Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 414

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 1 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**TERMINAL IMPACTS**...................................................5 AIDS.........................................................................................6 Aids turns military readiness....................................................7 Air Pollution.............................................................................8 Anthrax.....................................................................................9 Biodiversity.............................................................................10 Bioterror..................................................................................11 Bioterror..................................................................................12 Bird Flu...................................................................................13 Constitution.............................................................................14 Democracy .............................................................................15 Democracy Good- Democide.................................................16 Dehumanization......................................................................17 Disease....................................................................................18 Disease turns military readiness.............................................19 Disease turns military readiness.............................................20 Economy.................................................................................21 Econ- US Key.........................................................................22 Econ- developing countries....................................................23 Economy- U.S. civil war and dissolution...............................24 Econ Collapse Bad..................................................................25 Econ interdependence prevents war.......................................26 Impacts Economic Decline Nuclear War.......................27 Impacts U.S. Key to Global Economy.................................28 Impacts Econ Turns Heg.....................................................34 Impacts Econ Turns Prolif...................................................36 Impacts Econ Turns Disease................................................37 Impacts Econ Turns Warming/Environment.......................38 Impacts Econ Turns Famine................................................40 Impacts Econ Turns Racism................................................41 Impacts Econ Turns Russia War..........................................42 Impacts Econ Solves War....................................................43 Impacts Econ Solves Poverty..............................................44 Impacts War Turns Gender Violence..................................45 Impacts Econ Turns Terrorism............................................46 Economic decline turns TB, Malaria, AIDS...........................47 Economic Decline Turns Soft Power.....................................48 Econ turns heg........................................................................49 Econ turns heg........................................................................51 US Econ Collapse global...................................................52 Econ growth good- environment............................................53 Econ Growth good- environment...........................................54 Econ growth good- environment............................................55 Econ growth good- Poverty....................................................56 Econ growth good- poverty/environment...............................57 Econ growth good- social services.........................................58 Econ growth good- poverty....................................................59 AT: Dedev-No mindshift........................................................60 Econ growth good-violence....................................................61 Econ growth good- social services.........................................62 AT: Trainer.............................................................................63 Econ defense...........................................................................64 Econ Defense..........................................................................65 Environmental Destruction/opop turns disease......................66 Environment Impact/ turns disease.........................................67

Environment turns war/economy............................................68 Environmental destruction turns agriculture..........................69 Freedom..................................................................................70 Genocide.................................................................................71 Heg..........................................................................................72 Homophobia War...............................................................73 Human Rights: Credibility......................................................74 Human Rights Promo Good- Terrorism.................................75 Human Rights Promo Good- Iran Prolif ................................76 Human Rights Promo Good- Democracy...............................78 Human Rights Promo Good- Central Asia.............................79 Oceans.....................................................................................81 Ozone......................................................................................82 Patriarchy................................................................................83 Patriarchy War...................................................................84 Patriarchy War...................................................................85 Patriarchy War...................................................................86 Patriarchy War...................................................................87 Poverty....................................................................................88 Racism....................................................................................89 SARS......................................................................................90 Space Exploration bad............................................................91 Space Weaponization: NASA Key.........................................92 Space Weaponization Bad: Nuclear Annhilation...................93 SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA.........................94 SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA.........................96 US-CHINA CONFLICT IS A ZERO-SUM COMPETITION ................................................................................................96 WEAPONIZTION BAD: A2: PEACEFUL NUKES.............97 SPACE WEAPONIZATION IMPOSSIBLE: NASA............98 SPACE WEAPONIZATION ALREADY HAPPENED........99 TB (1/4)................................................................................100 TB (2/4)................................................................................101 TB (3/4)................................................................................101 TB (4/4)................................................................................103 TB.........................................................................................104 Terror....................................................................................105 Terrorism turns Econ............................................................106 Terrorism Defense................................................................107 Terrorism Defense................................................................108 Terrorism doesnt hurt the economy.....................................109 Warming...............................................................................111 **HEG**..............................................................................112 Heg Declining and Unsustainable........................................113 Hard Power doesnt solve Heg.............................................115 Heg collapse turns economy.................................................116 Kagan....................................................................................117 Decline Inev..........................................................................120 Econ T/..................................................................................121 **WAR IMPACTS**...........................................................122 War causes dehumanization ................................................123 War Turns Disease ...............................................................124 War turns Gender violence...................................................125 War turns Human Right Violations......................................126 War turns human rights/ disease...........................................127

So whats the impact?

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 2 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War Turns Racism................................................................128 War Turns Everything..........................................................129 War Turns Mental Health.....................................................130 War turns Health...................................................................131 War turns domestic violence................................................132 War turns the environment...................................................133 War outweighs disease........................................................134 AIDS.....................................................................................136 Animal Rights T/..................................................................137 Biodiversity...........................................................................138 Cap........................................................................................139 Civil Liberties T/...................................................................140 Dehumanization T/...............................................................141 Democracy T/.......................................................................142 Disease T/.............................................................................143 Disease T/.............................................................................144 Domestic Violence T/...........................................................145 Econ T/..................................................................................146 Edelman................................................................................147 Environment.........................................................................148 Environment.........................................................................149 Fascism.................................................................................150 Gendered Violence T/...........................................................151 Health T/...............................................................................152 Heg T/...................................................................................153 Homelessness........................................................................154 Homophobia.........................................................................156 Inequality..............................................................................157 Mental Health T/...................................................................159 Poverty..................................................................................160 Poverty..................................................................................162 Woman Rights T/..................................................................163 .............................................................................................164 Racism..................................................................................164 Rape......................................................................................165 Rights T/...............................................................................166 Rights T/...............................................................................167 Social Service T/...................................................................168 Starvation..............................................................................169 Terror....................................................................................170 **X TURNS CASE**..........................................................171 AIDS T/ Readiness...............................................................172 AIDS T/ Readiness...............................................................173 Disesase T/ Readiness...........................................................174 Disease T/ Readiness............................................................175 Disease T/ War.....................................................................176 Ecodestruction T/ Disease....................................................177 Ecodestruction T/ Disease ...................................................178 Ecodestruction T/ War..........................................................179 Ecodestruction T/ Agriculture..............................................180 **NUCLEAR WAR SCENARIOS**..................................181 Central Asian Conflict .........................................................182 China-US ............................................................................183 Economic Collapse ..............................................................184 India/Pakistan War................................................................185

Iraq Pullout...........................................................................186 Iran........................................................................................187 Japanese Relations (Spratly Islands)....................................188 Japanese Relations (Middle Eastern Conflict).....................189 Japanese Relations (China/Taiwan Conflict)........................190 Japanese Relations (Korea) ..................................................191 Japanese Relations (Sino-Russian Ties) ..............................192 North Korea..........................................................................193 .............................................................................................193 Pakistan Collapse ................................................................194 Sino-Russian Conflict ..........................................................195 Sunni/Shiite Conflict .........................................................196 Russia-US ............................................................................197 Taiwan/China War ...............................................................198 .............................................................................................198 Taiwan..................................................................................199 .............................................................................................200 Terrorism Nuclear Escalation..........................................200 Terror = Extinction..............................................................201 **NUKE WAR IMPACTS**...............................................202 Nuclear War Disease.......................................................203 Nuclear War Extinction ..................................................204 Nuclear War Pollution.....................................................206 Nuclear War Phytoplankton Scenario.............................207 Nuclear War Ozone Scenario..........................................208 Nuke War Oceans............................................................209 Nuclear War Biodiversity Scenario (1/2)........................210 Nuclear War Biodiversity Scenario (2/2)........................211 **NUKE WAR PROBABILITY**.....................................212 Nuclear War Evaluated First................................................213 Schell....................................................................................215 Nuclear War Likely .............................................................216 Nuclear War Likely Escalation..........................................217 Nuclear War Likely Middle East Prolif.............................218 Great Power War Likely.......................................................219 Nuke War Not Likely...........................................................220 Nuke War Not Likely US Russia.......................................221 Nuke War Not Likely Rising Costs...................................222 Nuke War Not Likely Deterrence......................................223 Nuke War Not Likely International System......................224 .............................................................................................225 Nuke War Not Likely North Korea...................................226 Nuke War Not Likely Pakistan..........................................227 No Nuclear Terror.................................................................228 No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (1/6)......229 No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (2/6)......230 No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (3/6)......231 No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (4/6)......232 No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (5/6)......233 No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (6/6)......234 AT: Schell.............................................................................235 AT: Schell.............................................................................236 AT: Schell ............................................................................237 **IMPACT TAKEOUTS**.................................................238

So whats the impact?

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 3 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AT: Giligan...........................................................................239 Extinction Impossible...........................................................241 Nuclear War .........................................................................242 Biological Attack Not Probable............................................243 Indo-Pak................................................................................244 Iran........................................................................................245 **IMPACT CALCULUS**.................................................246 Impacts Exaggerated (1/2)....................................................247 Impacts Exaggerated (2/2)....................................................248 Prob. Evaluated First (1/2)....................................................249 Prob. Evaluated First (2/2)....................................................250 Prob Before Mag Ext............................................................251 Systemic Impacts First..........................................................252 Probability Evaluation Key...................................................253 AT: Rescher..........................................................................254 Predictions Bad - Policymaking...........................................255 Predictions Bad Background Beliefs.................................257 Predictions Bad Irresponsibility........................................258 Predictions Bad - Monkeys...................................................260 Predictions Bad Decisionmaking Spillover.......................261 AT: Monkeys........................................................................262 Predictions Good (1/3)..........................................................263 Predictions Good (2/3)..........................................................264 Predictions Good (3/3)..........................................................265 Mag. Evaluated First (1/3)....................................................266 Mag. Evaluated First (2/3)....................................................267 Mag. Evaluated First (3/3)....................................................268 Role of Ballot = Magnitude..................................................269 Extinction Evaluated First ...................................................271 **PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE**...............................272 Precautionary Principle Good- Risk Avoidance...................273 Precautionary Principle Good- Risk Fails ...........................274 Precautionary Principle Good Risk Fails...........................275 Precautionary Principle Good- AT Innovation Stultification ..............................................................................................276 Precautionary Principle Good- AT Zero Risk .....................277 Precautionary Principle Good- AT Cost...............................278 Precautionary Principle Good- AT Bad Science..................279 **AT PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE**.........................280 Precautionary Principle Bad- Paralysis (1/3)........................281 Precautionary Principle Bad- Paralysis (2/3)........................282 Precautionary Principle Bad- Paralysis (3/3)........................283 Precautionary Principle Bad- Innovation (1/3).....................284 Precautionary Principle Bad- Innovation (2/3).....................285 Precautionary Principle Bad- Innovation (3/3).....................286 Precautionary Principle Bad- Pandemic...............................287 Precautionary Principle Bad- Militarism..............................288 **UTIL**.............................................................................289 Util O/W Rights....................................................................290 Util Good K2 Policymaking..............................................291 Util Good - K2 Determine Rights.........................................292 Util Good Best Interest......................................................293 Util Good Concrete Decisionmaking.................................294 Util Good Prevents Nuke War...........................................295 Util Inevitable.......................................................................296

Survival Instinct Good Extinction ....................................298 Consequentialism Good........................................................299 Consequentialism Fails.........................................................300 Consequentialism Fails.........................................................301 **AT UTIL**.......................................................................302 .............................................................................................303 Util Bad No Equality/Justice.............................................303 Util Bad Mass Murder.......................................................304 Util Bad Annihilation........................................................305 .............................................................................................305 Util Bad VTL.....................................................................306 Util Excludes Rights.............................................................307 Survival Instinct Bad Destroys Humanity.........................308 **RIGHTS/DEONTOLOGY**...........................................309 Must Evaluate Human Rights (1/2) .....................................310 Must Evaluate Human Rights (2/2) .....................................311 Deontology O/W Util...........................................................312 Deontology O/W Util...........................................................313 Deontology O/W Util...........................................................314 Deontology O/W Util...........................................................316 Deontology Good K2 VTL................................................318 .............................................................................................318 Callahan (1/2).......................................................................319 Callahan (2/2).......................................................................320 Callahan Ext..........................................................................321 Moral Justice First................................................................323 Moral Rationality First.........................................................324 Rights Absolute....................................................................325 Rights/Liberty K2 Rationality..............................................327 Moral Resolution O/W Util..................................................328 Morals Compatible With Util...............................................329 No Rights = Violent Backlash..............................................330 Right To Health O/W............................................................331 Poverty Moral Obligation.....................................................332 Action Key End Result Irrelevant......................................333 **AT DEONTOLOGY/RIGHTS**.....................................334 Rights Violation Inev............................................................335 AT: Rights First....................................................................336 AT: Rights First....................................................................337 AT Rawls..............................................................................338 AT Rawls..............................................................................339 AT Rawls..............................................................................340 AT: Liberty/Rights First.......................................................341 AT: Morals First...................................................................342 AT: Gewirth..........................................................................343 AT: Gewirth..........................................................................345 AT: Gewirth..........................................................................346 AT: Gewirth..........................................................................347 AT: Gewirth..........................................................................348 Ethics Bad.............................................................................349 Ethics Bad.............................................................................351 Ethics Bad.............................................................................351 .............................................................................................352 Deontology Bad No Assume Nuke War............................353 Deontology Bad - Policy.....................................................354

So whats the impact?

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 4 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Deontology Bad - Policy......................................................355 Deontology Bad - Democracy..............................................356 Deontology Bad -- Conflicts.................................................357 Deontology Bad Subjective Rights....................................358 Extinction O/W Deontology.................................................359 Deontology Bad - Absolutist................................................360 Deontology Bad - Absolutist................................................361 .............................................................................................361 Ethical Action/Legality Mutually Exclusive........................362 Ethical Action/Legality Mutually Exclusive........................363 **AT EGAL**.....................................................................365 Egalitarianism Frontline (1/2)...............................................366 Egalitarianism Frontline (2/2)..............................................368 Public Sphere Ext Arg Plurality........................................370 Hierarchies Inevitable...........................................................371 Egal = Envy..........................................................................372 Egal = Infinite Redistribution...............................................373 Egal Biased...........................................................................374 Rejection of Egal K2 Check Abuse......................................375 AT: Moral Egal.....................................................................376 AT: Democratic Egal............................................................378 AT: Radical Egal..................................................................379 AT: Egal = Util.....................................................................380 Inegal Solves.........................................................................381 Econ Turns Egal...................................................................382 Sufficientarianism Good.......................................................383 Sufficientarianism Good.......................................................384 Sufficientarian Perm.............................................................385 **AGENCIES**...................................................................386 Generic Agencies Fail...........................................................387 NGOs Key Federal Sucess..................................................388 Administration for Children and Families ...........................389 Agriculture Department........................................................390 Department of Health and Human Services.........................391 Department of Education......................................................392 States Solve Education.........................................................393 Department of Interior..........................................................394 Department of Interior (Natives Link)..................................395 Department of Interior (U.S. Territories DA).......................396 Housing and Urban Development........................................397 Department of labor..............................................................398 Department of Justice...........................................................399 Environmental Protection Agency .......................................400 .............................................................................................400 Office of National Aids Policy ............................................401 Social Security Administration ............................................402 ICE .......................................................................................403 Veterans Health Administration...........................................404 Ineffective Agency Political Capital Link.........................405 **INTERNATIONAL LAW**............................................406 Intl Law Good.....................................................................407 Intl Law Good.....................................................................408 Intl Law Impact...................................................................409 Intl Law K2 Rights..............................................................411 Intl Law K2 Democracy .....................................................413

Intl Law Bad........................................................................414

So whats the impact?

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 5 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**TERMINAL IMPACTS**

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 6 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AIDS
The spread of AIDS causes mutations that risk extinction Ehrlich and Erlich 90 Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, Professors of Population studies at Stanford University, THE POPULATION EXPLOSION, 1990, p. 147-8
Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV can be slowed through public education and other measures, on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments, and to a large extent on luck. The virus has already shown itself to be highly mutable, and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug, AZT, that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts, in this case people, might evolve new transmission characteristics. To do so, however, would almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. If, for instance, the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily), the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. Unlike the current version of AIDS, which can take ten years or more to kill its victims , the new strain might cause death in days or weeks. Infected individuals then would have less time to spread the virus to others, and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in the case of myxopatomis). What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear, but it could temporarily increase the transmission rate and reduce life expectancy of infected

persons until the system once again equilibrated. If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the membranes of the mouth, the lungs, or the intestines were increased, the virus might be spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. But it is likely, as Temin points out, that acquiring those
abilities would so change the virus that it no longer efficiently infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. In effect it would produce an entirely different disease. We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate, Joshua Lederberg, is worried that a relatively minor mutation could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. If so, it might be transmissible through coughs.

AIDS spread and mutations will cause extinction Lederberg 91 (Joshua Lederberg, Molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner in 1958, 1991 In Time of Plague: The History and Social Consequences of Lethal Epidemic Disease, p 35-6)
Will Aids mutate further ? Already known, a vexing feature of AIDS is its antigenic variability, further complicating the task of developing a vaccine. So we know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history . What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short is, No one can be sure. But we could make the same attribution about any virus; alternatively the next influenza or chicken pox may mutate to an unprecedented lethality. As time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analogue to the emergence of pneumonic plague.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 7 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Aids turns military readiness


AIDS kills readiness- it decreases troops and erodes govt control Peterson, 3 (Susan- associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, Security Studies 12, no. 2 (winter 2002/3), Epidemic Disease and National Security http://people.wm.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.pdf)
Still, IDs. impact in the contemporary international system may be somewhat different. Unlike other diseases, AIDS has an incubation period of ten years or more, making it unlikely that it will produce significant casualties on the front lines of a war. It will still, however, deplete force strength in many states. On average, 20.40 percent of armed forces in sub-Saharan countries are HIV-positive, and in a few countries the rate is 60 percent or more. In Zimbabwe, it may be as high as 80 percent.147 In high incidence countries, AIDS significantly erodes military readiness, directly threatening national security. Lyndy Heinecken chillingly describes the problem in sub-Saharan Africa: AIDS-related illnesses are now the leading cause of death in the army and police forces of these countries, accounting for more than 50% of inservice and post-service mortalities. In badly infected countries, AIDS patients occupy 75% of military hospital beds and the disease is responsible for more admissions than battlefield injuries. The high rate of HIV infection has meant that some African armies have been unable to deploy a full contingent, or even half of their troops, at short notice.. [In South Africa, because] participation in peacesupport operations outside the country is voluntary, the S[outh] A[frican] N[ational] D[efence] F[orce] is grappling with the problem of how to ensure the availability of sufficiently suitable candidates for deployment at short notice. Even the use of members for internal crime prevention and border control, which subjects them to adverse conditions or stationing in areas where local in- frastructure is limited, presents certain problems. Ordinary ailments, such as diarrhoea and the common cold, can be serious enough to require the hospitalization of an immune-compromised person, and, in some cases, can prove fatal if they are not treated immediately.148 Armed forces in severely affected states will be unable to recruit and train soldiers quickly enough to replace their sick and dying colleagues, the potential recruitment pool itself will dwindle, and officers corps will be decimated. Military budgets will be sapped, military blood supplies tainted, and organizational structures strained to accommodate unproductive soldiers. HIV-infected armed forces also threaten civilians at home and abroad. Increased levels of sexual activity among military forces in wartime means that the military risk of becoming infected with HIV is as much as 100 times that of the civilian risk. It also means that members of the armed forces comprise a key means of transmitting the virus to the general population; with sex and transport workers, the military is considered one of the three core transmission groups in Africa.149 For this reason, conflict-ridden states may become reluctant to accept peacekeepers from countries with high HIV rates. Rather than contributing directly to military defeat in many countries, however, AIDS in the military is more likely to have longer term implications for national security. First, IDs theoretically could deter military action and impede access to strategic resources or areas. Tropical diseases erected a formidable, although obviously not insurmountable, obstacle to colonization in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. French and later American efforts to open the Panama Canal, similarly, were stymied until U.S. mosquito control efforts effectively checked yellow fever and malaria. Second, in many countries AIDS already strains military medical systems and their budgets, and it only promises to divert further spending away from defense toward both military and civilian health. Third, AIDS in the military promises to have its greatest impact by eroding a government.s control over its armed forces and further destabilizing the state. Terminally ill soldiers may have little incentive to defend their government, and their government may be in more need of defending as AIDS siphons funds from housing, education, police, and administration. Finally, high military HIV/AIDS rates could alter regional balances of power. Perhaps 40.50 percent of South Africa.s soldiers are HIV-infected. Despite the disease.s negative impact on South Africa.s absolute power, Price-Smith notes, AIDS may increase that nation.s power relative to its neighbors, Zimbabwe and Botswana, with potentially important regional consequences. 150 AIDS poses obvious threats to the military forces of many countries, particularly in sub- Saharan Africa, but it does not present the same immediate security problems for the United States. The authors of a Reagan-era report on the effects of economic and demographic trends on security worried about the effects of the costs of AIDS research, education, and funding on the defense budget, 151 but a decade of relative prosperity generated budget surpluses instead. These surpluses have evaporated, but concerns about AIDS spending have not reappeared and are unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future, given the relatively low levels of HIV-infection in the United States. AIDS presents other challenges, including prevention education and measures to limit infection of U.S. soldiers and peacekeepers stationed abroad, particularly in high risk settings, and HIV transmission by these forces to the general population. These concerns could limit U.S. actions where American interests are at stake.152

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 8 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Air Pollution
Air pollution will lead to extinction Driesen 03 (David, Associate Professor, Syracuse University College of Law. J.D. Yale Law School, 1989, Fall/Spring, 10 Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 25, p. 26-8) Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that
are relevant to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs that is worth achieving. Agenda 21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." While the Rio Declaration refers to human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment. Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns. Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate, tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides have historically threatened urban air quality in the United States. This review will focus upon tropospheric ozone, particulate, and carbon monoxide, because these pollutants present the most widespread of the remaining urban air problems, and did so at the time of the earth summit. 6 Tropospheric ozone refers to ozone fairly near to the ground, as opposed to stratospheric ozone high in the atmosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects human health and the environment from ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion causes problems. By contrast, tropospheric ozone damages human health and the environment. 8 In the United States, the pollutants causing "urban" air quality problems also affect human health and the environment well beyond urban boundaries. Yet, the health problems these pollutants present remain most acute in urban and suburban areas. Ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate cause very serious public health problems that have been well recognized for a long time. Ozone forms in the atmosphere from a reaction between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. Volatile organic compounds include a large number of hazardous air pollutants. Nitrogen oxides, as discussed below, also play a role in acidifying ecosystems. Ozone damages lung tissue. It plays a role in triggering asthma attacks, sending thousands to the hospital every summer. It effects young children and people engaged in heavy exercise especially severely. Particulate pollution, or soot, consists of combinations of a wide variety of pollutants. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to formation of fine particulate, which is associated with the most serious health problems. 13 Studies link particulate to tens of thousands of annual premature deaths in the United States. Like ozone it contributes to respiratory illness, but it also seems to play a [*29] role in triggering heart attacks among the elderly. The data suggest that fine particulate, which EPA did not regulate explicitly until recently, plays a major role in these problems. 16 Health researchers have associated carbon monoxide with various types of neurological symptoms, such as visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, and difficulty in performing complex tasks. The same pollution problems causing current urban health problems also contribute to long lasting ecological problems. Ozone harms crops and trees. These harms affect ecosystems and future generations. Similarly, particulate precursors, including nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, contribute to acid rain, which is not easily reversible. To address these problems, Agenda 21 recommends the adoption of national programs to reduce health risks from air pollution, including urban air pollution. These programs are to include development of "appropriate pollution control technology . . . for the introduction of environmentally sound production processes." It calls for this development "on the basis of risk assessment and epidemiological research." It also recommends development of "air pollution control capacities in large cities emphasizing enforcement programs using monitoring networks as appropriate." A second principle, the precautionary principle, provides support for the first. As stated in the Rio Declaration, the precautionary principle means that "lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" when "there are threats of serious or irreversible damage." Thus, lack of complete certainty about the adverse environmental and human health effects of air pollutants does not, by itself, provide a reason for tolerating them. Put differently, governments need to address air pollution on a precautionary basis to ensure that humans can

life a healthy and productive life.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 9 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Anthrax
A small amount of anthrax could be effective in killing millions of people Wake, 01 Ben Wake The Ottawa Citizen October 13, 2001 Saturday Final EDITION http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7030650745&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T703 0641352&cisb=22_T7030650748&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8363&docNo=4 .The potential impact on a city can be estimated by looking at the effectiveness of an aerosol in producing downwind casualties. The World Health Organization in 1970 modeled the results of a hypothetical dissemination of 50 kg of agent along a 2-km line upwind of a large population center. Anthrax and tularemia are predicted to cause the highest number of dead and incapacitated, as well as the greatest downwind spread. A government study estimated that about 200 pounds of anthrax released upwind of Washington, D.C., could kill up to 3 million people. Here is a list of all of the recognized Biological Weapons.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 10 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Biodiversity
Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction Madgoluis 96 (Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996, http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10) Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion.
Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.

Biodiversity loss outweighs all impacts Tobin 90 (Richard Tobin, THE EXPENDABLE FUTURE, 1990, p. 22 )
Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species. Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war. As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoingthat will take millions of

years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.

10

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 11 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Bioterror
Bioterror will cause extinction Steinbrenner 97, Brookings Senior Fellow, 1997 [John D. , Foreign Policy, "Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses," Winter, InfoTrac] Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications.
The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning .

The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological
agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction.

A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population . The 1918 influenza
epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit. Nobody really knows how serious a possibility this might be, since there is no way to measure it reliably.

Bioterror is the only impact that risks extinction Ochs 02 (Richard Ochs, Chemical Weapons Working Group Member,
http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html) Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically

2002 Biological Weapons must be Abolished Immediately, June 9,

engineered biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value or deterrence
pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a massive exchange of

nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally
released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually

forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE.

11

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 12 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Bioterror
Biological terrorism caused extinction Richard Ochs, Chemical Weapons Working Group Member, 2002 [Biological Weapons must be Abolished http://www.freefromterror.net/other_.../abolish.html] Immediately, June 9,

Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE.

12

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 13 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Bird Flu
Bird Flu goes global, killing billions [Ethne Barnes, Research Assistant in Paleopathology, Wichita State, 2005, Diseases and human evolution, p. 427-8]
Human history is riddled with accounts of epidemics wreaking similar havoc among human populations around the world, though not as severe as the rabbit myxomatosis introduced into Australia. Even the great influenza pandemic in the early twentieth century did not come close to killing off a significant portion of the global population. However, a more deadly

influenza pandemic is all too likely. Influenza virus exemplifies the ideal predator for reducing human populations. It is airborne and travels the globe easily and quickly, capable of infecting all age groups in repeated waves within a short time span. Influenza type A viruses are unstable and continuously evolving. Global movements of people and viruses at a rapid pace make gene swapping possible among previously isolated strains. Hybrid virus produced by such gene swapping could result in a deadly strain that targets the lower branches of the bronchial tubes and the lungs. Severe viral pneumonia and death within twenty-four hours would follow. The new influenza virus could easily move around the globe within days and kill over half the human population
(Ryan, 1997). Crowded cities, especially megacities, could suffer up to 90 percent fatalities within days or weeks.

13

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 14 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Constitution
The Constitution is the most important thing to preserve Eidmoe 92 (John A. Eidsmoe is a Constitutional Attorney, Professor of Law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Colonel with the USAF, 1992 3
USAFA J. Leg. Stud. 35, p. 57-9)

Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the wellproportioned columns of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skilful architecture which united national sovereignty with State rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No, if these columns fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer
tears, however, will flow over them, than were ever shed over the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edifice of constitutional American liberty. It

is possible that a constitutional convention could take place and none of these drastic consequences would come to pass. It is possible to play Russian roulette and emerge without a scratch; in fact, with only one bullet in the chamber, the odds of being shot are only one in six. But when the stakes are as high as one's life, or the constitutional system that has shaped this nation into what it is today, these odds are too great to take the risk. We have a moral obligation to prevent violations of the constitution whenever possible Levinson 2k Daryl Levinson, professor of law at University of Virginia, Spring 2000 UC Law Review
Extending a majority rule analysis of optimal deterrence to constitutional torts requires some explanation, for we do not usually think of violations of

constitutional rights are most commonly conceived as deontological side-constraints that trump even utility-maximizing government action. Alternatively, constitutional rights might be understood as serving rule-utilitarian purposes. If the disutility to victims of constitutional violations often exceeds the social benefits derived from the rights-violating activity, or if rights violations create longterm costs that outweigh short-term social benefits, then constitutional rights can be justified as tending to maximize global utility, even though this requires local utility-decreasing steps. Both the deontological and ruleutilitarian descriptions imply that the optimal level of constitutional violations is zero; that is, society would be better off, by whatever measure, if constitutional rights were never violated.
constitutional rights in terms of cost-benefit analysis and efficiency. Quite the opposite,

14

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 15 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Democracy
Democracy preserves human life

Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict 95


(October, "Promoting Democracy in the 1990's," http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm) Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

15

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 16 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Democracy Good- Democide


Democratization solves Democide Rummel, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, 2001 (R.J., International Journal on World Peace, September, proquest)
There is a feeling among many that since democide (genocide and mass murder) and war have always been with us, they always will be; that such violence is in our bones, part of the human condition. After all, year after year, as far back as one looks in history, some part of the world has suffered war or genocide. And, even today, this is going on in many countries and regions, such as in the Sudan, Burma, China, North Korea, and the Middle East. By democide alone, during the last century about 174 million people were murdered by government, over four times the some 38 million combat dead in all the century's domestic and foreign wars. Nonetheless, there is much hope to eradicate war and democide. Consider that from the perspective of the eighteenth century, slavery also looked to the humanist as democide and war do to us today: an evil that has always been part of human society. Now slavery is virtually ended, and eventually the same may be true of war and democide. Why this is true and how to foster this end to democide and war is the subject of this essay. There are many complex considerations and theoretical issues to the problem of war and democide. There are the questions of general and immediate causation, and of aggravating and inhibiting conditions. There are the practical questions of how to gather timely intelligence about them and inform decision makers about what is known, how to influence the political process through which intervention against democide is decided, and how to give democide and war elsewhere the required prominence in the complex of perceived national interests. With regard to intervening to stop democide, there are questions concerning the national mix of the necessary troops, their weapons, and the rules of engagement. Many of the answers to these questions will fall into place if we recognize three facts and one practical necessity that cut through the jumble of questions and problems involved. The one fact is that democracies by far have had the least domestic democide, and now with their extensive liberalization, have virtually none. Therefore, democratization (not just electoral democracies, but liberal democratization in terms of civil and political rights and liberties) provides the long-run hope for the elimination of democide. The second fact is that democracies do not make war on each other and that the more democratic two governments, the less the likelihood of violence between them. Not only is democracy a solution to democide, but globalizing democracy is also a solution to war. That the world is progressively becoming more democratic, with 22 democracies in 1950 to something like 120 democracies today (about 88 of them liberal democracies), it is increasingly likely that in the long run the twin horrors of democide and war will be eliminated from human society.

16

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 17 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Dehumanization
Dehumanization outweighs all other impacts Berube, 1997 (Berube, David. Professor. English. University of South Carolina. Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side. 1997. http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm.) Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover, there would always be a superhuman more super than the current ones, humans would never be able to escape their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.

17

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 18 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disease
Disease causes extinction
South China Morning Post 96 (Avi Mensa, 1-4-1996, Leading the way to a cure for AIDS, P. Lexis)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen."That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted

the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong.
It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow.The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human

species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses
to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises

the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.

Drug resistant diseases threaten human extinction. Discover 2000 (Twenty Ways the World Could End by Corey Powell in Discover Magazine, October 2000, http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld) If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs and people have always coexisted, but occasionally the balance gets out of whack. The Black Plague killed one European in four during the
14th century; influenza took at least 20 million lives between 1918 and 1919; the AIDS epidemic has produced a similar death toll and is still going strong. From 1980 to 1992, reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the United States rose 58 percent Old diseases such as cholera and measles have developed new resistance to antibiotics. Intensive agriculture and land development is bringing humans closer to animal pathogens. International travel means diseases can spread faster than ever Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert who recently left the Minnesota Department of Health, described the situation as "like trying to swim
. .

against the current of a raging river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a strain that spreads so fast we are caught off guard or that resists all chemical means of control perhaps as a result of our
,

stirring of the ecological pot. About 12,000 years ago, a sudden wave of mammal extinctions swept through the Americas. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History argues the culprit was extremely virulent disease, which humans helped transport as they migrated into the New World.

18

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 19 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disease turns military readiness


Pandemics kill military readiness Major Hesko, 6 (Gerald, Air Command And Staff College Pandemic Influenza: Military Operational Readiness Implications April 2006)
There exists in the world today the possibility of a great influenza pandemic matching those of the past century with the potential to far exceed the pain, suffering and deaths of past pandemics. Although global pandemics are difficult to accurately predict, scientists theorize that another pandemic on a scale of the deadly 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic is imminent. If a pandemic influenza occurs, as predicted by many in the medical and scientific community, the number of Americans affected could easily overwhelm our medical capability resulting in untold suffering and deaths. Although an influenza pandemic, if it occurs, has the potential to devastate and threaten our society, an equally alarming consequence is the effects it could have on the operational readiness of the United States military establishment. With our current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with other smaller engagements world-wide, if an influenza pandemic were to strike the military, our level of operational readiness, preparedness and ability to defend our vital national interests could be decreased or threaten. As a result of the pending threat of an influenza pandemic, the United States military, must take decisive actions to mitigate the potential devastation an influenza pandemic might have on operational readiness.

Disease turns military readiness Suburban Emergency Management Project, 7 (Disease Outbreak Readiness Update, U.S. Department of Defense Biot Report #449: July 25, 2007, http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=449)
An infectious disease pandemic could impair the militarys readiness, jeopardize ongoing military operations abroad, and threaten the day-to-day functioning of the Department of Defense (DOD) because of up to 40% of personnel reporting sick or being absent during a pandemic, according to a recent GAO report (June 2007). Congressman Tom Davis, ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives, requested the GAO investigation. (1) The 40% number (above) comes from the Homeland Security Councils estimate that 40% of the U.S. workforce might not be at work due to illness, the need to care for family members who are sick, or fear of becoming infected. (2) DOD military and civilian personnel and contractors would face a similar absentee rate, according to the GAO writers.

Aids kills military readiness Upton, 4 ( Maureen- member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the 21st Century Trust, World Policy Journal, Global Public Health Trumps the Nation-State Volume XXI, No 3, Fall 2004, http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/Upton.html)
The political economist Nicholas Eberstadt has demonstrated that the coming Eurasian AIDS pandemic has the potential to derail the economic prospects of billions of peopleparticularly in Russia, China, and Indiaand to thereby alter the global military balance.5 Eurasia (defined as Russia, plus Asia), is home to five-eighths of the worlds population, and its combined GNP is larger than that of either the United States or Europe. Perhaps more importantly, the region includes four of the worlds five militaries with over one million members and four declared nuclear states. Since HIV has a relatively long incubation period, its effects on military readiness are unusually harsh. Officers who contract the disease early in their military careers do not typically die until they have amassed significant training and expertise, so armed forces are faced with the loss of their most senior, hardest-to-replace officers.

19

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 20 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disease turns military readiness


Diseases kill military readiness- empirically proven Peterson, 3 (Susan- associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, Security Studies 12, no. 2 (winter 2002/3), Epidemic Disease and National Security http://people.wm.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.pdf)
Military readiness. Even when disease is not deliberately used, it can alter the evolution and outcome of military conflict by eroding military readiness and morale. As Jared Diamond notes, .All those military histories glorifying great generals oversimplify the ego-deflating truth: the winners of past wars were not always the armies with the best generals and weapons, but were often merely those bearing the nastiest germs to transmit to their enemies..142 During the European conquest of the Americas, the conquistadors shared numerous lethal microbes with their native American foes, who had few or no deadly diseases to pass on to their conquerors. When Hernando Cortez and his men first attacked the Aztecs in Mexico in 1520, they left behind smallpox that wiped out half the Aztec population. Surviving Aztecs were further demoralized by their vulnerability to a disease that appeared harmless to the Europeans, and on their next attempt the Spanish succeeded in conquering the Aztec nation.143 Spanish conquest of the Incan empire in South America followed a similar pattern: In

1532 Francisco Pizarro and his army of 168 Spaniards defeated the Incan army of 80,000. A devastating smallpox epidemic had killed the Incan emperor and his heir, producing a civil war that split the empire and allowed a handful of Europeans to defeat a large, but divided enemy.144 In modern times, too, pandemic infections have affected the ability of military forces to prosecute and win a war. The German Army chief of staff in the First World War, General Erick Von Ludendorf, blamed Germany.s loss of that war at least partly on the negative effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic on the morale of German troops. 145 In the Second World War, similarly, malaria caused more U.S. casualties in certain areas than did military action.146 Throughout history, then, IDs have had a significant potential to decimate armies and alter military history.

20

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 21 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Economy
Economic collapse causes a global nuclear exchange Mead 92
(Walter Russell, Mead, Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Summer, 1992, p. 30)
The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression- will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the Westbecause they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates,

or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's. Economic slowdown will cause WWIII Bearden 2k (Liutenant Colonel Bearden, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It, 2000, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Big-Medicine/message/642
Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great

percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

21

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 22 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ- US Key
U.S. economic collapse leads to an economic depression globally. (Walter Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 04 04, Americas Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, Proquest, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_ id=2504&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/ cms.php?story_id=2504&page=2)
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world.

A drop in the U.S. economy causes a global recession. (Anthony Faiola, staff writer of Washington Post, 01 30 08, U.S. Downturn effects may ease worldwide, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&co okieState=0&rand=0.2947196325707201&bhcp=1)
Analysts caution that a sharper drop in the U.S. economy something widely feared, as evidenced by the global route on stock markets from Paris to Tokyo last week could yet plunge the world economy below the 2.5 to 3 percent growth range that constitutes a global recession. And around the world, billions of dollars in losses from Americas subprime mortage morass are still being accounted for, with experts predicting it will take a deeper financial toll.

22

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 23 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ- developing countries


A global economic crisis has a hard effect on growing economies and provides significantly reduced funds for families living in these countries. (Luska Times, 12 24 08, Global Economic crisis shows effects on families, http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=6713)
Effects of the global economic crisis have already started showing a negative impact on growing economies, such as Zambia, with only a few people managing to spend for Christmas. According to a survey carried out this morning by ZANIS, people said it is hard to do shopping because there are no funds to meet the needs of many families. Most people expressed concern about lack of funds to do shopping because prices have been hiked so much, making it difficult for many people to buy gifts for their beloved ones. Alfonsaias Haamanjanti said people should not overspend unnecessarily but consider critical things such as school fees and uniforms for children when schools reopen. Mr Haamanjati said it is important to budget for the things that one needs by writing a list and follow it. He pointed out that the global financial crisis may not be felt now, saying there is need to save money and shop only when it is necessary. He said the global financial crisis may be felt so much next year, adding that most Zambians should consider saving their money and use it when there is real need.

23

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 24 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Economy- U.S. civil war and dissolution


U.S. economic collapse will cause a civil war and the breakup of the U.S. into six pieces. (Andrew Osborn, former KGB analyst, dean of Russian Foreign Ministrys academy for future diplomats, expert on
U.S.- Russia relations, 12 29 08, As if Things werent bad enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html) MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media. In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger." Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations. But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories. A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire. "There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S. Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

Economic and financial problems in the U.S will cause a civil war and the breakup of the U.S. (Andrew Osborn, former KGB analyst, dean of Russian Foreign Ministrys academy for future diplomats, expert on
U.S.- Russia relations, 12 29 08, As if Things werent bad enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html) He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. Mr. Panarin predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in. California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia. "It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin. Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

24

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 25 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ Collapse Bad


Global economic collapse results in nuclear war causes North Korean aggression, Afghanistan collapse, Russian adventurism, and American isolationism Friedberg and Schenfeld, 8 (Aaron Friedberg-professor of politics and international relations at the Woodrow Wilson School, and Gabriel Schoenfeld-visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute, 10/21/2008, The Dangers of a Diminished America, The Wall Street Journal, p. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power.

