish Institute of International Affairs, “Strategic
Vacuum in Central Asia—a Case for European Engagement?” April 2011, mm]
The great political
powers, when it comes to action in the region, seem to lack power at all. The U.S. assigns all its
An interesting phenomenon in Central Asia—Halford Mackinder’s pivotal area of the heartland— can be observed.
attention to the war in Afghanistan. Russia, painfully hit by the economic crisis, recognises that it is terribly difficult to rebuild its erstwhile zone of
It seems that in the foreseeable future
Central Asia is not going to be a scene of the so-called New Great Game. On the
contrary, the region will be somewhat abandoned by the main political powers. The purpose of
influence. Also China is not warmly welcomed in the region. What is then left?
this paper is to prove the abandonment thesis, predict what is going to happen and propose recommendations for the European Union to act effectively
in the new situation.
AT: Drone Prolif
No prolif
US Drones don’t set a precedent- no modeling
Eztioni 13 [Amitai Etzioni- Prof of IR @ George Washington University, April 2013, “The Great Drone
Debate,”
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20130430_art004.pdf,
mm]
critics contend that by the United States using drones, it leads other countries into
making and using them. For example, Medea Benjamin, the cofounder of the anti-war activist group CODEPINK and author of a book
Other
about drones argues that, “The proliferation of drones should evoke reflection on the precedent that the United States is setting by killing anyone it
wants, anywhere it wants, on the basis of secret information. Other nations and non-state entities are watching—and are bound to start acting in a
There can be little doubt that the
fact that drones have served the United States well has helped to popularize them.
However, it does not follow that United States should not have employed drones in the
hope that such a show of restraint would deter others. First of all, this would have meant that either the United
similar fashion.”60 Indeed scores of countries are now manufacturing or purchasing drones.
States would have had to allow terrorists in hardto-reach places, say North Waziristan, to either roam and rest freely—or it would have had to use
the record shows that even when the United
States did not develop a particular weapon, others did. Thus, China has taken the lead in the development of
anti-ship missiles and seemingly cyber weapons as well. One must keep in mind that the international environment is a hostile one. Countries—
and especially non-state actors— most of the time do not play by some set of self constraining rules.
Rather, they tend to employ whatever weapons they can obtain that will further their
interests. The United States correctly does not assume that it can rely on some non-existent implicit gentleman’s agreements that call for the
bombs that would have caused much greater collateral damage. Further,
avoidance of new military technology by nation X or terrorist group Y—if the United States refrains from employing that technology. I am not arguing
that there are no natural norms that restrain behavior. There are certainly some that exist, particularly in situations where all parties benefit from the
norms (e.g., the granting of diplomatic immunity) or where particularly horrifying weapons are involved (e.g., weapons of mass destruction). However
drones are but one step—following bombers and missiles—in the development of distant battlefield
technologies. (Robotic soldiers—or future fighting machines— are next in line). In such circumstances, the role of
norms is much more limited.
Norms don’t apply in the context of drones
Boot 11 [Max Boot- Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on
Foreign Relations, September 2011, “We Cannot Afford to Stop Drone Strikes,”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/09/drone-arms-race/, mm]
engages in some scare-mongering today about a drone ams race
The New York Times
. Scott Shane notes
correctly other nations such as China are building their own drones and in the future U.S. forces could be attacked by them–our forces will not have a
monopoly on their use forever. Fair enough, but he goes further, suggesting our current use of drones to target terrorists will backfire: If China, for
instance, sends killer drones into Kazakhstan to hunt minority Uighur Muslims it accuses of plotting terrorism, what will the United States say? What if
India uses remotely controlled craft to hit terrorism suspects in Kashmir, or Russia sends drones after militants in the Caucasus? American officials
who protest will likely find their own example thrown back at them. “The problem is that we’re creating an international norm” — asserting the right to
strike preemptively against those we suspect of planning attacks, argues Dennis M. Gormley, a senior research fellow at the University of Pittsburgh
and author of Missile Contagion, who has called for tougher export controls on American drone technology. “The copycatting is what I worry about
critics who are always claiming we should forego “X” weapons
system or capability, otherwise our enemies will adopt it too. We have heard this with
regard to ballistic missile defense, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and
biological weapons, land mines, exploding bullets, and other fearsome weapons. Some have
even suggested the U.S. should abjure the first use of nuclear weapons–and cut down our own arsenal–to encourage similar restraint from Iran. The
argument falls apart rather quickly because it is founded on a false premise: that other
nations will follow our example . In point of fact, Iran is hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons no matter what
we do; China is hell-bent on getting drones; and so forth. Whether and under what circumstances they will use those weapons
most.” This is a familiar trope of liberal
there is little reason to think self-restraint on our part will
be matched by equal self-restraint on theirs. Is Pakistan avoiding nuking India because we haven’t used
nuclear weapons since 1945? Hardly. The reason is that India has a powerful nuclear deterrent to use against Pakistan. If there is one
lesson of history it is a strong deterrent is a better upholder of peace than is unilateral
disarmament–which is what the New York Times implicitly suggests. Imagine if we did refrain from drone
strikes against al-Qaeda–what would be the consequence? If we were to stop the strikes, would China really
remains an open question–but
decide to take a softer line on Uighurs or Russia on Chechen separatists? That seems unlikely given the viciousness those states already employ in their
battles against ethnic separatists–which at least in Russia’s case already includes the suspected assassination of Chechen leaders abroad. What’s the
While a decision on our part to stop drone strikes
would be unlikely to alter Russian or Chinese thinking, it would have one immediate
consequence: al-Qaeda would be strengthened and could regenerate the ability to attack
our homeland. Drone strikes are the only effective weapon we have to combat terrorist
groups in places like Pakistan or Yemen where we don’t have a lot of boots on the ground or a lot of cooperation from local authorities. We
cannot afford to give them up in the vain hope it will encourage disarmament on the
part of dictatorial states.
difference between sending a hit team and sending a drone?
States that deploy drones will never adopt U.S. standards---they don’t care,
they only want the tech to enable them to do what they want to do
Saunders 13 [Paul J Saunders- executive director of the Center for the National Interest, April 2013,
“We Won’t Always Drone Alone,” http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/we-wont-always-drone-alone8177?page=show, mm]
When and how the executive branch can employ drones—and what oversight from the legislative and judicial branches is required—are important and
serious matters. They become especially significant when they intersect with the rights of American citizens, whether in domestic surveillance or in
international counterterrorism strikes. In emotional terms, drones collide with some of America’s most fundamental values. For these reasons, the
United States has well-established rules for the use of
lethal force in war and in law enforcement operations. There are extensive rules governing surveillance, too.
From this perspective, drones represent a new way of doing things that the executive branch has
done for some time and do not pose a radical challenge to existing policies and procedures—except, perhaps, for strains imposed by the
existing debate over drones should continue. That said, the
sheer number of strikes. Ultimately, however, America has had the drone debate before in various guises and will eventually find a way forward that
A broader and deeper challenge is how others—outside the United States—will
use drones, whether armed or unarmed, and what lessons they will draw from Washington’s approach. Thus far, the principal
lesson may well be that drones can be extremely effective in killing your opponents,
wherever they are, without risking your own troops and without sending soldiers or law enforcement personnel across another country’s borders. It
seems less likely that others will adopt U.S.-style legal standards and
oversight procedures, or that they will always ask other governments before sending
drones into their airspace.
satisfies legal and oversight concerns.
No risk of drone prolif
Singh 12 [Joseph Singh-researcher at the Center for a New American Security, August 2012, “Betting
Against a Drone Arms Race,”http://nation.time.com/2012/08/13/betting-against-a-drone-armsrace/#ixzz2eSvaZnfQ, mm]
In short, the doomsday drone scenario Ignatieff and Sharkey predict results from an excessive focus on rapidly-evolving military technology. Instead,
Nations will confront the same
principles of deterrence, for example, when deciding to launch a targeted killing operation
regardless of whether they conduct it through a drone or a covert amphibious assault
we must return to what we know about state behavior in an anarchistic international order.
team. Drones may make waging war more domestically palatable, but they don’t change the very serious risks of
retaliation for an attacking state. Any state otherwise deterred from using force abroad will not significantly
increase its power projection on account of acquiring drones. What’s more, the very states whose
use of drones could threaten U.S. security – countries like China – are not democratic, which
means that the possible political ramifications of the low risk of casualties resulting
from drone use are irrelevant. For all their military benefits, putting drones into play requires an ability to meet the political and
security risks associated with their use. Despite these realities, there remain a host of defensible arguments one could employ to discredit the Obama
drone strategy. The legal justification for targeted killings in areas not internationally recognized as war zones is uncertain at best. Further, the shortterm gains yielded by targeted killing operations in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, while debilitating to Al Qaeda leadership in the short-term, may
the past decade’s
experience with drones bears no evidence of impending instability in the
global strategic landscape . Conflict may not be any less likely in the era of drones,
but the nature of 21st Century warfare remains fundamentally unaltered despite their
arrival in large numbers.
serve to destroy already tenacious bilateral relations in the region and radicalize local populations. Yet,
AT: Pakistan
Alt Cause
Alt cause – Pakistan’s got its own drones
Craig, 15
Tm Craig, The Post’s bureau chief in Pakistan. He has also covered conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and
within the District of Columbia government.“Pakistan says it will deploy its own armed drone against
terrorists,” The Washington Post, 3/13/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-says-itwill-deploy-its-own-armed-drone-against-terrorists/2015/03/13/ac0a9008-c98d-11e4-bea5b893e7ac3fb3_story.html // IS
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan —The global proliferation of armed aerial drones took a major leap
forward Friday when Pakistan’s military said it had successfully tested its own version
and would soon deploy them against terrorists. The drone, designated the Burraq, will be equipped
with a laser-guided missile capable of striking with pinpoint accuracy in all types of
weather, the military said. In the Koran, Burraq is the name of the white horse that took the Islamic
prophet to -heaven. Gen. Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, witnessed the test and
commended the country’s engineers and scientists for “untiring efforts to acquire stateof--the-art technology” that puts “Pakistan in a different league.” “It’s a great national
achievement and momentous occasion,” Sharif said. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif, who is not related to the army chief, said the weapons would “add a new
dimension to Pakistan’s defenses.”