25

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 26 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ interdependence prevents war


Economic interdependence prevents war Griswold, 7 (Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, 4/20/2007, Trade, Democracy and Peace, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free." By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.

26

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 27 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Economic Decline Nuclear War


Prolonged Recession yields nuclear war- must avert it now- empirically proven Sean ODonnell Staff Writer, Baltimore Examiner, B.A. in History from the University of Maryland 2/26, Will this recession lead to World War II, http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-RepublicanExaminer~y2009m2d26-Will-this-recession-lead-to-World-War-III
Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.

27

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 28 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts U.S. Key to Global Economy


The US is key to global econ rest of the world failing Kaczmarek, Editor-in-Chief of the SAIS Review of International Affairs and M.A. Candidate, 08
(Matthew D. Kaczmarek, Editor-in-Chief of the SAIS Review of International Affairs and M.A. Candidate of 2000, SummerFall 2008, The SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 207-209) While the economic policy of the U.S. Government can no longer be printed on IMF letterhead and declared global consensus ipso facto, it is wrong to assume that the United States has somehow relinquished its mandate to

lead. The world is awash in conflicting bilateral trade agreements, varying degrees of capital mobility, and wildly inconsistent access within nations to the fruits of global development. If there is a time for the United States to demonstrate sober global leadership while responsibly advancing its own interests and ideals, it is now. With the Doha round stagnating and the Bank and Fund deep into an identity crisis, but with the memories of the economic turbulence of the 1980s and 90s still fresh in the mind, an uncertain world continues to look toward the United States to show a willingness to step up to engage the recalcitrant global economy. The process of reengagement is difficult and will undoubtedly prove frustrating for the next administration. The G-8 is no longer a useful forum for building global economic consensus unless it moves more quickly to include emerging economic powers. The IMF must continue in its reform mission as well as embrace the need to become the explicit lender of last resort to sovereign nations. The next administration
should develop clear and thoughtful goals for engagement with each global region, and build ties, embrace, and nurture mutually beneficial relationships with emerging regional leaders. The days of proxy wars for spheres of influence are long gone, while the flood of economic support in exchange for political-security cooperation is showing no faster diminishing returns than in Pakistan and Iraq. The authors in the preceding pages of this volume have debated the costs, effectiveness, and opportunities for multilateral engagement across a wide range of specific issues. Where the United States continues to hold absolute supremacy, such as military power, and where ideological objectives are concerned, such as the continuing War on Terror, the U.S. enjoys the luxury to choose whether or not to engage the rest of the world in a multilateral

discussion and debate. On economic development, there is no such choice. The future prosperity of billions of low and middle income citizens around the world, and the continued success of todays leading economies depends on a sound and stable global economic architecture, and the deferential respect afforded the U.S.
in the global economy begs for its reengagement.

American consumption key to global economic growth other nations cant replace the US spot Sull, President and Chief Investment Officer at Pacific Partners-Capital Management, 7-2
Ajbinder Sull, President and Chief Investment Officer at Pacific Partners Capital Management, 7-2-09, The Financial Post, The US Consumer: Engine of the Global Economy Gears Down Over the years, the world the world has looked to the US consumer to lead the way out of economic downturns. Currently, the US consumer accounts for almost 70% of the American economy and about 15 17% of the global economy. Economists had long derided the Spend! Spend! Spend! ways of Americans. Credit was a means to an end. The rising real estate prices that had lasted for much of this decade allowed consumers to cash out some of the equity from their homes to continue the odyssey of lifestyle improvement. This gave way to the notion that US consumers were using their homes as ATM machines. But a funny thing has happened during the current economic slowdown. US consumers have retrenched from vigorous consumption in order to save more. As the chart below shows, savings rates in the US have gone from a negative rate (consumers adding debt to consume) to positive. Current statistics show that the savings rate in the US is on track to approach a level of about 7% later this year. This change in behavior is both positive and negative. The negative case for this change is that it means that other countries will have to

bolster their own consumption and investment as an offset. This will not be easy as Asian nations have a higher rate of savings. Europes economy will likely take much longer to get moving as is usually the case

28

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 29 /414

Nelson <tournament>

after economic slowdowns. For the financial markets this means that any excessive optimism should be tempered with
this realization that the coming economic recovery will be different than any we have seen in quite some time. The positive side to this change is that it will mean less reliance by the US on foreign capital to help fund the budget deficit. These rising savings rates are ending up in the US banking system and will provide more fuel for the US banking system to lend a helping hand to the US economy. Not to mention - helpful to the US dollar. The irony is that just as the world would welcome the US consumer going back to old habits of spending and consuming, Americans have realized that a

little savings can go a long way. The price of this change in behavior is that global economic growth will not rebound as fast and as much as the markets might be hoping for.

29

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 30 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts U.S. Key to Global Economy


US economic decline hits other nations unsettles global financial markets Lynch, Graduate of Wesleyan University and M.A. International Relations at Yale, 07
David J. Lynch, Graduate of Wesleyan University and M.A. International Relations at Yale, 12-10-07, USA Today, Slowing US Economy Inflicts Pain around the World The extent to which other economies have "decoupled" from their traditional dependence upon the U.S. economic engine, however, remains a topic of debate. On one hand, three countries China, India and Russia accounted for more than half of global economic growth over the past year, according to the IMF. So emerging markets are expected to shoulder principal responsibility for keeping the global economy moving forward in 2008. But the U.S. economy remains the world's largest, and a sharp fall in demand here for others' goods will reverberate . Canada and Mexico, sending 81% of their exports to the USA, are the USA's top trading partners and the countries most exposed to a serious U.S. downturn. Economic weakness in the USA can hit other countries both by unsettling global financial markets, thus curbing access to capital, and by depressing trade. "The

U.S. and Asian economies are not decoupled, and a slowdown here is likely to produce ripple effects lowering growth there," says Janet Yellen, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Whether the rest of the world can, in fact, shrug off slower U.S. growth remains to be demonstrated. But the remedies central banks are choosing to fight the credit crunch are putting strains on other parts of the global financial system, which could ultimately damage growth in some emerging markets. Central banks in the USA, United Kingdom and
Canada have cut interest rates in recent weeks, trying to counteract banks' reluctance to make new loans. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve, which already has trimmed the target for its benchmark rate by three-quarters of a percentage point since September, is widely expected to cut rates again. The Fed's actions ricochet from Beijing to Dubai. Countries such as China and the oil producers of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, which link their currencies to the level of the U.S. dollar to varying degrees, face a choice between setting interest rates according to the needs of their domestic economies or tailoring rates to maintain stable exchange rates. That means keeping their exchange rates stable

against the dollar and importing inflation or raising their interest rates to head off inflation at the cost of seeing their currencies appreciate. So far, the quasi-dollar-linked countries are swallowing higher prices and the
potential for overheating. In Qatar, for example, inflation runs at an annual rate of almost 13%. Current monetary policies and exchange rates are "completely out of kilter with what these countries need and might actually encourage the bubble in emerging markets to get bigger. It is really only a question of time before we have this regime change in the global monetary system," says George Magnus, senior economic adviser of UBS (UBS) in London. That said, most economists expect the global economy to pull through unless another unexpected shock hits. "We're in this window of vulnerability. If something else comes along, we don't have a lot of padding," says Harvard's Rogoff. "We're very vulnerable."

30

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 31 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts U.S. Key to Global Economy


The US is essential to the global economy no other country is close to US production. Fisher, President of the federal reserve bank, 06 Richard W. Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas.
2/6/06. The United States: Still the Growth Engine for the World Economy? My kind hosts, who had no idea that this event would follow so closely on the heels of the meager growth estimate reported for last years fourth quarter, have asked me to address the question: Is the United States still the growth engine for the world? The answer is yes. Let me explain why. The American economy has been on an upswing for more than four years. Growth advanced briskly at
4.2 percent in 2004. It slowed to a still solid 3.5 percent in 2005, although I would not be surprised if GDP were revised upward when we take a more definitive look at the fourth quarter. In January, the U.S. economy employed 134.6 million people, up 2.2 million in a year. Unemployment stood at a four-year low of 4.7 percent, which compares with the latest reading of 8.4 percent for Europe and even higher rates for some of the continents major economies. We have

weathered hurricanes fury and record-high energy prices while continuing to grow and keep inflation under control.
The statement the Federal Open Market Committee released Tuesday quite summed up our current situation succinctly: Although recent economic data have been uneven, the expansion in economic activity appears solid. This is especially true in what I call the growth riman arc of population centers with favorable demographics that begins in Virginia, runs down the southeastern seaboard through Georgia to Florida, then through the megastate of Texas and on to the uberstate of California and up to Seattle. I use mega and uber to describe the two largest states for a reason: to illustrate the depth and breadth of our economy. In dollar terms, Texas produces 20 percent more than India, and California produces roughly the same output as China. To the extent there is weakness in the U.S. economy, it is in the Northeast and North Central states. Netting all this out, the consensus of most economic forecasters is that growth in the first quarter will rebound to a rate well above 4 percent. To understand what this kind of growth means, we need only follow Margaret Thatchers wise hectoring to do the math. The United States produces $12.6 trillion a year in goods and services. Be conservativeonce again, Lady Thatcher would like itand assume that in 2006 we grow at last years preliminary rate of 3.5 percent. The math tells us we would add $440 billion in incremental activityin a single year. That is a big number. What we add in new economic activity in a given year exceeds the

entire output of all but 15 other countries. Every year, we create the economic equivalent of a Swedenor two Irelands or three Argentinas. In dollar terms, a growth rate of 3.5 percent in the U.S. is equivalent to surges of 16 percent in Germany, 20 percent in the U.K., 26 percent in China and 70 percent in India. Of course, our growth is driven by consumption, a significant portion of which is fed by imports, which totaled $2 trillion last year. Again, do the math: Our annual import volumewhat we buy in a single year from abroadexceeds the GDP of all but four other countries Japan, Germany, Britain and France. So, yes, the United States is the growth engine for the world economy. And it is important that it remain so because no other country appears poised to pick up the torch if the U.S. economy stumbles or tires

The US is key to the global economy. New Zealand Herald 07 The New Zealand Herald, 3-20-2007, Can world weather slow down in US? p. Lexis The ability of other countries to emerge from the US economy's long shadow may reflect more wishful thinking than logic. No doubt, it will eventually happen, especially as some of the bigger emerging countries mature. Right now, the world still needs the US consumer. The global economy is too dependent on exports to the US, whose trade deficit was $765.3 billion in 2006, while Asia and Europe lack sufficient domestic demand to offset reduced US spending on overseas goods, says Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley in New
York. China's Reverberations The US accounts for 24% of Japan's total exports, 84% of Canada's, 86% of Mexico's and about 40% of China's, Mr Roach says. Just as China is dependent on the US, other countries rely on Asia's second-largest economy. So a US slowdown that hurts China will reverberate in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and commodity producers such as Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Brazil. From 2001 through 2006, the US and China combined contributed an average of 43% to global growth, measured on the basis of purchasing-power parity, according to Mr Roach. And there may be more fallout from a US decline. ''Allowing for trade linkages, the total effects could be larger than 60%,'' he says. ''Globalisation makes decoupling from such a concentrated growth

dynamic especially difficult.'' As the US economy faltered in early 2001, many Wall Street gurus predicted that Europe would outpace the US. European Vulnerability ''It didn't happen _ a lesson

31

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 32 /414

Nelson <tournament>

investors should bear in mind today,'' says Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management in New York. Even though only about 8% of European exports go to the US, Europe is vulnerable to a US slowdown through its businesses abroad. The earnings of European companies' US units
plunged 64% in 2001, according to Mr Quinlan. Those declines in the biggest and most-profitable market for many German, UK, French and Dutch enterprises resulted in reduced orders, lower profit, slower job growth and weak business confidence. After expanding 3.9% in 2000, euro-area growth shrank to 1.9% in 2001, 0.9% in 2002 and 0.8% in 2003. ''As the US economy decelerates and as the dollar continues its slide, Europe will sink or swim with the US in 2007,'' Mr Quinlan says

32

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 33 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts U.S. Key to Global Economy


US depression causes Global collapse Niall Ferguson, Professor of Economic History at Harvard, How a local squall might become a global tempest, 2008, http://www.niallferguson.com/site/FERG/Templates/ArticleItem.aspx?pageid=184
The question is whether or not this American hurricane is about to run into two other macroeconomic weather systems. Up until now the global impact of the crisis has been limited. Indeed, strong global growth has been the main reason the US recession did not start sooner. With the dollar weakened as an indirect consequence of the Feds open-handed lending policy, US exports have surged. According to Morgan Stanley, net exports accounted for all but 30 basis points of the 1.8 per cent growth in US output over the past year. The downside of this, however, was a rise in commodity prices as strong Asian demand coincided with a depreciating dollar. For a time, this coincidence of a US slowdown and soaring oil prices revived unhappy memories of 1970s stagflation. But now a new and colder front is crossing the macroeconomic weather map: the prospect of a global slowdown. Admittedly the forecasts do not sound too alarming. A reduction in global growth from 4.1 per cent this year to 3.6 per cent next year could positively help damp inflationary pressures. Optimists such as Jim ONeill at Goldman Sachs celebrate the decoupling of China from the US, pointing out that nearly all Chinas growth is accounted for by domestic demand, not exports. Yet there are four reasons to be less cheerful. First, Europe has clearly not decoupled from America. Indeed, partly because of the strength of the euro, the eurozone is now growing more slowly than the US. And remember: the European Unions economy is still more than five times larger than Chinas. It also matters a great deal more to US exporters. Second, the commodity price rise has generated inflationary pressures in many emerging markets that will not recede overnight. According to Joachim Fels of Morgan Stanley, 50 of the 190 countries in the world currently have double-digit inflation. The World Bank has identified 33 countries where high food prices have already generated civil unrest. Third, decoupling is not a cause for celebration if, on closer inspection, it is a synonym for deglobalisation. The growth of the world economy since 1980 has owed much to lower trade barriers. Unfortunately, the recent breakdown of the Doha round of global trade talks sent a worrying signal that commitment to free trade is weakening. It was troubling, too, how many governments responded to the jump in rice prices by imposing export restrictions. One year on, what began as a US crisis is fast becoming a world crisis. Small wonder only a handful of global equity markets are in positive territory relative to August 2007, while more than half have declined by between 10 and 40 per cent. The US slowdown will also affect many emerging markets less reliant on exports than China. At the same time, the global slowdown is about to kick away the last prop keeping the US recession at bay. No, this is not the Great Depression 2.0; the Fed and the Treasury are seeing to that. But, as in the 1930s, the critical phase is not the US phase. It is when the crisis goes global that the term credit crunch will no longer suffice.

US key to global economy no other country comes close


Arora & Vamvakidis 05 (Vivek & Athanasios, IMF Senior Resident Representatives, Economic
Spillovers Finance and Development; Sept, Vol 42, No 3; http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/arora.htm)
Economists usually see the United States as an engine of the world economy: U.S. and world output are closely correlated, and movements in U.S. economic growth appear to influence growth in other countries to a significant degree. Certainly, given its size and close links with the rest of the world, the United States could be expected to have a significant influence on growth in other countries. In 2004, U.S. GDP accounted for over one-fifth of world GDP on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis and for nearly 30 percent of world nominal GDP at market exchange rates. The United States accounted for nearly a quarter of the expansion in world real GDP during the 1990s. World and U.S. growth have moved closely together in recent decades, with a correlation coefficient of over 80 percent. Trade with the United States accounts for a substantial share of total trade in a large number of countries. Estimates of the overall impact of U.S. growth on growth in other countries during the past two decades, in the context of a standard growth model, suggest that U.S. growth is a significant determinant of growth in a large panel of industrial and developing countries, with an effect as large as one-for-one in some cases (Arora and Vamvakidis, 2004). The impact of U.S. growth turns out to be higher than the impact of growth in the rest of the world. This could be explained by the role of the United States as a major global trading partner. The results are robust to changes in the sample, the period considered, and the inclusion of other growth determinants, including common drivers of growth in both the United States and other countries. We also found the impact of U.S. growth on growth in other countries to be larger

33

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 34 /414

Nelson <tournament>

than that of other major trading partners. For example, the impact of EU growth on the rest of the world is significant but smaller than the impact of U.S. growth.

Impacts Econ Turns Heg


Econ Collapse ends US Heg Friedberg + Schoenfeld, Friedberg is an IR prof at Princeton and Schoenfeld is a scholar at the Witherspoon Institute, 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html
One immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread across the world is that the primary instruments of U.S. foreign policy will be crimped. The next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal position. Estimates of this year's federal budget deficit already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year, to $407 billion. With families and businesses hurting, there will be calls for various and expensive domestic relief programs. In the face of this onrushing river of red ink, both Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. Only Joe Biden has suggested a possible reduction -- foreign aid. This would be one of the few popular cuts, but in budgetary terms it is a mere grain of sand. Still, Sen. Biden's comment hints at where we may be headed: toward a major reduction in America's world role, and perhaps even a new era of financiallyinduced isolationism. Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power. What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice we have before us is between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American leadership.

34

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 35 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Heg

Economy key to leadership


Eiras 04 (Isabel, Senior Policy Analyst for International Economics @ the Heritage Foundation, July 23,
ln) Losing economic freedom has important implications for the pockets of U.S. families, the coffers of the U.S. economy, and America's ability to remain a strong world leader. If America continues to fall behind, the value of the U.S. dollar could continue to decline. Americans will then have fewer opportunities to improve their lives and foreigners will find investing in the United States less and less attractive. As the U.S. economy weakens and other countries' economies strengthen, the United States' leadership and power in the world decline as well.

35

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 36 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Prolif

Economic growth is the surest way to stop prolif


Burrows & Windram 94 (William & Robert, Critical Mass, p. 491-2)
Economics is in many respects proliferations catalyst. As we have noted, economic desperation drives Russia and some of the former Warsaw Pact nations to peddle weapons and technology. The possibility of considerable profits or at least balanced international payments also prompts Third World countries like China, Brazil, and Israel to do the same. Economics, as well as such related issues as overpopulation, drive proliferation just as surely as do purely political motives. Unfortunately, that subject is beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that, all things being equal, well-of, relatively secure societies like todays Japan are less likely to buy or sell superweapon technology than those that are insecure, needy, or desperate. Ultimately, solving economic problems, especially as they are driven by population pressure, is the surest way to defuse proliferation and enhance true national security.

36

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 37 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Disease


Economic downturns divert funds from disease treatment Skirble, 9 (Rosanne- reporter for the Voice of America, VOA Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS, TB, Malaria 04 February 2009, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-02/200902-04-voa23.cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6)
As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis, the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria supplies one-quarter of all AIDS funding, two-thirds of tuberculosis funding and three-fourths of malaria funding. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. Every year since 2001, leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment, prevention and research programs in poor countries. According to Jeffrey Sachs, a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission, the Global Fund has been forced by the recessionpinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans," he says. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months, which he says, "puts at risk the malaria control effort." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life, the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases. For example, malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years. Peter Chernin is one of a number of business leaders who've supported a $100 million campaign to fight the malaria pandemic in Africa. He says the disease has cost industry on the continent about $12 billion in lost worker productivity. "And [with] just a fraction of that investment, we can end malaria deaths and remove a major obstacle to economic development." Keeping up the fight against killer diseases like malaria, TB and AIDS is essential to the economic development of poor nations, says Sachs. And it's just bad economic policy, he believes, to cut long-term investments in development for near-term savings. "For Africa to be a full trading partner, one that could be picking up the slack by buying our goods and being a full productive part of the world economy, [it] requires that these diseases be brought under control. "That was at least one of the many aspects, including the humanitarian and security aspects, that led to the creation of the Global Fund in the first place." Sachs argues that the United States, which currently contributes about one third of the Global Fund's resources, could make a significant dent in the fund's $5 billon shortfall if it so chose. "There is no shortage of funds at the moment when in three months the rich world has found about $3 trillion of funding for bank bailouts and in which there have been $18 billion of Christmas bonuses for Wall Street supported by bailout legislation." Those monies could not "for one moment balance the lives that are at stake." Global Fund Board Chairman Rajat Gupta agrees that the United States could do more to help the fund out of its financial crisis. He believes that if the U.S., which has fallen behind on its pledged commitments, were to take on more of a leadership role, other nations would follow. "One of the good things that has happened before is that each country or different countries have kind of egged each other on to do more, and now it is the United States' turn to step up and get that going." Gupta says the Global Fund's progress in the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria must be sustained. He says he and other health and business leaders who attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland were not asking for a bailout. They were simply calling on donor nations to make good on their pledges, Gupta says, to improve the world's prosperity and its health. That continued support, Gupta says, could save nearly two million additional lives in the coming years.

37

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 38 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Warming/Environment


Economic growth key to solve warming (Terry L. Anderson, leading resource economist, professor of economics at Montana State University, Ph.D. in economics, visiting scholar at Oxford, university of Basel, and Cornell University law School, 04, Why Economic Growth is Good for the Environment, http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php)
Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out of natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air, healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their incomes rise above subsistence, "economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years," says economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic growth is good for the environment, policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment."

Strong economy is the best way to preserve a healthy environment, avoiding command-and-control policies
Shiller 99 (Erin, Policy Fellow of Environmental Studies @ Pacific Research Institute, Ventura County
Star, April 20, ln) As income levels rise, people begin to demand higher environmental standards. As a society, this effect is
cumulative -- thus, we expect even better environmental quality as our economy grows. Until now, environmental policy has relied almost entirely on command-and-control regulation. While such regulation has had its successes, it also hinders the very economic growth that has allowed for environmental improvements. Further, the marginal cost of pollution reduction is continually rising. Stated another way, a smaller aggregate amount of pollution means that each further reduction is more costly than the last, and the health benefits produced are less significant and felt by fewer people. For this reason, environmentalists should not regard economic concerns as a hindrance to effective policy, but should embrace economic growth as the key to further environmental improvements. Moreover, if Americans want the improvement that has occurred over the past generation to continue, they will look to innovative new policies that incorporate and even promote economic growth. Such policies not only best address today's environmental situation, but provide the most promising future for tomorrow's environment as well.

Economic decline no protection of the environment


Sanders 90 (Jerry, Univ of Cal Berkley, Academic Coordinator in Peace and Conflict; Global Ecology
and World Economy: Collision Course or Sustainable Future? Pg. 397)
In a period of economic stagnation and trade competition, a declining hegemonic power will think less about maintaining world order than about shoring up its position relative to new challengers and upstarts. Multilateral cooperation will run up against simlar constraints, due to suspicions that others may gain at ones expense by free riding on the public goods provided by environmental protection, trade regulation, or collective security regimes. The tendency will be for states to withhold the resources and the legitimacy required for supranational structures to work. And left to fend for themselves in a

38

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 39 /414

Nelson <tournament>

climate of economic stagnation, individual nations will be little able and even less inclined to end their destabilizing environmental practices. Thus the groundwork will be laid for a chain reaction of conflicts across a spectrum of relations, with one nation after another forced into escalating confrontation along several fronts.

39

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 40 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Famine


Economic collapse exacerbates global food crisis Cha, Graduate of Columbia and John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and McCrummen, Washington Post Writer, 08
Ariana Eunjung Cha and Stephanie McCrummen, 10-26-08, Washington Post, Financial Meltdown Worsens Food Crisis; As Global Prices Soar, More People Go Hungry, Lexis As shock waves from the credit crisis began to spread around the world last month, China scrambled to protect itself. Among the most extreme measures it took was to impose new export taxes to keep critical supplies such as grains and fertilizer from leaving the country. About 5,700 miles away, in Nairobi, farmer Stephen Muchiri is suffering the consequences. It's planting season now, but he can afford to sow amaranthus and haricot beans on only half of the 10 acres he owns because the cost of the fertilizer he needs has shot up nearly $50 a bag in a matter of weeks. Muchiri said nearly everyone he knows is cutting

back on planting, which means even less food for a continent where the supply has already been weakened by drought, political unrest and rising prices. While the world's attention has been focused on rescuing investment banks and stock markets from collapse, the global food crisis has worsened, a casualty of the growing financial tumult. Oxfam, the Britain-based aid group, estimates that economic chaos this year has pulled the incomes of an additional
119 million people below the poverty line. Richer countries from the United States to the Persian Gulf are busy helping themselves and have been slow to lend a hand. The contrast between the rapid-fire reaction by Western authorities to the financial crisis and their comparatively modest response to soaring food prices earlier this year has triggered anger among aid and farming groups. "The amount of money used for the bailouts in the U.S. and Europe -- people here are saying that money is enough to feed the poor in Africa for the next three years ," said Muchiri, head of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 923 million people were seriously undernourished in 2007. Its director-general, Jacques Diouf, said in a recent speech that he worries about cuts in aid to agriculture in developing countries. He said he is also concerned by protectionist trade measures intended to counteract the financial turmoil. Although the price of commodities has come down in the past few months, Diouf said, 36 countries still need emergency assistance for food, and he warned of a looming disaster next year if countries do not make food security a top priority. "The global financial crisis should not make us forget the food crisis ," Diouf said. Commodity prices have plummeted in recent weeks as investors have shown increasing concern about a global recession and a drop in the demand for goods. Wheat futures for December delivery closed at $5.1625 on Friday -- down 62 percent from a record set in February. Corn futures are down 53 percent from their all-time high, and soybean futures are 47 percent lower. Such declines, while initially welcomed by consumers, could eventually increase deflationary pressures -- lower prices could mean less incentive for farmers to cultivate crops. That, in turn, could exacerbate the global food shortage. In June, governments, donors and agencies gathered in Rome to pledge $12.3 billion to address the world's worst food crisis in a generation. But only $1 billion has been disbursed. An additional $1.3 billion, which had been earmarked by the European Commission for helping African farmers, is tied up in bureaucracy, with some governments now arguing that they can no longer afford to give up that money. "The financial crisis is providing an excuse for people across the spectrum -- governments, multilateral organizations, companies -- to not do the right thing," said Oxfam spokeswoman Amy Barry. The precarious aid situation is compounded by export taxes and bans imposed this year by a number of grain- and fertilizer-producing nations, including China, India, Pakistan, Ukraine and Argentina. E.U. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has criticized export restrictions because they "drive up world prices and cut off supplies of raw materials." Such restrictions, he said, "invite a cycle of retaliation that is as economically counterproductive as it is politically hard to resist," Mandelson said last month. China -- the world's biggest grain and rice producer and the biggest exporter of certain types of fertilizer -- could see its moves having ripple effects on vulnerable countries. "

40

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 41 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Racism

Growth solves racism


Business Week 11-06-1995 ln
Everyone agrees that it would be a calamity if African Americans economic progress of the past halfcentury ground to a halt. These days, economists are focusing on ways to improve public schools, revitalize neighborhoods, and open up employment for poor and working-class Americans, black and white. What Washington policymakers have to consider is that no reform can work without strong economic growth. Robust growth raises income of both whites and blacks. More important, it attacks the pinched economic conditions that allow racism to flourish.

Poor economic conditions racism


Progressive 92 (January, p. 7)
That racist and anti-Semitic appeals are more popular during times of economic decline is nothing new; Such demagoguery is an old and dishonorable tradition in Europe as well as in America. When people are desperate, they will seek out any politician offering a scapegoat.

Economic decline hate crimes


Kim 93 (Marlene, Prof of Labor Studies @ Rutgers University, 1993 p. viii)
In addition, anti-immigration sentiment, like hate crimes, ignites when economic times are tough . During the Great Depression of 1930s, lynchings of African Americans increased and 300,000 Mexican Americans were forcibly bussed back across the border. Over a hundred years ago, the US prohibited Chinese and later all Asians from immigrating, sanctions that were not lifted until the 1940s

41

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 42 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Russia War


Economic collapse causes Russian war that leads to nuclear extinction
Steven David, Jan/Feb 1999. Prof. of political science at Johns Hopkins. Foreign Affairs, lexis.

If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the
GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone . An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would

increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war

42

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 43 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Solves War


Economic interdependence prevents war Griswold, 7 (Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, 4/20/2007, Trade, Democracy and Peace, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free." By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.

43

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 44 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Solves Poverty


Economic growth solves worldwide poverty. Richard H. Adams, Jr. World Bank Policy Researcher. February 2003. Economic Growth, Inequality, and Poverty
Why is economic growth so important in reducing poverty? The answer to this question has been broached at several points in this analysis. Economic growth reduces poverty because first and foremost growth has little impact on. income inequality. Income distributions do not generally change much over time. Analysis of the 50 countries and the 101 intervals included in the data set shows that income inequality rises on average less than 1.0 percent per year. Moreover, econometric analysis shows that economic growth has no statistical effect on income distribution: inequality may rise, fall or remain steady with growth. Since income distributions are relatively stable over time, economic growth - in the sense of rising incomes - has the general effect of raising incomes for all members of society, including the poor. As noted above, in many developing countries poverty, as measured by the $1 per person per day standard, tends to be "shallow" in the sense that many people are clustered right below (and above) the poverty line. Thus, even a modest rate of economic growth has the effect of "lifting" people out of poverty. Poor people are capable of using economic growth - especially laborintensive economic growth which provides more jobs -- to "work" themselves out of poverty. Table 8 underscores these relationships by summarizing the results of recent empirical studies regarding the growth elasticity of poverty. When growth is measured by survey mean income (consumption), the point estimates of the elasticity of poverty with respect to growth are remarkably uniform: from a low of -2.12 in Bruno, Ravallion 21 and Squire (1998), to a mid-range of -2.59 in this study (excluding Eastern Europe and Central Asia), to a high of -3.12 in Ravallion and Chen (1997). In other words, on average, a 10 -percentage point increase in economic growth (measured by the survey mean) can be expected to produce between a 21.2 and 31.2 percent decrease in the proportion of people living in poverty ($1 per person per day). Economic growth reduces poverty in the developing countries of the world because average incomes of the poor tend to rise proportionately with those of the rest of the population. The fact that economic growth is so critical in reducing poverty highlights the need to accelerate economic growth throughout the developing world. Present rates of economic growth in the developing world are simply too low to make a meaningful dent in poverty. As measured by per capita GDP, the average rate of growth for the 50 low income and lower middle income countries in this paper was 2.66 percent per year. As measured by mean survey income (consumption), the average rate of growth in these 50 countries was even lower: a slightly negative -0.90 percent per year (Table 3). In the future, these rates of economic growth need to be significantly increased. In particular, more work needs to be done on identifying the elements used for achieving successful high rates of economic growth and poverty reduction in certain regions of the developing world (e.g., East Asia and South Asia), and applying the lessons of this work to the continuing growth and poverty needs in other areas, such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

44

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 45 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts War Turns Gender Violence

War more violence against women


Richards 04 (Cindy, A new vision for V movement Chicago Sun-Times, June 9, ln)
"I think the war, the jobs and the economy are all very connected to violence against women," Ensler said. "Let's begin with war. I have been outspoken about the war from the very beginning. I see not only consequences of

war toward human beings, but toward women. Let's begin with rape. The rate of violence toward women escalates in war," said the playwright and activist who has traveled to war-torn regions in Bosnia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Middle East. "War is really about taking what you want when you want it without consent. It really perpetuates a rape mentality. Take Iraq as an example. Saddam Hussein was as evil as they come. Under his
regime, 1 million died, women were raped, people were tortured. That existed for 30 years and we never intervened on behalf of the people being tortured and raped. If this were a war about stopping human rights violations, that was a war that should have been called 20 years ago."

45

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 46 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Impacts Econ Turns Terrorism

Economic growth solves terrorism


Wanandi 02 (Jusuf, member of the board of trustees @ Center for Strategic and International Studies,
A Global Coalition against International Terrorism p. 184-9) A robust global economy is a condition sine qua non in the battle against terrorism. By destroying a root cause of frustration namely, grinding poverty a healthy economy denies terrorists a fresh source of recruits.

Economic decline terrorism


Johnson 97 (Bryan T, fellow @ heritage foundation, Defining the US Role in the Global Economy
Mandate for Leadership IV. Feb) Stagnant economics and declining living standards in many Muslim countries breed a popular discontent that fuels the growth of radical Islamic fundamentalism. Widespread unemployment in Muslim countries such as Algeria, Egypt, and Iran has created a mass of disillusioned young men who form a reservoir of potential recruits for the radical Islamic groups. These restless poor, called the dispossessed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, often join militant groups in search of hope and a sense of personal empowerment. This is causing an increase in radical Islamic fundamentalism, which often results in increased international terrorism.

46

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 47 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Economic decline turns TB, Malaria, AIDS


Economic downturns divert funds from disease treatment Skirble, 9 (Rosanne- reporter for the Voice of America, VOA Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS, TB, Malaria 04 February 2009, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-02/200902-04-voa23.cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6)
As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis, the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria supplies one-quarter of all AIDS funding, two-thirds of tuberculosis funding and three-fourths of malaria funding. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. Every year since 2001, leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment, prevention and research programs in poor countries. According to Jeffrey Sachs, a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission, the Global Fund has been forced by the recession-pinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans," he says. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months, which he says, "puts at risk the malaria control effort." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life, the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases. For example, malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years. Peter Chernin is one of a number of business leaders who've supported a $100 million campaign to fight the malaria pandemic in Africa. He says the disease has cost industry on the continent about $12 billion in lost worker productivity. "And [with] just a fraction of that investment, we can end malaria deaths and remove a major obstacle to economic development." Keeping up the fight against killer diseases like malaria, TB and AIDS is essential to the economic development of poor nations, says Sachs. And it's just bad economic policy, he believes, to cut long-term investments in development for near-term savings. "For Africa to be a full trading partner, one that could be picking up the slack by buying our goods and being a full productive part of the world economy, [it] requires that these diseases be brought under control. "That was at least one of the many aspects, including the humanitarian and security aspects, that led to the creation of the Global Fund in the first place." Sachs argues that the United States, which currently contributes about one third of the Global Fund's resources, could make a significant dent in the fund's $5 billon shortfall if it so chose. "There is no shortage of funds at the moment when in three months the rich world has found about $3 trillion of funding for bank bailouts and in which there have been $18 billion of Christmas bonuses for Wall Street supported by bailout legislation." Those monies could not "for one moment balance the lives that are at stake." Global Fund Board Chairman Rajat Gupta agrees that the United States could do more to help the fund out of its financial crisis. He believes that if the U.S., which has fallen behind on its pledged commitments, were to take on more of a leadership role, other nations would follow. "One of the good things that has happened before is that each country or different countries have kind of egged each other on to do more, and now it is the United States' turn to step up and get that going." Gupta says the Global Fund's progress in the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria must be sustained. He says he and other health and business leaders who attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland were not asking for a bailout. They were simply calling on donor nations to make good on their pledges, Gupta says, to improve the world's prosperity and its health. That continued support, Gupta says, could save nearly two million additional lives in the coming years.

47

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 48 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Economic Decline Turns Soft Power


Economic decline undermines soft power Mason, 8 (David, Professor of Political Science, Butler University, The End of the American Century, http://books.google.com/books? id=UCNeNPeRF3UC&dq=the+end+of+the+american+century&source=gbs_navlinks_s, pg 13)
The crux of the American problem is economic decline because much of Americas global power and influence has been a function of its great economic wealth. In The Rise and fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy puts it bluntly this way: wealth is usually needed to underpin military power, and military power is usually needed to acquire and protect wealth Furthermore, economic wealth is an important dimension of soft power the ability to influence other countries without the exercise of raw military force, or hard power. Thus, economic decline can adversely affect a countrys international influence and standing. As Kennedy points out in his book, however, the relationship between economic power and international power can also run the other direction. If a great power overreaches in its international commitments, the home front can suffer both economically and socially.

48

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 49 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ turns heg


Hegemony depends on economic strength Pape, 9 (Robert- professor of political science at the University of Chicago, The National Interest, Empire Falls 01.22.2009, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20484) Over time, Americas power is fundamentally a result of its economic strength. Productive capacity defined by indicators such as wealth, technology and population sizeis a prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. The United States, like any state, may choose to vary the degree to which its productive capacities are used to create military assets. But it is the economy as a whole that constrains the choice. And the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics. Major assessments of this relative position have long turned heavily on a single statistic: Americas share of world economic product. Advocates of extending Americas unipolar dominance are well aware of the central importance of the economic foundations of American power and routinely present detailed statistics on the U.S. share of world product. The basic notion is simple: take U.S. domestic product in any year and divide it by the aggregate total of the gross domestic product of all states in the world. To measure gross domestic product, the unipolar-dominance school prefers to compare every countrys output in current-year U.S. dollars, a method that tends to show America is much further ahead of other countries than alternative measures. Indeed, the most recent call for America to exploit its hegemonic position (published in 2008) rests on the presumption of U.S. dominance based on the current-year dollar figures.2 By this metric, in 2006 the United States had 28 percent of world product while its nearest most likely competitor, China, had 6 percent. Looks pretty good for America, right? Alas, single-year snapshots of Americas relative power are of limited value for assessing the sustainability of its grand strategy over many years. For grand-strategic concernsespecially how well the United States can balance its resources and foreign-policy commitmentsthe trajectory of American power compared to other states is of seminal importance. For the sake of argument, let us start with the unipolar-dominance schools preferred measure of American hegemony, but look at the trajectory of the data over time. According to GDP figures in current U.S. dollars from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United States increased its share of world production during the 1990s, reached its apogee in 2000, and then began to steadily lose ground during the eight years of the Bush administration, with its relative power ultimately falling by nearly a quarter in the first decade of the twenty-first century. At the same time, the relative power of China, the state many consider Americas most likely future rival, has grown consistently. If we look out as far as the IMF can see (2013), things get even worsewith the United States expected to continue declining and China to continue rising. The United States has been going through the first decade of the twenty-first century not stronger than before, but substantially weaker. How good are the numbers? Economists commonly use two other methods to calculate GDP, constantdollar calculations and purchasing power parity.3 Although each offers advantages and disadvantages, for our purposes what matters is that they form a lower bound of Americas relative decline. And regardless of the metric, the trend is the same. Again using IMF figures, Table 2 shows the trajectory of the share of world product for the United States and China using both alternative measures. Simply put, the United States is now a declining power. This new reality has tremendous implications for the future of American grand strategy. The erosion of the underpinnings of U.S. power is the result of uneven rates of economic growth between America, China and other states in the world. Despite all the pro-economy talk from the Bush

49

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 50 /414

Nelson <tournament>

administration, the fact is that since 2000, U.S. growth rates are down almost 50 percent from the Clinton years. This trajectory is almost sure to be revised further downward as the consequences of the financial crisis in fall 2008 become manifest. As Table 3 shows, over the past two decades, the average rate of U.S. growth has fallen considerably, from nearly 4 percent annually during the Clinton years to just over 2 percent per year under Bush. At the same time, China has sustained a consistently high rate of growth of 10 percent per yeara truly stunning performance. Russia has also turned its economic trajectory around, from year after year of losses in the 1990s to significant annual gains since 2000. Worse, Americas decline was well under way before the economic downturn, which is likely to only further weaken U.S. power. As the most recent growth estimates (November 2008) by the IMF make clear, although all major countries are suffering economically, China and Russia are expected to continue growing at a substantially greater rate than the United States.

50

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 51 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ turns heg


Economic decline undermines heg Pape, 9 (Robert- professor of political science at the University of Chicago, The National Interest, Empire Falls 01.22.2009, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20484)
These estimates suggest that roughly a quarter of Americas relative decline is due to U.S. economic weaknesses (spending on the Iraq War, tax cuts, current-account deficits, etc.), a sixth to Chinas superior performance and just over half to the spread of technology to the rest of the world. In other words, self-inflicted wounds of the Bush years significantly exacerbated Americas decline, both by making the decline steeper and faster and crowding out productive investment that could have stimulated innovation to improve matters. All of this has led to one of the most significant declines of any state since the mid-nineteenth century. And when one examines past declines and their consequences, it becomes clear both that the U.S. fall is remarkable and that dangerous instability in the international system may lie ahead. If we end up believing in the wishful thinking of unipolar dominance forever, the costs could be far higher than a simple percentage drop in share of world product.