Pakistan Collapse Good
Pakistan collapse key to solve terror, stabilize Central Asia, and prevent
Chinese expansionism
Verma, 8
Bharat Verma, A former Cavalry Officer and former Editor, Indian Defence Review (IDR), and author of
the books, India Under Fire: Essays on National Security, Fault Lines and Indian Armed Forces, “Stable
Pakistan not in India's interest,” Indian Defence Review,
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/stable-pakistan-not-in-indias-interest/ // IS [KINGMEEL
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ]
It is factually correct that Islamabad has enjoyed brief periods of stability in the span of
sixty years of its existence. However, during these phases of stability, it continued to
export terrorism, fake currency, narcotics, and indulged in attempts to change demographics on
our borders, cultivated sleeper cells and armed groups inside our territory to create an
uprising at an appropriate time. Also, it aligned with Beijing and other powers, in a mutually
beneficial scheme, to tie-down and ultimately cause a territorial split of the Union. With Pakistan on
the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as international contradictions, it is
matter of time before it ceases to exist. Multiple benefits will accrue to the Union of
India on such demise. If ever the national interests are defined with clarity and prioritised, the
foremost threat to the Union (and for centuries before) materialised on the western periphery,
continuously. To defend this key threat to the Union, New Delhi should extend its
influence through export of both, soft and hard power towards Central Asia from where
invasions have been mounted over centuries. Cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates
furtherance of this pivotal national objective. The self-destructive path that Islamabad chose will
either splinter the state into many parts or it will wither away-a case of natural progression to its logical
conclusion. In either case Baluchistan will achieve independence. For New Delhi this opens a window of
opportunity to ensure that the Gwadar port does not fall into the hands of the Chinese. In this, there is
synergy between the political objectives of the Americans and the Indians. Our existing goodwill in
Baluchistan requires intelligent leveraging. Sindh and most of the non-Punjabi areas of
Pakistan will be our new friends.Pakistan’s breakup will be a major setback to the Jihad
Factory, as the core of this is located in Pakistan, and functions with the help of its army
and the ISI. This in turn will ease pressures on India and the international
community.With China’s one arm, i.e. Pakistan disabled, its expansionist plans will
receive a severe jolt . Beijing continues to pose primary threat to New Delhi. Even as we continue to
engage with it as constructively as possible, we must strive to remove the proxy. At the same time,
it is prudent to extend moral support to the people of Tibet to sink Chinese expansionism in the morass of
insurgency.For a change, let us do to them what they do to us! The chances of Central Asia getting
infected with the Jihadi fervour will recede. Afghanistan will gain fair amount of
stability. India’s access to Central Asian energy routes will open up. With disintegration
of ISI’s inimical activities of infiltration and pushing of fake currency into India, from
Nepal and Bangladesh will cease. Within the Union social harmony will improve
enormously. Export of Islamic fundamentalism, with its 360-degree sweep from
Islamabad, will vanish. Even a country like Thailand will heave a sigh of relief! Above all,
the gathering storm of threat from a united group of authoritarian regimes along our 14,000 km borders,
orchestrated and synchronised by Pakistan will dissolve. At the height of the recent disturbances in the
Valley, when a general asked me for a suggestion to resolve the issue, I said: “
Remove
Pakistan. The threat will disappear permanently .” Today the collapse
of Pakistan as a state is almost certain . All the King’s men cannot save it from itself.Looking
ahead, New Delhi should formulate an appropriate strategy for ‘post-Pakistan scenario’ to secure India’s
interests in Central Asia.
Squo Solves
Squo solves – growth and Chinese investment
Wang, 15
Brian Wang, Kaiser Permanente, Attended University of Calgary, “Pakistan wants to get relatively
modern, peaceful and stable by 2025 which would be great for the world,” NextBigFuture, 6/6/15,
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/pakistan-wants-to-get-relatively-modern.html // IS
Pakistan will target growth next year of 5.5 percent when it unveils its 2015-16 budget,
with historically low interest rates and infrastructure spending expected to fuel the
fastest expansion since the global financial crisis. GDP growth in 2014-15 was 4.2 percent, short
of the 5.1 percent target. Pakistan has a population of about 190 million. They added 30 million people in
the last 8 years. Pakistan will have a population of about 220 million in 2025. Pakistan
could have 300 million people in 2050. They have an objective of slowing population
growth. Infrastructure projects should be boosted by a $46 billion deal signed with
China earlier this year to open up a road and energy corridor between the two countries.
Minister for Planning, Development and Reforms Prof.Ahsan Iqbal has said that ChinaPakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Pakistan’s Vision 2025 seeks to position itself from
a lower middle income country to high middle income country by achieving the target
per capita GDP of $4200. This would be a $925 billion economy. Pakistan economic
plan is to follow China's development model and get China to help them do
it
No Collapse
No Pakistani collapse
AP 10 [Associated Press, August 2010, “Pakistan's stability, leadership under spotlight after floods and
double dealing accusations,” http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/06/pakistans-stabilityleadership-spotlight-floods-double-dealing-accusations/, mm]
Not for the first time, Pakistan appears to be teetering on the edge with a government
unable to cope. Floods are ravaging a country at war with al-Qaida and the Taliban. Riots,
slayings and arson are gripping the largest city. Suggestions are flying that the intelligence agency is aiding Afghan insurgents. The crises raise
questions about a nation crucial to U.S. hopes of success in Afghanistan and to the global campaign against Islamist militancy. Despite the recent
few here see Pakistan in danger of collapse or being overrun by
militants — a fear that had been expressed before the army fought back against insurgents advancing from
their base in the Swat Valley early last year. From its birth in 1947, Pakistan has been dogged by military
coups, corrupt and inefficient leaders, natural disasters, assassinations and civil unrest.
Through it all, Pakistan has not prospered — but it survives . “There is plenty to be worried
headlines,
about, but also indications that when push comes to shove the state is able to respond," said Mosharraf Zaidi, an analyst and writer who has advised
foreign governments on aid missions to Pakistan. "The military has many weaknesses, but it has done a reasonable job in relief efforts. There have been
gaps in the response. But this is a developing a country, right?" The recent flooding came at a sensitive time for Pakistan, with Western doubts over its
loyalty heightened by the leaking of U.S. military documents that strengthened suspicions the security establishment was supporting Afghan insurgents
the United States has made it clear it intends to
stick with Pakistan. Indeed, it has used the floods to demonstrate its commitment to the
country, rushing emergency assistance and dispatching helicopters to ferry the goods. The Pakistani government's response to the floods has been
while receiving billions in Western aid. With few easy choices,
sharply criticized at home, especially since President Asif Ali Zardari departed for a European tour. With so many Pakistanis suffering, the trip has left
the already weak and unpopular leader even more vulnerable politically. The flooding was triggered by what meteorologists said were "once-in-acentury" rains. The worst affected area is the northwest, a stronghold for Islamist militants. Parts of the northwest have seen army offensives over the
last two years. Unless the people are helped quickly and the region is rebuilt, anger at the government could translate into support for the militants. At
least one charity with suspected links to a militant outfit has established relief camps there. The extremism threat was highlighted by a suicide bombing
in the main northwestern town of Peshawar on Wednesday. The bomber killed the head of the Frontier Constabulary, a paramilitary force in the
northwest at the forefront of the terror fight. With authorities concentrating on flood relief, some officials have expressed concern that militants could
regroup. The city of Karachi has seen militant violence and is rumored to be a hiding place for top Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. It has also been
plagued by regular bouts of political and ethnic bloodletting since the 1980s, though it has been calmer in recent years. The latest violence erupted after
the assassination of a leading member of the city's ruling party. More than 70 people have been killed in revenge attacks since then, paralyzing parts of
While serious, the unrest does not yet pose an immediate
threat to the stability of the country. Although the U.S. is unpopular, there is little
public support for the hardline Islamist rule espoused by the Taliban and their allies. Their
the city of 16 million people.
small movement has been unable to control any Pakistani territory beyond the northwest, home to only about 20 million of the country's 175 million
people.
Bonus!
DA Links
PTX Link
Plan unpopular – UAS lobby
Freeland and Freeland
P.K Freeland and R.S. Freeland, *P.K., Department of Political Science, The University of Tennessee,
**R.S., Department of Biosystems and Soil Science Department, The University of Tennessee, “Politics &
technology: U.S. polices restricting unmanned aerial systems in agriculture,” Elsevier, 3/17/14,
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0306919214001390/1-s2.0-S0306919214001390-main.pdf?_tid=31c8d5602140-11e5-82fd-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1435899710_59e9f872f8ad3f1b0cc4d9778c238329 // IS
The UAS industry’s powerful lobbyist interests have been very active in the U.S. The
U.S. Congress has an Unmanned Systems lobby, and according to a lobbying analyst, its
58 members have received $2.3 million in contributions from political action committees
affiliated with UAS manufacturers since 2011 (Replogle, 2013). Lobbyists are also active in
individual states. Several state’s policy makers have already been convinced that the overwhelming
economic benefit should supersede public unease. In Oklahoma, an anti-UAS bill was shelved at the
request of the governor because of concern that it would impede industry growth in the state. North
Dakota’s Senate killed a bill because of fear that it would jeopardize the state’s chances of selection as an
FAA test site. State commentators attribute the failure of a bill that would regulate UASs in the state of
Washington through the influence of The Boeing Co., Inc. (Wilmington, Del.), which employs more than
85,000 workers in the state. Its subsidiary, Insitu Inc. (Bingen, Wash.) is a leading military manufacturer
of UASs. Although most of the campaign contributions and lobbying activity come from
large industries, smaller businesses, universities, and cities have also been lobbying at
the state and federal level for UAS uses (Replogle, 2013). I
Drone lobby is influential in congress
Wolverton 12 [Joe Wolverton- has JD and writes about congressional issues concerning drone UAV
markets, Dec 2012, “Drone Makers Push Congress to Move Up Domestic Deployment Date,”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13798-drone-makers-push-congress-to-move-updomestic-deployment-date, mm]
The day of deployment is drawing nearer. Soon, thousands of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) unmanned aerial vehicle license holders will
launch their drones into the skies over the United States. Despite the delay of lawmakers to establish constitutionally sound guidelines for the use of
Why would legislators — typically
not the most hurry-happy group — be interested in accelerating the drive to permit civilian drone use ?