A strong economy is key to American hegemony Ferguson, 3 (Niall, Foreign Affairs, Hegemony or Empire? http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59200/niall-ferguson/hegemony-or-empire?page=4, September/October 2003
The authors' argument about the uniqueness of American hegemony rests on four main pillars. The most obvious is economic: as they point out, the U.S. economy has outstripped almost all of its competitors for much of the past century. This point is developed by another of the book's contributors, Angus Maddison, and explored in almost encyclopedic depth in the chapter by Moses Abramovitz and Paul David. According to these authors, nothing achieved by the United Kingdom -- not even in the first flush of the Industrial Revolution -- ever compared with the United States' recent economic predominance. Second, the authors point to the way the United States has very deliberately used its power to advance multilateral, mutually balanced tariff reductions under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later the World Trade Organization). As Robert Gilpin argues in his chapter, the tariff reductions achieved in the 1967 Kennedy Round negotiations (and subsequently) owed much to "American pressures." Such pressure was classically exerted through "conditionality" -- that is, the terms under which the Washington-based International Monetary Fund granted its loans. This deliberate process contrasts markedly with the willy-nilly way free trade spread in the nineteenth century, as described by O'Brien and Hobson. The third pillar of American dominance can be found in the way successive U.S. governments sought to take advantage of the dollar's role as a key currency before and after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods institutions, which, according to O'Brien, enabled the United States to be "far less restrained ... than all other states by normal fiscal and foreign exchange constraints when it came to funding whatever foreign or strategic policies Washington decided to implement." As Robert Gilpin notes, quoting Charles de Gaulle, such policies led to a "hegemony of the dollar" that gave the U.S. "extravagant privileges." In David Calleo's words, the U.S. government had access to a "gold mine of paper" and could therefore collect a subsidy from foreigners in the form of seigniorage (the profits that flow to those who mint or print a depreciating currency).

51

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 52 /414

Nelson <tournament>

US Econ Collapse global


A U.S. economic collapse leads to global economic depressionWalter Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, March/April, 2004 Americas Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, Proquest Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world.

52

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 53 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good- environment


Economic growth is more important and valued by Democrats and Republicans over the environment. (Frank Newport, Ph. D., Editor in Chief, The Gallup Poll, and author of Polling Matters, 03 19 09, Americans: Economy takes precedence over environment, http://www.gallup.com/poll/116962/americans-economy-takes-precedence-environment.aspx
Only 50% of Democrats, who typically have been the most environmentally oriented in their policy positions, opt for the environmental protection position -- just six points higher than the percentage of Democrats choosing economic growth. (Republicans and independents are more likely to choose economic growth.) This finding suggests that the economic crisis may present a real philosophical dilemma to those who ordinarily are strongly supportive of environmental protection, but who may back off in the face of the perceived need to restore economic growth. The partisan spread is somewhat larger for the trade-off question dealing with energy and the environment. Republicans and Democrats are almost perfect mirror images of each other in response to this question, with twothirds of Republicans opting for energy over the protection of the environment, while two-thirds of Democrats hold the opposite view. There is little question that the current economic crisis poses a significant challenge for the environmental movement in this country. Previous Gallup research has shown that concern about global warming has diminished this year, and the research reviewed here shows clearly that Americans are more willing than ever to forgo protection of the environment if needed in order to ensure economic growth or the production of energy. With the economy as bad as it has been in recent memory, Americans' preferences have swung even more strongly in the direction of the economy over the environment

Growth in the economic is beneficial to the environment. (Terry L. Anderson, leading resource economist, professor of economics at Montana State University, Ph.D. in economics, visiting scholar at Oxford, university of Basel, and Cornell University law School, 04, Why Economic Growth is Good for the Environment, http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php)
Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out of natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce, prices increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic growth, which in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air, healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their incomes rise above subsistence, "economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years," says economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic growth is good for the environment, policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment."

53

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 54 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ Growth good- environment


A sustainable development is better achieved through economic growth, because it will lead to a better environmental quality. (Mathew Brown, an economist at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, 12 13 99, Apple Daily, Hong Kong http://www.perc.org/articles/article175.php)
As increasing pressure from visiting business leaders and local citizens attests, Hong Kong, like all wealthy countries, is encountering fears over air quality, clean water, and waste disposal. To meet these challenges Hong Kong Chief Executive CH Tung has embraced the idea of "sustainable development." In his words this requires"a fundamental change of mindset," in the way Hong Kong businesses and government operate. Around the world policies of "sustainable development" rest on the assumption that current economic systems are bad for the environment and that only through more government control will environmental quality be improved. Enacting this policy could prove costly not only for Hong Kong's environment but also for its celebrated economic success. The good news for Mr. Tung and all of Hong Kong is that the twin goals of environmental protection and increased prosperity are not as contradictory as many environmentalists would have the public believe. A recent study by Princeton University economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger found that "economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement." They found, for instance, that light particulates, a pervasive form of air pollution, tend to increase until a country reaches per capita income levels of around $9,000. After that air pollution declines as countries become wealthier. According to Grossman and Krueger "contrary to the alarmist cries of some environmental groups, we find no evidence that economic growth does unavoidable harm to the natural habitat." This relationship between economic growth and environmental quality, which resembles an inverted-U, has been found for many other environmental indices such as water quality and waste disposal-- both important concerns for a city such as Hong Kong.

54

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 55 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good- environment


Countries that practiced Sustainable development actually created a negative impact on economic growth and environmental quality. (Mathew Brown, an economist at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, 12 13 99, Apple Daily, Hong Kong http://www.perc.org/articles/article175.php)
Perhaps more relevant to Hong Kong's future is a recent finding that government efforts to regulate environmental quality, a cornerstone of many "sustainable development" proposals, can have a substantial negative impact on economic growth. Another team of economists found that American air and water regulations had a total cost of about $320 billion and decreased American gross domestic product (GDP) by 5.8%. Even well intentioned regulations can have a negative impact on economic growth and thus unintentionally on desired improvements in environmental quality. A policy of sustainable development can also be harmful in its prescription to forgo economic growth in the name of preserving resources for the future. Forcing the current generation to conserve resources for the future is like taxing the poor to give money to the rich. Imagine how different Hong Kong would look today if fifty years ago its imperial rulers had decreed that Hong Kong must not use natural resources so that they would be available for future generations. In that case Hong Kong, then with per capita incomes lower than many Third World countries today, would never have been able to achieve the remarkable economic growth that has made it one of the richest places on Earth, with individual incomes as high as those in the United States and higher than in most parts of Europe.

Hong Kong is a good example of how economic growth will lead to a higher quality of the environment. (Mathew Brown, an economist at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, 12 13 99, Apple Daily, Hong Kong http://www.perc.org/articles/article175.php)
In addition to asking Hong Kong to give up growth for the sake of future generations, a policy of "sustainable development" involves reducing the environmental burden Hong Kong's economy places on its neighbors. Here Hong Kong's great success is truly in evidence. Hong Kong is much wealthier than mainland China and indeed most of the rest of Asia. As such it is in a position to worry more about the impact its neighbors have on Hong Kong's environment than vice versa. By continuing the liberal trade and economic policies that have made Hong Kong the envy and model for much of Asia, and indeed the rest of the world, it will help promote economic growth in the region and thus improved environmental quality for its neighbors and itself. As Hong Kong moves into the new millennium it has many advantages over most of its neighbors. Its economic freedom and consequent wealth will not only allow it to enjoy increased prosperity in the future but also increasing environmental quality. Avoiding the temptation to impose new layers of government regulation on a system that has worked so well will be the main challenge standing in its way.

55

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 56 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good- Poverty


Countries with higher economic growth rates will face poverty alleviation. (Pradeep Agrawal, professor of economics and head, RBI chair unit at the institute of economic growth, university enclave, Delhi, 08, Economic growth and poverty reduction: evidence from Kazakhstan, http://www.adb.org/documents/periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol24-2-Agrawal.pdf)
Countries with higher growth rates are likely to experience more rapid reduction in poverty. Using province-level panel data, this was demonstrated to hold for Kazakhstan. Growth is considered pro-poor if the income share of the poor rises with growth or at least their incomes grow in absolute terms. Inequality has declined slightly over the recent high-growth period (19982003), accompanied by reduction in poverty gap and severity. This evidence supports the view that the 19982003 high-growth period in Kazakhstan has been pro-poor. Growth reduced poverty by leading to increased employment and higher real wages. Both government revenue and expenditure increased with growth and increased oil and gas exports, both in real terms and as percent of GDP. Government revenue, which sharply increased in 2003, was used partly to reform and expand the pension system. This provided assistance to many unemployed workers who could not adjust to the major and rapid changes from the Soviet era industrial structure. However, it did not translate into a corresponding improvement in expenditure on the education and health as a share of government revenue or GDP. Nevertheless, because of the high growth of government revenue and GDP, real expenditure per person on social sectors still rose slightly in some periods over 19982003. The paper shows that provinces (regions) of Kazakhstan that received higher expenditure on social sectors experienced a larger decline in poverty. This underlines the need for sustained, increasing expenditure for the social sectors in Kazakhstan, more so in the poorer provinces, possibly through additional support from the national government.

Economic growth and poverty alleviation are directly connected; economic growth helps reduce poverty. (Pradeep Agrawal, professor of economics and head, RBI chair unit at the institute of economic growth, university enclave, Delhi, 08, Economic growth and poverty reduction: evidence from Kazakhstan, http://www.adb.org/documents/periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol24-2-Agrawal.pdf) This paper empirically examines the relation between economic growth and poverty alleviation in the case of Kazakhstan using province-level data. It shows that provinces with higher growth rates achieved faster decline in poverty. This happened largely through growth, which led to increased employment and higher real wages and contributed significantly to poverty reduction. Rapidly increasing oil revenues since 1998 have helped significantly raise both gross domestic product growth and government revenue in Kazakhstan. Part of the oil fund was used to fund a pension and social protection program that has helped reduce poverty. However,
expenditure on other social sectors like education and health has not increased much and needs more support. It is also shown empirically that increased government expenditure on social sectors did contribute significantly to poverty alleviation. This suggests that both rapid economic growth and enhanced government support

for the social sectors are helpful in reducing poverty.

56

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 57 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good- poverty/environment


Economic growth is key to reducing poverty and helping the environment.
(World Resources institute, 97, Economic growth and human development, http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8372)

Economic growth is an important factor in reducing poverty and generating the resources necessary for human development and environmental protection. There is a strong correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and indicators of development such as life expectancy, infant mortality, adult literacy, political and civil rights, and some indicators of environmental quality. However, economic growth alone does not guarantee human development. Wellfunctioning civil institutions, secure individual and property rights, and broad-based health and educational services are also vital to raising overall living standards. Despite its shortcomings, though, GDP remains a useful proxy measure of human well-being.

The world economy has grown approximately fivefold since 1950, an unprecedented rate of increase. The industrialized economies still dominate economic activity, accounting for US$22.5 trillion of the US$27.7 trillion global GDP in 1993 [1]. Yet a remarkable trend over the past 25 years has been the burgeoning role played by developing countries, in particular the populous economies of east and south Asia.

57

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 58 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good- social services


Economic growth helps increase government revenue, which in turn decreases poverty through social programs. (Pradeep Agrawal, professor of economics and head, RBI chair unit at the institute of economic growth, university enclave, Delhi, 08, Economic growth and poverty reduction: evidence from Kazakhstan, http://www.adb.org/documents/periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol24-2-Agrawal.pdf The growing literature on policies for poverty reduction has emphasized the importance of economic growth, as well as targeted provision of government aid in poverty alleviation and development. Since government aid to the poor is dependent on government revenue, which in turn grows with economic growth, the key role of economic growth has been emphasized in the literature. This paper examined these issues empirically for Kazakhstan and showed that the rapid increase in oil and gas extraction and related activities very significantly contributed to economic growth as well as to increased government revenue. A portion of these funds was used to improve the social security/pension system, and maintain government demand for goods that helped industrial recovery. This played a key role in poverty reduction in Kazakhstan.

58

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 59 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good- poverty


Economic growth is key to reduce poverty. (Ebba Dohlman and Mikael Soderback, OECD development Cooperation, 03 07, "Economic growth versus poverty reduction: A "hollow debate"?," http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2173/Economic_growth_versus_poverty_ reduction:_A__93hollow_debate_94_.html)
A close look at what can be patchy data suggests that growth, poverty and inequality are linked. One study shows that a 1% increase in per capita incomes may reduce income poverty by as much as 4% or by less than 1%, depending on the initial conditions in the country, such as the distribution of assets, ownership, and so on. Overall, most of the evidence confirms that poverty reduction depends on the pace and pattern of economic growth. But how to achieve the optimal pattern? The answer is a hybrid: pro-poor and pro-growth approaches are mutually reinforcing and should go hand in hand. What this means for policy is spelt out in a new book by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD, whose member countries handle some 90% of world bilateral ODA (see references). Its forum, the Network on Poverty Reduction (POVNET), has helped to steer previously divided opinion into a new consensus that rapid and sustained poverty reduction requires pro-poor growth. This means a pace and pattern of growth that enhances the ability of poor women and men to participate in, contribute to and benefit from growth.

59

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 60 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AT: Dedev-No mindshift


People will always want an increase in economic growth, because it prevents everyone from becoming poor.
(Richland college, 08, Economic Growth, http://www.google.com/search? q=people+will+always+want+economic+growth&hl=en&start=10&sa=N) We now know what Economic Growth is. It is the level of Real GDP increasing over time. The trick about Economic Growth is that we always want it increasing, but not too fast or too slow. Without increased Economic Growth we would never improve our standard of living. We would never have innovation. Ex: Would you rather live during the time of the Biltmore Mansion, or today at minimum wage? We are much better off today than we were 120 years ago (roughly the time when the Biltmore Estate was built). Even people making near the Minimum Wage have access to products and information that wasnt yet invented or available to that time period. That explains why we want a continuous increase in GDP, but why do we want to control its speed; why is too fast or too slow equally as bad as no growth? Think about everyone running out and borrowing money to start businesses or invent new products. What would happen to GDP? It would increase drastically for a short period of time, but that cant last. Everyone is in debt through borrowing; there would be no consumers to buy all of these new products. Everyone would become poor, and that would lead to a recession which we know ends in job losses.

60

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 61 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good-violence


Economic growth leads to less violence and disorder, and helps establish stability and the quality of health. (The Futurist. 04 30 06, "The Psychology of Economic Progress,"
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/the_psychology_.html) In centuries past, killing another person in order to take his belongings was common. Today, the downside risk to one's career of even petty theft or minor fraud is enough that most people in the US today don't consider it. As the world economy accelerated from centuries of slow growth to a period of rapid growth starting from the middle of the 20th century, we have seen a general decline in violence and disorder in developed societies, and also a decline in large-scale warfare in general. Simply put, when more people have a stake in the stability and health of the system, they are more interested in maintaining and strengthening it, rather than disrupting it or trying to bypass it.

61

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 62 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ growth good- social services


Economic growth helps increase social services, leading to a decrease in poverty.
(JBIC, Japanese bank of international cooperation, 11 06, "Infrastructure development to alleviate poverty," http://www.jbic.go.jp/en/report/jbic-today/2006/11/index_02.html) It is estimated that 1.1 billion people in the world live on less than a dollar a day. About three-quarters of these 1.1 billion live in rural areas in developing countries, and there is a growing awareness throughout the international community that agricultural development is extremely important in reducing poverty, and must be accelerated to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. For rural areas where many of the poor live, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) has provided Official Development Assistance (ODA) loans to support the development of infrastructure that will serve as a foundation for growth in the agricultural sector. JBIC offers a range of support tools, including the combination of various frameworks for the effective use of agricultural infrastructure and ensuring sustainable results from it. As the development experience in Asia has shown, economic growth boosts incomes and creates employment opportunities, leading to higher standards of living. Reducing poverty in developing countries requires sustainable economic growth and the development of infrastructure to support that growth.

Economic growth helps increase social welfare, which is the objective of governments.
(Mathew Clarke, 09 03, "Chairman of MIND (Munasinge Institute for development)," http://books.google.com/books? id=TK1YDJKJoC8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=economic+growth+leads+welfare&source=bl&ots=Z88sFL27JS&sig=sa Q7KNsHERU_k4x98hR3XxAKre4&hl=en&ei=JpYSpG1NaCytwftgfHdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3) An explanation of the relationships between economic growth and social welfare is an enduring question in contemporary development studies. Economic growth is desirable if it improves social welfare. Within the literature and public policy, the orthodox view is that achieving economic growth is the appropriate means to increase social welfare and enhancing social welfare is a rational objective of society and governments. Economic growth leads to higher incomes and improved access to basic needs. However, the costs of achieving economic growth are often not fully considered, as welfare analysis of economic growth is limited within the literature. Whist some work has been undertaken for transitional economies, welfare analysis has been generally limited to the suggestion of general frameworks.

62

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 63 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AT: Trainer
Ted Trainers ideas are flawed overconsumption is unavoidable and necessary (Margo Condoleon, Document of the DSP, national executive, 09, "Environment, Capitalism and Socialism," http://books.google.com/books?id=kP4xrhGDoywC&pg=PA97&dq=ted+trainer&lr=&ei=LBYSsujHpbyzQTLzJw1)
Ted Trainer's main ideas have been expressed in two books Abandon Affluence and Developed to Death. They contain very detailed presentation of trends in resource depletion and energy supply, population growth, the wastefulness of consumer societies, and the exploitation of the Third World by wealthier nations. Trainer argues strongly against those who believe that these problems can be addressed adequately through existing political and social institutions. However, as the title indicates, Abandon Affluence argues that all have to accept a lower level of consumption -the root cause of the ecological crisis is "overconsumption" by individual consumers in the industrially developed countries. This argument undervalues the great disparities in income that exist within the developed countries. It also fails to grasp that wasteful consumption is overwhelmingly created by the needs of capital for ever expanding markets: if profits need to be maintained planned obsolescence, the permanent stimulation of new "needs" through advertising, multiple versions of the same product and unnecessary packaging are all unavoidable. Thus Trainer's tendency to blame individual consumption levels for the ecological crisis stems from his equating affluence (a plentiful supply of products meeting rational needs) with consumerism and wasteful consumption created by capitalism

63

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 64 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ defense
Economic problems dont increase the likelihood of war Bennet and Nordstrom, 2k (D. Scott and Timothy Nordstrom, dept of political science @ the University of Penn, 2000,Foreign Policy)
Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring Rivalries, Journal of Conflict resolution, vol.44 no.1 p. 33-61, jstor Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal problems . Military competition between states requires large amounts of resources, and rivals require even more attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy. In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs, when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry, it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely to bemost important and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate active problems. Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for ways to improve a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for a rivalry. Among other things, this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could no longer compete economically with the United States. Hypothesis 2: Poor economic conditions increase the probability of rivalry termination. Hypotheses 1 and 2 posit opposite behaviors in response to a single cause (internal economic problems). As such, they demand are search design that can account for substitutability between them.

Us not key to world economy- emerging economies are more independent from the US The Economist, 5-21 (Decoupling 2.0 May 21, 2009, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm ?story_id=13697292)
REMEMBER the debate about decoupling? A year ago, many commentatorsincluding this newspaperargued that emerging economies had become more resilient to an American recession, thanks to their strong domestic markets and prudent macroeconomic policies. Naysayers claimed Americas weakness would fell the emerging world. Over the past six months the global slump seemed to prove the sceptics right. Emerging economies reeled and decoupling was ridiculed. Yet perhaps the idea was dismissed too soon. Even if Americas output remains weak, there are signs that some of the larger emerging economies could see a decent rebound. China is exhibit A of this new decoupling: its economy began to accelerate again in the first four months of this year. Fixed investment is growing at its fastest pace since 2006 and consumption is holding up well. Despite debate over the accuracy of Chinas GDP figures (see article), most economists agree that output will grow faster than seemed plausible only a few months ago. Growth this year could be close to 8%. Such optimism has fuelled commodity prices which have, in turn, brightened the outlook for Brazil and other commodity exporters. That said, even the best performing countries will grow more slowly than they did between 2004 and 2007. Nor will the resilience be universal: eastern Europes indebted economies will suffer as global banks cut back, and emerging economies intertwined with America, such as Mexico, will continue to be hit hard. So will smaller, more tradedependent countries. Decoupling 2.0 is a narrower phenomenon, confined to a few of the biggest, and least indebted, emerging economies. It is based on two under-appreciated facts: the biggest emerging economies are less dependent on American spending than commonly believed; and they have proven more able and willing to respond to economic weakness than many feared. Economies such as China or Brazil were walloped late last year not only, or even mainly, because American demand plunged. (Over half of Chinas exports go to other emerging economies, and China recently overtook the United States as Brazils biggest export market.) They were hit hard by the near-collapse of global credit markets and the dramatic destocking by shell-shocked firms. In addition, many emerging countries had been aggressively tightening monetary policy to fight inflation just before these shocks hit. The result was that domestic demand slumped even as exports fell.

64

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 65 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ Defense
The economy is resilient Sehgal, 4-17 (Rohit- chief investment strategist for Dynamic Funds, The Globe and Mail, Optimism reigns, even after the humble pie Lexis-Nexis Academic, April 17, 2009, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do)
We follow two economies very closely, China and the U.S. In China, the numbers look very encouraging. They also have a fairly aggressive stimulus plan that seems to be sticking. Car sales in China, for instance, in March were more than 12 million [at an annual pace] so they are already exceeding U.S. car sales. In the U.S., we are still in a crisis mode. You have to look very closely at housing because that's where the whole trouble started. If you're looking at affordability, it's improving pretty dramatically. You're seeing mortgage applications, the numbers are beginning to improve. The retail data in the U.S. are not as bad, durables numbers are not as bad. Not as bad to me is a good sign. And if you look at inventories, they're scraping the bottom right now so you could have a pretty fast recovery there, because industrial production came to a screeching halt. When you look at all this anecdotal evidence, you can make a case that maybe things are improving a bit. The bears say that things may get better, but not for long and then they will get worse. What do you say to that? But maybe it will not get worse again. Look at the amount of stimulus, and look at the valuations in equity markets. They're at historically low levels. If you look at the last 10 years, equity returns are zero. That's a very rare occurrence. It doesn't mean we won't have setbacks. I think we will have setbacks. I don't believe we are in a great depression. I think we have a problem that started in the housing sector with subprime, and it's going to take a long time to clean it up. The U.S. economy is very resilient. This is one area where the bears don't want to give too much credit. Unlike Japan and Europe, it's adaptive. They go and blow their brains out once every five or six years because of excesses, but they learn their lessons and they do adapt very well and it's still a very productive economy. It will take time, certainly.

Multiple competitive advantages ensure the US economy will remain strong Francis, 8 (Dianne, Fingold = portfolio manager of Dynamic Funds, The Huffington Post, U.S. Economy Huge Winner in Future May 30, 2008, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-francis/us-economy-hugewinner-in_b_104205.html)
The current slowdown is temporary because the U.S. has competitive advantages compared to virtually all other countries. Said Fingold: "The United States still has huge competitive advantages to the rest of the world. It has tax advantages, good laws, its government goes to bat for its corporations around the world, its government protects intellectual property." Fingold's global funds are under-weighted in Europe because the Euro has risen by 40% and has decimated corporate profits and exporters. He's also cautious about Asia. "Asian currencies will be the next to rise against the U.S. dollar which is why we are reluctant to invest in Asian exporters and multinationals," he said. The U.S. has huge underlying strength:

"America is one of the only free markets in the world, where intellectual property and people can be developed. Its industrial and technology companies are the hot houses of the world for producing innovation. The low dollar means that there is a huge wind at the back for companies who can serve the world with exports, services and goods that help build their economies and enable infrastructure development."

65

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 66 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Environmental Destruction/opop turns disease


Worldwatch Institute, 96 (Infectious Diseases Surge: Environmental Destruction, Poverty To Blame http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1593)
Rates of infectious disease have risen rapidly in many countries during the past decade, according to a new study released by the Worldwatch Institute. Illness and death from tuberculosis, malaria, dengue fever, and AIDS are up sharply; infectious diseases killed 16.5 million people in 1993, one-third of all deaths worldwide, and slightly more than cancer and heart disease combined. The resurgence of diseases once thought to have been conquered stems from a deadly mix of exploding populations, rampant poverty, inadequate health care, misuse of antibiotics, and severe environmental degradation, says the new report, Infecting Ourselves: How Environmental and Social Disruptions Trigger Disease. Infectious diseases take their greatest toll in developing countries, where cases of malaria and tuberculosis are soaring, but even in the United States, infectious disease deaths rose 58 percent between 1980 and 1992. Research Associate Anne Platt, author of the report, says, "Infectious diseases are a basic barometer of the environmental sustainability of human activity. Recent outbreaks result from a sharp imbalance between a human population growing by 88 million each year and a natural resource base that is under increasing stress." "Water pollution, shrinking forests, and rising temperatures are driving the upward surge in infections in many countries," the report says. "Only by adopting a more sustainable path to economic development can we control them." "Beyond the number of people who die, the social and economic cost of infectious diseases is hard to overestimate," Platt says. "It can be a crushing burden for families, communities, and governments. Some 400 million people suffer from debilitating malaria, about 200 million have schistosomiasis, and nine million have tuberculosis." By the year 2000, AIDS will cost Asian countries over $50 billion a year just in lost productivity. "Such suffering and economic loss is doubly tragic," says Platt, "because the cost of these diseases is astronomical, yet preventing them is not only simple, but inexpensive." The author notes, "The dramatic resurgence of infectious diseases is telling us that we are approaching disease and medicine, as well as economic development, in the wrong way. Governments focus narrowly on individual cures and not on mass prevention; and we fail to understand that lifestyle can promote infectious disease just as it can contribute to heart disease. It is imperative that we bring health considerations into the equation when we plan for international development, global trade, and population increases, to prevent disease from spreading and further undermining economic development." The report notes that this global resurgence of infectious disease involves old, familiar diseases like tuberculosis and the plague as well as new ones like Ebola and Lyme disease. Yet all show the often tragic consequences of human actions: Population increases, leading to human crowding, poverty, and the growth of mega-cities, are prompting dramatic increases in dengue fever, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. Lack of clean water is spreading diseases like cholera, typhoid, and dysentery. Eighty percent of all disease in developing countries is related to unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation. Poorly planned development disrupts ecosystems and provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rodents, and snails that spread debilitating diseases. Inadequate vaccinations have led to resurgences in measles and diphtheria. Misuse of antibiotics has created drug-resistant strains of pneumonia and malaria.

66

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 67 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Environment Impact/ turns disease


Environmental collapse threatens health and civilization collapse
WHO, 5 (Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1.pdf) In a fundamental sense, ecosystems are the planet's life-support systems - for the human species and all other forms of life (see Figure 1.1). The needs of the human organism for food, water, clean air, shelter and relative climatic constancy are basic and unalterable. That is, ecosystems are essential to human well-being and especially to human health defined by the World Health Organization as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being. Those who live in materially comfortable, urban environments commonly take for granted ecosystem services to health. They assume that good health derives from prudent consumer choices and behaviours, with access to good health care services. But this ignores the role of the natural environment: of the array of ecosystems that allow people to enjoy good health, social organization, economic activity, a built environment and life itself. Historically, overexploitation of ecosystem services has led to the collapse of some societies (SG3). There is an observable tendency for powerful and wealthy societies eventually to overexploit, damage and even destroy their natural environmental support base. The agricultural-based civilizations of Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, the Mayans, and (on a micro-scale) Easter Island all provide well documented examples. Industrial societies, although in many cases more distant from the source of the ecosystem services on which they depend, may reach similar limits. Resource consumption in one location can lead to degradation of ecosystem services and associated health effects in other parts of the world (SG3). At its most fundamental level of analysis, the pressure on ecosystems can be conceptualized as a function of population, technology and lifestyle. In turn, these factors depend on many social and cultural elements. For example, fertilizer use in agricultural production increasingly is dependent on resources extracted from other regions and has led to eutrophication of rivers, lakes and coastal ecosystems. Notwithstanding ecosystems' fundamental role as determinants of human health, sociocultural factors play a similarly important role. These include infrastructural assets; income and wealth distribution; technologies used; and level of knowledge. In many industrialized countries, changes in these social factors over the last few centuries have both enhanced some ecosystem services (through more productive agriculture, for instance) and improved health services and education, contributing to increases in life expectancy. The complex multifactorial causation of states of health and disease complicates the attribution of human health impacts to ecosystem changes. A precautionary approach to ecosystem management is appropriate.

Environmental destruction causes new diseases


WHO, 5 (Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1.pdf) Disturbance or degradation of ecosystems can have biological effects that are highly relevant to infectious disease transmission (C14). The reasons for the emergence or re-emergence of some diseases are unknown, but the following mechanisms have been proposed: altered habitat leading to changes in the number of vector breeding sites or reservoir host distribution; niche invasions or transfer of interspecies hosts; biodiversity change (including loss of predator species and changes in host population density); human-induced genetic changes in disease vectors or pathogens (such as mosquito resistance to pesticides or the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria); and environmental contamination by infectious disease agents (such as faecal contamination of source waters).

67

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 68 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Environment turns war/economy


Environmental degradation increases war, instability, and hurts the economy UN, 4 (United Nations News Center, Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability November 5, 2004, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=12460&Cr=conflict&Cr1=environment, "These scars, threatening water supplies, the fertility of the land and the cleanliness of the air are recipes for instability between communities and neighbouring countries," he added. Citing a new UNEP report produced in collaboration with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Mr. Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within and between societies." The study finds that a decrepit and declining environment can depress economic activity and diminish the authority of the state in the eyes of its citizens. It also points out that the addressing environmental problems can foster trust among communities and neighbouring countries. "Joint projects to clean up sites, agreements and treaties to better share resources such as rivers and forests, and strengthening cooperation between the different countries' ministries and institutions may hold the key to building trust, understanding and more stable relations," said the UNEP chief.

68

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 69 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Environmental destruction turns agriculture


Environmental degradation destroys cropland
Homer-Dixon, 91 (Thomas- Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto, International Security On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict 199, http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change,47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests.48 Moreover, no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas, others are not yet visible anywhere. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact, which can be traced out in the figure. Since the Second World War, logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6.8-7.6 million hectares.49 Across the archipelago, logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion, changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns, and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt. These factors may seriously affect crop production. For example, when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan, the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36,000 hectares of irrigated farmland projected within the Plan for 2007 will actually be irrigable because of the hydrological effects of decreases in forest cover.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land, problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. Currently, total global cropland amounts to about 1.5 billion hectares. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet, which includes both current and potential cropland, range from 3.2 to 3.4 billion hectares, but nearly all the best land has already been exploited. What is left is either less fertile, not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable, infested with pests, or harder to clear and work.51

For developing countries during the 1980s, cropland grew at just 0.26 percent a year, less than half the rate of the 1970s. More importantly, in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1.9 percent a year.52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries, experts expect that the world average of 0.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0.17 hectares by the year 2025, given the current rate of world population growth.53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment, erosion, nutrient depletion, salinization, waterlogging, acidification, and compacting. The geographer Vaclav Smil, who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage, estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion; perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization, and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity. In addition, about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification.54 Taken together, he concludes, the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000.55

69

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 70 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Freedom
Violation of freedom negates the value of human existence and represents the greatest threat to human survival Rand 89 (Ayn Rand, Philosopher, July 1989, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, p. 145)
A society that robs and individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment, a society that sets up a conflict between its ethics and the requirements of mans nature is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all values of human coexistence, has no possible justification, and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to mans survival. Life on desert island is safer than and

incomparably preferable than existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

70

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 71 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Genocide
Genocide threatens extinction Diamond 92 (Diamond, THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE, 1992, p. 277)
While our first association to the world genocide is likely to be the killings in Nazi concentration camps, those were not even the largest-scale genocide of this century. The Tasmanians and hundreds of other peoples were modern targets of successful smaller extermination campaigns. Numerous peoples scattered throughout the world are potential targets in the near future. Yet genocide is such a painful subject that either wed rather not think about it at all, or else wed like to believe that nice people dont commit genocide only Nazis do. But our refusal to think about it

has consequences weve done little to halt the numerous episodes of genocide since World War II, and were not alert to where it may happen next. Together with our destruction of our own environmental resources, our genocidal tendencies coupled to nuclear weapons now constitute the two most likely means by which the human species may reverse all its progress virtually overnight. Genocide should always be weighed before other impacts Rice 05 (Susan Rice, Brookings Institute, WHY DARFUR CANT BE LEFT TO AFRICA, August 7, 2005, http://www.brookings.org/views/articles/rice/20050807.htm) Never is the international responsibility to protect more compelling than in cases of genocide. Genocide is not a regional issue. A government that commits or condones it is not on a par with one that, say, jails dissidents, squanders economic resources or suppresses free speech, as dreadful as such policies may be. Genocide makes a claim on the entire world and it should be a call to action whatever diplomatic feathers it ruffles.

71

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 72 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Heg
Heg prevents global nuclear wars Khalilzad 95
(Zalmay Khalilzad, Rand Corporation,

The

Washington

Quarterly

1995)

What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), rather than cooperating with each other, the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. In Western and Central Europe, Germany -- especially since unification -- would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany, European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. withdrawal could not, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The

same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Given Japanese technological prowess, to say nothing of the plutonium
stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry, it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly, if it should so decide. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With

and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea proeruptive States stayed out of such a war -- an unlikely prospect

the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, could come significant risks of preventive or

war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. If the United -- Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile

power. Such a development would threaten U.S. interests. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -- in the region. Besides, with the domination of Europe or East Asia, such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last.
In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought
regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oilimporting nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and

domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. <continued> The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United
States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might

The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every
be high.

nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed.<continued> Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally,

U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership
would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

72

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 73 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Homophobia War
Heterosexual dominance justifies genocide homophobia isolates homosexuals as citizens undeserving of equal protection of law Cohen, 2K [More censorship or less discrimination? Sexual orientation hate propaganda in multiple perspectives, McGill law review]
The above phenomena--closetry, deviance, sexism, and supremacy--form the context of homophobia against which hate propaganda works its harms. These harms are not just those of individual libel writ large; they are, seen contextually, the implements of heterosexual domination. (24) First among them is a range of physiological and psychological traumas experienced by members of the targeted group, all of which exacerbate existing feelings of vulnerability and isolation. (25) Second, these effects extend beyond the targeted group, causing particular detriment to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and democracy. (26) Third, sexual orientation hate propaganda reinforces (and is reinforced by) the other tools of homophobia, which include harassment, gay bashing, overt and covert discrimination, extortion, stigmatization, murder, and genocide. (27) Finally, the absence of protection from hate propaganda-particularly in jurisdictions such as Canada, where other target groups receive protection--signals to members of sexual minorities that they are second class citizens not entitled to equal protection of the law. (28) It is the individual and combined effect of these interconnected tools of homophobia, and not the mere pluralization of individual defamation or libel, that ultimately justifies state sanction of anti-gay hate propaganda.

73

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 74 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Human Rights: Credibility


Human Right Credibility solves extinction Copelan 99
(Rhonda Copelan, law professor, NYU, NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW, 1999, p. 71-2) The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority. Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy , and

military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation
rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security. Given the poverty and inequality in the United States

as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy.

74

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 75 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Human Rights Promo Good- Terrorism


Human Rights credibility gives us the influence to start modern movements and ensure necessary cooperation to stop terrorist attacks Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, 7-7, 2004, Promoting Human Rights and Democracy, Human Rights Watch, p. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/usint9009_txt.htm

Having an effective and principled American strategy to promote democratic freedoms around the world has never been more important to Americas national security. Indeed, I strongly believe that promoting human rights is central to Americas central national security imperative of defeating terror, for three reasons. First, the aims of Al Qaeda and its allies are advanced by the actions of repressive regimes in the Muslim world, which stretches from Africa to the Middle East to Central, South and Southeast Asia. The terrorists primary aim, we should remember, is to turn the hearts and minds of the people of this region against their governments and against the West, and to seize upon that anger to transform the region politically. When governments in countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan shut down political dissent, lock up non-violent dissidents, torture opponents, abuse the rule of law, and deny their people fair justice, they are contributing to the radicalization of their people, thus playing right into the hands of terrorist movements. And when ordinary people in the region associate the United States with their repressive governments, Al Qaedas aim of painting the United States as the enemy is also advanced. Second, in the long run, the only viable alternative to the rise of violent, extremist movements in this region is the development of moderate, non-violent political movements that represent their peoples aspirations, speaking out for economic progress and better schools and against corruption and arbitrary rule. But such movements can only exist under democratic conditions, when people are free to think, speak, write and worship without fear, when they can form political organizations, and when their rights are protected by independent courts. Without a doubt, more radical organizations can also exploit democratic freedoms to express their views, and they will be part of the political landscape as societies in the Middle East become more open. But as for terrorists, they do not need human rights to do what they do. They have thrived in the most repressive societies in the world. It is the people who dont use violence who need democratic freedoms to survive. Third, promoting human rights and democracy is important because Americas moral authority partly depends on it. American power in the world is more likely to be respected when it is harnessed to goals that are universally shared. People around the world are more likely to aid the United States in the fight against terrorism and other important goals if they believe the United States is also interested in defending their rights and aspirations. When America is seen to be compromising the values it has long preached, its credibility and influence are diminished.

75

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 76 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Human Rights Promo Good- Iran Prolif


Human rights promotion is critical to stem Iran prolif William W. Burke-White, Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Spring, 2004, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis
The human rights-aggression link suggests alterations in U.S. policy toward Iran. Current policy emphasizes preventing Iran from acquiring WMD,[133] which is admittedly important. The danger of WMD in Iranian hands, however, stems in part from the aggressive tendencies associated with Irans human rights abuses. A dramatic improvement in Irans human rights record would thus decrease the danger of the states potential WMD acquisition. Part and parcel of U.S. non-proliferation goals, then, should be active advocacy of human rights improvement in Iran. Such a policy would differentiate reformist groups in government and civil society from conservative religious leaders. It would single out repressive elements within Iranthose particular clerics who seek to push Iran back toward totalitarian theocracy. Likewise, it would support elements within Iran that seek liberalization, democracy, and human freedom. That might involve beginning a conversation with President Mohammed Khatami and members of parliament through our European partners. It might involve changing rhetoric and granting minor concessions that strengthen Khatamis hand vis--vis the clerical leadership. Such a policy would encourage non-governmental efforts to engage with and assist Irans NGO and academic communities. Finally, such a policy would require Irans full participation in the war on terror and an end to its support for the Hezbollah.

Iran proliferation causes arms race, terrorism, and nuclear war Kurtz, 6 (Stanley, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Our Fallout-Shelter Future, National Review Online, 8/28, http://article.nationalreview.com/?
q=OWU4MDMwNmU5MTI5NGYzN2FmODg5NmYyMWQ4YjM3OTU=)

Proliferation optimists, on the other hand, see reasons for hope in the record of nuclear peace during the Cold War. While granting the risks, proliferation optimists point out that the very horror of the nuclear option tends, in practice, to keep the peace. Without choosing between hawkish proliferation pessimists and dovish proliferation optimists, Rosen simply asks how we ought to act in a post-proliferation world. Rosen assumes (rightly I believe) that proliferation is unlikely to stop with Iran. Once Iran gets the bomb, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are likely to develop their own nuclear weapons, for self-protection, and so as not to allow Iran to take de facto cultural-political control of the Muslim world. (I think youve got to at least add Egypt to this list.) With three, four, or more nuclear states in the Muslim Middle East, what becomes of deterrence? A key to deterrence during the Cold War was our ability to know who had hit whom. With a small number of geographically separated nuclear states, and with the big opponents training satellites and specialized advance-guard radar emplacements on each other, it was relatively easy to know where a missile had come from. But what if a nuclear missile is launched at the United States from somewhere in a fully nuclearized Middle East, in the middle of a war in which, say, Saudi Arabia and Iran are already lobbing conventional missiles at one another? Would we know who had attacked us? Could we actually drop a retaliatory nuclear bomb on someone without being absolutely certain? And as Rosen asks, What if the nuclear blow was delivered against us by an airplane or a cruise missile? It might be almost impossible to trace the attack back to its source with certainty, especially in the midst of an ongoing conventional conflict. More Terror Were familiar with the horror scenario of a Muslim state passing a nuclear bomb to terrorists for use against an American city. But imagine the same scenario in a multi-polar Muslim nuclear world. With several Muslim countries in possession of the bomb, it would be extremely difficult to trace the state source of a nuclear terror strike. In fact, this very difficulty would encourage states (or ill-controlled elements within nuclear states like Pakistans intelligence services or Irans Revolutionary Guards) to pass nukes to terrorists. The tougher it is to trace the source of a weapon, the easier it is to give the
weapon away. In short, nuclear proliferation to multiple Muslim states greatly increases the chances of a nuclear terror strike. Right now, the Indians and Pakistanis enjoy an apparently stable nuclear stand-off. Both countries have established basic deterrence, channels of communication, and have also eschewed a potentially destabilizing nuclear arms race. Attacks by Kashmiri militants in 2001 may have pushed India and Pakistan close to the nuclear brink. Yet since then, precisely because of the danger, the two countries seem to have established a clear, deterrence-based understanding. The 2001 crisis gives fuel to proliferation pessimists, while the current stability encourages proliferation optimists. Rosen points out, however, that a multi-polar nuclear Middle East is unlikely to follow the South Asian model. Deep mutual suspicion between an expansionist, apocalyptic, Shiite Iran, secular Turkey, and the Sunni Saudis and Egyptians (not to mention Israel) is likely to fuel a dangerous multi-pronged nuclear arms race.

Larger arsenals mean more chance of a

76

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 77 /414

Nelson <tournament>

weapon being slipped to terrorists. The collapse of the worlds non-proliferation regime also raises the chances that nuclearization will spread to Asian powers like Taiwan and Japan. And of course, possession of nuclear weapons is likely to embolden Iran, especially in the transitional period before the Saudis develop weapons of their own. Like Saddam, Iran may be tempted to take control of Kuwaits oil wealth, on the assumption that the United States will not dare risk a nuclear confrontation by escalating the conflict. If the proliferation optimists are right, then once the Saudis get nukes, Iran would be far less likely to make a move on nearby Kuwait. On the other hand, to the extent that we do see conventional war in a nuclearized Middle East, the losers will be sorely tempted to cancel out their defeat with a nuclear strike. There may have been nuclear peace during the Cold War, but there were also many hot proxy wars. If conventional wars break out in a nuclearized Middle East, it may be very difficult to stop them from escalating into nuclear confrontations.

77

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 78 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Human Rights Promo Good- Democracy


A. Human rights promotion is critical to democracy Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, 3-10, 2004, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony, Lexis
Whether we agree with the President's policies or not, Mr. Chairman, we have to take that warning seriously when it is coming from those on the front lines of the struggle for human rights and democracy in the Middle East. As we make decisions on these complex matters, we have to take into account the impact those decisions will have on America's ability to champion democratic values around the world. The fundamental point is that we need the moral clarity that is provided by these State Department human rights reports and by the efforts of the President and the State Department to condemn human rights abuses throughout the year. But the United States needs to project more than moral clarityit must maintain moral authority to promote a more humane and democratic world. That requires consistent leadership abroad and a sterling example at home.

B. Extinction
Diamond 95. (Larry, Snr. research fellow @ Hoover Institute, Promoting Democracy in the 1990's, p 6-

7) This hardly exhausts the list of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.

78

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 79 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Human Rights Promo Good- Central Asia


Human rights cred is critical to prevent war in Central Asia Fiona Hill, fellow Brookings Institution, 2001, The Caucus and Central Asia: How the United States and Its Allies Can Stave Off a Crisis, Policy Brief #80, p. online
In the next two years, the Caucasus and Central Asian states could become zones of interstate competition similar to the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Economic and political crises, or the intensification of war in Chechnya or Afghanistan, might lead to the "Balkanization" of the regions. This, in turn, could result in military intervention by any of the major powers. Given the fact that both Turkey and Iran threatened intervention in the Caucasus at the peak of the Nagorno-Karabakh
war in 1992-1993, this risk should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the Caucasus and Central Asian states lack the capacity to tackle crises without outside help. Economic collapse has produced social dislocation and extreme poverty. Widespread corruption and the entrenchment of aging leaders and their families have eroded support for central governments and constrained the development of a new generation of leaders. The internal weakness of the Caucasus and Central Asian states, combined with brutal regional wars, makes them extremely vulnerable to outside pressureespecially from Russia. Although Russia itself is weak, it is far stronger than all the states combined, and while its direct influence over their affairs has declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remains the dominant economic, political, and military force. The West will have to assist the states in bolstering their institutional capacity and in promoting cooperation among them. American engagement remains crucial given its weight on the international stage, the potential threats to its own security, and the fact that it has leverage in the regions. In spite of a few glitches, the Caucasus and Central Asian states have been receptive to the United States and are among its

few potential allies in a zone where other states are not so amenable to U.S. activity. Regional countries need American moral and material support to maintain independence in the face of increasing pressures, and its guidance in dealing with presidential transition crises and addressing human rights abuses. Even with limited political and financial resources, U.S. leadership can do a great deal to defuse regional tensions and mitigate problems. However, this will only be possible if a policy is defined early and communicated clearly, if there is a particular focus on partnership with European allies in addressing regional challenges, and if Russia is encouraged to become a force for stability rather than a factor for instability in the regions. The Caucasus and Central Asia at a Crossroads This is a critical time for the Caucasus and Central Asian states because a number of negative trends could converge to bring about a crisis. Responding to that crisis requires the United States to build a long-term strategy based on a
frank assessment of regional needs and of U.S. capabilities and resources. The Clinton administration's approach to the regions was ad hoc. It tackled a laundry list of initiatives in response to crises and shifting policy priorities. Issues such as oil and gas pipelines, conflict resolution, and human rights were targeted at different junctures, but an overall strategywhich was essential given limited government resources for the regionswas never fully articulated. As a result, American priorities were not communicated clearly to local leaders, resulting in frequent misinterpretations of intentions. Domestic constituencies in the United States undermined leverage in regional conflicts. Incompatible government structures and conflicting legislation fostered competition among agencies and encouraged a proliferation of parallel initiatives, while congressional mandates limited areas in which scarce funds could be applied and thus reduced flexibility. The new administration must get ahead of this negative trend in setting policy and priorities, while tackling U.S. government deficiencies directly. In crafting policy, several developments need to be considered: The civil war in Afghanistan will likely regain momentum this summer. Already, the incursion of refugees and fighters from Afghanistan into Central Asia and the activities of Central Asian militant groups have strained fragile political situations in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. Governments in Central Asia are violating human rights as they clamp down on Islamic groups in response to acts of terrorism and militant activities. In Uzbekistan, the closing of mosques, a ban on political opposition movements, and arrests of practicing Muslims have forced groups underground and increased support for insurgencies and extremists. In Chechnya, the war shows little sign of resolution through political negotiation. Refugees and fighters have been pushed across borders into the South Caucasus by Russian troops, as well as into neighboring Russian regions. As in Afghanistan, an intensification of the war in Chechnya is likely this summer. Other Caucasus civil wars are in a state of "no peace, no war." Recent international efforts to resolve the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, led by the United States, France, and Russia, have raised expectations for a peace settlement. But, in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, opposition figures openly discuss the resumption of war if leaders are perceived to have sold out. Georgia is teetering on the verge of collapse, overwhelmed by internal difficulties and burdened by the inability to combat corruption and tackle economic reform. The dual secessions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have split the country and spillover from Chechnya has soured relations with Russia. In winter 2000, Russia imposed new, stringent visa requirements on Georgia and temporarily suspended energy supplies over payments and a contract dispute, increasing pressure on the beleaguered country. In both Georgia and Azerbaijan, political succession has become a critical issue. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan will soon face the same crisis. No provisions have been made for a presidential transition, and emerging leaders have often been suppressed or forced into exile. All of these issues are exacerbated by the continued downturn of regional economies. The Asian and Russian financial crises of 1998 were a major setback, leading to the devaluation of currencies, untenable debt burdens, and the withdrawal of foreign investment. Deep-rooted corruption feeds into the economic crisis and hinders the emergence of small and medium-sized businesses that could spur market development and economic growth. For both regions, Russia is the only source of reliable employment, a significant market for local products, and, in the short-term, the principal energy supplier. In Georgia alone, approximately 10 percent of the population currently works in Russia and sends home an amount equivalent to nearly a quarter of Georgia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This influx of economic migrants has exacerbated ethnic tensions within Russia. Because regional governments cannot pay their energy bills, clashes over energy with Russia will continue, increasing tensions and instability. In Central Asia, high unemployment fosters the smuggling of raw materials and consumer goods, and trafficking in arms and drugs. Eighty percent of heroin sold in Europe originates in Afghanistan and Pakistan and about half of this production flows through Central Asia. The heroin trade in Central Asia has created a burgeoning intravenous drug problem and an HIV/AIDS outbreak that mimics the early epidemic in Africa. Health workers fear an escalation in a matter of months that will overwhelm local medical systems and the region's miniscule international programs. A major HIV/AIDS crisis would be the final straw for states like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. U.S.-Russian Tensions in the Caspian Basin Converging with this regional crisis is a sharp difference of opinion between the United States and Russia over U.S. involvement in Caspian energy development and engagement in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In Moscow, the United States is portrayed as purposefully weakening Russia's strategic position and bent on establishing Central Asia and the Caucasus as U.S. outposts. Where American policymakers speak of intervention in a positive sense to promote regional cooperation and stability, Russian political commentators speak of American "vmeshatel'stvo"literally, negative interventionto constrain Russia. The United States and Russia are at odds politically and semantically in the Caspian. Because approximately 50 percent of Russia's foreign currency revenues are generated by oil and gas sales, the

79

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 80 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Putin administration has made increasing Russian energy exports to Europe a priority. Caspian energy resources play a major role in Russian calculations. Gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan flows into the Russian pipeline system, where it supplies the Russian domestic market and supplements Russia's European exports. Russia is the largest supplier of gas to Turkey, and has begun constructing a new Black Sea pipeline ("Blue Stream") to increase supplies. But gas flowing to Turkey from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijanand bypassing Russiacould pose direct competition. Over the last five years, U.S. policy in the Caspian Basin has promoted multiple gas and oil pipelines to world markets to increase export options for regional states, persuading Moscow that the United States seeks to squeeze Russia out of regional energy development. Beyond energy issues, Russia sees itself caught between NATO to the west and chaos to the south. In the Caucasus, Russia has lost its strategic defensive structures against NATO's southern flank in Turkey. Moscow perceives this loss as significant, given NATO expansion east and the alliance's willingness to use force in the extended European arena. Explicit statements of intent to join NATO by Georgia and Azerbaijan have angered Russian policymakers, along with the active involvement of regional states in NATO's Partnership for Peace Program, and the formation of a regional alliance among states that have opted out of the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States security structures (the socalled GUUAM group of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova). Although Central Asia is less a zone of competition because of shared concern about Afghanistan, which resulted in unprecedented U.S.-Russian collaboration on UN sanctions against the Taliban in December 2000, U.S. bilateral military relations with regional states still alarm Moscow. The fact that an energetic Pentagon moved faster than the State Department to engage Central Asian counterparts has led Moscow to view U.S. actions in both regions with deepening suspicion. Crafting U.S. Policy. To address these issues, the Bush administration will first have to recognize that the Caucasus and Central Asia are a major factor in U.S.-Russian bilateral relations. Russia does not only view its dealings with the U.S. through the prism of NATO, missile defense, and non-proliferation issues, although these are currently the United States' top security priorities in the relationship. Russia's southern tier is now its most sensitive frontier and the Caucasus and Central Asia are its number one security priority. Having recognized this fact, the Bush administration must present a unified front when dealing with Moscow and the region, and prevent the various agencies from acting in conflict with each other. The administration needs to articulate a message that is positive and inclusive for Russia as well as regional states and stick to it. It should emphasize regional stability, cooperative relations, political solutions to conflicts, border security, human rights, institutional development, orderly successions of political power, anti-corruption efforts, and opportunities for citizen participation in political and economic decisionmaking. Although this framework would not be considerably different from the general themes of the Clinton administration, the notion of explicitly recognizing the importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian regions in the bilateral U.S.-Russian relationshipand staying focusedwould be a departure. The primary goal should be to encourage Russia to adopt a positive approach to relations with its neighbors that eschews commercial and political bullying. To this end, the administration will have to maintain a direct dialogue with its Russian counterparts in working out a practical approach for the Caucasus and Central Asia. With its message clear, the administration needs to bring its bureaucratic mechanisms in line to focus on key issues and countries. Even if responsibility for the Caucasus and Central Asian states is divided within government departments, effective structures will have to be created to preserve links between the regions, and conflicting legislation will have to be streamlined to resolve interagency conflicts over responsibilities. This will require the executive branch to work closely with Congress to reconcile appropriations with a comprehensive program for the regions and to articulate U.S. interests through public hearings and testimony. If the administration has appropriate mechanisms in place, some policy innovations should be considered to address regional problems:

Rethink the U.S. Approach to Central Asia The Central Asian states require the most serious reassessment in U.S. policy. Central Asia is rapidly becoming a base for extremism and terrorism, and the U.S. needs to look ahead to avert its "Afghanicization." The pivotal states for regional security are Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which both border Afghanistan. The United States has bilateral military relations with Uzbekistan, but is barely present in Tajikistan, where permanent U.S. representation has been withdrawn because of fears for the safety of Embassy personnel. The Bush administration must change the American approach to both countries by emphasizing human rights and cooperative regional relations in Uzbekistan (rather than simply security), and by increasing its focus on Tajikistan. Productive relations between Uzbekistan and its neighbors are key to regional stability. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have significant Uzbek diasporas and are dependent on Uzbekistan for cross-border communications and energy supplies. Uzbekistan has frequently used this leverage to negative effect with these vulnerable neighbors. The United States should encourage high-level discussions between Uzbekistan and its neighbors that would address border access and gas deliveries as well as militant incursions across the Tajik and Kyrgyz borders into Uzbekistan. Of all the regional states, Tajikistan is the most receptive to outside assistance, serving as a potential model for dealing with Islamic and political opposition. The Tajik government engaged its opposition in a dialogue that resulted in power-sharing arrangements and an end to a five-year civil war. Given the precipitous decline of the Tajik economy, even the reestablishment of a permanent U.S. embassywith appropriate security precautionsand a modest increase in aid programs related to job creation and health would be a major boost. Link Human Rights and Security As a general rule, the administration should engage Central Asia without reinforcing authoritarian regimes. In Uzbekistan, while militant groups are real threats to the state, human rights abuses are an equal threat and increase sympathy for the militants. The United States has considerable leverage with Uzbekistan through its military engagement activities. In 2000, Uzbekistan came close to losing congressional certification for these programs, and the Pentagon placed greater emphasis on human rights in its special forces training curriculum. Taking this as a cue, the Bush administration should emphasize mutually-reinforcing security and human rights objectives throughout Central Asia and should encourage cooperation among the Pentagon, State Department, and international human rights groups on security-human rights linkages. The administration should also emphasize U.S. support for regional non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that seek to increase both citizen participation in government and access to objective sources of information.

80

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 81 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Oceans
Oceans key to survival
Craig '03
(Robin Kundis Craig -- Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law McGeorge Law Rev Winter elipses in original)

The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," 17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. 18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." 19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to
be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. 20 In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations.

81

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 82 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Ozone
Ozone depletion causes extinction Greenpeace, 1995
(Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer, http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html.) When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful

ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth. Ozone destruction causes mass extinction Palenotological Research Insitute, No Date (Paleontological Research Institute, PERMIAN http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp.htm)

EXTINCTION,

no

date,

Lastly, a new theory has been proposed- the Supernova explosion. A supernova occurring 30 light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone layer for several years. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destructionlarge amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus global and atmospheric cooling. With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer, these problems could cause widespread destruction of life.This was the biggest extinction event in the last 500 million years, and researchers want a theory that is scientifically rigorous. Therefore, all these theories are possible but also have many faults and create much controversy in determining if it is the one exact theory which will explain this historic mass extinction.

82

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 83 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Patriarchy
Patriarchy is the root cause of wars Reardon 93
(Betty A. Reardon, Director of the Peace Education Program at Teachers College Columbia University, 1993, Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security, p. 30-2 (PDNSS6401)) In an article entitled Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War (1983), Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies. Since a major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions, why are discussions in our national forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is badly needed . . . A clearly visible element in

the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance, not parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to strut their stuff as we watch with increasing horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and control, to distance ones character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power
were losing a crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living things, all the air, all the soil, all the water. If we believe that war is a necessary evil, that patriarchal assumptions are simply human nature, then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Neither are they solely economic. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking, which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used. (Spretnak 1983)

Patriarchy is the root of all violence and war Hooks 04


(hooks, professor of English at City College, 2004 (bell, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love. P 26-27))

Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful, so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy . I often tell audiences that if we
were to go door-todoor asking if we should end male violence against women, most people would give their unequivocal support. Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination, by eradicating patriarchy, they would begin to hesitate, to change their position. Despite the many gains of contemporary feminist

movement-greater equality for women in the workforce, more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles- patriarchy as a system remains intact, and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species. This belief seems ironic, given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations, especially the insistence on violence as a means of social control , has actually led to the slaughter of millions of people on the planet.

83

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 84 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Patriarchy War
Patriarchy is the root cause of war The unequal value of women and threat of violence mirror the coercive order of the war system Runyan 92 (Anne, Department of PoliSci at Potsdam College of State U of NY, Criticizing the Gender of International Relations, International Relations: Critical concepts in Political Science, pg. 1693-1724)
Betty Reardon takes this thesis even further by equating war with patriarchy, military with sexism, and peace and world order with feminism. According to Reardon, the war system is a pervasive, competitive social order, which is based in authoritarian principles, assumes unequal value among and between human beings, and is held in place by coercion. In addition, it is controlled by a few elites in industrialized countries, implemented by subelites throughout the world, and directed against nonelites to ensure their submission. Similarly, patriarchy is a set of beliefs and values supported by institutions and backed up by the threat of violence. It lays down the supposedly proper relations between men and women, between women and women and between men and men. Thus, patriarchal relations constitute the paradigm on which the war system is based, and the war system, in turn, consolidates patriarchal relations.

84

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 85 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Patriarchy War
Manifestation of Evil - Discourse of male dominance for survival affirms the same type of coercion and violence it defends against Johnson 97 The Gender Knot
To support male aggression and therefore male dominance as society's only defense against evil, we have to believe that evil forces exist out there, in villains, governments, and armies. In this, we have to assume that the bad guys actually see themselves as evil and not as heroes defending loved ones and principles against bad guys like us. The alternative to this kind of thinking is to realize that the same patriarchal ethos that creates our masculine heroes also creates the violent villains they battle and prove themselves against, and that both sides often see themselves as heroic and self-sacrificing for a worthy cause. For all the wartime propaganda, good and bad guys play similar games and salute a core of common values, not to mention one another on occasion. At a deep level, war and many other forms of male aggression are manifestations of the same evil they supposedly defend against. The evil is the patriarchal religion of control and domination that encourages men to use coercion and violence to settle disputes, manage human relations, and affirm masculine identity.

85

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 86 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Patriarchy War
Patriarchy is the root cause of war The unequal value of women and threat of violence mirror the coercive order of the war system Runyan 92 (Anne, Department of PoliSci at Potsdam College of State U of NY, Criticizing the Gender of International Relations, International Relations: Critical concepts in Political Science, pg. 1693-1724)
Betty Reardon takes this thesis even further by equating war with patriarchy, military with sexism, and peace and world order with feminism. According to Reardon, the war system is a pervasive, competitive social order, which is based in authoritarian principles, assumes unequal value among and between human beings, and is held in place by coercion. In addition, it is controlled by a few elites in industrialized countries, implemented by subelites throughout the world, and directed against nonelites to ensure their submission. Similarly, patriarchy is a set of beliefs and values supported by institutions and backed up by the threat of violence. It lays down the supposedly proper relations between men and women, between women and women and between men and men. Thus, patriarchal relations constitute the paradigm on which the war system is based, and the war system, in turn, consolidates patriarchal relations.

86

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 87 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Patriarchy War
Manifestation of Evil - Discourse of male dominance for survival affirms the same type of coercion and violence it defends against Johnson 97 The Gender Knot
To support male aggression and therefore male dominance as society's only defense against evil, we have to believe that evil forces exist out there, in villains, governments, and armies. In this, we have to assume that the bad guys actually see themselves as evil and not as heroes defending loved ones and principles against bad guys like us. The alternative to this kind of thinking is to realize that the same patriarchal ethos that creates our masculine heroes also creates the violent villains they battle and prove themselves against, and that both sides often see themselves as heroic and self-sacrificing for a worthy cause. For all the wartime propaganda, good and bad guys play similar games and salute a core of common values, not to mention one another on occasion. At a deep level, war and many other forms of male aggression are manifestations of the same evil they supposedly defend against. The evil is the patriarchal religion of control and domination that encourages men to use coercion and violence to settle disputes, manage human relations, and affirm masculine identity.

87

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 88 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Poverty
Ongoing global poverty outweighs nuclear war- only our ev is comparative Spina 2k (Stephanie Urso, Ph.D. candidate in social/personality psychology at the Graduate School of the City University of New York, Smoke and Mirrors: The Hidden Context of Violence in Schools and Society, p. 201) This sad fact is not limited to the United States. Globally, 18 million deaths a year are caused by structural violence, compared to 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. That is, approximately every five years, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths, and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war or genocide, perpetuated on the weak and the poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Poverty poses the greatest threat to the worldwe have a moral obligation to eradicate it Vear 04 (Jesse Leah, Co-coordinates POWER--Portland Organizing to Win Economic Rights, "Abolishing Poverty: A Declaration of Economic Human Rights," http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0407/040704.htm) Locked in the cross-hairs of domestic and foreign policies which intentionally put our bodies in harm's way, our terror is the terror of poverty - a terror boldly and callously proliferated by our own government. Surely one
doesn't need the surveillance powers of high-definition weapons-grade satellites to see the faces of the some 80 million poor people struggling just to survive in America; to see the worried faces of homeless mothers waiting to be added to the waiting list for non-existent public housing; to find the unemployment lines filled with parents who aren't eligible to see a doctor and who can't afford to get sick; to see the children stricken with preventable diseases in the midst of the world's best-equipped hospitals; to hear the rumble in the bellies of millions of hungry Americans whose only security is a bread line once a week; or to detect the crumbling of our nation's under-funded, under-staffed schools. Meanwhile, billions are spent waging wars and occupying countries that our school children can't even find on a map. Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to

detect the moral bankruptcy of a nation - by far the world's richest and most powerful - which disregards the basic human needs of its own despairing people in favor of misguided military adventures that protect no one, whether in nations half-way across the globe, or in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. To see these things one
needs neither a high-powered satellite nor a specialized degree. One needs only to open one's eyes and dare to see the reality before them. Yet even as you look you still might not see the millions of poor people in America. My face is only one of 80 million Americans who never get asked for in-depth television interviews or for our expert commentary regarding the state of the economy or the impact of our nation's policies. In addition to all the indignities suffered by poor people in America, we must suffer the further indignation of being disappeared - kept discretely hidden away from the eyes, ears, and conscience of the rest of society and the world. The existence of poverty in the richest country on earth cannot remain a secret for long. Americans, like the majority of the world's peoples, are compassionate, fair-minded people . When

exposed, the moral hypocrisy of poverty in America cannot withstand the light of day any more than the moral hypocrisy of slavery or race or sex discrimination could. That's where the Poor People's Economic Human
Rights Campaign comes in. With this campaign, we are reaching out to the international community as well as the rest of US society to help us secure what are our most basic human rights, as outlined in International Law. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an International Treaty signed in 1948 by all UN member nations, including the United States,

all nations have a moral and legal obligation to ensure the basic needs and well-being of all their citizens.
Among the rights outlined in the Declaration are the rights to food, housing, health care, jobs at living wages, and education. Over half a century after signing this document, despite huge economic gains and a vast productive capacity, the United States has sorely neglected its promise. In a land whose founding documents proclaim life, liberty, and justice for all,

we must hold this nation to its promises.

88

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 89 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Racism
Racism is the root cause of violence Foucault '76
[Michel, Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976, p. 254-257 Trans. David Macey] What in fact is racism? It is primarily a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is

under power's control: the break between what must live and what must die. The appearance within the biological continuum of the
human race of races, the distinction among races, the hierarchy of races, the fact that certain races are described as good and that others, in contrast, are described as inferior: all this is a way of fragmenting the field of the biological that power controls. It is a way of separating out the groups that exist within a population. It is, in short, a way of establishing a biological type caesura within a population that appears to be a biological domain. This will allow power to treat that population as a mixture of races, or to be more accurate, to treat the species, to subdivide the species it controls, into the subspecies known, precisely, as races. That is the first function of racism: to fragment, to create caesuras within the biological continuum addressed by biopower. Racism also has a second function. Its role is, if you like, to allow the establishment of a positive relation of this type: "The more you kill, the more deaths you will cause" or "The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live more." I would say that this relation ("If you want to live, you must take lives, you must be able to kill") was not invented by either racism or the modern State. It is the relationship of war: "In order to live, you must destroy your enemies." But racism does make the relationship of war-"If you want to live, the other must die" - function in a way that is completely new and that is quite compatible with the exercise of biopower. On the one hand,

racism makes it possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike relationship of confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out, the more abnormal individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there will be in the
species as a whole, and the more Ias species rather than individual-can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate." The fact that the other dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death guarantees my safety; the death of the other, the death of the bad race, of the inferior race (or the degenerate, or the abnormal) is something that will make life in general healthier: healthier and purer. This is not, then, a military, warlike, or political relationship, but a biological relationship. And the reason this mechanism can come into play is that the enemies who have to be done away with are not adversaries in the political sense of the term; they are threats, either external or internal, to the population and for the population. In the biopower system, in other words, killing or the imperative to kill is acceptable only if it results not in a victory over political adversaries, but in the elimination of the biological threat to and the improvement of the species or race. There is a direct connection between the two. In a normalizing society ,

race or racism is the precondition that makes killing acceptable. When you have a normalizing society, you have a power which is, at least superficially, in the
first instance, or in the first line a biopower, and racism is the indispensable precondition that allows someone to be killed, that allows others to be killed. Once the State functions in the biopower mode, racism alone can justify the murderous function of the State. So you can understand the importance-I almost said the vital importance-of racism to the exercise of such a power: it is the precondition for exercising the right to kill. If the power of normalization wished to exercise the old sovereign right to kill, it must become racist. And if, conversely, a power of sovereignty, or in other words, a power that has the right of life and death, wishes to work with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it too must become racist. When I say "killing," I obviously do not mean simply murder as such, but also every form of indirect murder: the fact of exposing someone to death, increasing the risk of death for some people, or, quite simply, political death, expulsion, rejection, and so on. I think that we are now in a position to understand a number of things. We can understand, first of all, the link that was quickly-I almost said immediately-established between nineteenth-century biological theory and the discourse of power. Basically, evolutionism, understood in the broad sense-or in other words, not so much Darwin's theory itself as a set, a bundle, of notions (such as: the hierarchy of species that grow from a common evolutionary tree, the struggle for existence among species, the selection that eliminates the less fit) naturally became within a few years during the nineteenth century not simply a way of transcribing a political discourse into biological terms, and not simply a way of dressing up a political discourse in scientific clothing, but a real way of thinking about the relations between colonization, the necessity for wars, criminality, the phenomena of madness and mental illness, the history of societies with their different classes, and so on. Whenever, in other words, there was a confrontation, a killing or the risk of death, the nineteenth century was quite literally obliged to think about them in the form of evolutionism. And we can also understand why racism should have developed in modern societies that function in the biopower mode; we can understand why racism broke out at a number of .privileged moments, and why

Racism first develops with colonization, or in other words, with colonizing genocide. If you are functioning in the biopower mode, how can you justify the need to kill people, to kill populations, and to kill civilizations? By using the themes of evolutionism, by appealing to a racism. War. How can one not only wage war on one's adversaries but also expose one's own citizens to war, and let them be killed by the million (and this is precisely what has been going on since the nineteenth century, or since the second half of the nineteenth century), except by activating the theme of racism
they were precisely the moments when the right to take life was imperative.

89

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 90 /414

Nelson <tournament>

SARS
A SARS bioweapon would kill at least 50 million people Conant, 06 Paul, House Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack,July 2006 http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/bioterror.html
Concerned about this point, subcommittee Chairman John Linder, R-Ga., asked whether someone with a "modicum of talent in this business" might genetically alter the SARS virus and "make it more virulent, spread faster and make it more difficult to treat? The "short answer is yes," replied Brent, though the recombinant virus might actually be weaker than the original Still, resynthesized SARS spread by suicidal coughers is a real concern, said Brent.Anthrax, though not contagious in humans, is the more serious threat, said witnesses, Callahan noting that "you don't have to store it, it lives forever, and you don't have to feed it." The pathogen is also easy to obtain because the disease afflicts animals in many places, he said.However, Callahan put avian influenza -- bird flu -- as a top concern because of its extreme mortality in humans. If a mutated bird flu pathogen becomes contagious among humans and remains extremely deadly, it could kill some 50 million people worldwide, experts have said. http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/bioterror.html

90

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 91 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Space Exploration bad


1. Space exploration will cause environmental exploitation, nuclear annihilation, arms races, and epidemics Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K., Space Exploration and Exploitation, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm) We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations A. Space exploration will lead to the spread of pathogenic viruses through biohazardous land samples Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K., Space Exploration and Exploitation, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm) Potential dangers do exist though. Barry DiGregorio, author and founder of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return, has written that "any Martian samples returned to Earth must be treated as biohazardous material until proven otherwise." At the present time NASA has taken no action to create a special facility to handle space sample returns. On March 6, 1997 a report issued by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that such a facility should be operational at least two years prior to launch of a Mars Sample Return mission. Reminding us of the Spanish exploration of the Americas, and the smallpox virus they carried that killed thousands of indigenous people, DiGregorio warns that the Mars samples could "contain pathogenic viruses or bacteria." There are vast deposits of mineral resources like magnesium and cobalt believed to be on Mars. In June of 1997, NASA announced plans for manned mining colonies on Mars, expected around 2007-2009. The mining colonies, NASA says, would be powered by nuclear reactors launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida. B. Extinction Daswani, 96 (Kavita, South China Morning Post, 1/4, lexis)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious

. There is a much more pressing the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV.

"Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said:

91

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 92 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Space Weaponization: NASA Key


NASA KEY TO SPACE WEAPONIZATION
[Bruce K. Gagnon (Coordinator of the Global Network Against Nuclear Power and Weapons in Space)] Arms Race in Space Foreign Policy in Focus: International Relations Think Tank. March 19, 2009 http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5971 6/27/09 RFF NASA was created as a civilian agency with a mission to do peaceful space exploration. But the growing influence of the military industrial complex has rubbed out the line between civilian and military programs. When George W. Bush appointed former Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe to head NASA in late 2001, the new space agency director announced that all NASA missions in the future would be "dual use." This meant that every NASA space launch would be both military and civilian at the same time. The military would ride the NASA Trojan horse and accelerate space weapons development without the public's knowledge. NASA would expand space nuclear power systems to help create new designs for weapons propulsion. Permanent, nuclear-powered bases on the moon and Mars would give the United States a leg up in the race for control of those planetary bodies. The international competition for resource extraction in space (helium-3 on the moon) is now full on. NASA's job is to do the
research and development, and then be ready to turn everything over to private corporate interests once the technology has been sorted out. The taxpayers will fund the technology investment program. The military will create the space weapons systems to ensure free corporate access to the space highways of the future. The aerospace industry is already making record profits from the ever-escalating cost of space technology systems. Virtually every system now under development is well over budget. Just one illustration is NASA's International Space Station. Originally slated to cost the taxpayers $10 billion, the project has now grown to $100 billion and is not yet finished.

92

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 93 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Space Weaponization Bad: Nuclear Annhilation


SPACE WEAPONIZATION LEADS TO NUCLEAR ANNIHLATION
[Lt Col Bruce M. DeBlois (PhD, Oxford University, Division Chief of Strategic Studies and Assessments at the National Reconnaissance Office) 1998] Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy Demonstrations of atomic weapons at the close of World War II and the prospect of nuclear weapons married to emerging ballistic missile technology ushered in a new era of international relations. Threatening to use military force had always been an instrument of
diplomacy, but the potential for instantaneous, indefensible, and complete annihilation posed a new rubric in the games nations play. Thus, nuclear deterrence was born. Initial thoughts that such a threat relegated warfare to the shelves of history due to the prospects of massive nuclear retaliation proved nave subsequent lower-order conflict did not force nuclear escalation. Symmetric nuclear capabilities among the principal powers weakened the credibility of their use, while asymmetric responses (guerrilla and terrorist tactics, aligning with nuclear-capable parties, conflict protraction, etc.) still allowed lesser powers to test the resolve of the principalsparticularly over issues of peripheral interest to those nuclear powers. Examples include Vietnam and Afghanistan. Visions of

massive space superiority and the touted huge, coercive power advantage they provide will likely prove as bankrupt a notion as that of massive nuclear retaliation. In their logical evolution, both give way to strategies that recognize an international context of reactive nations. Principal powers will simply not allow a space hegemon to emerge, and lesser powers may concede hegemony but will continue to seek asymmetric counters.4 The result will be a space strategy that better aligns with what evolved out of the nuclear dilemma: mutual assured destruction (MAD). As a common MAD logic developed across the globe
(but primarily between the two players in the gamethe United States and Soviet Union), nontraditional foreign-policy traits became apparent. Any move toward developing weapons or practices that increased the viability of the idea that one could win a nuclear exchange was perceived as destabilizing. Deterrence in the form of MAD had to overcome the notion of winningone that could come in several forms: 1. A nation could survive nuclear attacks and prevail. Conceding offensive dominance was critical if MAD were to deter nuclear holocaust. One had to avoid an odd array of destabilizing practices and systems, including missile-defense systems and civil-defense programs. 2. A nation could use nuclear weapons on a small scale and prevail in a predominantly conventional conflict. The term theater nuclear weapons was an oxymoronevery nuclear weapon was strategic because it posed the threat of escalation. Limited use of nuclear weapons was destabilizing; hence, one had to avoid any such strategy. Prohibiting the development of the neutron bomb, in spite of the immediate tactical benefits it offered to outnumbered NATO forces in Europe, was a direct result of this logic. 3. A nation could launch a successful first strike. Stabilizing approaches that reduced the viability of surprise via first strike were pursued. More than its name implies, if MAD were to prohibit a nuclear exchange, it had to be paired either with a reliable early warning capability allowing a reactive nuclear response or with a survivable second-strike capability. The United States pursued both: the former via space- and land-based early warning networks and the latter via submarine-launched ballistic missiles. From

this experience, one can draw and apply lessons as the possibility of space weapons emerges. Clearly, these weapons offer the potential for instantaneous and indefensible attack. Although the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (outlawing weapons of mass destruction [WMD] in space) prohibits complete annihilation, the threat of annihilation would still existit is difficult to distinguish space-based WMD from space-based non-WMD. In simple terms, space weaponization could bring a new round of MAD. Although MAD
successfully deterred a nuclear exchange over the past 40 years, it was a very costly means of overcoming the lack of trust between superpowers. The dissolution of that distrust and the corresponding reduction of nuclear arms lie at the very heart of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START). Comparing the emergence of nuclear-tipped ICBMs with the accession of space weapons does yield some stark differences, however. There is no single threat to focus diplomatic efforts aimed at building trust, and there does seem to be some international support for the idea of coalescing a strategy supporting space sanctuary and deterring third world space upstarts. Aside from these differences, though, one could assume the existence of proliferated space weapons and proceed with the thought experiment that a space-MAD strategy would emerge among the principal powers. Again, one would have to eliminate the notion of winning a space-weapons exchange, and on at least the first two counts, one could do so: 1. It is logical to concede the offensive dominance of space-based weapons in low-earth orbit (LEO). Any point on earth could have a weapon pointed at it with clear line of sight ; the potential of directed-energy weapons takes the notion of instantaneous to the extreme; and defense of every national asset from such an attack would prove next to impossible. 2. The same argument against the logic of tactical nuclear weapons would also apply to the tactical use of spacebased weapons. Once they were used, any conflict could automatically escalate to a higher level . 3. The failing of a space-MAD strategy comes on the third count: early warning or survivable second-strike capability. Should space be weaponized and two space-capable

foes emerge, there will be no 30-minute early warning window from which one actor could launch a counterattack prior to the impact of the preemptive first strike. Furthermore, space basing is equivalent to exposureno strike capability can be reliably hidden or protected in space in order to allow a surviving, credible second strike. Space-MAD weapons without early warning or reliable survivability logically instigate a first strike. This creates an incredibly unstable situation in which the viability of winning a space war exists and is predicated upon striking first (with plausible deniability exacerbating the problem), eliminating the mutual from MAD and only assuring the destruction of the less aggressive state. Obviously, this is not a good situation. Putting weapons in space could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy: we put them there because we anticipate well need them, and because theyre there, well be compelled to use them; hence, we needed them. The conclusion, then, of a nuclear weaponsspace weapons analogy can only be that while the threats from each type of weapon are similar, the most successful strategy (MAD) for dealing with the former cannot work for the latter. Unlike the strategy for nuclear weapons, there exists no obvious strategy for employing space weapons that will enhance global stability. If the precedent of evading destabilizing
situations is to continueand that is compatible with a long history of US foreign policyone ought to avoid space-based weapons. Further, even if one could construct a workable space-MAD strategy, the nuclear-MAD approach teaches that this is an intensely expensive means of dealing with mutual distrust between nations.

93

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 94 /414

Nelson <tournament>

SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA


SPACE WEAPONIZATION WILL CAUSE A WAR WITH CHINA
William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara. 2003. Averting a Sino-U.S. Arms Race The Washington Quarterly http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26.4martel.html 7/7/09 RFF [End Page 20] Government agencies often pay private firms to collect and process vital satellite imagery. For the first five months of the Afghan campaign, the Department of Defense paid the Space Imaging Corporation $1.9 million per month for images of Afghanistan collected by its Ikonos imaging satellite. This new commercial satellite market also creates vulnerabilities because of the ability of hostile governments or terrorist organizations to gain access to readily available satellite imagery. Such information could be used to harm U.S. interests in various ways, including attacking military bases and disrupting military operations. In sum, because U.S. military effectiveness and commercial competitiveness depend so overwhelmingly on space, the country is increasingly vulnerable to an adversary's malicious use of space or attacks against space systems. As the Rumsfeld Commission report warned ominously, "If the [United States] is to avoid a 'space Pearl Harbor,' it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems. The nation's leaders must assure that the vulnerability of the United States is reduced and that the consequences of a surprise attack on U.S. space assets are limited in their effects." 7 At present, most nations cannot challenge the United States directly, but there are fears that states might someday attack U.S. satellites to cripple its military capabilities. Policymakers in the United States are increasingly concerned that this is precisely China's strategy. Chinese Interests in Space As with the United States, China's objectives in space reflect broad commercial and military interests. From an economic

perspective, the PRC views the exploitation of space as an integral part of its modernization drive, a top priority on Beijing's national agenda. 8 The rapid growth of China's economy in the past two decades has fueled
investments in civilian space capabilities for several reasons. First, the explosive growth of the Chinese telecommunications market has spurred China to put both indigenous and foreign-made networks of communications satellites into orbit to keep pace with demand. Second, China's relatively inexpensive and increasingly reliable launchers have enabled Beijing to provide satellite-launching services to major international customers. Third, China recognizes that space research at

the frontier of scientific knowledge promises innovative breakthroughs that are likely to strengthen its economic power and technological capabilities in the long term. [End Page 21] As a result of these economic imperatives, the Chinese government has invested substantial resources in a robust space program. The PRC has developed a comprehensive scientific and industrial base capable of producing commercial space
launchers and satellites. Chinese launch vehicles, which have become increasingly reliable and competitive in the international market, can place a variety of satellitesincluding those used for communications, remote sensing, photo reconnaissance, meteorology, and scientific researchinto earth orbit. Furthermore, since 1999, China's involvement in preparations for manned space flight has attracted substantial international attention. In the case of national security, China's space program is shrouded in extreme secrecy, effectively shielding Chinese intentions and capabilities from outside observers. The PRC's official policy is to support the exploitation of space for economic, scientific, and cultural benefits while firmly opposing any militarization of space. 9 China has consistently warned that

any testing, deployment, and use of space-based weapons will undermine global security and lead to a destabilizing arms race in space. 10 These public pronouncements have been primarily directed at the United States, especially after President George W. Bush declared in December 2001 that the United States was officially withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treatyand accelerating U.S. efforts to develop a missile defense system. Some Chinese observers point to U.S. efforts to militarize space as evidence of the U.S. ambition to establish unilateral hegemony. For example, in 2001, Ye Zhenzhen, a correspondent for a major daily newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, stated that, "[a]fter the Cold War, even though the United States already possessed the sole strategic advantage over the entire planet, and held most advanced space technology and the most satellites, they still want to bring outer space totally under their own armed control to facilitate their smooth ascension as the world hegemon of the 21st century." 11 Diplomatically, China has urged the use of multilateral and bilateral legal instruments
to regulate space activities, and Beijing and Moscow jointly oppose the development of space weapons or the militarization

94

Dowling Debate 2008-2009


of space. 12

File Name 95 /414

Nelson <tournament>

The Chinese leadership's opposition to weaponizing space provides evidence of China's growing concern that the United States will dominate space. The United States' avowed intention to ensure
unrivaled superiority in space, as exemplified by the Rumsfeld Commission report, increasingly defines China's interests in space. Chinese anxieties about U.S. space power began with the 1991 Gulf War, when the PRC leadership watched with awe [End Page 22] and dismay as the United States defeated Iraq with astonishing speed. Beijing recognized that the lopsided U.S. victory was based on superior command and control, intelligence, and communications systems, which relied heavily on satellite networks. Demonstrations of the United States' undisputed conventional military power in Bosnia; Kosovo; Afghanistan; and, most recently, Iraq further highlighted for Chinese officials the value of information superiority and space dominance in modern warfare.