Money . A collaboration between Hearst Newspapers and the Center for Responsive Politics paints the pecuniary picture: The drone
makers have sought congressional help to speed their entry into a domestic market
valued in the billions. The 60-member House of Representatives’ “drone caucus” — officially,
the House Unmanned Systems Caucus — has helped push that agenda. And over the last four years, caucus members have drawn
these eyes in the sky, a handful of congressmen are pushing to move forward the date of deployment.
nearly $8 million in drone-related campaign contributions.... And: House members from California, Texas, Virginia and New York on the bipartisan
"drone caucus" received the lion’s share of the funds channeled to lawmakers from dozens of firms that are members of the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International, Hearst and CRP found. Eleven drone caucus lawmakers from California, where many aviation firms are located, received
more than $2.4 million from manufacturers’ political action committees and employees during the 2012 and 2010 election cycles, according to CRP
tabulation of Federal Election Commission reports. Eight Texas House members in the caucus received more than $746,000. And four caucus members
from New York got more than $185,000 from companies connected to the business of unmanned vehicles. The big winner of the drone manufacturer
lobbying lotto was Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.). According to the investigation, McKeon — cochairman of the House Unmanned
Systems Caucus — received $833,650 in contributions from the drone industry. Members of California’s House delegation also received significant
deposits from drone makers and advocates. Representatives Darrell Issa, Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter, and Ken Calvert each received more than
$200,000 from this segment of the military industrial complex. According to the Hearst/CRP investigation, drone makers knew better than to mess
with Texas and a few of the Lone Star State’s representatives saw their coffers swell with drone dollars: Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, a former U.S. Border
Patrol sector chief who lost his seat in the Democratic primary, received $310,000. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, chairman of the House Homeland
Security subcommittee on oversight, received $100,000, and Cuellar received almost $77,000. The two have pushed for drone surveillance of the U.S.Mexico border. Given the amount of money flowing between the drone makers and the lawmakers, it is odd that most Americans have never heard of
the Unmanned Systems Caucus. The relationship between drone makers and lawmakers was recently reported by an Arizona radio station:
The
drone caucus — like the technology it promotes — is becoming increasingly important in the
nation’s capitol as the government looks to unmanned vehicles to help save money on
defense, better patrol the country’s borders and provide a new tool to U.S. law
enforcement agencies and civilians. “ It’s definitely a powerful caucus ,” said Alex BronsteinMoffly, an analyst with First Street Research Group, a D.C.-based company that analyzes lobbying data. “It’s probably up there in
the more powerful caucuses that sort of is not talked about.” And, he says, caucus members are well placed
to influence government spending and regulations. The influence peddling isn’t
restricted to the representatives listed above. According to Bronstein-Moffly’s data, all 58 drone caucus
members received money, more than $2.3 million in total contributions from political action committees affiliated with drone
manufacturers since 2011.
Public officials support drones
Kohl 12 [Geoff Kohl- editorial director for Cygnus Security Media, and also serves as conference
director for Secured Cities, June 2012, “Here Come the Surveillance Drones,”
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/blog/10730239/here-come-the-surveillance-drones, mm]
Americans aren’t comfortable with drones in their hometowns. That was the short summary of a public opinion research poll about UAV drones
conducted by Monmouth University Polling Institute. The poll research said that while most people are OK with UAV drones for search and rescue,
they’re less excited, but generally OK with drones for border surveillance and tracking down criminals (2/3rds said they would support such use cases).
Where they draw the line was the use of drones on themselves. Only a quarter of the respondents supported use of UAV drones for issuing speeding
tickets, and about 4 out of 5 said they would have concerns with law enforcement loading on high-tech cameras and using the drones for surveillance.
The American public may have reservations, but I would say that “public opinion be
damned”, this technology is coming. We’ve already seen public officials
support for drone UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell
saying he would support police use of drones in his state for reasons of increased law
enforcement productivity. It’s not a far jump to the world of speeding tickets, I suppose, especially since it’s fairly common to see the
“Speed limit enforced by aircraft” signs on the state’s roads. (For a detailed discussion of how aerial speed limit enforcement works, I recommend this
The reason the technology is
coming is 3-fold. First, military-grade technology often moves downstream to law
enforcement and corporate security as it loses its classification level and as it becomes more affordable. Second, as we’ve
seen in our Secured Cities conference, cities have been very keen on investing in force-multiplier
technology. If you’re limited on officers, think like a chief. Once the technology matures, a drone and an officer would both be able to capture
discussion thread on aircraft-issuance of speeding tickets from our sister website Officer.com.)
speeders, but only an officer can interview witnesses and develop informants. You put your resources where they are best applied based on your
Third, there’s an upstream movement of this technology from hobbyists that
is at work as well. This upstream movement from hobbyists and from the cinematography/broadcast industry recently came to my
available funding.