95

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 96 /414

Nelson <tournament>

SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA


WAR IN ASIA LEADS TO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND EXTINCTION
CIRINICONE 00[ Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2000 <Joseph, Foreign Policy, The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain, Lexis] The blocks would fall quickest and

hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself
embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear

reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

US-CHINA CONFLICT IS A ZERO-SUM COMPETITION


William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara. 2003. Averting a Sino-U.S. Arms Race The Washington Quarterly http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26.4martel.html 7/7/09 RFF Sources of Competition At the same time that the United States views space dominance as a fundamental tenet of its national security, China evidently views U.S. space dominance as a major threat to its geostrategic interests. These views inevitably breed a zero-sum competition, in which one side perceives any loss as a gain for the other, and could ultimately prove destabilizing for Sino-U.S. relations. First, Beijing perceives the proposed U.S. missile defense system, which will be supported by an array of space systems and sensors, as a strategic menace to China and to international security. 15 Many China watchers contend that this perception stems from anxietiesthat any conceivable system of missile defenses being developed by the Bush administration will undermine China's small nuclear deterrent. 16 Beijing remains wary of the joint research program on missile defense by the U.S.-Japanese alliance, which the PRC sees as a potential partnership for blocking Chinese regional aspirations or, in broader terms, for containing China. Of particular concern for Beijing is the possibility that Tokyo's decision formally to join U.S. plans for deploying missile defense in Northeast Asia will significantly increase Japan's military capabilities by providing an opportunity for Japanese forces to enjoy unprecedented military integration with U.S. forces in the areas of space-based intelligence and communications.

96

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 97 /414

Nelson <tournament>

WEAPONIZTION BAD: A2: PEACEFUL NUKES


WEAPONIZATION BAD EVEN IF WEAPONS ARE CREATED AS A DETERRANCE, THIS ACTION CONDEMNS US TO GLOBAL WAREFARE
[Lt Col Bruce M. DeBlois (PhD, Oxford University, Division Chief of Strategic Studies and Assessments at the National Reconnaissance Office) 1998] Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy In total, the issues raised here indicate that long-term military costs and the broader social, political, and economic costs associated with the United States leading the world in the weaponization of space outweigh the prospect of a short-term military advantage. Furthermore, pursuing a national space strategy on the assumption made at the outsetthat space will be weaponized; we only need to decide if the US will take the leadcan be challenged on a more fundamental level. This assumption is ultimately founded on a belief that the nature of peopletheir historical tendency to wage warcannot change. Contrarily, the social nature of people can change. One has only to compare todays global attitudes toward slavery with those of 150 years ago. If we continue to assume that major global warfare between nations is inevitable and prepare for it accordingly, we condemn ourselves to that future. Doing so assumes determinismthat the future will happen and that we have to optimize our position in it. That assumption is not necessarily true and runs counter to the American spirit. The future is what we make it. Perhaps we need to spend a little less time creating weapons to protect ourselves in a future that we are destined to stumble into and a little more time building the future we would want to live in. More than challenging a flawed assumption, this article suggests a
replacementan assumption that is both more optimistic about the nature of people and one that resonates with the American spirit: The United States will lead the world into space; we only need to decide where and how to go.

97

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 98 /414

Nelson <tournament>

SPACE WEAPONIZATION IMPOSSIBLE: NASA


NASA DOESNT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WEAPONIZE SPACE
David W. McFaddin, April 1998 (Lt Col, USAF) Can the U.S. Air Force Weaponize Space? http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/98-173.pdf 7/7/09 RFF Just as the Air Force finds itself in a dilemma when it comes to achieving the goals set out in National Space Policy , without the authority to programmatically accomplish the task, or in other words left holding the bag by current space policy, NASA finds itself in a similar position. Before the current Space Policy was issued, NASA felt it was being encouraged, or at a minimum allowed, to pursue manned flight to Mars. Just prior to the current Space Policy release, Space News reported that Spurred by public excitement about possible life on Mars, a group of NASA officials is devising scenarios for human missions to the red planet as early as 2011.8 President Clinton even made the press announcement on 7 Aug 96 about the findings of the NASA-Stanford University team there may be past or present life on Mars!9 NASA officials were very vocal about the need for the U.S. to pursue manned mission to Mars. As stated in Space News, Wesley Huntress, NASA associate administrator for space science, said that robots can do a reasonable job at
selecting samples on Mars surface for return. He also acknowledged there will likely be a long-term need to send astronauts to Mars to conduct site research. Huntress also said, The human can do a lot of intelligent integrating of the areaa synthesis job that we still dont yet know how to do in a robotic brain. 10

However, after the Space Policy was released with no mention of manned missions to Mars, NASA ceased official discussion of a manned mission and was rumored to feel betrayed by the administration. The bottom line from this discussion is the realization that official
policy, including Space Policy, must on the one hand be generic enough to sound acceptable to everyone inside the Beltway while on the other hand, providing some hope for those wanting specifics enough to actually proceed down a particular path. However, as seen in the NASA and space control issues above, if the policy is so generic as to not have the teeth required to proceed down a controversial path, it does little good for those charged with mission accomplishment.

NASA ACTIVITIES IN SPACE ARE NOT FOR WEAPONIZATION THEY ARE KEY TO EXPLORATION
National Space Society, 2005. Nuclear Power: http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume17/david.html 7/7/09 RFF Now More Than Ever, Or Never?
Having a far different outlook is Bruce Behrhorst, president of Nuclear Space Technology Institute, Inc. He runs the NuclearSpace.com website. Its short and sweet mission: "To promote the use of nuclear power in space to further enhance the manned exploration of our Solar System." "There is no other technology in the near term that can be manipulated to service human beings in outer space other than nuclear energy, if at least to insure the survival of our species in the heavens," Behrhorst believes. "Our

technological prowess and space exploration requires the use of dynamic, high density energy systems to realistically transport humans and robotica in a safe and efficient mode." Behrhost sees space nuclear power as opening the window to other realistic
methods to affect the space and time frame metric, thus "providing insight into the micro universe for the practicality of bridging much of the ultimate macro universe." Similar in view is James Dewar, a former nuclear affairs expert in the Department of Energy. In his book, To the End of the Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket [University Press of Kentucky, 2003], he stresses that chemically propelled rockets can lift less than five percent of their takeoff weight into orbit. That fact is a prescription for a stay-at-home, highly limited space program . Dewar sees nuclear-powered rockets, however, as offering far superior thrusting power and speed. To date, the nuclear rocket story has been scarred by political battles over the space program's future, involving U.S. presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. He maintains that only by reestablishing a nuclear rocket project can the nation have a space program worthy of the 21st century, one that makes reality of the hopes and dreams of science fiction. Just like those projects of the past, NASA's newest nuclear initiative offers the promise of an untethered exploration of the Solar System. Risk management, as well as public and political support tied to the building of safe, reliable and affordable nuclear power space systems are essential if humanity is to break the stranglehold of Earth's gravity and travel deep into the Solar System and well beyond into the surrounding cosmos. If past is prologue, NASA's latest nuclear power play will be as challenging as the technology it hopes to harness.

98

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 99 /414

Nelson <tournament>

SPACE WEAPONIZATION ALREADY HAPPENED


SPACE WEAPONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEPLOYEDALL OF THEIR ARMS RACE ARGUMENTS ARE FALSE USA TODAY 6-13-05
We've seen it before, nations reacting not to threats but to illusory phantoms, or to badly reasoned deductions.
Russia is particularly vulnerable to such manipulation, from the major defensive weapons systems it fielded to counter U.S. armaments that appeared only on the pages of Aviation Week, to scary space hardware it actually built to combat what it saw as "soldier-astronauts" aboard militarized Gemini, Apollo and space shuttle vehicles. In recent years, historians have revealed that Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev bankrupted his country's space program by demanding that his engineers build a copy of NASA's space shuttle because his advisers persuaded him that the United States wanted to use it for bombing Moscow. Aside from the waste, building such hardware created new hazards to everyone involved. Now come the newest stories that echo down the

interconnected corridors of the American mainstream media, about "killer satellites" and "death stars" and "Rods from God" bombardment systems as if the Hollywoodized terminology wasn't a clue that most of the subject matter was equally imaginary.
Take the opening paragraph of a recent Christian Science Monitor editorial that denounced what it portrayed as "the possible first-ever overt deployment of weapons where heretofore only satellites and astronauts have gone." But history reveals an entirely different reality .

Weapons have occasionally been deployed in space for decades, without sparking mass arms races or hair- trigger tensions. These are not just systems that send warheads through space, such as intercontinental missiles or the proposed global bomber. These are systems that put the weapons into stable orbits, circling Earth, based in space. And these systems were all Russian ones, by the way, most of them predating
President Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" to develop an anti-missile system.

SPACE HAS ALREADY BEEN MILITARIZED


John A. Tirpak, Senior Editor, March 01. Air Force Magazine Online. http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2001/0301space.asp The Space Commission Reports. The argument about the militarization of space is "moot," he said, "because space has been militarized. The issue is, whether you weaponize space." He noted that there is a ban on nuclear weapons tests in space, but otherwise, there is "no prohibition against weapons in space today" under any existing treaty. Moreover, he noted that a handful of nations already have the "crude" means to do great damage to a satellite constellation. Fact of Life "Militarization of space is a fact of life," Fogleman asserted. He added that weapons applicable to space are further along than most suspect and predicted that directed energy weapons will be a "centerpiece" of the US military's arsenal within 20 years. In later discussion with reporters, he said the commission didn't intend to "challenge the aerospace integration [concept]. ... I don't think aerospace integration and a restructured space segment of the US Air Force are mutually exclusive." The point of aerospace integration is to merge space capabilities into all facets of warfare and bring down barriers between space power and field commanders who need it, but Fogleman said that many of those barriers already "have been knocked down" and had to do with security classification and "nothing to do with organizational structure." While the Air Force has not suffered much until now by putting nonspace experts in command of space organizations, this needs to change, Fogleman said.

U.S. CAN WEAPONIZE OTHER STATES WONT CHALLENGE U.S. DOMINANCE


Leonard David, 2005. Weapons in Space: The http://www.space.com/news/050617_space_warfare.html 7/7/09 RFF Dawn of a New Era Space.com.
For those that think space weaponization is impossible, Dolman said such belief falls into the same camp that "man will never fly". The fact that space weaponization is technically feasible is indisputable, he said, and nowhere challenged by a credible authority. "Space weaponization can work," Dolman said. "It will be very expensive. But the rewards for the state that weaponizes first--and establishes itself at the top of the Earth's gravity well, garnering all the many advantages that the high ground has always provided in war--will find the benefits worth the costs." What if America weaponizes space? One would think such an action would kick-start a procession of other nations to follow suit. Dolman said he takes issues with that notion. "This argument comes from the mirror-image analogy that if another state were to weaponize space, well then, the U.S. would have to react. Of course it would! But this is an entirely different situation," Dolman responded. "The U.S. is the world's most powerful state. The international system looks to it for order. If the U.S. were to weaponize space, it would be perceived as an attempt to maintain or extend its position, in effect, the status quo ," Dolman suggested. It is likely that most states--recognizing the vast expense and effort needed to hone their space skills to where America is today--would opt not to bother competing, he said.

99

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 100 /414

Nelson <tournament>

TB (1/4)
TB collapses the economy Fonkwo, International Consultant on Public Health, 2008 (Peter Ndeboc, International Consultant on Public Health, EMBO reports 9, S1, S13S17 (2008), http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v9/n1s/full/embor2008110.html)
During the past couple of decades, however, microbes have shown a tenacious ability to adapt, re-adapt, survive and challenge human ingenuity (Table 1). The impact of these diseases is immense and is felt across the world. In addition to affecting the health of individuals directly, infectious diseases are also having an impact on whole societies, economies and political systems. In the developing world in particular, crucial sectors for sustained development such as health and education, have seen a marked loss of qualified personnel, most notably to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), tuberculosis (TB) and malaria. These and other infectious agents not only take an enormous physical toll on humanity, but also cause significant economic losses both directly in the developing world and less directly in the developed world. It is therefore a matter not only of public health, but also

of economic interest, to invest in and organize an internationally coordinated strategy to fight the major infectious diseases, or at least to bring them under control Of course, one could simply think the solution would be
.

to try to eliminate the pathogens and/or their vectors from their natural reservoirs or hosts. After all, this was successfully done with smallpox, for example. Cholera and malaria were similarly brought under control in the USA and southern Europe. Unfortunately, it is not easy to predict where and when most infectious agents will strike or which new diseases will emerge. The reasons for their persistence are manifold and include biological, social and political causes. Pathogens constantly change their genetic make-up, which challenges the development of vaccines against infectious diseases. This genetic flexibility allows many infectious agents to mutate or evolve into more deadly strains against which humans have little or no resistance: the HIV and influenza viruses, for example, constantly mutate and recombine to find their way through the host defence mechanisms. "From the evolutionary perspective, they [viruses and bacteria] are 'the fittest' and the chances are slim that human ingenuity will ever get the better of them" (Stefansson, 2003). Mass migrations, trade and travel are notoriously effective at spreading infectious diseases to even the most remote parts of the globe (Table 2). Mass migrations are often the result of emergency situations such as floods, wars, famines or earthquakes, and can create precarious conditionssuch as poor hygiene and nutrition or risky sexual behaviourswhich hasten the spread of infectious diseases. Global trade and travel introduce new pathogens into previously virgin regions , where the diseases find a more vulnerable population

and can develop into epidemics; this was the case when West Nile virus arrived in New York City, from where it quickly spread throughout North America. In the present-day global village, the next rabies or
, for example, in the late 1990s,

Ebola epidemic could occur anywhere in the world. Increasing urbanization and the growth of urban slums that lack sanitation and clean water, provide fertile ground for infections. Many cities and townships in the developing world expands at the expense of pristine land, thereby disturbing natural habitats and bringing humans into more intimate contact with unknown and possibly dangerous microorganisms. Human forays into virgin areas of the African equatorial forests have brought us into contact with the Ebola virus, although its real origin has not yet been identified. When humans live in close contact with animals, pathogens are sometimes able to change hosts and infect humans (Parish et al, 2005). The new hostin this case, a humanis often not as adapted to these zoonotic diseases as the original host. The past outbreaks of avian influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), hantavirus, Nipah virus and the HIV epidemic were all due to pathogens that were normally found in animals, but which subsequently found a new, susceptible host in humans. Moreover, the misuse and overuse of antibiotics is eroding our ability to control even common infections. Many bacteria have become resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics; similarly, the once first-line drugs against malaria are now almost useless. Promiscuous sexual behaviour and substance abuse remain the main means of transmission of blood-borne infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. In areas of extreme poverty, given the increased resort to the sex trade for survival, sexual transmission of these diseases is accelerated. In many developing countries, commercial sex workers and long-distance truck drivers have contributed greatly to the spread of such infectious diseases from one community to another. In addition, institutional settingssuch as child-care centres, hospitals and homes for the elderly provide an ideal environment for the transmission of infectious diseases because they bring susceptible individuals into close contact with one another. Wars, natural disasters, economic collapse and other catastrophes, either individually or in combination, often cause a breakdown in healthcare systems, which contributes further to the emergence, re-emergence and persistence of otherwise easily controllable diseases. Yet these diseases do not necessarily require an emergency situation to be able to thrive.

100

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 101 /414

Nelson <tournament>

TB (2/4)
Complacency within the population or health-service providers could be equally dangerous under otherwise normal conditions. Cutbacks in prevention programmes and a lack of early-detection systems allow infectious diseases to gain a foothold in otherwise healthy populations. It is often not the lack of tools, but the lack of an appropriate healthcare infrastructure and personnel that handicaps the response to infectious diseases. More generally, there is not yet enough commitment to control infectious diseases at the political
, a lack of trained staff

level. The absence of a direct and obvious link between disease control and the benefits for public health makes it difficult to sustain public-health policies. Programmes to prevent and treat infectious diseases in developing countries depend largely on indigenous health workers, most of whom are unfortunately not motivated enough to deliver the goods. Given the multiplicity and complexity of the reasons behind this general demotivation, only a strong political will can improve the situation. Finally, public-health experts also worry that global climate change could contribute further to the spread of both pathogens and their vectors such as mosquitoes or birds, as their migratory patterns and normal habitats are likely to change. The burden of infectious disease is therefore likely to aggravate, and in some cases even provoke economic decay, and political destabilization, especially in the developing world and former communist countries. As of the year 2001, one billion people lived on less than US$1 per day. Countries with a per capita income of less than US$500 per year spend, on average, US$12 per person per year on health. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), infectious diseases caused 32% of deaths worldwide, 68% of deaths in Africa and 37% of deaths in Southeast Asia (WHO, 1999). These diseases account for 90% of the health problems worldwide and kill about 14 million people annually, 90% of whom are from the developing world. They have killed more people than famine, war, accidents and crimes together. AIDS, TB and malaria are increasingly being acknowledged as important factors in the political and economic destabilization of the developing world. However, the developed world is not spared either. As of the year 2000, the number of annual deaths owing to infectious diseases was estimated at roughly 170,000 in the USA (Gordon, 2000). HIV and pneumonia/influenza are among the 10 leading causes of death in the USA. At present, approximately one million Americans are infected with HIV. The WHO estimates that 33.4 million people have contracted HIV worldwide since the beginning of the epidemic in 1983 and about 2.3 million of these died in the year 1998 alone. In the USA and many other countries, AIDS is now the leading cause of death among young adults (Fauci et al, 1996). The United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; Geneva Switzerland) estimates that another 115 million people will die by 2015 in the 60 countries most affected by AIDS (UNAIDS, 2006). The economic costs of infectious diseases especially HIV/AIDS and malaria are significant.
, further social fragmentation ,

Their increasing toll on productivity owing to deaths and chronic debilitating illnesses, reduced profitability and decreased foreign investment has had a serious effect on the economic growth of some poor
,

countries. According to the WHO, the economic value of the loss-of-life owing to HIV/AIDS in 1999 was estimated at about 12% of the gross national product (GNP) in sub-Saharan African countries, and the virus could reduce the gross domestic product of some by 20% or more by 2010. Some of the hardest hit countries in sub-Saharan Africaand possibly in South and Southeast Asiawill face severe demographic changes as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases reduce human lifeexpectancy by as much as 30 years and kill as many as 23% of their populations, thereby creating a huge orphan cohort. Nearly 42 million children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2010, and 19 of the hardest-hit countries will be in sub-Saharan Africa (WHO, 2003). These demographic changes also affect economic growth, as endemic diseases deplete a country of its work force. A 10% increase in life expectancy at birth (LEB) is associated with a rise in economic growth of 0.30.4% per year. The difference in annual growth owing to LEB between a typical high-income country with a LEB of 77 years and a typical less-developed country with a LEB of 49 years is roughly 1.6% per year, and is cumulative over time The relationship between disease and political instability is indirect but real. A wide-ranging study on the causes of instability indicates that TB prevalencea good indicator of overall quality of lifecorrelates strongly with political instability, even in countries that have already achieved a measure of democracy (Van Helden, 2003). The severe social and economic impact of infectious diseases is likely to intensify the struggle for the political power to control scarce resources. Health must therefore be regarded as a major economic factor and investments in health as a profitable business. According to the WHO, TB affects working hours in formal and informal economies, as well as within households (WHO, 2008). Country studies document that each TB patient loses, on average, 34 months of work time annually due to the disease, and lost earnings amount to 2030% of household income. Families of people who die from the disease lose approximately 15 years of income. The global burden
.

TB (3/4)

101

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 102 /414

Nelson <tournament>

of TB in economic terms can therefore be easily calculated: given 8.4 million patients yearly according to the most
recent WHO estimates (Kim et al, 2008), the majority of whom are potential wage-earners, and assuming a 30% decline in average productivity, the toll amounts to approximately US$1 billion each year. Annual deaths are estimated at two million and, with an average loss of 15 years of income per death, there is an additional deficit of US$11 billion. Every 12 months TB therefore causes roughly US$12 billion to disappear from the global economy. The social cost of the lost productivity further increases the burden on society. By contrast, a 50% reduction in TB-related deaths would cost US$900 million per year, but the return on investment by 2010 would be 22 million people cured, 16 million deaths averted and US$6 billion saved. Each year there are between 400 and 900 million febrile infections owing to malaria (0.72.7 million deaths), more than 75% of which are among African children, and less than 20% of these malaria cases ever see a doctor for treatment. Pregnant women have a higher risk of dying from the infection or of having children with low birth weight. Children suffer cognitive damage and anaemia, and families spend up to 25% of their income on treatment. A study by Gallup & Sachs (2000) showed that countries with endemic malaria had income levels in 1995 that were only 33% of those in countries that do not suffer from malaria. Countries with a severe malaria burden grew 1.3% less per year, compared with those without. Gallup & Sachs estimated the aggregate loss owing to the disease in some 25 countries at approximately US$73 billion in 1987, which represented more than 15% of the GDP. AIDS/HIV also creates an enormous burden for the global economy. In the year 2000, 36.1 million people were living with AIDS (25 million of whom were in sub-Saharan Africa), 5.3 million people were infected (3.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa) and three million people died (2.4 million in sub-Saharan Africa), and AIDS has caused 21.8 million deaths to date. This has a heavy economic impact on society. According to the WHO Macroeconomics Report, the economic burden of AIDS on sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 72 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY), and each AIDS death is estimated to have resulted in 34.6 DALYs lost, on average, in 1999 (WHO, 2003). Assuming that each DALY is valued at the per capita income, the economic value of lost life years in 1999 caused by AIDS represents 11.7% of the GNP. If each DALY is valued at three times the per capita income, the losses represent 35.1% of the GNP. In addition, infectious diseases n general, especially those that can cause an epidemic continue to make costly disruptions to trade and commerce in every region of the world (Table 3). Emerging and re-emerging diseases, many of which are likely to appear in poorer countries first, can easily spread to richer parts of the world. The burden of infectious disease already weakens the military capabilities of various countries and international peace-keeping efforts. This will contribute further to political destabilization in the hardest-hit parts of the world. In slowing down social and economic development, diseases challenge democratic developments and transitions, and contribute to civil conflicts. Finally, trade embargoes or restrictions on travel and immigration owing to
i , ,

outbreaks of infectious disease will cause more friction between developing and developed countries, and hinder global commerce to the greater detriment of poor countries. The effects of infectious diseases over the next
decades depend on three variables: the relationship between increasing microbial resistance and scientific efforts to develop new antibiotics and vaccines; the future of developing and transitional economies, especially with regard to improving the basic quality of life for the poorest people; and the success of global and national efforts to create effective systems of surveillance and response. Depending on these variables, the relationship between humans and infectious diseases, and their impact on the human race, could take one of the following pathways. The optimistic scenario foresees steady improvement whereby ageing populations and declining fertility, socioeconomic advances, and improvements in health care and medical research will lead to a 'health transition' in which infectious diseases will be replaced by non-infectious diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, as major health challenges. By contrast, the pessimist scenario of steady deterioration foresees little or no progress in countering infectious diseases in the future. According to this scenario, a vicious spiral will develop between infectious diseases and poverty. Major diseases such as HIV/AIDS will reach

catastrophic proportions as the viruses spread throughout populations as a result of increased resistance to multi-drug treatments and the unavailability of expensive treatments in developing countries, which face the majority of
the problem. The third and most likely scenario foresees an initial deterioration followed by limited improvement. Persistent poverty in the least-developed countries will create conditions that sustain reservoirs of infectious diseases. Microbial resistance will continue to increase faster than the pace of drug and vaccine development. The threat, in particular from HIV/AIDS, TB or malaria, will cause such massive socio-economic and cultural upheaval that it will eventually affect a critical mass of humanity This will create the necessary pressure for a movement towards better prevention and control efforts, with new and effective drugs and vaccines made affordable. This will only later result in demographic changes such as reduced fertility and ageing populations, and a gradual socioeconomic improvement in most countries. The good news is that infectious
.

102

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 103 /414

Nelson <tournament>

TB (4/4)
diseases can be easily prevented through simple and inexpensive methods (Sidebar A). This requires correct education and the spread of knowledge; however, even these simple measures will not be enough to bring infectious diseases under control if there is no political and international commitment. Governments must be made to understand the stakes

involved in fighting infectious diseasesthis is the only way to guarantee that the necessary resources will be allocated in sufficient quantities and on time. We need a global commitment to address the most prominent
infectious diseases and to complement local initiatives with special attention to the least-developed countries (Alilio, 2001; Stop TB Partnership, 2006). This will require analytical and advisory services in order to help countries generate and act on information about the status and dynamics of most infectious diseases, and to estimate their social and economic impact. Such information is essential for advocacy, and for making appropriate and timely decisions. In the face of limited resources, joint efforts will have to focus on the main killer diseasesincluding HIV/AIDS, TB and malariain order to have the greatest impact. Medical treatment, psychosocial supportincluding palliative care for debilitating diseasesand highly active anti-microbial therapy will be essential. In addition, the prevailing problem of the physical and financial inaccessibility of most of these drugs will have to be addressed. Last, best practices will have to be identified and scaled up. This will require special efforts to identify and overcome legal barriers, and to analyse, country-by-country, financial and non-financial resources with a view to mobilizing support internationally. In conclusion, infectious diseases constitute a major problem for the world, but even more so for the developing world. No country can afford to remain aloof in the battle against these diseases, especially given the potentially far-reaching and devastating effects that they could have on the human race at large. Increasing globalization means that the big questions in relation to epidemics will be those of where and whenand not whetherthe next epidemic emerges, as historical examples have shown. Therefore, all stakeholdersresearchers, politicians, health professionals, the financial sector and the community at largemust take the necessary bold steps forward

Even from the purely economic point of view, the investment in the fight against infectious diseases is evidently good business: the world economyand, subsequently, individual family economies stands to benefit from such investments. We already know a lot of what we must do; we just need to do it. The future of the human race depends on our actions today.

103

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 104 /414

Nelson <tournament>

TB
TB collapses the economy Thomas, Writer for the WHO, 4/8/05 (Chris, Writer for the World Health Organization (WHO), 4/8/05 http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_apr05/pillars.htm ) TB tends to threaten the poorest and most marginalized groups of people. It disrupts the social fabric of society and slows or undermines gains in economic development. An overwhelming 98 percent of the 2 million annual TB deathsand some 95 percent of all new casesoccur in developing countries. On average, TB causes three to four months of lost work time and lost earnings for a household. USAID has
been a key player in the Stop TB Partnership, an effort of more than 350 partner governments and organizations. Aside from funding, the Agency invests in the Stop TB Partnership and GDF by providing technical support. This helps poor countries improve their drug management systems, trains local TB experts, and helps health ministries draw up comprehensive TB strategies. USAID has been particularly involved in administering DOTS, a system of observing people while they take the full course of medicine to prevent drug-resistant strains from developing.

The timeframe for TB is immediate Lite, 4/1/09 (Jordan Lite, 4/1/09, Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-secondscience/post.cfm?id=drug-resistant-tuberculosis-a-time-2009-04-01 ) The growing prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis is a "potentially explosive situation," the World Health Organization's director general, Margaret Chan, said today at the opening of a three-day meeting on the problem.Representatives from 27 countries affected by multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) are gathering in Beijing to discuss how to address the trend . MDR-TB is resistant to first-line drugs; XDR-TB doesnt respond to those meds or second-line therapies. More than
500,000 MDR-TB cases occur annuallyonly 3 percent of them treated according to WHO standardsand XDR-TB exists in more than 50 countries, the agency says. People with HIV, whose immune systems are already weakened by the AIDScausing virus, are at increased risk of TB. "Call it what you maya time bomb or a powder keg," Chan said

today, according to the Associated Press. "Any way you look at it, this is a potentially explosive situation."

104

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 105 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terror
A terrorist attack escalates to a global nuclear exchange Speice 06 )Speice 06 06 JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary

[Patrick F. Speice, Jr., NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, William & Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427])

Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices

are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant.
42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. 53 A nuclear terrorist attack will trigger every single impact scenario Zedillo 06 (Ernesto Zedillo, Former President of Mexico Director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, FORBES, January 9, 2006, p. 25) Even if you agree with what's being done in the war on terror, you still could be upset about what's not happening: doing the utmost to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack. We all should have a pretty clear idea of what would follow a nuclear weapon's detonation in any of the world's major cities. Depending on the potency of the device the loss of life

could be in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions), the destruction of property in the trillions of dollars, the escalation in conflicts and violence uncontrollable, the erosion of authority and government unstoppable and the disruption of global trade and finance unprecedented. In short, we could practically count on the beginning of another dark age.

105

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 106 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terrorism turns Econ


Academic studies prove terrorism hurts the economy
Abadie and Gardeazabal, 7 (Alberto Abadie- professor of public policy @ Harvard, and Javier Gareazabal- professor of economics @ the University of Baque Country, Terrorism and the World Economy, August 2007, http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~aabadie/twe.pdf) It has been argued that terrorism should not have a large effect on economic activity, because terrorist attacks destroy only a small fraction of the stock of capital of a country (see, e.g., Becker and Murphy, 2001). In contrast, empirical estimates of the consequences of terrorism typically suggest large effects on economic outcomes (see, e.g., Abadie and Gardeazabal, 2003). The main theme of this article is that mobility of productive capital in an open economy may account for much of the difference between the direct and the equilibrium impact of terrorism. We use a simple economic model to show that terrorism may have a large impact on the allocation of productive capital across countries, even if it represents a small fraction of the overall economic risk. The model emphasizes that, in addition to increasing uncertainty, terrorism reduces the expected return to investment. As a result, changes in the intensity of terrorism may cause large movements of capital across countries if the world economy is sufficiently open, so international investors are able to diversify other types of country risks. Using a unique dataset on terrorism and other country risks, we find that, in accordance with the predictions of the model, higher levels of terrorist risks are associated with lower levels of net foreign direct investment positions, even after controlling for other types of country risks. On average, a standard deviation increase in the terrorist risk is associated with a fall in the net foreign direct investment position of about 5 percent of GDP. The magnitude of the estimated effect is large, which suggests that the open-economy channel" impact of terrorism may be substantial. This paper analyzes the effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy. From an economic standpoint, terrorism has been described to have four main effects (see, e.g., US Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 2002). First, the capital stock (human and physical) of a country is reduced as a result of terrorist attacks. Second, the terrorist threat induces higher levels of uncertainty. Third, terrorism promotes increases in counter-terrorism expenditures, drawing resources from productive sectors for use in security. Fourth, terrorism is known to affect negatively specific industries such as tourism.1 However, this classification does not include the potential effects of increased terrorist threats in an open economy. In this article, we use a stylized macroeconomic model of the world economy and international data on terrorism and the stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) assets and liabilities to study the economic effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy

106

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 107 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terrorism Defense
Nuclear weapons are too expensive RAND, 5 (RAND research brief, Combating http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/ RB165/index1.html) Nuclear Terrorism

Nuclear Acquisition Remains Relatively Difficult for Terrorist Groups Acquiring a nuclear weapon requires access to specialized material and a high level of technical expertise that has historically been beyond the reach of terrorist groups. Throughout the 1990s, Aum Shinrikyo tried without success to hire Russian nuclear experts, to purchase Russian nuclear technology and data, to mine uranium, and to steal sensitive nuclear power plant information. These efforts were thwarted by Russian officials refusal to cooperate and by the lack of technical expertise within the group. Similarly, al Qaeda has been exposed to numerous scams involving the sale of radiological waste and other non-weapons-grade material. These difficulties may lead terrorists to conclude that nuclear acquisition is too difficult and too expensive to pursue.

The threat of terrorism has been greatly exaggerated empirically proven Mueller, 05 (John, Professor of Political Science at OhioState. May 2005. International Studies Perspectives, Volume 6 Issue 2 Page 208-234, Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration) The capacity for small bands of terrorists to do harm is far less than was the case for the great countries behind international Communism who possessed a very impressive military (and nuclear) capacity and had, in addition, shown great skill at political subversion. By contrast, for all the attention it evokes, terrorism, in reasonable context, actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic. Those adept at hyperbole like to proclaim that we live in "the age of terror" (Hoagland, 2004). However, the number of people worldwide who die as a result of international terrorism is generally only a few hundred a year, tiny compared with the numbers who die in most civil wars or from automobile accidents. In fact, until 2001 far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning. And except for 2001, virtually none of these terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Indeed, outside of 2001, fewer people have died in America from international terrorism than have drowned in toilets. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, however, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began its accounting) is about the same as the number killed over the same period by lightningor by accident-causing deer or by severe allergic reaction to peanuts. In almost all years, the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States. Some of this is definitional. When terrorism
becomes really extensive, we generally no longer call it terrorism, but war. But people are mainly concerned about random terror, not sustained warfare. Moreover, even using an expansive definition of terrorism and including domestic terrorism in the mix, it is likely that far fewer people were killed by terrorists in the entire world over the last hundred years than died in any number of unnoticed civil wars during that century. Obviously, this could change if international terrorists are able to assemble sufficient weaponry or devise new tactics to kill masses of people and if they come to do so routinely and this, of course, is the central fear. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that 9/11 was an extreme event: until then, no more than 329 had ever been killed in a single terrorist attack (in a 1985 Air India explosion), and during the entire twentieth century fewer than 20 terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people. The economic destruction on September 11 was also unprecedented,

. A bomb planted in a piece of checked luggage was responsible for the explosion that caused a PanAm jet to crash into Lockerbie Scotland in 1988. Since that time, hundreds of billions of pieces of luggage have been transported on American carriers and none has exploded to down an aircraft. This does not mean that one should cease worrying about luggage on airlines, but it does suggest that extreme events do not necessarily assure repetitionany more than Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 has.
of course. However, extreme events often remain exactly thataberrations, rather than harbingers

107

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 108 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terrorism Defense
The costs of fighting terrorism outweigh the small risk of another attack Fidas, 7 (George- Professor of Practice of International Affair @ Elliot school of international affairs, "Terrorism: Existensial Threat or Exaggerated Threat: Challenging the Dominant Paradigm" Feb 28, 2007 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p181269_index.html)
But terrorism is not likely to pose the kind of sustained existential threat that strong states, especially nuclear-armed ones, posed against other strong states in the 20th century. Treating terrorism as such in an endless war is likely to lead to endless fear and the slighting of other, perhaps more salient new and existing security threats, ever larger budget expenditures that weaken our overall economy, and growing restrictions on civil liberties and freedom of movement at home and loss of soft power abroad. It will also produce a self-fulfilling sense of fear and terror that will accomplish the goals of our terrorist adversaries at little risk to themselves.

Terrorist threats are exaggerated Brookings Institue, 8 (The Brookings Institution, Have We Exaggerated the Threat of Terrorism? http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0221_terrorism.aspx?p=1, November 2008)
The Crisis in the Middle East Task Force addressed the topic of Have We Exaggerated the Threat of Terrorism? in its sixth session on February 21, 2008. This session, hosted by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, assessed the risks of and appropriate responses to terrorism. One participant argued that terrorism presents minimal cause for concern. Discounting war zones, studies show that there have been very few people killed by Muslim extremists each yearin fact, more people drown in bathtubs each year in the United States. The FBI reported in 2005 that it had not found an al-Qaeda presence in the United States. Additionally, terrorism, by its very nature, can be self-defeating: many attacks by al-Qaeda have caused the group to lose popularity. This participant questioned both the intentions and capability of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden has threatened many attacks that he has not been able to execute. In specific, this participant thought it unlikely that that al-Qaeda would obtain nuclear weapons, despite fears to the contrary. Another participant agreed that the fears about terrorism are exaggerated and differentiated between the actual campaign against al-Qaeda and its supporters and the idea of a general war on terrorism.

No Impact to terrorism Fidas, 7 (George- Professor of Practice of International Affair @ Elliot school of international affairs, "Terrorism: Existensial Threat or Exaggerated Threat: Challenging the Dominant Paradigm" Feb 28, 2007 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p181269_index.html)
The overwhelmingly dominant-indeed only-paradigm concerning terrorism is that it is pervasive, highly lethal, and poses a clear and present danger to the United States, in particular, and tothe world in general. Yet, group think is rarely correct and this is evident from the facts. There has been no terrorist act in the United States since 9/11 and less than 10 major terrorist attacks around the world resulting in fewer than 1000 casualties. The riposte is that this is due to strong countermeasures, especially in the U.S., but this is belied by the fact that borders remain porous and thousands of people cross them illegally on a daily basis, many counterterrorism measures have failed official and unofficial tests, and key facilities remain unprotected. Meanwhile, huge funds are being allocated to conduct the socalled war on terror, the balance between liberty and security is tilting toward security, and both law enforcement officials and publics are "terrorized" by a pervasive uneasiness about impending terrrorist attacks. There is no doubt that the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they have become an anchoring event in a psychological sense through which all subsequent events and perceptions are being filtered, and thereby may be skewing our perceptions about the continued seriousness of the terrorist threat. It is time to at least question the dominant paradigm and that is the topic of this paper.

108

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 109 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terrorism doesnt hurt the economy


Terrorism has no economic impact- empirically proven Shapiro, 3 (Robert, Slate.com, Former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce Al-Qaida and the GDP, 2/28/03, http://www.slate.com/id/2079298/)
While everyone else is buying duct tape and making evacuation plans, we cold-blooded economists ask, what could terrorism do to an economy like ours? There is an economics of everything else, so why not an economics of terrorism? Terrorists have inflicted enough damage in enough places during the past 30 years for economists to credibly evaluate how terrorism affects economic activity. The lesson for the United States: The economic cost of terrorism here is likely to be less than you'd expect. In the few places where terrorist activity has been pervasive and protractedColombia, Northern Ireland, the Basque region of Spain, and Israelit depresses growth and sometimes stunts development. Where terrorism has been more occasional and local, the economic impact is modest, resembling ordinary crime. So long as al-Qaida or its counterparts are unable (or unwilling) to use weapons much more powerful than airliners, especially nuclear weapons, any ambition to derail a large, advanced economy like ours will fail. The immediate costs of terrorism are rarely very high for an economy. For small operationsa political murder or bombing that kills a few people (think Colombian narco-terrorists, IRA operatives, or Palestinian suicide bombers)the direct economic impact is negligible. Even a huge terror strike is a blip in a vast economy like the United States'. The World Trade Center attack did not move the U.S. economy, as consumer spending and GDP accelerated strongly in the quarter immediately following the attack. Modern economies regularly absorb greater losses from bad weather and natural disastersfor example, the 1988 heat wave that took the lives of more than 5,000 Americans or the 1999 earthquake in Izmit, Turkey, that killed 17,000without derailing.