attention when I heard of the company Quadrocopter that sells UAV systems for cinematography. Here’s why it’s heading upstream: Quadrocopter is
selling complete UAV systems from $3,000 to $6,500 for the CineStar solution (see a cool video of a CineStar UAV filming in snowy weather). The
$6,500 version not only allows for the flying UAV ability, but it also includes full gimbals control for the pan/tilt controls of the camera payload. These
units can handle payloads of up to three pounds and can fly up to about 10 minutes. That kind of payload supports high-quality cameras with great
long would it take to fly a
unit like that up to a window on a building to see if the suspects are in there making a
drug deal? That upstream movement, combined with the support from public
officials and the downstream movement of technology that came out of the military is going to mean that drones are
coming. They’re already heading to the southern border, which makes sense. According to the International Boundary & Water Commission, the
lenses and that amount of flying time allows for actual surveillance operations. Think about this: How
U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, which makes it a manpower monster. Last decade’s virtual fence concept SBInet was a failed project, so it
makes sense that drones are going to become a popular technology for border security – especially when you consider the drug cartel violence that is
occurring around the border. They’re already headed to the London Olympics, as well, so where is this coming next? It’s a big leap from using drones
for high security events, border patrol and military applications to using them in our hometowns and cities. There are FAA airspace issues and the
aforementioned privacy concerns. There are costs that have to come down. Just recently, we’ve seen bills introduced that would expressly require
But like it or not, that leap will happen, and I believe there
will be a day when the technology become ubiquitous.
warrants for domestic surveillance use of drones.
Circumvention
No link – domestic drones will circumvent regulations
Greenwald, 13
Glenn Greenwald, former columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian. An
ex-constitutional lawyer, “The US Needs To Wake Up To Threat Of Domestic Drones,” The Guardian,
3/30/13, http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-threats-strikes-us-2013-3 // IS
In contrast to weaponized drones, even the most naïve among us do not doubt the
imminent
proliferation of domestic surveillance drones. With little debate, they have already
arrived . As the ACLU put it in their recent report: "US law enforcement is greatly expanding
its use of domestic drones for surveillance." An LA Times article from last month reported that
"federal authorities have stepped up efforts to license surveillance drones for law
enforcement and other uses in US airspace" and that "the Federal Aviation
Administration said Friday it had issued 1,428 permits to domestic drone operators
since 2007, far more than were previously known." Moreover, the agency "has estimated
10,000 drones could be aloft five years later" and "local and state law enforcement agencies are expected
to be among the largest customers."
Concerns about the proliferation of domestic surveillance drones are typically dismissed with the claim
that they do nothing more than police helicopters and satellites already do. Such claims are completely
misinformed. As the ACLU's 2011 comprehensive report on domestic drones explained: "Unmanned
aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a significant new avenue for the surveillance of American
life."
Multiple attributes of surveillance drones make them uniquely threatening. Because they are so
cheap and getting cheaper, huge numbers of them can be deployed to create ubiquitous
surveillance in a way that helicopters or satellites never could. How this works can already
been seen in Afghanistan, where the US military has dubbed its drone surveillance system "the Gorgon
Stare", named after the "mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld
them". That drone surveillance system is "able to scan an area the size of a small town" and "the most
sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious
activity". Boasted one US General: "Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way
for the adversary to know what we're looking at, and we can see everything."
The NSA already maintains ubiquitous surveillance of electronic communications, but
the Surveillance State faces serious limits on its ability to replicate that for physical
surveillance. Drones easily overcome those barriers. As the ACLU report put it:
Case
Squo Solves
State legislatures are banning drones in the squo
Crump and Stanley 13 [Catherine Crump- staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and
Technology Project and a nonresident fellow with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, Jay
Stanley- senior policy analyst with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, Feb 2013, “Why
Americans Are Saying No to Domestic Drones,”
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/domestic_surveillance_drone_bans_a
re_sweeping_the_nation.html, mm]
recent
events suggest we might be seeing the emergence of a genuine national movement
against the use of surveillance drones by law enforcement. With any luck, this may even set the stage for a
In the past year, the American public has begun to pay more and more attention to the issue of domestic surveillance drones. And now,
wider dialogue about the increasingly intrusive technologies that are intended to catch crooks—but that all too often cast an overly broad net. Last
Seattle police department terminated its drones program and
Virginia state legislature
passed historic bills imposing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones by law enforcement and
regulatory agencies in the state. In Florida, a potentially even more significant bill imposing a judicial
warrant requirement on police use of drones continued to march toward passage.