109

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 Terrorism deters foreign investment

File Name 110 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Abadie and Gardeazabal, 7 (Alberto Abadie- professor of public policy @ Harvard, and Javier Gareazabal- professor of economics @ the University of Baque Country, Terrorism and the World Economy, August 2007, http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~aabadie/twe.pdf) The amounts of foreign direct investment in the U.S. before and after the September 11th attacks provide some suggestive evidence of the open-economy channel of terrorism. In the year 2000, the year before the terrorist attacks, foreign direct investment inflows represented about 15.8 percent of the Gross Fixed Capital Formation in the U.S. This figure decreased to only 1.5 percent in 2003, two years after the attacks. Conversely, foreign direct investment outflows from the U.S. increased from about 7.2 percent of the Gross Fixed Capital Formation for the U.S. in 2000 to 7.5 percent in 2003 (see UNCTAD, 2004). Of course, not all this variation in FDI can be attributed to the effect of the September 11th attacks. As of September 2001 foreign direct investment inflows had fallen from its 2000 peak not only in the U.S. but also in other developed economies (see UNCTAD, 3In related research, Frey, Luechinger, and Stutzer (2004) study the effect of terrorism on life satisfaction. Frey, Luechinger, and Stutzer (2007) surveys the existing research on the economic impact of terrorism. 2 2002). These figures, however, motivate the question of to which extent an increase in the perceived level of terrorism was responsible for the drop in FDI in the U.S. that followed the events of September 11th. Surveys of international corporate investors provide direct evidence of the importance of terrorism on foreign investment. Corporate investors rate terrorism as one of the most important factors influencing their foreign direct investment decisions (see Global Business Policy Council, 2004).

110

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 111 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Warming
Warming leads to nuclear war and famine that kills hundreds of millions of people Pfeiffer 2004
[Dale Allen, Geologist, Global Climate Change & Peak Oil, The Wilderness Publications, Online] But the real importance of the report lies in the statement of probability and in the authors' recommendations to the President and the National Security Council. While no statistical analysis of probability is given in the report as it has been released (any such statistical analysis would most likely be classified), the authors state that the plausibility of severe and rapid

climate change is higher than most of the scientific community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for.6 They say that instead of asking whether this could happen, we should be asking when this will happen. They conclude: It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an imminent abrupt climate shift may become clear and reliable.7 From such a shift, the report claims, utterly appalling ecological consequences would follow. Europe and Eastern North America would plunge into a mini-ice age, with weather patterns resembling present day Siberia. Violent storms could wreak havoc around the globe. Coastal areas such as The Netherlands, New York, and the West coast of North America could become uninhabitable, while most island nations could be completely submerged. Lowlands like Bangladesh could be permanently swamped. While flooding
would become the rule along coastlines, mega-droughts could destroy the world's breadbaskets. The dust bowl could return to America's Midwest. Famine and drought would result in a major drop in the planet's ability to sustain the

present human population. Access to water could become a major battleground hundreds of millions could die as a result of famine and resource wars. More than 400 million people in subtropical regions will be put at
grave risk. There would be mass migrations of climate refugees, particularly to southern Europe and North America. Nuclear arms proliferation in conjunction with resource wars could very well lead to nuclear wars.8 And none of this takes into account the effects of global peak oil and the North American natural gas cliff. Not pretty.

Runaway warming leads to extinction Pfeiffer 2004 [Dale Allen, Geologist, Global Climate Change & Peak Oil, The Wilderness Publications, Online] The possibility of runaway global warming is not as distant a threat as we may wish. It is a threat which worries some of the greatest minds living among us today. Stephen Hawking, physicist, best selling author of A Brief
History of Time, and claimant of the Cambridge University post once occupied by Sir Isaac Newton (the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics), has been quoted as saying, "I am afraid the atmosphere might get hotter and hotter until it will be like Venus with boiling sulfuric acid."1 The renowned physicist was joined by other notables such as former President Jimmy Carter, former news anchor Walter Cronkite, and former astronaut and Senator John Glenn in drafting a letter to urge President Bush to develop a plan to reduce US emissions of greenhouse gases.2 Former British

Environmental Minister Michael Meacher is also worried about the survival of the human race due to global warming.

111

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 112 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**HEG**

112

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 113 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Heg Declining and Unsustainable


Hegemony is declining- counterbalancing and overstretch, hard power and economic recovery wont solve Pape, 9 (Robert- professor of political science at the University of Chicago, The National Interest, Empire Falls 01.22.2009, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20484) True, the United States remains stronger than any other state individually, but its power to stand up to the collective opposition of other major powers is falling precipitously. Though these worlds depict potential power, not active counterbalancing coalitions, and this type of alliance may never form, nonetheless, American relative power is declining to the point where even subsets of major powers acting in concert could produce sufficient military power to stand a reasonable chance of successfully opposing American military policies. Indeed, if present trends continue to 2013 and beyond, China and Russia, along with any one of the other major powers, would have sufficient economic capacity to mount military opposition at least as serious as did the Soviet Union during the cold war. And it
The balance of world power circa 2008 and 2013 shows a disturbing trend. is worth remembering that the Soviet Union never had more than about half the world product of the United States, which China alone is likely to reach in the coming decade. The faults in the arguments of the unipolar-dominance school

are being brought into sharp relief. The world is slowly coming into balance. Whether or not this will be another period of great-power transition coupled with an increasing risk of war will largely depend on how America can navigate its decline. Policy makers must act responsibly in this new era or risk international opposition
that poses far greater costs and far greater dangers. A COHERENT grand strategy seeks to balance a states economic resources and its foreign-policy commitments and to sustain that balance over time. For America, a coherent grand strategy also calls for rectifying the current imbalance between our means and our ends, adopting policies that enhance the former and modify the latter. Clearly, the United States is not the first great power to suffer long-term declinewe should

learn from history. Great powers in decline seem to almost instinctively spend more on military forces in order to shore up their disintegrating strategic positions, and some like Germany go even further, shoring up their security by adopting preventive military strategies, beyond defensive alliances, to actively stop a rising competitor from becoming dominant. For declining great powers, the allure of preventive waror lesser measures to merely firmly contain a rising powerhas a more compelling logic than many might assume. Since Thucydides, scholars of international politics have famously argued that a declining hegemon and rising
challenger must necessarily face such intense security competition that hegemonic war to retain dominance over the international system is almost a foregone conclusion. Robert Gilpin, one of the deans of realism who taught for decades at Princeton, believed that the first and most attractive response to a societys decline is to eliminate the source of the problem . . . [by] what we shall call a hegemonic war. Yet, waging war just to keep another state down has turned

out to be one of the great losing strategies in history. The Napoleonic Wars, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, German aggression in World War I, and German and Japanese aggression in World War II were all driven by declining powers seeking to use war to improve their future security. All lost control of events they thought they could control. All suffered ugly defeats. All were worse-off than had they not attacked. As China rises, America must avoid this great-power trap. It would be easy to think that greater American
military efforts could offset the consequences of Chinas increasing power and possibly even lead to the formation of a multilateral strategy to contain China in the future. Indeed, when Chinas economic star began to rise in the 1990s, numerous voices called for precisely this, noting that on current trajectories China would overtake the United States as the worlds leading economic power by 2050.8 Now, as that date draws nearerindeed, current-dollar calculations put the crossover point closer to 2040and with Beijing evermore dependent on imported oil for continued economic growth, one might think the case for actively containing China is all the stronger. Absent provocative military adventures by Beijing, however, U.S.

military efforts to contain the rising power are most likely doomed to failure. Chinas growth turns mainly on domestic issuessuch as shifting the workforce from rural to urban areasthat are beyond the ability

113

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 114 /414

Nelson <tournament>

of outside powers to significantly influence. Although Chinas growth also depends on external sources of oil, there is
no way to exploit this vulnerability short of obviously hostile alliances (with India, Indonesia, Taiwan and Japan) and clearly aggressive military measures (controlling the sea-lanes from the Persian Gulf to Asia) that together could deny oil to China.

Any efforts along these lines would likely backfireand only exacerbate Americas problems, increasing the risk of counterbalancing. Even more insidious is the risk of overstretch. This self-reinforcing spiral escalates current spending to maintain increasingly costly military commitments, crowding out productive investment for future growth. Today, the cold-war framework of significant troop deployments to Europe, Asia and the Persian Gulf is coming unglued. We cannot afford to keep our previous promises. With American forces bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and mounting troubles in Iran and Pakistan, the United States has all but gutted its military commitments to Europe, reducing our troop levels far below the one hundred thousand of the 1990s. Nearly half have been shifted to Iraq and elsewhere. Little wonder that Russia found an opportunity to demonstrate the hollowness of the Bush administrations plan for expanding NATO to Russias borders by scoring a quick and decisive military victory over Georgia that America was helpless to prevent. If a large-scale conventional war between
China and Taiwan broke out in the near future, one must wonder whether America would significantly shift air and naval power away from its ongoing wars in the Middle East in order to live up to its global commitments. If the United States

could not readily manage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time, could it really wage a protracted struggle in Asia as well? And as the gap between Americas productive resources and global commitments grows, why will others pass up opportunities to take advantage of Americas overstretched grand strategy ?
Since the end of the cold war, American leaders have consistently claimed the ability to maintain a significant forwardleaning military presence in the three major regions of the globe and, if necessary, to wage two major regional wars at the same time. The harsh reality is that the United States no longer has the economic capacity for such an ambitious grand strategy. With 30 percent of the worlds product, the United States could imagine maintaining this hope. Nearing 20 percent, it cannot. Yet, just withdrawing American troops from Iraq is not enough to put Americas grand strategy into balance. Even assuming a fairly quick and problem-free drawdown, the risks of instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region are likely to remain for many years to come. Further, even under the most optimistic scenarios, America is likely to remain dependent on imported oil for decades. Together, these factors point toward the Persian Gulf remaining the most important region in American grand strategy. So, as Europe and Asia continue to be low-order priorities, Washington must think creatively and look for opportunities to make strategic trades. America needs to share the burden of

regional security with its allies and continue to draw down our troop levels in Europe and Asia, even considering the attendant risks. The days when the United States could effectively solve the security problems of its allies in these regions almost on its own are coming to an end. True, spreading defense burdens
more equally will not be easy and will be fraught with its own costs and risks. However, this is simply part of the price of Americas declining relative power. The key principle is for America to gain international support among

regional powers like Russia and China for its vital national-security objectives by adjusting less important U.S. policies. For instance, Russia may well do more to discourage Irans nuclear program in return for less U.S. pressure
to expand NATO to its borders. And of course America needs to develop a plan to reinvigorate the competitiveness of its economy. Recently, Harvards Michael Porter issued an economic blueprint to renew Americas environment for innovation. The heart of his plan is to remove the obstacles to increasing investment in science and technology. A combination of targeted tax, fiscal and education policies to stimulate more productive investment over the long haul is a sensible domestic component to Americas new grand strategy. But it would be misguided to assume that the United States could

easily regain its previously dominant economic position, since the world will likely remain globally competitive. To justify postponing this restructuring of its grand strategy, America would need a firm expectation of high rates of economic growth over the next several years. There is no sign of such a burst on the horizon. Misguided efforts to extract more security from a declining economic base only divert potential resources from investment in the economy, trapping the state in an ever-worsening strategic dilemma. This approach has done little for great powers in the past, and America will likely be no exception when it comes to the inevitable costs of desperate policy making.The United States is not just declining. Unipolarity is becoming obsolete, other states are rising to counter American power and the United States is losing much of its strategic freedom. Washington must adopt more realistic foreign commitments.

114

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 115 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Hard power doesnt maintain heg and ultimately causes counterbalancing Pape, 9 (Robert- professor of political science at the University of Chicago, The National Interest, Empire Falls 01.22.2009, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20484) It would be easy to think that greater American military efforts could offset the consequences of Chinas increasing power and possibly even lead to the formation of a multilateral strategy to contain China in the future. Indeed, when Chinas economic star began to rise in the 1990s, numerous voices called for precisely this, noting that on current trajectories China would overtake the United States as the worlds leading economic power by 2050.8 Now, as that date draws nearerindeed, currentdollar calculations put the crossover point closer to 2040and with Beijing evermore dependent on imported oil for continued economic growth, one might think the case for actively containing China is all the stronger. Absent provocative military adventures by Beijing, however, U.S. military efforts to contain the rising power are most likely doomed to failure. Chinas growth turns mainly on domestic issuessuch as shifting the workforce from rural to urban areasthat are beyond the ability of outside powers to significantly influence. Although Chinas growth also depends on external sources of oil, there is no way to exploit this vulnerability short of obviously hostile alliances (with India, Indonesia, Taiwan and Japan) and clearly aggressive military measures (controlling the sea-lanes from the Persian Gulf to Asia) that together could deny oil to China. Any efforts along these lines would likely backfireand only exacerbate Americas problems, increasing the risk of counterbalancing.
As China rises, America must avoid this great-power trap.

Hard Power doesnt solve Heg

115

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 116 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Heg collapse turns economy


US withdrawal would result in a new dark age and collapse the global economy Ferguson, 4 (Niall. Prof of history @ Harvard. Hoover Digest, A World without Power July/August 4. http://www.hooverdigest.org/044/ferguson.html)
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populousroughly 20 times moremeaning that friction between the worlds disparate tribes is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on fresh water and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too; it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalizationthe integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capitalhas raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalizationwhich a new Dark Age would producewould certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europes Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists infiltration of the E.U. would become irreversible, increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home were preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economyfrom New York to Rotterdam to Shanghaiwould become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there?

116

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 117 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Kagan
US hegemony key to check multiple scenarios for nuclear war. Kagan 7 Senior Associate @ the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
(End of Dreams, Return of History, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html) Policy Review, Hoover Institution,

Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as No. 1 and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition

for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the U nited States is the dominant
naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europes stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a

world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But

117

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 118 /414

Nelson <tournament>

thats not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it.
Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the worlds great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of Chinas neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene even if it remained the worlds most powerful nation could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe if it adopted what some call a strategy of offshore balancing this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, offshore role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more even-handed policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israels aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesnt change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasnt changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to normal or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in

118

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 119 /414

Nelson <tournament>

the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it
may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

119

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 120 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Decline Inev
Rising asymmetric balancing, diplomatic countermovements, and overstretch coupled with massive expenditure has rendered the decline of hegemony imminent Khanna 08 (Parag, America Strategy Program sr. fellow, 1/27, p. 1, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the
independent

state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear

Americas standing in the world remains in steady decline. Why? Werent we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity ? Indeed, improvements to Americas image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no permanent enemies, but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened Americas armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and asymmetric weapons like suicide bombers. Americas unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.
energy.

120

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 121 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ T/
US withdrawal would result in a new dark age and collapse the global economy Ferguson, 4 (Niall. Prof of history @ Harvard. Hoover Digest, A World without Power July/August 4. http://www.hooverdigest.org/044/ferguson.html)
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populousroughly 20 times moremeaning that friction between the worlds disparate tribes is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on fresh water and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too; it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalizationthe integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capitalhas raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalizationwhich a new Dark Age would producewould certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europes Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists infiltration of the E.U. would become irreversible, increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home were preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economyfrom New York to Rotterdam to Shanghaiwould become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there?

121

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 122 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**WAR IMPACTS**

122

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 123 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War causes dehumanization


Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars Vinulan-Arellano 03. [Katharine, March 22 yonip.com Stop Dehumanization of People to Stop Wars http://www.yonip.com/main/articles/nomorewars.html]
In war time, dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and brainwashing. By portraying the enemy as less than human, it is much easier to motivate your troops to rape, torture or kill. Ethnic cleansing or genocide would always be perceived as a crime against humanity if human beings belonging to another race or religion are not dehumanized. Throughout history, groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized. Slaves, Negroes, Jews, and now, Muslims. Up to now, women are dehumanized in many societies -- they are made sexual objects, treated as secondclass human beings. The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the prevailing, successful dehumanization of women, worldwide. During wars, mass rape of women is common.

123

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 124 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War Turns Disease


War increases the spread of fatal disease. Boston Globe 07. [05-07, Spread of disease tied to U.S. combat deployments http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/07/spread_of_disease_tied_to_us_combat_deployme nts/] A parasitic disease rarely seen in United States but common in the Middle East has infected an estimated 2,500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, military officials said. Leishmaniasis , which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly, usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face, hands, arms, or legs. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated. In some US hospitals in Iraq, the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil." But in the United States, the appearance of it among civilian contractors who went to Iraq or among tourists who were infected in other parts of the world has caused great fear because family doctors have had difficulty figuring out the cause. The spread of leishmaniasis (pronounced LEASH-ma-NYE-a-sis) is part of a trend of emerging infectious diseases in the United States in recent years as a result of military deployments, as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the developing world, health officials say. Among those diseases appearing more frequently in the United States are three transmitted by mosquitoes: malaria, which was contracted by 122 troops last year in Afghanistan; dengue fever; and chikungunya fever.

124

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 125 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War turns Gender violence


War causes sexual violence and reifies the subjugation of women. Eaton 04. [Shana JD Georgetown University Law Center 35 Geo. J. Int'l L. 873 Summer lexis] While sexual violence against women has always been considered a negative side effect of war, it is only in recent years that it has been taken seriously as a violation of humanitarian law. In the "evolution" of war, women themselves have become a battlefield on which conflicts are fought. Realizing that rape is often more effective at achieving their aims than plain killing, aggressors have used shocking sexual violence against women as a tool of conflict, allowing battling forces to flaunt their power, dominance, and masculinity over the other side. The stigma of rape is used to effectuate genocide, destroy communities, and demoralize opponents-decimating a woman's will to survive is often only a secondary side effect. Sexual violence against women during wartime had to reach horrifying levels before the international community was shocked enough to finally take these atrocities seriously. It took the extremely brutal victimization of vast numbers of women, played out against a backdrop of genocide, to prove that rape is not simply a natural side effect of war to be lightly brushed aside. The conflicts in both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia put women's rights directly in the spotlight, and the international community could no longer avoid the glare. In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda, ethnic cleansing was central to the conflict. Raping women helped to achieve this aim in a number of ways, from forced impregnation, where offspring would have different ethnicities than their mothers, to the use of sexual violence to prevent women from wanting to have sex again (thus limiting their likelihood of bearing children in the future). Additionally, rape was used as a means of destroying families and communities. Raping a woman stigmatized her, making it unlikely that she would ever want to return home, and in many cases, ensuring that if she did return home that she would be rejected. Civilians, particularly women, came to be used as tools to achieve military ends, putting the human rights of these women at the heart of the conflict. War conditions cause sexual violence Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007) Women are especially vulnerable during war (see Chapter 12). Rape has been used as a weapon in many wars- in Korea, Bangladesh, Algeria, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda, the former Yugslavia, and elsewhere. As acts of humiliation and revenge, soldiers have raped the female family members of their enemies. For example, at least 10,000 women were raped by military personnel during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The social chaos brought about by war also creates situations and conditions conductive to sexual violence.

125

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 126 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War turns Human Right Violations


Wars undermine human rights Ganesan and Vines 04. [Arvind, Business and Human Rights Program Director @ HRW Alex, Senior Researcher @ HRW, Head of Africa Programme Chatham House, Royal Institue of Intl Affairs, Engine of War: Resources, Greed, and the Predatory State, Human Rights Watch World Report 2004 http://hrw.org/wr2k4/download/14.pdf] Internal armed conflict in resource-rich countries is a major cause of human rights violations around the world. An influential World Bank thesis states that the availability of portable, high-value resources is an important reason that rebel groups form and civil wars break out, and that to end the abuses one needs to target rebel group financing. The focus is on rebel groups, and the thesis is that greed, rather than grievance alone, impels peoples toward internal armed conflict. Although examination of the nexus between resources, revenues, and civil war is critically important, the picture as presented in the just-described greed vs. grievance theory is distorted by an overemphasis on the impact of resources on rebel group behavior and insufficient attention to how government mismanagement of resources and revenues fuels conflict and human rights abuses. As argued here, if the international community is serious about curbing conflict and related rights abuses in resource-rich countries, it should insist on greater transparency in government revenues and expenditures and more rigorous enforcement of punitive measures against governments that seek to profit from conflict. Civil wars and conflict have taken a horrific toll on civilians throughout the world. Killings, maiming, forced conscription, the use of child soldiers, sexual abuse, and other atrocities characterize numerous past and ongoing conflicts. The level of violence has prompted increased scrutiny of the causes of such wars. In this context, the financing of conflict through natural resource exploitation has received increased scrutiny over the last few years. When unaccountable, resource-rich governments go to war with rebels who often seek control over the same resources, pervasive rights abuse is all but inevitable. Such abuse, in turn, can further destabilize conditions, fueling continued conflict. Factoring the greed of governments and systemic rights abuse into the greed vs. grievance equation does not minimize the need to hold rebel groups accountable, but it does highlight the need to ensure that governments too are transparent and accountable. Fundamentally, proper management of revenues is an economic problem, and that is why the role of IFIs is so important. But it is an economic problem that also has political dimensions and requires political solutions. Political will and pressure, including targeted U.N. sanctions where appropriate, can motivate opaque, corrupt governments to be more open and transparent. Where such pressure is lacking, as in Liberia prior to enforcement of sanctions, continued conflict, rights abuse, and extreme deprivation of civilians all too commonly are the result.

126

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 127 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War turns human rights/ disease


Modern warfare involves crippling civilian infrastructure and violating human rights Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Modern military technology, especially the use of high-precision bombs, rockets, and missile warheads, has now made it possible to attack civilian populations in industrialized societies indirectlybut with devastating resultsby targeting the facilities on which life depends, while avoiding the stigma of direct attack on the bodies and habitats of noncombatants. The technique has been termed "bomb now, die later." U.S. military action against Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in the Iraq War has included the specific and selective destruction of key aspects of the infrastructure necessary to maintain ci vi li an life and health (see Chapter 15). During the bombing phase of the Persian Gulf War this deliberate effort almost totally destroyed Iraq's electricalpower generation and transmission capacity and its civilian communications networks. In combination with the prolonged application of economic sanctions and the disruption of highways, bridges, and facilities for refining and distributing fuel by conventional bombing, these actions had severely damaging effects on the health and survival of the civilian population, especially infants and children. Without electrical power, water purification and pumping ceased immediately in all major urban areas, as did sewage pumping and treatment. The appearance and epidemic spread of infectious diarrheal disease in infants and of waterborne diseases, such as typhoid fever and cholera, were rapid. At the same lime, medical care and public health measures were totally disrupted. Modern multistory hospitals were left without clean water, sewage disposal, or any electricity beyond what could he supplied by emergency generators designed to operate only a few hours per day. Operating rooms, x-ray equipment, and other vital facilities were crippled. Supplies of anesthetics, antibiotics, and other essential medications were rapidly depleted. Vaccines and medications requiring refrigeration were destroyed, and all immunization programs increased. Because almost no civilian telephones, computers, or transmission lines were operable, the Ministry of Health was effectively immobilized. Fuel shortages and the disruption of transportation limited civilian access to medical care. Many reports provide clear and quantitative evidence of violations of the requirements of immunity for civilian populations, proportionality, and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. They mock the concept of life integrity rights. In contrast to the chaos and social disruption that routinely accompany armed conflicts, these deaths have been the consequence of and explicit military policy, with clearly foreseeable consequences to human rights of civilians. The U.S. military has never conceded that its policies violated human rights under the Geneva Conventions or the guidelines under which U.S. military personnel operate. Yet the ongoing development of military technology suggests thatabsent the use of weapons of mass destruction violations of civilians human rights will be the preferred method of warfare in the future.

127

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 128 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War Turns Racism


War props up systems of racism and domination. Martin 90. [Brian, Associate Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at the University of Wollongong, , Uprooting War, Freedom Press, [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/index.html] Antagonism between ethnic groups can be used and reinforced by the state to sustain its own power. When one ethnic group controls all the key positions in the state, this is readily used to keep other groups in subordinate positions, and as a basis for economic exploitation. This was clearly a key process in apartheid in South Africa, but is also at work in many other countries in which minority groups are oppressed. From this perspective, the dominant ethnic group uses state power to maintain its ascendancy. But at the same time, the use of political and economic power for racial oppression helps to sustain and legitimate state power itself. This is because the maintenance of racial domination and exploitation comes to depend partly on the use of state power, which is therefore supported and expanded by the dominant group. From this perspective it can be said that the state mobilises racism to help maintain itself. There are several other avenues used by the state to mobilise support. Several of these will be treated in the following chapters, including bureaucracy and patriarchy. In each case, structured patterns of dominance and submission are mobilised to support the state, and state in turn helps to sustain the social structure in question, such as bureaucracy or patriarchy. To counter the state, it is necessary both to promote grassroots mobilisation and to undermine the key structures from which the state draws its power and from which it mobilises support.

128

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 129 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War Turns Everything


War causes destroys health, human rights, the environment, and causes domestic violence Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
War accounts for more death and disability than many major diseases combined. It destroys families, communities, and sometimes whole cultures. It directs scarce resources away from protection and promotion of health, medical care, and other human services. It destroys the infrastructure that supports health. It limits human rights and contributes to social injustice. It leads many people to think that violence is the only way to resolve conflictsa mindset that contributes to domestic violence, street crime, and other kinds of violence. And it contributes to the destruction of the environment and overuse of nonrenewable resources. In sum. war threatens much of the fabric of our civilization.

129

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 130 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War Turns Mental Health


War creates many mental health issues Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Given the brutality of war. many people survive wars only to be physically or mentally scarred for life (see Box 1-1). Millions of survivors are chroni cally disabled from injuries sustained during war or the immediate aftermath of war. Approximately one-third of Ihe soldiers who survived ihe civil war in Ethiopia, for example, were injured or disabled, and at least 40,000 individuals lost one or more limbs during the war.' Antipersonnel landmines represent a serious threat to many people'' (see Chapter 7). For example, in Cambodia, I in 236 people is an amputee as a result of a landmine explosion.'0 Millions more people are psychologically impaired from wars, during which they have been physically or sexually assaulted or have physically or sexually assaulted others; have been tortured or have participated in the torture of others; have been forced to serve as soldiers against their will; have witnessed the death of family members; or have experienced the destruction of their communities or entire nations (sec Chapter4). Psychological trauma may be demonstrated in disturbed and antisocial behaviors, such as aggression toward family members and others. Many soldiers, on returning from military action, suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). which also affects many civilian survivors of war.

130

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 131 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War turns Health


Funds are prioritized for war over health services Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Many countries spend large amounts of money per capita for military purposes. The countries with the highest military expenditures are shown in Table I -1. War and the preparation for war divert huge amounts of resources from health and human services and other productive societal endeavors. This diversion of resources occurs in many countries. In some less developed countries, national governments spend S10 to $20 per capita on military expenditures but only SI per capita on all health-related expenditures. The same type of distorted priorities also exist in more developed countries. For example, the United States ranks first among nations in military expenditures and arms exports, but 38th among nations in infant mortality rate and 45th in life expectancy at birth. Since 2003. during a period when federal, state, and local governments in the United States have been experiencing budgetary shortfalls and finding it difficult to maintain adequate health and human services, the U.S. government has spent almost $500 bi l l i o n for the Iraq War, and is spending (in 2007) more than $2 billion a week on the war.

131

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 132 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War turns domestic violence


War creates a cycle of violence that spills over to domestic violence Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
War often creates a cycle of violence, increasing domestic and community violence in the countries engaged in war. War teaches people that violence is an acceptable method for settling conflicts. Children growing up in environments in which violence is an established way of settling conflicts may choose violence to settle conflicts in their own lives. Teenage gangs may mirror the activity of military forces Men, sometimes former military servicemen who have been trained to use violence, commit acts of violence against women; there have been instances of men murdering their wives on return from battlefield.

132

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 133 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War turns the environment


War destroys the environment- both during and preparing for war Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Finally, war and the preparation for war have profound impacts on the physical environment (see Chapter 5). The disastrous consequences of war for the environment are often clear. Examples include bomb craters in Vietnam that have filled with water and provide breeding sites for mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases; destruction of urban environments by aerial carpet bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan during World War II; and the more than 600 oil-well fires in Kuwait that were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops in 1991, which had a devastating effect on the ecology of the affected areas and caused acute respiratory symptoms among those exposed. Less obvious are the environmental impacts of the preparation for war, such as the huge amounts of nonrenewable fossil fuels used by the military before (and during and after) wars and the environmental hazards of toxic and radioactive wastes, which can contaminate air, soil, and both surface water and groundwater. For example, much of the area in and around Chelyabinsk, Russia, site of a major nuclear weapons production facility, has been determined to be highly radioactive, leading to evacuation of local residents (see chapter 10).

133

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 134 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War outweighs disease


Solving health problems eliminates a root cause of war Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007) War is the one of the most serious threats lo public health. Public health professionals can do much to prevent war and its health consequences. Preventing war and its consequences should be part of the curricula of schools of public health, the agendas of public health organizations, and the practice of public health professionals. Activities by public health professionals to prevent war and its health consequences are an essential part of our professional obligations. The greatest threat to the health of people worldwide lies not in specific forms of acute or chronic diseasesand not even in poverty, hunger, or homelessness. Rather, it lies in the consequences of war. As stated in a resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization: "The role of physicians and other health workers in the preservation and promotion of peace is the most significant factor for the attainment of health for all." War is not inevitable. For perhaps 99 percent of human history, people lived in egalitarian groups in which generosity was highly valued and war was rare. War first occurred relatively recently in human history along with changes in social organization, especially the development of nation-states. Even at present, when war seems ever-present, most people live peaceful, nonviolent lives. If we can learn from history, we may be able to move beyond war and create a culture of peace.

134

Dowling Debate 2008-2009


Turns Everything

File Name 135 /414

Nelson <tournament>

War causes destroys health, human rights, the environment, and causes domestic violence Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
War accounts for more death and disability than many major diseases combined. It destroys families, communities, and sometimes whole cultures. It directs scarce resources away from protection and promotion of health, medical care, and other human services. It destroys the infrastructure that supports health. It limits human rights and contributes to social injustice. It leads many people to think that violence is the only way to resolve conflictsa mindset that contributes to domestic violence, street crime, and other kinds of violence. And it contributes to the destruction of the environment and overuse of nonrenewable resources. In sum. war threatens much of the fabric of our civilization.

135

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 136 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AIDS
War helps transmit HIV/AIDS
Unicef 96 (Unicef, 1996, Sexual violence as a weapon of war http://www.unicef.org/sowc96pk/sexviol.htm)

In addition to rape, girls and women are also subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war, sometimes with the complicity of governments and military authorities. During World War II, women
were abducted, imprisoned and forced to satisfy the sexual needs of occupying forces, and many Asian women were also involved in prostitution during the Viet Nam war. The trend continues in today's conflicts. The State of the World's Children 1996 report notes that the disintegration of families in times of war leaves women and girls especially vulnerable to violence. Nearly 80 per cent of the 53 million people uprooted by wars today are women and children. When fathers, husbands, brothers and sons are drawn away to fight, they leave women, the very young and the elderly to fend for themselves. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Myanmar and Somalia, refugee families frequently cite rape or the fear of rape as a key factor in their decisions to seek refuge. During Mozambique's conflict, young boys, who themselves had been traumatized by violence, were reported to threaten to kill or starve girls if they resisted the boys' sexual advances. Sexual assault presents a major problem in camps for refugees and the displaced, according to the report. The incidence of rape was reported to be alarmingly high at camps for Somali refugees in Kenya in 1993. The camps were located in isolated areas, and hundreds of women were raped in night raids or while foraging for firewood. UNHCR (the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) has had to organize security patrols, fence camps with thorn bushes and relocate the most vulnerable women to safer areas. Some rape victims who were ostracized were moved to other camps or given priority for resettlement abroad. UNHCR has formal guidelines for preventing and responding to sexual violence in the camps, and it trains field workers to be more sensitive to victims' needs. Refugee women are encouraged to form committees and become involved in camp administration to make them less vulnerable to men who would steal their supplies or force them to provide sex in return for provisions. The high risk of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including

HIV/AIDS, accompanies all sexual violence against women and girls. The movement of refugees and marauding military units and the breakdown of health services and public education worsens the impact of diseases and chances for treatment. For example, one study has suggested that the exchange of sex for protection during the civil war in Uganda in the 1980s was a contributing factor to the country's high rate of AIDS.

136

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 137 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Animal Rights T/
War hurts animal rights Ernst 09
(Stephanie Ernst, 5-29-09, Animals in War: You Don't Have to Be Human to Die by the Millions http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/animals_in_war_you_dont_have_to_be_human_to_die_by_the_millions) The Animals in War Memorial in London, unveiled in 2004, bears the following as part of its inscription:

"They

had no choice." "They" refers to the literally millions of animals killed in twentieth-century wars--horses, mules, donkeys, pigeons, elephants, glow worms, and camels among them. Indeed, " eight million horses and countless mules and donkeys died in the First World War. They were used to transport ammunition and supplies to the front and many died, not only from the horrors of shellfire but also in terrible weather and appalling conditions"
(emphasis mine), a brief history on the monument's Web site explains--and that was only one war and only one set of animals among many different animals. A BBC article further explains, "The monument pays special tribute to the 60 animals awarded the PDSA Dickin Medal - the animals' equivalent of the Victoria Cross - since 1943." Fifty-four of the 60, including 32 pigeons, were used in World War II. And before anyone is inclined to say or think "just pigeons" or "just messages," consider what the birds were forced to endure to get the messages back and forth. Examples: " Winkie, a pigeon that flew 129 miles with her wings clogged with oil to save a downed bomber crew," and "Mary of Exeter, another pigeon, which flew back with her neck and right breast ripped open, savaged by hawks kept by the Germans at Calais." (Note the BBC's irritating use of "which" and "that" here instead of "who.") Sometimes people make remarks about such animals "giving" their lives. But they didn't give their lives. They didn't choose to enlist. Their fate was decided for them. It was the ultimate, norecourse draft. For that reason, I am glad for that so-true inscription: "They had no choice." And animals certainly don't have to be dragged to active battlefields to suffer and die because of humans' wars. The U.S. military shoots, injures, and kills animals on our soil regularly, as part of training.

137

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 138 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Biodiversity
War destroys Forests and Biodiversity Sierra Club, 2003
(No publish date, references 2003 in the past tense, http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment.html) Throughout history, war has invariably resulted in environmental destruction. However, advancements in military technology used by combatants have resulted in increasingly severe environmental impacts. This is well illustrated by the devastation to forests and biodiversity caused by modern warfare. Military machinery and explosives have caused unprecedented levels of deforestation and habitat destruction. This has resulted in a serious disruption of ecosystem services, including erosion control, water quality, and food production. A telling example is the destruction of 35% of Cambodias intact forests due to two decades of civil conflict. In Vietnam, bombs alone destroyed over 2 million acres of land.[13] These environmental catastrophes are aggravated by the fact that ecological protection and restoration become a low priority during and after war. The threat to biodiversity from combat can also be illustrated by the Rwanda genocide of 1994. The risk to the already endangered population of mountain gorillas from the violence was of minimal concern to combatants and victims during the 90-day massacre.[14] The threat to the gorillas increased after the war as thousands of refugees, some displaced for decades, returned to the already overpopulated country. Faced with no space to live, they had little option but to inhabit the forest reserves, home to the gorilla population. As a result of this human crisis, conservation attempts were impeded. Currently, the International Gorilla Programme Group is working with authorities to protect the gorillas and their habitats. This has proven to be a challenging task, given the complexities Rwandan leaders face, including security, education, disease, epidemics, and famine.[15]

Chemical and Biological Warfare would destroy the environment-Vietnam proves Sierra Club, 2003
(No publish date, references 2003 in the past tense, http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment.html) One of the most striking examples of military disregard for environmental and human health is the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare. The American militarys use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War is one of the most widely known examples of using environmental destruction as a military tactic. Agent Orange is a herbicide that was sprayed in millions of liters over approximately 10% of Vietnam between 1962 and 1971. It was used to defoliate tropical forests to expose combatants, and destroy crops to deprive peasants of their food supply.[16] [17] The environmental and health effects were devastating. The spraying destroyed 14% of South Vietnams forests, including 50% of the mangrove forests. Few, if any, have recovered to their natural state. [18] A key ingredient of Agent Orange is dioxin, the most potent carcinogen ever tested.[19] It is therefore not surprising that Agent Orange has been linked to an array of health problems in Vietnam including birth defects, spontaneous abortions, chloracne, skin and lung cancers, lower IQ and emotional problems for children (Forgotten Victims).[20] Similar to toxic chemical spills, Agent Orange continues to threaten the health of Vietnamese. In 2001, scientists documented extremely high levels of dioxin in blood samples taken from residents born years after the end of the Vietnam War. Studies attribute such high levels to food chain contamination: Soil contaminated with dioxin becomes river sediment, which is then passed to fish, a staple of the Vietnamese diet.[21] This is a clear reminder that poisoning our environments is akin to poisoning

138

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 139 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Cap
War has become privatized, fueling a stronger capitalism Ferguson 08
Francis Ferguson, PhD Economist , 3-22-08, The Privatization of War http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_francis__080320_the_privatization_of.htm Since 2000, there has been a huge increase in private contracts let by the US government. Spending on private contractors has risen from $174.4 billion to $377.5 billion, an increase of 86%. Over this same period, private contractors' collections for the Department of Defense increased from $133 billion to $279 billion annually, an increase of 102.3%. These expenditures represent a unique new source of revenue and profit for American business, because much of what it being purchased are services which would previously have been done by military personnel. (source http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1071) With these tasks shifting to private contractors, workers can be hired in low wage nations such and put to work doing menial labor for the troops. This is not to say these services come cheap. They do not. Contractors such as Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) charge handsomely for the meals, laundry and logistics provided. They just don't pay the workers who perform these tasks much. The difference, of course, is profit. What was once a relatively minor expense to taxpayers in the form of Army pay for soldiers performing kitchen duties, now becomes a major source of bottom line revenue for private companies who previously got nothing from these services. In addition to new opportunities for profit in a war theater, there are new opportunities for corruption. Third World contract workers have reported their employers withholding their passports, effectively making them indentured servants. KBR and it's subsidiaries have been discovered charging premium prices for meals they never served and with supplying contaminated drinking water to the troops. Government investigators report literally billions of dollars have gone missing with no accounting for who received them or what was done with the money. The Center for Public Integrity (www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&fil=IQ) has a listing of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and the value of the contracts they hold. Many of the contracts are awarded without competitive bidding, and billions of dollars have literally gone missing. The Chicago Tribune reports ongoing investigations of Kellogg Brown and Root and various of their sub-contractors for gross violations and fraud. www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-kbr-war-profiteers-feb21,1,5231766.story. All of this is symptomatic of deeper problems. We have privatized war, an in so doing, we have reduced the populace's natural resistance to war and increased its profitability. With contracting, our military can be smaller. This means the conflicts can be more easily handled with a voluntary, professional military. Conscription can more easily be avoided along, as can the political backlash from potential draftees and their relatives. With privatization, a greater portion of military spending flows as profit to American businesses. Spending on contractor services can expand massively within the context of war. Wartime allows emergency measures and expenditures which can proceed without customary bidding or oversight. The result is a river of profit with little economic gain for the nation.

139

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 140 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Civil Liberties T/
In times of war nations ignore civil liberties to deal with threats Britain proves Posner 92 HeinOnline -- 92 Mich. L. Rev. 1679 1993-1994, EXECUTIVE DETENTION IN TIME OF WAR , IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE ODIOUS: DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN WARTIME BRITAIN. By A. W. Brian Simpson. Oxford: Clarendon, Press. 1992. Pp. x, 453. $62. The absence of a comparative dimension is a closely related source of Simpson's disparagement of his country's response to national emergency. Peacetime civil liberties are a luxury that nations engaged in wars of survival do not believe they can afford. The question for the realistic civil libertarian is not whether Britain curtailed civil liberties more than either seemed at the time or was in retrospect necessary, but whether it reacted more or less temperately than other nations in comparable circumstances would do or have done. So far as I can judge, the answer to this question is more temperately - than the United States, for example, which was far less endangered.8 Of course there are perils in using a purely relative standard. The administration of Regulation 18B caused hardships and, in hindsight at least, seems not to have contributed materially to Britain's survival or to have shortened the war. If there are lessons here that might enable Britain or the United States to deal more effectively with the problem of internal security in wartime the next time the problem arises, they ought to be drawn. But the only lesson Simpson draws is that Britain should not have destroyed "about 99 per cent of public records dealing with detention, which is in line with general practice" (p. 422) and should not be refusing access, half a century later, to most of the rest. I am sure this observation is right, but it makes for rather a tepid ending to the book; the ending reads as if the British government's greatest sin with respect to the wartime detention program was to make it difficult for academics to write the program's history.

140

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 141 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Dehumanization T/
Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars Vinulan-Arellano 03. [Katharine, March 22 yonip.com Stop Dehumanization of People to Stop Wars http://www.yonip.com/main/articles/nomorewars.html]
In war time, dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and brainwashing. By portraying the enemy as less than human, it is much easier to motivate your troops to rape, torture or kill. Ethnic cleansing or genocide would always be perceived as a crime against humanity if human beings belonging to another race or religion are not dehumanized. Throughout history, groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized. Slaves, Negroes, Jews, and now, Muslims. Up to now, women are dehumanized in many societies -- they are made sexual objects, treated as secondclass human beings. The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the prevailing, successful dehumanization of women, worldwide. During wars, mass rape of women is common.

141

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 142 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Democracy T/
Administrations use wartime to consolidate power and destroy democratic institutions
Forward Newspaper, 2008 L.L.C. Apr 11, 2008, The President in Wartime. (2008, April 11). Retrieved July 23, 2009, from Ethnic NewsWatch (ENW). (Document ID: 1478699201). New York, N.Y.: Apr 11, 2008. Vol. 111, Iss. 31700; pg. 12, 1 pgs The Bush administration recently declassified a secret Justice Department memo from 2003 that shows just how serious a threat our democracy faces in the current war on terrorism. Unfortunately, the threat revealed in the memo is not from Al Qaeda, but from us. The memo was addressed to the legal department of the Pentagon. It was meant to advise the military on how far it may lawfully go in roughing up captured terrorism suspects during interrogation. The answer was, pretty far indeed. It was the considered legal opinion of the chief legal office of the United States, the Department of Justice, that the president of the United States is - well, above the law. "In wartime, it is for the President alone to decide what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy," wrote the memo's author, John Yoo, then a Justice Department lawyer. In fact, Yoo wrote, "Even if an interrogation method arguably were to violate a criminal statute, the Justice Department could not bring a prosecution because the statute would be unconstitutional as applied in this context." That is, the law would conflict with the Constitution's designation of the president as commander in chief, charged with doing whatever necessary to protect the nation during wartime. There's "original intent" for you. And who decides what constitutes "wartime"? According to the Constitution, the Senate does. But that's old stuff. Nowadays, we're at war whenever the president says we are. All he has to do is decide we're under attack - or threatened with attack - and order our troops to open fire. And when does the war end? When the president says so. Right now, for example, we face an enemy so shadowy and ubiquitous - terrorism - that the war could last, we're told, for a generation. Until then, according to the Bush Justice Department, the president may do whatever he thinks necessary to protect us. In other words, anything he wants. The Yoo memo was withdrawn a year after its drafting, following a revolt by government lawyers. But a similar Yoo memo, issued to the CIA, remains.in force. Congress passed a law overriding it a few years ago, but the president vetoed the bill. It's hard to imagine what terrorists could do that would threaten our democracy more than this president's notion of his power. Next time we choose a president, we ought to find out how the contenders define the job.

142

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 143 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disease T/
War increases the spread of fatal disease. Boston Globe 07. [05-07, Spread of disease tied to U.S. combat deployments http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/07/spread_of_disease_tied_to_us_combat_deployme nts/] A parasitic disease rarely seen in United States but common in the Middle East has infected an estimated 2,500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, military officials said. Leishmaniasis , which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly, usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face, hands, arms, or legs. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated. In some US hospitals in Iraq, the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil." But in the United States, the appearance of it among civilian contractors who went to Iraq or among tourists who were infected in other parts of the world has caused great fear because family doctors have had difficulty figuring out the cause. The spread of leishmaniasis (pronounced LEASH-ma-NYE-a-sis) is part of a trend of emerging infectious diseases in the United States in recent years as a result of military deployments, as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the developing world, health officials say. Among those diseases appearing more frequently in the United States are three transmitted by mosquitoes: malaria, which was contracted by 122 troops last year in Afghanistan; dengue fever; and chikungunya fever.

War would increase immune system deficiency and create dangers of new and deadly diseases Sagan, former professor at Stanford and Harvard, 84
(Carl Sagan, former professor at Stanford and Harvard, Pulitzer prize winning author, 1984, Foreign Affairs, Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe p. Lexis) Each of these factors, taken separately, may carry serious consequences for the global ecosystem: their interactions may be much more dire still. Extremely worrisome is the possibility of poorly underatood or as yet entirely uncontemplated synergisms (where the net consequences of two or more assaults on the environment are much more than the sum of the component parts). For example, more than 100 rads (and possibly more than 200 rads) of external and ingested ionizing radiation is likely to be delivered in a very large nuclear war to all plants, animals and unprotected humans in densely populated regions of northern mid-latitudes. After the soot and dust clear, there can, for such wars, be a 200 to 400 percent increment in the solar ultraviolet flux that reaches the ground, with an increase of many orders of magnitude in the more dangerous shorter-wavelength radiation. Together, these radiation assaults are likely to suppress the immune systems of humans and other species, making them more vulnerable to disease. At the same time, the high ambient-radiation fluxes are likely to produce, through mutation, new varieties of

microorganisms, some of which might become pathogenic. The preferential radiation sensitivity of birds and other insect predators would enhance the proliferation of herbivorous and pathogen-carrying insects. Carried by vectors with high radiation tolerance, it seems possible that epidemics and global pandemics would propagate with no hope of effective mitigation by medical care, even with reduced population sizes and greatly
restricted human mobility. Plants, weakened by low temperatures and low light levels, and other animals would likewise be vulnerable to preexisting and newly arisen pathogens.

143

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 144 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disease T/
War helps the spread of disease
VOA News, 05

(Voice of America News, 8-31-05, Poverty and Conflict Contribute the Spread of Infectious Diseases, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-31-voa23.cfm)
says war also spreads disease because it often creates large populations of refugees. And they're moving from one town to another, or one country to another (and) they may bring with them some prevalence of disease that may not be a disease that is present in that other country. Mr. Parkinson adds, It's also probably no coincidence that the great Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 was associated with troop movements in Europe and especially afflicted the United States because that was the time of the
Dr. Garcia U.S. involvement in the war, and the troop movements back and forth created a great vector for infection. The epidemic itself killed more people than died in the entire war -- an estimated 20 to 40 million people died from the epidemic.

Where there are soldiers and conflict, there are also prostitutes and rape. This has led to a rapid spread of AIDS in many war-torn African countries, say public health officials.
Conflict impacts disease in other ways, too, said Dr. Joseph Malone, director of the U.S. Navy's program to track emerging global infections. Basic services such as clean water, availability of food, are threatened when there's

substantial conflict and generally the health care infrastructure and availability of medicines is generally reduced whenever there's conflict and even any supplies that might be available can be diverted to nonhelpful uses. Military conflicts spread fatal diseases globally Boston Globe 07 [Boston Globe 05-07, Spread of disease tied to U.S. combat deployments http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/07/spread_of_disease_tied_to_us_combat_deployme nts/] A parasitic disease rarely seen in United States but common in the Middle East has infected an estimated 2,500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, military officials said. Leishmaniasis , which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly , usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face, hands, arms, or legs. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated. In some US hospitals in Iraq, the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil." But in the United States, the appearance of it among civilian contractors who went to Iraq or among tourists who were infected in other parts of the world has caused great fear because family doctors have had difficulty figuring out the cause. The spread of leishmaniasis (pronounced LEASH-ma-NYE-a-sis) is part of a trend of emerging infectious diseases in the United States in recent years as a result of military deployments, as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the
developing world, health officials say.

144

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 145 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Domestic Violence T/
War creates a cycle of violence that spills over to domestic violence Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
War often creates a cycle of violence, increasing domestic and community violence in the countries engaged in war. War teaches people that violence is an acceptable method for settling conflicts. Children growing up in environments in which violence is an established way of settling conflicts may choose violence to settle conflicts in their own lives. Teenage gangs may mirror the activity of military forces Men, sometimes former military servicemen who have been trained to use violence, commit acts of violence against women; there have been instances of men murdering their wives on return from battlefield.

War causes domestic violence and crime Levy and Sidel, 7


(Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)

War accounts for more death and disability than many major diseases combined. It destroys families, communities, and sometimes whole cultures. It directs scarce resources away from protection and
promotion of health, medical care, and other human services. It destroys the infrastructure that supports health. It limits human rights and contributes to social injustice. It leads many people to think that violence is the only

way to resolve conflictsa mindset that contributes to domestic violence, street crime, and other kinds of violence. And it contributes to the destruction of the environment and overuse of nonrenewable resources. In sum. war threatens much of the fabric of our civilization.

145

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 146 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Econ T/
War leads to economic recession Baumann, 08
(Nick Baumann, assistant editor, 2-29-08, Is the Economy a Casualty of War? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/02/economy-casualty-war)

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has blamed the Iraq war for sending the United States into a recession. On Wednesday, he told a London think tank that the war caused the credit crunch and the housing crisis that are propelling the current economic downturn. Testifying before the Senate's Joint Economic Committee
the following day, he said our involvement in Iraq has long been "weakening the American economy" and "a day of reckoning" has finally arrived. Stiglitz's contention that the war is causing the nation's economic woes has become an increasingly popular meme in Democratic circles. (And a source of indignation in Republican ones. Before Stiglitz's testimony, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure.") Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a leading anti-war voice and cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is among leading Democrats who echo Stiglitz's view. "The war is the primary reason for this recession and we have to drum that home," she told me. Meanwhile, a coalition of progressive and anti-war groupsincluding MoveOn.org and Americans United for Changeannounced a $20 million campaign to convince voters that the war is related to the nation's ongoing economic troubles, an effort that is headlined by former Senator John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth. Polls show that voters trust the Democrats over the Republicans to manage both the Iraq War and the economy, so pitching these two issues as interconnected could make political sense. The war and the economy are undoubtedly linked, but there's a potential problem for anyone who claims the war led to a recession: Many economists say this isn't so.

War creates economic slowdowns and hurts the dollar Hart and Shapiro, 08
(Robert Shapiro is formerly the undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and currently the head of Sonecon, LLC, an economic consulting firm. Gary Hart is a former U.S. Senator from Colorado and currently a professor at the University of Colorado.1-30-08, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/30/the-iraq-recession-debate_n_84060.html) I think there is a sound case that the war policy has produced conditions that contribute in a fairly modest way to the slow down. There are two main factors as I see it in regards to the slow down: the [crisis in the] housing sector, which has reduced people's sense of their wealth... and the subprime mess, which is reducing business investment and is doing so by screwing up the balance sheets of financial institutions. Having said that, there is no doubt that the Iraq war is a significant factor in the current level of oil prices . Not the most important factor but a significant factor... For American consumers whose consumption is being

squeezed, relatively more of their income has to go to energy, and that expense is just getting exported. It's not stimulating the U.S. economy. The war is [also] a part of America' current account deficit. It contributes to that and [that] is what's driving down the dollar. Media and politicians rarely distinguish between government spending and government investments . War costs are spending... When spent unnecessarily, that is without contributing to national security (i.e., Iraq), war costs are, in effect, money down a rat hole. All spending over and above revenues creates deficits that must be financed with borrowing, either from foreigners or future generations. So money spent on an unnecessary war requires borrowing which drives down the value of the dollar and hurts our economy.

146

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 147 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Edelman
Wars sacrifice soldiers to protect future generations, making the queer expendable to protect conceptions of family norms Donna Miles, Writer, Jan. 18, 2005
(Staff Writer for American Forces Press Service, Bush Begins Inaugural Celebration With Military 'Salute', http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24328) The president credited the men and women in uniform for helping extend that same power to more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past four years. He called the first free elections in Afghanistan's 5,000-year history and the upcoming elections in Iraq "landmark events in the history of liberty." "And none of it would have been possible without the courage and the determination of the United States armed forces," he said. Bush told the troops their service and sacrifice in the war on terror is making America safer for today and the future. "Your sacrifice has made it

possible for our children and grandchildren to grow up in a safer world," he said. But this success has come at a great cost and through tremendous sacrifice, the president noted. He acknowledged the long separations families must endure, the wounds many service members will carry with them for the rest of their lives, the heroes who gave their lives, and the families who grieve them. "We hold them in our hearts,"
Bush said. "We lift them up in our prayers."

In times of war the life of the child is elevated above sacrificial adults, sacrificing the queer Deen, @ Ipsnews.net, Jan 9 2004
(POLITICS: U.N. Must Protect Children in War NGOs, http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21855)

A coalition of groups is urging U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to prepare an annual list of governments and groups that recruit or use child soldiers or fail to protect children during military conflicts. Such a regular list, it says, would keep such violators of international obligations constantly ''named and shamed''. ''From Congo and Liberia to Iraq, Myanmar and Colombia, girls and boys are subject to appalling violence and deprivation of their fundamental rights,'' said the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict in a 43-page report released Friday. The study, which estimates 300,000 children under the age of
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 9 (IPS) 18 are still directly involved in armed conflicts worldwide, was released ahead of a Security Council meeting on child soldiers scheduled for Jan. 20. It says many countries do not adequately protect children, a situation exacerbated by impeded access of civilians to much-needed humanitarian assistance in times of conflict. As a result, says the study, ''more children die from malnutrition, diarrhoea and other preventable diseases in conflict situations than die as a direct result of fighting.'' It wants Annan to expand existing lists of violators beyond those countries and

groups that use child soldiers, to include nations that do not adequately protect children.

147

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 148 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Environment
Modern warfare devastates the environment- it destroys ecosystems Worldwatch Institute, 2008
(January/February issue, Modern Warfare Causes Unprecedented Environmental Damage, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5544) Washington, D.C. Modern warfare tactics, as seen in the American war in Vietnam, the Rwandan and Congolese civil wars, and the current war in Iraq, have greatly increased our capacity to destroy the natural landscape and produce devastating environmental effects on the planet, according to Sarah DeWeerdt, author of War and the Environment, featured in the January/February 2008 issue of World Watch. Wartime destruction of the natural landscape is nothing new, but the scope of destruction seen in more recent conflicts is unprecedented. For one thing, there is the sheer firepower of current weapons technology, especially its shock-and-awe deployment by modern superpowers. The involvement of guerrilla groups in many recent wars draws that firepower toward the natural ecosystemsoften circumscribed and endangered ones where those groups take cover, writes DeWeerdt. The deliberate destruction of the environment as a military strategy, known as ecocide, is exemplified by the U.S. response to guerrilla warfare in Vietnam. In an effort to deprive the communist Viet Cong guerrillas of the dense cover they found in the hardwood forests and mangroves that fringed the Mekong Delta, the U.S. military sprayed 79 million liters of herbicides and defoliants (including Agent Orange) over about one-seventh of the land area of southern Vietnam. By some estimates, half of the mangroves and 14 percent of hardwood forests in southern Vietnam were destroyed during Operation Trail Dust, threatening biodiversity and severely altering vegetation. Less deliberate, but still devastating, were the environmental effects that stemmed from the mass migration of refugees during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Nearly 2 million Hutus fled Rwanda over the course of just a few weeks to refugee camps in Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, making it the most massive population movement in history. Approximately 720,000 of these refugees settled in refugee camps on the fringes of Virunga National Park, the first United Nations World Heritage site declared endangered due to an armed conflict. The refugees stripped an estimated 35 square kilometers of forest for firewood and shelter-building materials. The dense forests also suffered as a result of the wide paths clear-cut by the Rwandan and Congolese armies traveling through the park to reduce the threat of ambush by rebel groups. The longterm ecological effects of the current war in Iraq remain to be seen. Looking to the effects of the recent Gulf War as a guide, scientists point to the physical damage of the desert, particularly the millimeter-thin layer of microorganisms that forms a crust on the topsoil, protecting it from erosion. Analysis of the area affected by the Gulf War has already shown an increase in sandstorms and dune formation in the region, and one study suggests that desert crusts might take thousands of years to fully recover from the movement of heavy vehicles. Warfare is likely to have the most severe, longest-lasting effects on protected areas that harbor endangered species, and slow-to-recover ecosystems such as deserts. Even in the most fragile environments, sometimes natureand peoplecan surprise us, writes DeWeerdt. But turn and look in another direction and you are likely to see warfares enduring scars.

War destroys infrastructure harming the environment Sierra Club, 2003


(No publish date, references 2003 in the past tense, http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment.html) The degradation of infrastructure and basic services brought on by war can wreak havoc on the local environment and public health. Countries water supply systems, for example, can be contaminated or shut down by bomb blasts or bullet damage to pipes.[7] In Afghanistan, destruction to water infrastructure combined with weakened public service during the war resulted in bacterial contamination, water loss through leaks and illegal use.[8] The consequence was an overall decline in safe drinking water throughout the country. Water shortages can also lead to inadequate irrigation of cropland. Agricultural production may also be impaired by intensive bombing and heavy military vehicles traveling over farm soil.[9] The presence of landmines can also render vast areas of productive land unusable.[10] Additional war-related problems which compound degradation of the natural and human environment include shortages in cooking fuel and waste mismanagement during and after military conflicts. During the most recent warfare in Iraq, individuals were forced to cut down city trees to use as cooking fuel.[11] In Afghanistan, the creation of poorly located, leaky landfill sites resulted in contaminated rivers and groundwater.[12]

148

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 149 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Environment
War destroys the environment- both during and preparing for war Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Finally, war and the preparation for war have profound impacts on the physical environment (see Chapter 5). The disastrous consequences of war for the environment are often clear. Examples include bomb craters in Vietnam that have filled with water and provide breeding sites for mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases; destruction of urban environments by aerial carpet bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan during World War II; and the more than 600 oil-well fires in Kuwait that were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops in 1991, which had a devastating effect on the ecology of the affected areas and caused acute respiratory symptoms among those exposed. Less obvious are the environmental impacts of the preparation for war, such as the huge amounts of nonrenewable fossil fuels used by the military before (and during and after) wars and the environmental hazards of toxic and radioactive wastes, which can contaminate air, soil, and both surface water and groundwater. For example, much of the area in and around Chelyabinsk, Russia, site of a major nuclear weapons production facility, has been determined to be highly radioactive, leading to evacuation of local residents (see chapter 10).

149

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 150 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Fascism
War desensitizes culture and politics to fascist authoritarian structures Kallis, 04
(Aristotle, DOI: 10.1177/0265691404040007 2004; 34; 9 European History Quarterly Aristotle A. Kallis Consensus Ideological Production, Political Experience and the Quest for Studying Inter-War Fascism in Epochal and Diachronic Terms)
A further revision of the early spirit of fascism came in the form of its idiosyncratic coexistence with traditional right-wing authoritarian structures. In intellectual terms, fascism had very little to do with conservative notions of authoritarianism, in spite of its oppositional convergence with radical forms of conservatism.67It advocated instead a more direct, transcendental type of communication between nation and charismatic leader, as well as a collective representation and negotiation of sectional interests within the framework of the party and its various societal extensions. However, the coopting of the fascist leaderships by powerful traditional lite groups sealed the fate of fascisms relations to the mainstream Right by forcing the former to operate in a system which perpetuated central elements of the conventional Rightist authoritarian tradition. Compared to this (more conventional) type of rule, fascism offered a populist solution to the problem of generating social support and ensuring active societal unity through the ritualization of controlled mass participation. Yet, this combination of novelty with an essentially traditional framework of politics was hardly conducive to the pursuit of the mythical core of fascist nationalist utopianism. The result was a tension inside the regimes with at least a fascist variant between fascism and authoritarianism a tension that was never fully resolved, but which affected the evolution of inter-war fascism in two ways. First, it completed the ideologicalpolitical expropriation of fascism by the Right, in contrast to its initially mixed (or at least not exclusively right-wing) intellectual roots and active revolutionary anti-system spirit. Second, it compelled fascism to wage a constant struggle to defend its own political contours from the restrictive grip of its conservative sponsors/partners and the authoritarian legacies of its political framework. In analytical terms, this means that a categorical distinction between the regime-variant of fascism and conservative authoritarianism is meaningless, in so far as fascism accepted an institutional, not violently revolutionary, approach to its own political emancipation from the mainstream Right and thus could never fully eliminate continuities between new and old Right.68 By the time that even the most advanced fascist systems of Germany and Italy had accelerated their rhythm of consolidation with their newfound self-confidence, they had absorbed already crucial features of conventional authoritarianism (not least the leaders monopoly of power) into their general worldview. Kallis, Studying Inter-war Fascism 31

Fascism requires social homogenization Bataille et al. 79


(The Psychological Structure of Fascism Author(s): Georges Bataille and Carl R. Lovitt Source: New German Critique, No. 16 (Winter, 1979), pp. 64-87 Published by: New German Critique Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487877 Accessed: 22/07/2009 12:32)
XII. The Fundamental Conditions of Fascism. As has already been indicated, heterogeneous processes as a whole can only enter into play once the fundamental homogeneity of society (the apparatus of production) has become dissociated because of its internal contradictions. Further, it can be stated that, even though it generally occurs in the blindest fashion, the development of heterogeneous forces necessarily comes to signify a solution to the problem posed by the contradictions of homogeneity. Once in power, developed heterogeneous forces dispose of the means of coercion necessary to resolve the differences that had arisen between previously irreconcilable elements. But it goes without saying that, at the end of a movement that excludes all subversion, the thrust of these resolutions will have been consistent with the general direction of the existing homogeneity, namely, with the interests of the capitalists.

150

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 151 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Gendered Violence T/
War causes sexual violence and reifies the subjugation of women. Eaton 04. [Shana JD Georgetown University Law Center 35 Geo. J. Int'l L. 873 Summer lexis] While sexual violence against women has always been considered a negative side effect of war, it is only in recent years that it has been taken seriously as a violation of humanitarian law. In the "evolution" of war, women themselves have become a battlefield on which conflicts are fought. Realizing that rape is often more effective at achieving their aims than plain killing, aggressors have used shocking sexual violence against women as a tool of conflict, allowing battling forces to flaunt their power, dominance, and masculinity over the other side. The stigma of rape is used to effectuate genocide, destroy communities, and demoralize opponents-decimating a woman's will to survive is often only a secondary side effect. Sexual violence against women during wartime had to reach horrifying levels before the international community was shocked enough to finally take these atrocities seriously. It took the extremely brutal victimization of vast numbers of women, played out against a backdrop of genocide, to prove that rape is not simply a natural side effect of war to be lightly brushed aside. The conflicts in both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia put women's rights directly in the spotlight, and the international community could no longer avoid the glare. In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda, ethnic cleansing was central to the conflict. Raping women helped to achieve this aim in a number of ways, from forced impregnation, where offspring would have different ethnicities than their mothers, to the use of sexual violence to prevent women from wanting to have sex again (thus limiting their likelihood of bearing children in the future). Additionally, rape was used as a means of destroying families and communities. Raping a woman stigmatized her, making it unlikely that she would ever want to return home, and in many cases, ensuring that if she did return home that she would be rejected. Civilians, particularly women, came to be used as tools to achieve military ends, putting the human rights of these women at the heart of the conflict. War conditions cause sexual violence Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007) Women are especially vulnerable during war (see Chapter 12). Rape has been used as a weapon in many wars- in Korea, Bangladesh, Algeria, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda, the former Yugslavia, and elsewhere. As acts of humiliation and revenge, soldiers have raped the female family members of their enemies. For example, at least 10,000 women were raped by military personnel during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The social chaos brought about by war also creates situations and conditions conductive to sexual violence.

151

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 152 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Health T/
Funds are prioritized for war over health services Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Many countries spend large amounts of money per capita for military purposes. The countries with the highest military expenditures are shown in Table I -1. War and the preparation for war divert huge amounts of resources from health and human services and other productive societal endeavors. This diversion of resources occurs in many countries. In some less developed countries, national governments spend S10 to $20 per capita on military expenditures but only SI per capita on all health-related expenditures. The same type of distorted priorities also exist in more developed countries. For example, the United States ranks first among nations in military expenditures and arms exports, but 38th among nations in infant mortality rate and 45th in life expectancy at birth. Since 2003. during a period when federal, state, and local governments in the United States have been experiencing budgetary shortfalls and finding it difficult to maintain adequate health and human services, the U.S. government has spent almost $500 bi l l i o n for the Iraq War, and is spending (in 2007) more than $2 billion a week on the war.

152

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 153 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Heg T/
One more military engagement would deplete US ground forces and utterly destroy US hegemony Perry 06
(The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk, The National Security Advisory Group, January 2006, William J. Perry, Chair) In the meantime, the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies. The absence of a credible strategic reserve in our ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States Since the end of World War II, a core element of U.S. strategy has been maintaining a military capable of deterring and, if necessary, defeating aggression in more than one theater at a time. As a global power with global interests, the United States must be able to deal with challenges to its interests in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. Today, however, the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operations. If the Army were ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today, its only option would be to deploy units at readiness levels far below what operational plans would require increasing the risk to the men and women being sent into harms way and to the success of the mission. As stated rather blandly in one DoD presentation, the Army continues to accept risk in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. Although the United States can still deploy air, naval, and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression, the visible overextension of our ground forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to some contingencies.

War causes overstretch reducing hegemony- UK proves Ferguson, 03


(Niall, Hegemony or Empire?, September/October 2003, Foreign Affairs) Yet another, narrower definition is offered by Geoffrey Pigman, in his introduction to a useful and original chapter in Two Hegemonies on agricultural trade liberalization in the 1990s. Pigman describes a hegemon's principal function as underwriting a liberal international trading system that is beneficial to the hegemon but, paradoxically, even more beneficial to its potential rivals. Pigman traces this now widely used definition of the word back to the economic historian Charles Kindleberger's seminal work on the interwar economy, which describes a kind of "hegemonic interregnum." After 1918, Kindleberger suggested, the United Kingdom was too weakened by war to remain an effective hegemon, but the United States was still too inhibited by protectionism and isolationism to take over the role. This idea, which became known, somewhat inelegantly, as "hegemonic stability theory," was later applied to the post-1945 period by authors such as Arthur Stein, Susan Strange, Henry Nau, and Joseph Nye. In this literature, the fundamental question was how far and for how long the United States would remain committed to free trade once other economies -- benefiting from precisely the liberal economic order made possible by U.S. hegemony -- began to catch up with it. Would Americans revert to protectionist or mercantilist policies in an effort to perpetuate their hegemony, or stick with free trade at the risk of experiencing relative decline? This is what Stein called "the hegemon's dilemma," and it appeared to him to be essentially the same problem faced by the United Kingdom before 1914. Paul Kennedy drew a similar parallel in his influential The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

153

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 154 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Homelessness
Wars create homelessness Markee 03
(Markee, Patrick,Senior Policy Analyst for Coalition for the Homeless, 3-27-03 http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/FileLib/PDFs/war_and_homelessness.pdf)

It is axiomatic that wars create homelessness in the territories where combat occurs. Every war that the United States has been involved in, from the Revolutionary War to Desert Storm, has at least temporarily displaced populations and destroyed the homes of civilians. Even the undeclared wars that the United States has sponsored and supported, in Latin America and elsewhere , produced hundreds of thousands of refugees and uprooted rural and urban populations. However, since the Civil War there have been no sustained military battles
fought on United States territory, so most Americans have no first-hand contact with the immediate impact of homelessness resulting from war. In contrast, our armed forces veterans do have first-hand experience with homelessness that is a direct consequence of American military and domestic policies. This briefing paper provides an overview of the impact of homelessness on armed forces veterans, both historically and currently. Throughout American history there has been high incidence of homelessness among veterans, primarily as a result of combat related disabilities and trauma and the failure of government benefits to provide adequate housing assistance for low-income and disabled veterans. The paper concludes that, absent a dramatic change in Federal policies, the war on Iraq will create a new generation of

homeless veterans.

War leaves veterans unemployed and homeless Markee 03


(Markee, Patrick,Senior Policy Analyst for Coalition for the Homeless, 3-27-03 http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/FileLib/PDFs/war_and_homelessness.pdf)

The post-Civil War era witnessed a much more significant growth in homelessness nationwide. Indeed,
asKusmer notes, even the words tramp and bum, as applied to the homeless, can be traced to the Civil War era.3 One reason was the enormous economic dislocation generated by the war and the succeeding economic recession, and by the 1870s vagrancy was recognized as a national issue. Many of the new nomads riding the rails and congregating in cities were Civil War veterans, and many had suffered physical injuries and trauma during the war. As the early 1870s recession deepened, many cities responded by creating new antivagrancy legislation. In 1874 the number of reported vagrants in Boston was 98,263, more than three times the number just two years earlier. From 1874 to 1878 the number of vagrancy arrests in New York City rose by half.4 The homelessness crisis of the Great Depression, which affected many World War I veterans, was dramatically abated in the early 1940s by the enlistment of tens of thousands of Americans in the armed forces and by the wartime economic upswing. In New York City, according to Kusmer, In one two-month period in 1943, 100 Bowery residents joined the armed forces, while another 200 acquired jobs in hospitals, restaurants, or on the railroads.5 With the end of World War II, however, homelessness re-emerged as a significant problem in many cities. In New York City, demand for emergency shelter rose in the late 1940s, with as many as 900 men bedding down in the Lodging House Annex (later the Municipal Shelter) on East 3rd Street in the 1948-49 winter.6 Homelessness

would have continued to affect many thousands of World War II veterans were it not for the national economic upturn and the benefits provided by the G.I. Bill. With the advent of the Vietnam War, however, the link between homelessness and military veterans finally came to the attention of the general public. As
Kusmer writes, Only a few years after the end of the waranew wave of homeless persons, mostly in their 20s and 30s and disproportionately black or Hispanic, began to appear on city street corners. Many were Vietnam veterans, unable to find work after being discharged.7 By the late 1970s, when modern homelessness fully emerged, a significant portion of the homeless men seen sleeping outdoors in vast numbers in New York City and other large cities were armed forces veterans. Many veterans suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse disorders, and physical disabilities caused by their experiences in combat. The 1991 Gulf War, the last major conventional war involving the United States military, also left many veterans recovering from physical and mental disabilities and confronting homelessness. A 1997

154

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 155 /414

Nelson <tournament>

survey of 1,200 homeless veterans nationwide who resided at mission shelters found that 10 percent of them were Gulf War veterans. 8 In New York City, homeless service providers also reported assisting significant numbers of

Desert Storm veterans.

155

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 156 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Homophobia
Wartime consensus favors inherently homophobic military culture Dennis Sewell, 1993
(January 27, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 17, lexis) If the public reasons why the armed forces are so set against admitting homosexuals bear such little scrutiny, is there an unspoken reason? A homophobia that dare not speak its name? Certainly there is a profoundly ingrained distaste for homosexuals prevalent among private soldiers and NCOs. This stems partly from a fear of becoming the object of unwanted homosexual attentions. Also there is a knee-jerk association of the homosexual with the effeminate or effete. To men brought up in an exaggeratedly macho culture, one of the most effective taunts within the group is that of being "queer". OFFICERS, of course, are keen to distance themselves from this way of thinking or behaving. Such attitudes are, they say, part of ordinary working-class culture and not specific to the military. They themselves, being middle class and having, doubtless, seen homosexual behaviour at their public schools, affect a personal insoucience about the whole issue. But they insist "the lads won't have it". This, too, we have heard before. The slow progress made by blacks in becoming senior NCOs or officers in the British Army owed much to the same kind of argument. Working-class culture was inherently racist, officers would say. Once the lads were told they were jolly well going to have to lump it, of course they accepted black officers. But in the case of homosexual servicemen, there is a complicating factor. Whereas officers did not, on the whole, condone racist attitudes, they are often complicit in fostering homophobic attitudes. They make and enjoy the jokes just as much as the men. Indeed, for the more insecure, a little queer baiting has been one way of proving their own masculinity. They will find it hard now to tell the lads that they were wrong all along.

156

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 157 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Inequality
Wars are fought by the poor who are sacrificed for the upper classes turning case
Tyson, Wash Post, 05
(Ann Scott Youths in Rural U.S. Are Drawn To Military, Recruits' Job Worries Outweigh War Fears, Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A01) As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war. More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent). Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median. Such patterns are pronounced in such counties as Martinsville, Va., that supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code.

The USFG recruits Hispanics to high fatality posts in the military Hil, 2005
(Richard May Life lottery: US military targets poor Hispanics for frontline service in Iraq, New Internationalist) They have been variously described as 'working class mercenaries', 'green card troops', 'non-citizen' armies, or desperate recruits of the US Government's 'poverty draft'. They are the huge contingent of Hispanic personnel who--for personal and economic reasons--have been recruited into the ranks of the US military. According to US journalist Jim Ross, by February 2005 there were 110,000 of them. The biggest single contingent of such troops is made up of Mexicans and Mexican descendants. Many were in the marine units from Camp Pendleton in San Diego that participated in the initial stages of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and later fought 'insurgents' in Falluja. Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Central Americans and Ecuadorians are also well represented. Since the start of the war about a third of the US forces stationed in Iraq--between 31,000 and 37,000 troops out of a total of about 130,000--were non-US citizens serving in the navy, Marine Corps, army and air force. Following the widespread insurgency in early 2004 the US Government has gone on a nationwide recruitment drive that has targeted young Hispanics with promises of green cards, scholarships, post-service employment, and various medical and pension benefits. The US Government's interest in recruiting Latinos is hardly surprising since they make up about 12.5 per cent of the US population: one in seven 18-year-olds are of Hispanic origin. Invariably poor and jobless, they are prime candidates for US Military Occupational Specialists hungry for recruits. This recruitment campaign is driven by an executive order signed in July 2002 by President Bush, which effectively allows recruits in active duty during the 'war on terror' to apply for citizenship once they join up rather than having to wait years for the granting of a green card. Since 11 September 2001, the Bush Administration has tightened immigration procedures and cut public spending in a number of areas such as housing and education. This has meant that many young Latinos feel they have little choice but to pursue the inducements offered by the US military. These non-citizen members of the military have a limited number of Military Occupational Specialties to choose from when enlisting. As a consequence, noncitizens are over-represented in some of the most dangerous field operations. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, Hispanic troops make up about 17.5 per cent of front-line forces. Not surprisingly, such troops die or are injured in disproportionate numbers. US Department of Defense figures suggest a casualty rate for Latino military members of about 13 per cent--almost two-and-a-half times the rate of other serving members and many times more than in previous conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Significantly, of the first 1,000 US deaths in Iraq, the overwhelming majority was among the lowest-ranked, poorest-paid, and worst-trained troops. Over 120 were Latinos--about 70 of them Mexican. With few prospects of gaining US citizenship through the usual channels, and with little hope of employment, decent housing and education, the call to arms clearly holds some attraction. Yet as the advocacy organization Latinos against the Iraq War has pointed out, the various promises made by the Government frequently fail to materialize when Latino service personnel return home. Many of these troops--especially those who are injured--find they are in worse circumstances than when they left for Iraq; themselves victims of the very 'war on terror' they were recruited to vanquish.

157

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 158 /414

Nelson <tournament>

158

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 159 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Mental Health T/
War creates many mental health issues Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Given the brutality of war. many people survive wars only to be physically or mentally scarred for life (see Box 1-1). Millions of survivors are chroni cally disabled from injuries sustained during war or the immediate aftermath of war. Approximately one-third of Ihe soldiers who survived ihe civil war in Ethiopia, for example, were injured or disabled, and at least 40,000 individuals lost one or more limbs during the war.' Antipersonnel landmines represent a serious threat to many people'' (see Chapter 7). For example, in Cambodia, I in 236 people is an amputee as a result of a landmine explosion.'0 Millions more people are psychologically impaired from wars, during which they have been physically or sexually assaulted or have physically or sexually assaulted others; have been tortured or have participated in the torture of others; have been forced to serve as soldiers against their will; have witnessed the death of family members; or have experienced the destruction of their communities or entire nations (sec Chapter4). Psychological trauma may be demonstrated in disturbed and antisocial behaviors, such as aggression toward family members and others. Many soldiers, on returning from military action, suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). which also affects many civilian survivors of war.

159

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 160 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Poverty
Wartime spending causes poverty Henderson, 98
(Errol Anthony Henderson, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 2 (May, 1998), pp. 503-520, Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2647920) This analysis attempted to ascertain to what extent a relationship obtained between military spending and poverty in the United States. With the declining significance of macroeconomic forces, types of government spending have become salient in influencing poverty rate changes. Partial support was found for the view that increased military spending, in the aggregate, is associated with increased poverty though these effects are different for peacetime and wartime. Peacetime military spending increases poverty, more than likely through its impact on increasing inequality and unemployment, while wartime spending has the reverse effect. When disaggregated, military personnel spending is shown to decrease poverty while other components are associated with increasing poverty. Although military personnel spending reduces poverty, military buildups since the Korean War have increased the share of procurement spending at the expense of personnel expenditures (Chan 1995). In addition, to the extent that increased defense spending is financed through deficit spending, the inflationary impact also disproportionately harms the poor. While increased aggregate military spending fails as an antipoverty policy, focused spending on military personnel may decrease poverty, suggesting its potential as a countercyclical instrument. However, arguments in favor of such military spending increases are most persuasively put forth on the basis of national security concerns within a hostile international environment or in the presence of an arms race with a major power rival. Neither condition obtains in the post-Cold War climate. The findings comport with the present discourse on military spending dominated by discussions of the "peace dividend" resulting from decreased defense budgets (Chan 1995). While these findings suggest that reduced aggregate defense spending is associated with decreased poverty, defense reductions will have different impacts across regions, occupations, and ethnic groups. Defense cutbacks will probably have more deleterious impacts on states that are heavily reliant upon direct and indirect military spending, such as California, Texas, Virginia, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In addition, economic conversion initiatives are dominated by concerns for relief for defense contractors and their usually high-skilled workforce. To be sure, skilled workers in affected regions will face difficulties as occupations such as aeronautics, industrial and mechanical engineering, and metalworking decline; however, low-skilled laborers are more likely candidates for poverty.

Empirically war spending has disproportionately hurt the poor Henderson, 98


(Errol Anthony Henderson, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 2 (May, 1998), pp. 503-520, Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2647920) This article examines the extent to which military spending is associated with poverty in the United States for the period 1959-92. The relationship is complicated by macroeconomic factors such as economic growth and unemployment. Increased military spending is associated with increasing poverty; however, there is an inverse relationship between wartime military spending and poverty and a direct relationship between peacetime military spending and poverty. Also, military personnel spending is inversely correlated with poverty while Operations and Maintenance (O&M), procurement, and Research and Development (R&D) spending are directly correlated with poverty. These findings suggest the antipoverty policy alternatives of increased social welfare spending, defense conversion that is poverty sensitive, or increased spending on military personnel, which is usually only accompanied by war mobilization. The last option is untenable as social policy and the first

160

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 161 /414

Nelson <tournament>

op- tion is unlikely in the present political climate; therefore, the poor must rely on more "efficiently targeted" conversion initiatives.

161

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 162 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Poverty
Conflict causes chronic poverty Goodhand 03
(Johnathan Goodhand, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 2003 http://www.pikpotsdam.de/research/research-domains/transdisciplinary-concepts-and-methods/favaia/workspace/documents/worlddevelopment-volume-31-issue-3-special-issue-on-chronic-poverty-and-development-policy/pages629-646.pdf) Research studies on the costs of conflict show that although the effects of war varyaccording to the nature, duration and phase of the conflict, the background economic and social conditions and the level of compensatory action by national governments or the international communityprotracted conflicts are likely to produce chronic poverty.