Similar legislation has been proposed in at least 13 other state legislatures around the country so
week, after an especially raucous city council hearing, the
agreed to return the purchased equipment to the manufacturer. This came just days after both houses of the
far. Of all the threats to privacy that we face today, why have drones caught the attention of the American public to such a remarkable degree? One
possibility is that there’s something uniquely ominous about a robotic “eye in the sky.” Many privacy invasions are abstract and invisible—data mining,
for example, or the profiling of Internet users by online advertisers. Drones, on the other hand, are concrete and real, and the threat requires no
explanation. But they are just the most visible example of a host of new surveillance technologies that have the potential to fundamentally alter the
balance of power between individuals and the state. Physically tailing a suspect requires teams of police officers working 24/7, but now police can slap
Now that the wholesale
surveillance of American life is becoming cheap and easy, legal protections are all the
more important. The drone issue has also gained momentum because the concern over it is bipartisan. While Democrats get most of the
credit for pushing back on national surveillance programs, it was the Republican Party’s 2012 platform that
addressed domestic surveillance drones, stating that “we support pending legislation to
prevent unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial
surveillance.” The ACLU of Virginia, for instance, teamed up with one of the state’s most conservative lawmakers to introduce a drone
regulation bill in the state House of Delegates, while its Senate companion bill was introduced by a progressive. Florida’s drone
regulation legislation is being almost entirely pushed by conservatives—and in most states, the
legislative efforts we’ve seen so far have been conservative or bipartisan. Privacy issues are always
less partisan than many other political questions, but the support for action on drones from both left and right
has been remarkable. It’s notable how different all of this is from the way surveillance technologies are normally adopted. There has
GPS devices on a suspect’s car and then sit in the station house tracking his movements on a laptop.
actually been an opportunity for debate before drones have been widely deployed. We have the Federal Aviation Administration to thank for this state
of affairs. At least for now,
drones are largely banned by the FAA , which is concerned about the obvious safety
issues: We can’t have our skies filled with flying robots colliding with passenger aircraft or plummeting into people’s houses. (This state of affairs will
not last: Congress has ordered the FAA to integrate drones into the national airspace by 2015.) What we usually see happen with new law enforcement
technologies is that agencies quickly and quietly snap them up, making their deployment a fait accompli before the public even learns of their existence,
let alone has a chance to debate their privacy implications or democratically decide upon the correct balance between privacy and police power. At that
point, taking privacy into account is an uphill battle because the tax dollars have already been spent and the technology integrated into the
department’s approach to crime fighting. With drones, on the other hand, because of the safety and regulatory issues they raise, we have a chance to do
The American public and our elected representatives can, for once, get ahead of the
deployment curve—we can raise awareness, propose protections, and build support for them before the problems hit us in the face. If done
it right.
right, this moment of hyperawareness about privacy could become a more permanent state of affairs: Ryan Calo of Stanford’s Center for Internet and
Society suggested in a December 2011 paper that because of their “disquieting” nature, drones “could be just the visceral jolt society needs” to spark
the best solution on drones would be for
Congress to pass strong, uniform rules protecting everyone across the nation and
broader changes in how Americans conceptualize privacy problems. Ultimately,
putting privacy concerns to rest. For example, law enforcement agents should not make drones general tools of surveillance but
should instead utilize them only where they have a specific reason to believe that use of one will turn up evidence of criminal activity. Ideally, those
protections would become a model for other, perhaps less vivid but equally intrusive technologies such as cellphone location tracking. But unless and
until Congress acts, state and local resolutions and rules are the best thing Americans can do to protect our privacy from the enormously invasive
potential of domestic surveillance drones. The upsurge in local activism around the country is just what’s needed to make this happen.
Restrictions on drones in squo
LBB Editorial 14 [LBB editorial- independent company that covers issues concerning business
privacy rights, 2014, “Above the Law: How Drone Laws Around the World Are Affecting Production,”
http://www.lbbonline.com/news/above-the-law-how-drone-laws-around-the-world-are-affectingproduction/, mm]
Drones are still not legal in our industry
anywhere in the US. They are only legal for hobbyists,” explain the team at Park Pictures. According to the
The land of the free? Not if you want to use drones to shoot commercials. “
Federal Aviation Authority, flying a drone for commercial purposes in the States is illegal – sucks for film production, sucks for Amazon – but things
are set to change. Congress has set a September 2015 deadline for the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to issue regulations for commercial drones.
Even when these laws come into place, it looks like operators will face heavy
restrictions, medical tests and licenses. However, delve a little deeper and you soon find that things are not so
straightforward – the FAA’s authority on the matter was severely undermined earlier this year. In 2011
filmmaker Raphael Pirker was fined $10,000 for using a drone to capture shots of the University of Virginia for PR firms Lewis Communications. In
while the FAA has said frequently that commercial drones are
categorically illegal, judge Patrick Geraghty found that there were no specific laws preventing
commercial UAVs and argued that the FAA’s authority over drones and model aircraft
was questionable. In any case it’s a political hot potato , and the FAA are themselves challenging Judge Geraghty’s
ruling… so unless you fancy an expensive, three year lawsuit it’s advisable to hang back on
any plans to shoot with a drone in the USA until at least Autumn 2015 (although when any regulations might actually
come into force is anyone’s guess). Oh and to make matters even more complicated, individual states are drawing up their
own laws about how drones can and can’t be used – though these mainly relate to law
enforcement agencies and restrictions on drones for use in surveillance. According to Lorenzo
Benedick from Vagabond Films, the restrictions have had a negative impact on projects that his
company has worked on and he believes that if the FAA can integrate commercial
drones into US airspace then it will make a huge difference for the US production
industry. “We had to kill a beautiful aerial shot for a client out in Pennsylvania, even though we were only shooting over and above their
March a federal judge overturned the ruling;
headquarters,” he says. One potential alternative for those hoping to get their drone on in North America is to head across the border into Canada,
where commercial drones have been permitted since 1996. Operators need a licence called an Air Operator Certificate that specifically permits the use
of UAVs. What’s more, every commercial drone flight requires a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) that outlines the geographic area in which
the drone is permitted to fly. It takes at least 20 working days for an SFOC to be granted, so producers need to bear that in mind.
also required for commercial images taken of private property.
Consent is
Aff
Link Turn
Plan is bipartisan
Crump and Stanley 13 [Catherine Crump- staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and
Technology Project and a nonresident fellow with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, Jay
Stanley- senior policy analyst with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, Feb 2013, “Why
Americans Are Saying No to Domestic Drones,”
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/domestic_surveillance_drone_bans_a
re_sweeping_the_nation.html, mm]
recent events
suggest we might be seeing the emergence of a genuine national movement against the
use of surveillance drones by law enforcement. With any luck, this may even set the stage for a wider dialogue about the
In the past year, the American public has begun to pay more and more attention to the issue of domestic surveillance drones. And now,
increasingly intrusive technologies that are intended to catch crooks—but that all too often cast an overly broad net. Last week, after an especially raucous city council hearing,
Seattle police department terminated its drones program and agreed to return the purchased equipment to the manufacturer. This
came just days after both houses of the Virginia state legislature passed historic bills imposing a two-year
moratorium on the use of drones by law enforcement and regulatory agencies in the state. In Florida, a potentially
even more significant bill imposing a judicial warrant requirement on police use of
drones continued to march toward passage. Similar legislation has been proposed in at
least 13 other state legislatures around the country so far. Of all the threats to privacy that we face today, why have drones caught the attention of
the
the American public to such a remarkable degree? One possibility is that there’s something uniquely ominous about a robotic “eye in the sky.” Many privacy invasions are
abstract and invisible—data mining, for example, or the profiling of Internet users by online advertisers. Drones, on the other hand, are concrete and real, and the threat requires
no explanation. But they are just the most visible example of a host of new surveillance technologies that have the potential to fundamentally alter the balance of power between
individuals and the state. Physically tailing a suspect requires teams of police officers working 24/7, but now police can slap GPS devices on a suspect’s car and then sit in the
Now that the wholesale surveillance of American life is
becoming cheap and easy, legal protections are all the more important. The drone issue has also gained
momentum because the concern over it is bipartisan. While Democrats get most of the credit for pushing back on national surveillance programs, it was the
Republican Party’s 2012 platform that addressed domestic surveillance drones, stating
that “we support pending legislation to prevent unwarranted or unreasonable
governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance.” The ACLU of Virginia, for instance, teamed up
station house tracking his movements on a laptop.
with one of the state’s most conservative lawmakers to introduce a drone regulation bill in the state House of Delegates, while its Senate companion bill was introduced by a
Florida’s drone regulation legislation is being almost entirely pushed by
conservatives—and in most states, the legislative efforts we’ve seen so far have been
conservative or bipartisan. Privacy issues are always less partisan than many other political questions, but the support for
action on drones from both left and right has been remarkable. It’s notable how different all
progressive.
of this is from the way surveillance technologies are normally adopted. There has actually been an opportunity for debate before drones have been widely deployed. We have the
Federal Aviation Administration to thank for this state of affairs. At least for now, drones are largely banned by the FAA, which is concerned about the obvious safety issues: We
can’t have our skies filled with flying robots colliding with passenger aircraft or plummeting into people’s houses. (This state of affairs will not last: Congress has ordered the
FAA to integrate drones into the national airspace by 2015.) What we usually see happen with new law enforcement technologies is that agencies quickly and quietly snap them
up, making their deployment a fait accompli before the public even learns of their existence, let alone has a chance to debate their privacy implications or democratically decide
upon the correct balance between privacy and police power. At that point, taking privacy into account is an uphill battle because the tax dollars have already been spent and the
technology integrated into the department’s approach to crime fighting. With drones, on the other hand, because of the safety and regulatory issues they raise, we have a chance
The American public and our elected representatives can, for once, get ahead of
the deployment curve—we can raise awareness, propose protections, and build support for them before the problems hit us in the face. If done right, this
to do it right.
moment of hyperawareness about privacy could become a more permanent state of affairs: Ryan Calo of Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society suggested in a December 2011
paper that because of their “disquieting” nature, drones “could be just the visceral jolt society needs” to spark broader changes in how Americans conceptualize privacy
the best solution on drones would be for Congress to pass strong, uniform
rules protecting everyone across the nation and putting privacy concerns to rest. For example,
problems. Ultimately,
law enforcement agents should not make drones general tools of surveillance but should instead utilize them only where they have a specific reason to believe that use of one will
turn up evidence of criminal activity. Ideally, those protections would become a model for other, perhaps less vivid but equally intrusive technologies such as cellphone location
tracking. But unless and until Congress acts, state and local resolutions and rules are the best thing Americans can do to protect our privacy from the enormously invasive
potential of domestic surveillance drones. The upsurge in local activism around the country is just what’s needed to make this happen.