This particularly applies to collapsed state, warlord type conflicts characterized by the systematic and deliberate violation of individual and group rights. In such conflicts the deliberate impoverishment of the population may be used as a weapon of war. 9 Violent conflict is therefore likely to be both a driver and maintainer of intergenerationally transmitted (IGT) poverty: Poor societies are at risk of falling into no-exit
cycles of conflict in which ineffective governance, societal warfare, humanitarian crises, and the lack of development perpetually chase one another (Gurr et al., 2001, p. 13). (b) Macro effects of conflict

Conflict has direct and indirect costs. The direct impacts including battlefield deaths, disablement and displacement have long-term costs for societies. Chronic poverty is likely to increase due to higher dependency ratios caused by an increased proportion of the old, women and disabled in the population. But the indirect costs are likely to have a more significant impact on IGT poverty. Many more people die from wars
as a result of lack of basic medical services, the destruction of rural life and transport and collapse of the state, than from direct battlefield deaths. 10

162

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 163 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Woman Rights T/
War destroys womens rights
Marshall, founder of the feminist peace network, 04 (Lucinda Marshall Founder of the Feminist Peace Network, Feminist Writer and Activist, 12-18-04 Unacceptable: The Impact of War on Women and Children http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1219-26.htm) Women and children account for almost 80% of the casualties of conflict and war as well as 80% of the 40 million people in world who are now refugees from their homes. It is one of the unspoken facts of militarism that women

often become the spoils of war, their deaths are considered collateral damage and their bodies are frequently used as battlegrounds and as commodities that can be traded. "Women and girls are not just killed, they are raped, sexually attacked, mutilated and humiliated. Custom, culture and religion have built an image of women as bearing the 'honour' of their communities. Disparaging a woman's sexuality and destroying her physical integrity have become a means by which to terrorize, demean and 'defeat' entire communities, as well as to punish, intimidate and humiliate women ,"
according to Irene Khan of Amnesty International. Sexual violence as a tool of war has left hundreds of thousands of women raped, brutalized, impregnated and infected with HIV/AIDS. And hundreds of thousands of women are trafficked annually for forced labor and sexual slavery. Much of this trafficking is to service western troops in brothels near military bases. Even women serving in the military are subjected to sexual violence. U.S. servicewomen have reported hundreds of assaults in military academies and while serving on active duty. The perpetrators of these assaults have rarely been prosecuted or punished.

The impact of war on children is also profound. In the last decade, two million of our children have been killed in wars and conflicts. 4.5 million children have been disabled and 12 million have been left homeless. Today there are 300,000 child soldiers, including many girls who are forced to 'service' the troops.

War restricts womens freedom and suppresses their basic human rights Abeyesekera, director of a humans rights organization, 03
(Sunila Abeyesekera, director of Inform, a Sri Lankan human rights organization 02-03 http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/A-Women-s-Human-Rights-Perspective-on-War-and-Conflict) At the same time, wars and conflicts have led to a host of negative consequences for unarmed women civilians and dependent family members, children, the old and the infirm. Figures worldwide point to the fact that the majority of refugees and internally displaced persons are female. The erosion of democratic space that often accompanies conflict and war also propel women into a more active role in political and social life. In moments when men and maledominated traditional political and social formations, such as political parties and trade unions, are reluctant or unable to come forward in defense of human rights and democratic principles, groups of women have had the courage to stand up to the armed might of both state and non-state actors. War and conflict also push women into decision-making positions in their families and communities, in particular in the role of head of household. Most conflicts and wars emerge out of processes of identity formation in which competing identity groups and communities resort to violence to affirm their equal status in society. Given this dynamic, conflict and war situations result in the

heightening of all forms of conservatism and extremism including religious fundamentalism, ultranationalism and ethnic and linguistic chauvinism. The hardening of identity-based roles ascribed to men and women within the community that happen as a part of this process often has disastrous consequences for women. It restricts their mobility and freedom, imposes dress codes, confines them to the domestic sphere, brings them under the rigid control of male members of the family and the community and, most critically, places them in the role of 'bearers of the community's honour' and traditions. Thus, the rape and violation of the women of the 'enemy' community becomes a critical military strategy in all identity-based wars and conflict.

163

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 164 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Racism
Wartime culture results in racism Dieckmann et al., 97 (Bernhard Dieckmann, Christoph Wulf, Michael Wimmer, Violence--racism, nationalism, xenophobia, 134 War is as important as any other medium-term socio-economic or political factor in leading to a rise in racism. In fact, anyone studying the history of race during the twentieth century cannot avoid the conclusiuon that the worst persecution of minorities has occurred during wartime. Apart from genocide, illustrated by the Annenian genocide in World War I and the Nazi Holocaust in World War Two, states such as Britain and Brazil experienced some of their worst twentieth century outbreaks of violence during the First World War. The explanations as to why war leads to an increase in intolerance are many, but revolve around the increase in ostracisation of outgroups, facilitated by the seizure of control, directly or indirectly, by the military, as members of the dominant society fell closer together to fight the external enemy.

War props up systems of racism and domination. Martin 90. [Brian, Associate Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at the University of Wollongong, , Uprooting War, Freedom Press, [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/index.html] Antagonism between ethnic groups can be used and reinforced by the state to sustain its own power. When one ethnic group controls all the key positions in the state, this is readily used to keep other groups in subordinate positions, and as a basis for economic exploitation. This was clearly a key process in apartheid in South Africa, but is also at work in many other countries in which minority groups are oppressed. From this perspective, the dominant ethnic group uses state power to maintain its ascendancy. But at the same time, the use of political and economic power for racial oppression helps to sustain and legitimate state power itself. This is because the maintenance of racial domination and exploitation comes to depend partly on the use of state power, which is therefore supported and expanded by the dominant group. From this perspective it can be said that the state mobilises racism to help maintain itself. There are several other avenues used by the state to mobilise support. Several of these will be treated in the following chapters, including bureaucracy and patriarchy. In each case, structured patterns of dominance and submission are mobilised to support the state, and state in turn helps to sustain the social structure in question, such as bureaucracy or patriarchy. To counter the state, it is necessary both to promote grassroots mobilisation and to undermine the key structures from which the state draws its power and from which it mobilises support.

164

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 165 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Rape
War facilitates the rape of women to force unwanted pregnancies and to further ethnic cleansing Robson 93
(Robson, has a Master's degree in African Literature and is an award winning writer, 06-93 http://www.newint.org/issue244/rape.htm)

No-one will ever know the exact number of women and girls raped during the conflict in former Yugoslavia. But Heraks accounts of his forced participation in rapes of Bosnian Muslim women his commander had told him it was good for morale accord with evidence recounted to human-rights observers and journalists
throughout the region. Though all figures must be treated with caution in a war so plagued by propaganda, these witnesses tell of the organized and systematic rape of at least 20,000 women and girls by the Serbian military and the murder of many of the victims. Muslim and Croatian as well as some Serbian women are being raped in their homes, in schools,

police stations and camps all over the country. The sexual abuse of women in war is nothing new. Rape has long been tolerated as one of the spoils of war, an inevitable feature of military conflict like pillage and looting. What is new about the situation in Bosnia is the attention it is receiving and the recognition that it is being used as a deliberate military tactic to speed up the process of ethnic cleansing. According to a recent report by European Community investigators, rapes are being committed in particularly sadistic ways to inflict maximum humiliation on victims, their families, and on the whole community. 1 In many cases the intention is deliberately to make women pregnant and to detain them until pregnancy is far enough advanced to make termination impossible. Women and girls aged anything between 6 and 70 are being held in camps throughout the country and raped
repeatedly by gangs of soldiers. Often brothers or fathers of these women are forced to rape them as well. If they refuse, they are killed.

165

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 166 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Rights T/
Wars undermine human rights Ganesan and Vines 04. [Arvind, Business and Human Rights Program Director @ HRW Alex, Senior Researcher @ HRW, Head of Africa Programme Chatham House, Royal Institue of Intl Affairs, Engine of War: Resources, Greed, and the Predatory State, Human Rights Watch World Report 2004 http://hrw.org/wr2k4/download/14.pdf] Internal armed conflict in resource-rich countries is a major cause of human rights violations around the world. An influential World Bank thesis states that the availability of portable, high-value resources is an important reason that rebel groups form and civil wars break out, and that to end the abuses one needs to target rebel group financing. The focus is on rebel groups, and the thesis is that greed, rather than grievance alone, impels peoples toward internal armed conflict. Although examination of the nexus between resources, revenues, and civil war is critically important, the picture as presented in the just-described greed vs. grievance theory is distorted by an overemphasis on the impact of resources on rebel group behavior and insufficient attention to how government mismanagement of resources and revenues fuels conflict and human rights abuses. As argued here, if the international community is serious about curbing conflict and related rights abuses in resource-rich countries, it should insist on greater transparency in government revenues and expenditures and more rigorous enforcement of punitive measures against governments that seek to profit from conflict. Civil wars and conflict have taken a horrific toll on civilians throughout the world. Killings, maiming, forced conscription, the use of child soldiers, sexual abuse, and other atrocities characterize numerous past and ongoing conflicts. The level of violence has prompted increased scrutiny of the causes of such wars. In this context, the financing of conflict through natural resource exploitation has received increased scrutiny over the last few years. When unaccountable, resource-rich governments go to war with rebels who often seek control over the same resources, pervasive rights abuse is all but inevitable. Such abuse, in turn, can further destabilize conditions, fueling continued conflict. Factoring the greed of governments and systemic rights abuse into the greed vs. grievance equation does not minimize the need to hold rebel groups accountable, but it does highlight the need to ensure that governments too are transparent and accountable. Fundamentally, proper management of revenues is an economic problem, and that is why the role of IFIs is so important. But it is an economic problem that also has political dimensions and requires political solutions. Political will and pressure, including targeted U.N. sanctions where appropriate, can motivate opaque, corrupt governments to be more open and transparent. Where such pressure is lacking, as in Liberia prior to enforcement of sanctions, continued conflict, rights abuse, and extreme deprivation of civilians all too commonly are the result.

166

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 167 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Rights T/
Modern warfare involves crippling civilian infrastructure and violating human rights Levy and Sidel, 7 (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007)
Modern military technology, especially the use of high-precision bombs, rockets, and missile warheads, has now made it possible to attack civilian populations in industrialized societies indirectlybut with devastating resultsby targeting the facilities on which life depends, while avoiding the stigma of direct attack on the bodies and habitats of noncombatants. The technique has been termed "bomb now, die later." U.S. military action against Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in the Iraq War has included the specific and selective destruction of key aspects of the infrastructure necessary to maintain ci vi li an life and health (see Chapter 15). During the bombing phase of the Persian Gulf War this deliberate effort almost totally destroyed Iraq's electricalpower generation and transmission capacity and its civilian communications networks. In combination with the prolonged application of economic sanctions and the disruption of highways, bridges, and facilities for refining and distributing fuel by conventional bombing, these actions had severely damaging effects on the health and survival of the civilian population, especially infants and children. Without electrical power, water purification and pumping ceased immediately in all major urban areas, as did sewage pumping and treatment. The appearance and epidemic spread of infectious diarrheal disease in infants and of waterborne diseases, such as typhoid fever and cholera, were rapid. At the same lime, medical care and public health measures were totally disrupted. Modern multistory hospitals were left without clean water, sewage disposal, or any electricity beyond what could he supplied by emergency generators designed to operate only a few hours per day. Operating rooms, x-ray equipment, and other vital facilities were crippled. Supplies of anesthetics, antibiotics, and other essential medications were rapidly depleted. Vaccines and medications requiring refrigeration were destroyed, and all immunization programs increased. Because almost no civilian telephones, computers, or transmission lines were operable, the Ministry of Health was effectively immobilized. Fuel shortages and the disruption of transportation limited civilian access to medical care. Many reports provide clear and quantitative evidence of violations of the requirements of immunity for civilian populations, proportionality, and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. They mock the concept of life integrity rights. In contrast to the chaos and social disruption that routinely accompany armed conflicts, these deaths have been the consequence of and explicit military policy, with clearly foreseeable consequences to human rights of civilians. The U.S. military has never conceded that its policies violated human rights under the Geneva Conventions or the guidelines under which U.S. military personnel operate. Yet the ongoing development of military technology suggests thatabsent the use of weapons of mass destruction violations of civilians human rights will be the preferred method of warfare in the future.

167

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 168 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Social Service T/
Increased military spending from war would tradeoff with health care and other social services Tasini , executive director of labor research association ran for senate in NY, 8-13-7 (Jonathan , Guns Versus Butter
-- Our Real Economic our_b_60150.html) Challenge , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/guns-versus-butter-

Guns versus butter. It's the classic debate that really tells us a lot about our priorities that we set for the kind of society we can expect to live in -- how much money a country spends on the military versus how much money is expended on non-military, domestic needs. To perhaps explain the obvious, buying a gun (or missile defense or a sophisticated bomber) means you don't have those dollars for butter (or a national health care plan or free college education). At some basic level, we all know that those tradeoffs exist but,
sometimes, numbers bring home the meaning of this equation in stunning fashion. What made me think of this is a set of revealing numbers that jumped out at me the other day -- numbers that underscore why there is, in my opinion, something lacking in the message of most of the Democratic presidential candidates and our party's leadership.

War spending trades off with Medicaid Bush and the Iraq war proves Star Tribune 5 ("Social programs would bear brunt of deficit reduction", February 8, @Lexis) President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget Monday that would drastically cut or shut down 150 government programs and slash spending on Medicaid, farming and low-income housing, while boosting money for defense and homeland security. In what Bush described as the most austere budget of his presidency, discretionary spending would grow by 2.1 percent - less than the projected rate of inflation. Meanwhile, non-defense spending would be cut by nearly 1 percent - the first such proposed cut since the Reagan administration . Hardest hit is Medicaid, which could cost Minnesota as much as $712 million over the next decade.

168

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 169 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Starvation
War causes starvation Messer 96
(Ellen Messer, University of Michigan, Ph.D., 1996, http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we0j.htm) After the wars, communities decimated and depopulated by physical and human losses can remain

underproductive and hungry for years, as food wars and the conditions leading up to them remain a legacy of armed conflict that is not easily remedied without outside assistance. Individuals, households, and communities must
regain access to land, water, and other sources of livelihood, and human resources and social infrastructure must somehow recover. Communities in many cases must be re-formed, especially where areas have experienced complete or selective depopulation. Production and markets must be re-established, so that goods can flow and livelihoods rebound. During

prolonged warfare, whole generations may be conscripted into the military; with no other schooling, they must later be socialized into peacetime occupations if they are not to revert to violence and brigandage as a source of entitlements. In the African conflicts of Mozambique, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, destruction of kinship units
was a deliberate military strategy to remove intergenerational ties and community bonds and create new loyalties to the military. These grown youths now need sustenance, and basic and specialty education, if they are to contribute to a peacetime economy and society, and to general food security. After decades of civil war, these countries also lack skilled

agricultural, social, and health professionals to speed recovery. They require agricultural, health, educational, and economic services to rebuild societies, as well as physical infrastructure such as agricultural
works, transport and communication lines, and market-places destroyed in the wars.

169

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 170 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terror
Wars, like the Iraq war, have increased a chance of a terror attack People Press 05
(Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 7-21-05, http://people-press.org/report/251/more-say-iraq-warhurts-fight-against-terrorism) The public is growing more skeptical that the war in Iraq is helping in the effort to fight terrorism. A plurality (47%) believes that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism, up from 41% in February of this year. Further, a plurality (45%) now says that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attacks at home , up from 36% in October 2004, while fewer say that the war in Iraq has lessened the chances of terrorist attacks in the U.S. (22% now and 32% in October). Another three-in-ten believe that the war in Iraq has no effect on the chances of a terrorist attack in the U.S. Older Americans are more skeptical than younger people that the war in Iraq is helping the effort to fight terrorism. A 56% majority of those age 50 and over say the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrori sm, up from 39% in February. Those younger than age 50 are divided on this issue, with 45% saying the war in Iraq has helped and 41% saying it hurt the war on terrorism; that pattern has remained stable since February.

170

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 171 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**X TURNS CASE**

171

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 172 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AIDS T/ Readiness
AIDS kills readiness- it decreases troops and erodes govt control Peterson, 3 (Susan- associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, Security Studies 12, no. 2 (winter 2002/3), Epidemic Disease and National Security http://people.wm.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.pdf)
Still, IDs. impact in the contemporary international system may be somewhat different. Unlike other diseases, AIDS has an incubation period of ten years or more, making it unlikely that it will produce significant casualties on the front lines of a war. It will still, however, deplete force strength in many states. On average, 20.40 percent of armed forces in sub-Saharan countries are HIV-positive, and in a few countries the rate is 60 percent or more. In Zimbabwe, it may be as high as 80 percent.147 In high incidence countries, AIDS significantly erodes military readiness, directly threatening national security. Lyndy Heinecken chillingly describes the problem in sub-Saharan Africa: AIDS-related illnesses are now the leading cause of death in the army and police forces of these countries, accounting for more than 50% of inservice and post-service mortalities. In badly infected countries, AIDS patients occupy 75% of military hospital beds and the disease is responsible for more admissions than battlefield injuries. The high rate of HIV infection has meant that some African armies have been unable to deploy a full contingent, or even half of their troops, at short notice.. [In South Africa, because] participation in peace-support operations outside the country is voluntary, the S[outh] A[frican] N[ational] D[efence] F[orce] is grappling with the problem of how to ensure the availability of sufficiently suitable candidates for deployment at short notice. Even the use of members for internal crime prevention and border control, which subjects them to adverse conditions or stationing in areas where local infrastructure is limited, presents certain problems. Ordinary ailments, such as diarrhoea and the common cold, can be serious enough to require the hospitalization of an immune-compromised person, and, in some cases, can prove fatal if they are not treated immediately.148 Armed forces in severely affected states will be unable to recruit and train soldiers quickly enough to replace their sick and dying colleagues, the potential recruitment pool itself will dwindle, and officers corps will be decimated. Military budgets will be sapped, military blood supplies tainted, and organizational structures strained to accommodate unproductive soldiers. HIV-infected armed forces also threaten civilians at home and abroad. Increased levels of sexual activity among military forces in wartime means that the military risk of becoming infected with HIV is as much as 100 times that of the civilian risk. It also means that members of the armed forces comprise a key means of transmitting the virus to the general population; with sex and transport workers, the military is considered one of the three core transmission groups in Africa. 149 For this reason, conflict-ridden states may become reluctant to accept peacekeepers from countries with high HIV rates. Rather than contributing directly to military defeat in many countries, however, AIDS in the military is more likely to have longer term implications for national security. First, IDs theoretically could deter military action and impede access to strategic resources or areas. Tropical diseases erected a formidable, although obviously not insurmountable, obstacle to colonization in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. French and later American efforts to open the Panama Canal, similarly, were stymied until U.S. mosquito control efforts effectively checked yellow fever and malaria. Second, in many countries AIDS already strains military medical systems and their budgets, and it only promises to divert further spending away from defense toward both military and civilian health. Third, AIDS in the military promises to have its greatest impact by eroding a government.s control over its armed forces and further destabilizing the state. Terminally ill soldiers may have little incentive to defend their government, and their government may be in more need of defending as AIDS siphons funds from housing, education, police, and administration. Finally, high military HIV/AIDS rates could alter regional balances of power. Perhaps 40.50 percent of South Africa.s soldiers are HIV-infected. Despite the disease.s negative impact on South Africa.s absolute power, Price-Smith notes, AIDS may increase that nation.s power relative to its neighbors, Zimbabwe and Botswana, with potentially important regional consequences. 150 AIDS poses obvious threats to the military forces of many countries, particularly in sub- Saharan Africa, but it does not present the same immediate security problems for the United States. The authors of a Reagan-era report on the effects of economic and demographic trends on security worried about the effects of the costs of AIDS research, education, and funding on the defense budget,151 but a decade of relative prosperity generated budget surpluses instead. These surpluses have evaporated, but concerns about AIDS spending have not reappeared and are unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future, given the relatively low levels of HIV-infection in the United States. AIDS presents other challenges, including prevention education and measures to limit infection of U.S. soldiers and peacekeepers stationed abroad, particularly in high risk settings, and HIV transmission by these forces to the general population. These concerns could limit U.S. actions where American interests are at stake.152

172

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 173 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AIDS T/ Readiness
Aids kills military readiness Upton, 4 ( Maureen- member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the 21st Century Trust, World Policy Journal, Global Public Health Trumps the Nation-State Volume XXI, No 3, Fall 2004, http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/Upton.html)
The political economist Nicholas Eberstadt has demonstrated that the coming Eurasian AIDS pandemic has the potential to derail the economic prospects of billions of peopleparticularly in Russia, China, and Indiaand to thereby alter the global military balance.5 Eurasia (defined as Russia, plus Asia), is home to five-eighths of the worlds population, and its combined GNP is larger than that of either the United States or Europe. Perhaps more importantly, the region includes four of the worlds five militaries with over one million members and four declared nuclear states. Since HIV has a relatively long incubation period, its effects on military readiness are unusually harsh. Officers who contract the disease early in their military careers do not typically die until they have amassed significant training and expertise, so armed forces are faced with the loss of their most senior, hardest-to-replace officers.

173

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 174 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disesase T/ Readiness
Diseases kill military readiness- empirically proven Peterson, 3 (Susan- associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, Security Studies 12, no. 2 (winter 2002/3), Epidemic Disease and National Security http://people.wm.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.pdf)
Military readiness. Even when disease is not deliberately used, it can alter the evolution and outcome of military conflict by eroding military readiness and morale. As Jared Diamond notes, .All those military histories glorifying great generals oversimplify the ego-deflating truth: the winners of past wars were not always the armies with the best generals and weapons, but were often merely those bearing the nastiest germs to transmit to their enemies..142 During the European conquest of the Americas, the conquistadors shared numerous lethal microbes with their native American foes, who had few or no deadly diseases to pass on to their conquerors. When Hernando Cortez and his men first attacked the Aztecs in Mexico in 1520, they left behind smallpox that wiped out half the Aztec population. Surviving Aztecs were further demoralized by their vulnerability to a disease that appeared harmless to the Europeans, and on their next attempt the Spanish succeeded in conquering the Aztec nation. 143 Spanish conquest of the Incan empire in South America followed a similar pattern: In 1532 Francisco Pizarro and his army of 168

Spaniards defeated the Incan army of 80,000. A devastating smallpox epidemic had killed the Incan emperor and his heir, producing a civil war that split the empire and allowed a handful of Europeans to defeat a large, but divided enemy.144 In modern times, too, pandemic infections have affected the ability of military forces to prosecute and win a war. The German Army chief of staff in the First World War, General Erick Von Ludendorf, blamed Germany.s loss of that war at least partly on the negative effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic on the morale of German troops.145 In the Second World War, similarly, malaria caused more U.S. casualties in certain areas than did military action.146 Throughout history, then, IDs have had a significant potential to decimate armies and alter military history.

Pandemics kill military readiness Major Hesko, 6 (Gerald, Air Command And Staff College Pandemic Influenza: Military Operational Readiness Implications April 2006)
There exists in the world today the possibility of a great influenza pandemic matching those of the past century with the potential to far exceed the pain, suffering and deaths of past pandemics. Although global pandemics are difficult to accurately predict, scientists theorize that another pandemic on a scale of the deadly 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic is imminent. If a pandemic influenza occurs, as predicted by many in the medical and scientific community, the number of Americans affected could easily overwhelm our medical capability resulting in untold suffering and deaths. Although an influenza pandemic, if it occurs, has the potential to devastate and threaten our society, an equally alarming consequence is the effects it could have on the operational readiness of the United States military establishment. With our current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with other smaller engagements world-wide, if an influenza pandemic were to strike the military, our level of operational readiness, preparedness and ability to defend our vital national interests could be decreased or threaten. As a result of the pending threat of an influenza pandemic, the United States military, must take decisive actions to mitigate the potential devastation an influenza pandemic might have on operational readiness.

174

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 175 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disease T/ Readiness
Disease turns military readiness Suburban Emergency Management Project, 7 (Disease Outbreak Readiness Update, U.S. Department of Defense Biot Report #449: July 25, 2007, http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=449)
An infectious disease pandemic could impair the militarys readiness, jeopardize ongoing military operations abroad, and threaten the day-to-day functioning of the Department of Defense (DOD) because of up to 40% of personnel reporting sick or being absent during a pandemic, according to a recent GAO report (June 2007). Congressman Tom Davis, ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives, requested the GAO investigation. (1) The 40% number (above) comes from the Homeland Security Councils estimate that 40% of the U.S. workforce might not be at work due to illness, the need to care for family members who are sick, or fear of becoming infected. (2) DOD military and civilian personnel and contractors would face a similar absentee rate, according to the GAO writers.

175

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 176 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Disease T/ War
Disease increases the likelihood of war and genocide Peterson, 3 (Susan- associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, Security Studies 12, no. 2 (winter 2002/3), Epidemic Disease and National Security http://people.wm.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.pdf)
How might these political and economic effects produce violent conflict? Price-Smith offers two possible answers: Disease .magnif[ies].both relative and absolute deprivation and.hasten[s] the erosion of state capacity in seriously affected societies. Thus, infectious disease may in fact contribute to societal destabilization and to chronic lowintensity intrastate violence, and in extreme cases it may accelerate the processes that lead to state failure..83 Disease heightens competition among social groups and elites for scarce resources. When the debilitating and deadly effects of IDs like AIDS are concentrated among a particular socio-economic, ethnic, racial, or geographic group, the potential for conflict escalates. In many parts of Africa today, AIDS strikes rural areas at higher rates than urban areas, or it hits certain provinces harder than others. If these trends persist in states where tribes or ethnic groups are heavily concentrated in particular regions or in rural rather than urban areas, AIDS almost certainly will interact with tribal, ethnic, or national differences and make political and military conflict more likely. Price-Smith argues, moreover, that .the potential for intra-elite violence is also increasingly probable and may carry grave political consequences, such as coups, the collapse of governance, and planned genocides..84

176

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 177 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Ecodestruction T/ Disease
Worldwatch Institute, 96 (Infectious Diseases Surge: Environmental Destruction, Poverty To Blame http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1593)
Rates of infectious disease have risen rapidly in many countries during the past decade, according to a new study released by the Worldwatch Institute. Illness and death from tuberculosis, malaria, dengue fever, and AIDS are up sharply; infectious diseases killed 16.5 million people in 1993, one-third of all deaths worldwide, and slightly more than cancer and heart disease combined. The resurgence of diseases once thought to have been conquered stems from a deadly mix of exploding populations, rampant poverty, inadequate health care, misuse of antibiotics, and severe environmental degradation, says the new report, Infecting Ourselves: How Environmental and Social Disruptions Trigger Disease. Infectious diseases take their greatest toll in developing countries, where cases of malaria and tuberculosis are soaring, but even in the United States, infectious disease deaths rose 58 percent between 1980 and 1992. Research Associate Anne Platt, author of the report, says, "Infectious diseases are a basic barometer of the environmental sustainability of human activity. Recent outbreaks result from a sharp imbalance between a human population growing by 88 million each year and a natural resource base that is under increasing stress." "Water pollution, shrinking forests, and rising temperatures are driving the upward surge in infections in many countries," the report says. "Only by adopting a more sustainable path to economic development can we control them." "Beyond the number of people who die, the social and economic cost of infectious diseases is hard to overestimate," Platt says. "It can be a crushing burden for families, communities, and governments. Some 400 million people suffer from debilitating malaria, about 200 million have schistosomiasis, and nine million have tuberculosis." By the year 2000, AIDS will cost Asian countries over $50 billion a year just in lost productivity. "Such suffering and economic loss is doubly tragic," says Platt, "because the cost of these diseases is astronomical, yet preventing them is not only simple, but inexpensive." The author notes, "The dramatic resurgence of infectious diseases is telling us that we are approaching disease and medicine, as well as economic development, in the wrong way. Governments focus narrowly on individual cures and not on mass prevention; and we fail to understand that lifestyle can promote infectious disease just as it can contribute to heart disease. It is imperative that we bring health considerations into the equation when we plan for international development, global trade, and population increases, to prevent disease from spreading and further undermining economic development." The report notes that this global resurgence of infectious disease involves old, familiar diseases like tuberculosis and the plague as well as new ones like Ebola and Lyme disease. Yet all show the often tragic consequences of human actions: Population increases, leading to human crowding, poverty, and the growth of mega-cities, are prompting dramatic increases in dengue fever, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. Lack of clean water is spreading diseases like cholera, typhoid, and dysentery. Eighty percent of all disease in developing countries is related to unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation. Poorly planned development disrupts ecosystems and provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rodents, and snails that spread debilitating diseases. Inadequate vaccinations have led to resurgences in measles and diphtheria. Misuse of antibiotics has created drug-resistant strains of pneumonia and malaria.

177

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 178 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Ecodestruction T/ Disease
Environmental collapse threatens health and civilization collapse
WHO, 5 (Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1.pdf) In a fundamental sense, ecosystems are the planet's life-support systems - for the human species and all other forms of life (see Figure 1.1). The needs of the human organism for food, water, clean air, shelter and relative climatic constancy are basic and unalterable. That is, ecosystems are essential to human well-being and especially to human health defined by the World Health Organization as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being. Those who live in materially comfortable, urban environments commonly take for granted ecosystem services to health. They assume that good health derives from prudent consumer choices and behaviours, with access to good health care services. But this ignores the role of the natural environment: of the array of ecosystems that allow people to enjoy good health, social organization, economic activity, a built environment and life itself. Historically, overexploitation of ecosystem services has led to the collapse of some societies (SG3). There is an observable tendency for powerful and wealthy societies eventually to overexploit, damage and even destroy their natural environmental support base. The agricultural-based civilizations of Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, the Mayans, and (on a micro-scale) Easter Island all provide well documented examples. Industrial societies, although in many cases more distant from the source of the ecosystem services on which they depend, may reach similar limits. Resource consumption in one location can lead to degradation of ecosystem services and associated health effects in other parts of the world (SG3). At its most fundamental level of analysis, the pressure on ecosystems can be conceptualized as a function of population, technology and lifestyle. In turn, these factors depend on many social and cultural elements. For example, fertilizer use in agricultural production increasingly is dependent on resources extracted from other regions and has led to eutrophication of rivers, lakes and coastal ecosystems. Notwithstanding ecosystems' fundamental role as determinants of human health, sociocultural factors play a similarly important role. These include infrastructural assets; income and wealth distribution; technologies used; and level of knowledge. In many industrialized countries, changes in these social factors over the last few centuries have both enhanced some ecosystem services (through more productive agriculture, for instance) and improved health services and education, contributing to increases in life expectancy. The complex multifactorial causation of states of health and disease complicates the attribution of human health impacts to ecosystem changes. A precautionary approach to ecosystem management is appropriate.

Environmental destruction causes new diseases


WHO, 5 (Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1.pdf) Disturbance or degradation of ecosystems can have biological effects that are highly relevant to infectious disease transmission (C14). The reasons for the emergence or re-emergence of some diseases are unknown, but the following mechanisms have been proposed: altered habitat leading to changes in the number of vector breeding sites or reservoir host distribution; niche invasions or transfer of interspecies hosts; biodiversity change (including loss of predator species and changes in host population density); human-induced genetic changes in disease vectors or pathogens (such as mosquito resistance to pesticides or the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria); and environmental contamination by infectious disease agents (such as faecal contamination of source waters).

178

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 179 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Ecodestruction T/ War
Environmental degradation increases war, instability, and hurts the economy UN, 4 (United Nations News Center, Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability November 5, 2004, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=12460&Cr=conflict&Cr1=environment,
"These scars, threatening water supplies, the fertility of the land and the cleanliness of the air are recipes for instability between communities and neighbouring countries," he added. Citing a new UNEP report produced in collaboration with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Mr. Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within and between societies." The study finds that a decrepit and declining environment can depress economic activity and diminish the authority of the state in the eyes of its citizens. It also points out that the addressing environmental problems can foster trust among communities and neighbouring countries.

179

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 180 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Ecodestruction T/ Agriculture
Environmental degradation destroys cropland
Homer-Dixon, 91 (Thomas- Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto, International Security On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict 199, http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change,47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests.48 Moreover, no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas, others are not yet visible anywhere. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact, which can be traced out in the figure. Since the Second World War, logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6.8-7.6 million hectares.49 Across the archipelago, logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion, changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns, and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt. These factors may seriously affect crop production. For example, when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan, the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36,000 hectares of irrigated farmland projected within the Plan for 2007 will actually be irrigable because of the hydrological effects of decreases in forest cover.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land, problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. Currently, total global cropland amounts to about 1.5 billion hectares. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet, which includes both current and potential cropland, range from 3.2 to 3.4 billion hectares, but nearly all the best land has already been exploited. What is left is either less fertile, not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable, infested with pests, or harder to clear and work.51 For developing countries during the 1980s, cropland grew at just 0.26 percent a year, less than half the rate of the 1970s. More importantly, in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1.9 percent a year. 52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries, experts expect that the world average of 0.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0.17 hectares by the year 2025, given the current rate of world population growth. 53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment, erosion, nutrient depletion, salinization, waterlogging, acidification, and compacting. The geographer Vaclav Smil, who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage, estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion; perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization, and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity. In addition, about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification. 54 Taken together, he concludes, the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000.55

180

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 181 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**NUCLEAR WAR SCENARIOS**

181

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 182 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Central Asian Conflict


Central Asia is the most likely scenario for global nuclear war Blank, Research Professional of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, 2000
(Dr. Stephen J Blank, Research Professional of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College June, pg. http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/Russia-2000-assessment-SSI.pdf)

Central Asias physical infrastructure might charitably be called Third World and the region is highly diverse ethnically and politically. Thus we might quickly end up on the wrong side of a Central Asian ethnic conflict. In such a case we would also quite likely be opposed by one or more of the key neighboring states, China, Iran, or Russia, all of whom might find it easier to project and sustain power into the area (or use proxies for that purpose) than we could.

Central Asia is the most likely scenario for a global nuclear war Stephen Blank,, Director of Strategic Studies Institute at US Army War College, 1999 Central Asian Survey (18; 2), [Every Shark East of Suez: Great Power Interests, Policies and Tactics in the Transcaspian Energy Wars] many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus. And similarly many conditions exist for internal domestic strife if the leadership of any of these governments changes or if one of the many disaffected minority groups revolts. Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their proxies and protgs . One or another big 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 weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe. For instance, in 1993 Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case. This episode tends to confirm the notion that `future wars involving Europe and America as allies
Thus will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia . 95 Sadly, many such causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian. Precisely because Turkey

is a Nato members but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia or if it could, would 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 every-where else in the CIS
or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China.

182

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 183 /414

Nelson <tournament>

China-US
US China war goes nuclear Hadar, adjunct scholar at Cato, 96
(Louis Hadar , The Sweet and Sour Sino-American Relationship, 1/23/96, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-248.html)

Some analysts, including Nicholas D. Kristof, former Beijing chief of the New York Times, have drawn a historical parallel between the rise of Germany as a world economic and military power at the end of the 19th century and China's rise in the last decade of the 20th century. They suggest that, given the similar authoritarian and insecure nature of the regimes in post-Bismarck Germany the post-Deng China, China could emerge as a leading anti-status quo player, challenging the dominant position of the United States, which like Great Britain
in the 19th century occupies the leading economic and military position in the world. "The risk is that Deng's successor will be less talented and more aggressive--a Chinese version of Wilhelm II," writes Kristof. "Such a ruler unfortunately may be tempted to promote Chinese nationalism as a unifying force and ideology, to replace the carcass of communism." For all the differences between China and Wilhelmine Germany, "the latter's experience should remind us of the difficulty that the world has had accommodating newly powerful nations," warns Kristof, recalling that Germany's jockeying for a place in the front rank of nations resulted in World War I.(66) Charles Krauthammer echoes that point, contending that China is "like late 19th-century Germany, a country growing too big and too strong for the continent it finds itself on."(67) Since Krauthammer and other analysts use the term "containment" to describe the policy they urge Washington to adopt toward China, it is the Cold War with the Soviet Union that is apparently seen as the model for the future Sino- American relationship. Strategist Graham Fuller predicts, for example, that China is "predisposed to a role as leader of the

dispossessed states" in a new cold war that would pit an American-led West against an anti-status quo Third World bloc.(68) Although Krauthammer admits that China lacks the ideological appeal that the Soviet Union possessed (at least in the early stages of the Cold War), he assumes that, like the confrontation with the Soviet Union but unlike the British-German rivalry, the contest between America and China will remain "cold" and not escalate into a "hot" war. That optimism is crucial. Advocates of containment may be able to persuade a large number of Americans to adopt an anti-China strategy if the model is the tense but manageable Soviet-American rivalry. However, not many Americans are likely to embrace containment if the probable outcome is a bloody rerun of World War I--only this time possibly with nuclear weapons.

183

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 184 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Economic Collapse
Economic decline leads to global nuclear war and totalitarian regimes Cook, former analyst for the US Treasury Department, 2007
Richard Cook, Writer, Consultant, and Retired Federal Analyst U.S. Treasury Department, 6/14/2k7 "It's Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun," Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964

Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they dont want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes? Maybe well finally have a revolution either from the right or the center involving martial law, suspension of the Bill of Rights, etc., combined with some kind of military or forced-labor dictatorship. Were halfway there anyway. Forget about a revolution
from the left. They wouldnt want to make anyone mad at them for being too radical.

184

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 185 /414

Nelson <tournament>

India/Pakistan War
India Pakistan War leads to extinction Gertz, Staff Writer at the Washington Times, 2001
(Bill Gertz, Staff writer at the Washington Times 12/31/2001, India, Pakistan prepare nukes, troops for war, Lexis)

Pakistan and India are readying their military forces - including their ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons - for war, The Washington Times has learned. U.S. intelligence officials say Pakistani military moves include
large-scale troop movements, the dispersal of fighter aircraft and preparations for the transportation of nuclear weapons from storage sites. India also is moving thousands of its troops near the border with Pakistan and has dispersed some aircraft to safer sites away from border airfields, say officials familiar with intelligence reports of the war moves. Pakistan is moving the equivalent of two armored brigades - several thousand troops and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles - near the northern part of its border with India. Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged heavy mortar fire over their border in southern Kashmir today, Agence France-Presse reported. Five Indian soldiers were seriously injured in the heaviest shelling in four months, a senior Indian army official said. More than 1,000 villagers were evacuated from their homes overnight for the operation, according to the report. Officials say the most alarming signs are preparations in both states for the use of nuclear-tipped missiles. Intelligence agencies have learned of indications that India is getting its short-range Prithvi ballistic missiles ready for use. The missiles are within range of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Meanwhile, Pakistan is mobilizing its Chinesemade mobile M-11 missiles, also known as the Shaheen, which have been readied for movement from a base near Sargodha, Pakistan. Intelligence reports indicate that India will have all its forces ready to launch an attack as early as this week, with Thursday or Friday as possible dates. Pakistan could launch its forces before those dates in a pre-emptive strike. Disclosure of the war preparations comes as President Bush on Saturday telephoned leaders of both nations, urging them to calm tensions, a sign of administration concern over the military moves in the region. The administration also fears that a conflict

between India and Pakistan would undermine U.S. efforts to find terrorists in Afghanistan. U.S. military forces are heavily reliant on Pakistani government permission to conduct overflights for bombing and other aircraft operations into Afghanistan, primarily from aircraft carriers located in the Arabian Sea. With
tensions growing between the states, U.S. intelligence officials are divided over the ultimate meaning of the indicators of an impending conflict. The Pentagon's Joint Staff intelligence division, known as J-2, late last week had assessed the danger of conflict at "critical" levels. Other joint intelligence centers outside the Pentagon, including those supporting the U.S. military forces responsible for the Asia-Pacific region and for Southwest Asia, assess the danger of an India-Pakistan war as less than critical but still "serious." Intelligence officials are especially worried about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal because

control over the weapons is decentralized. Even before the latest moves, regional commanders could order the use of the weapons, which are based on missiles or fighter-bombers.

185

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 186 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Iraq Pullout
Iraq pullout causes Middle-Eastern nuclear war Gerecht, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2007
(Reuel, The Consequences of Failure http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25407,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) in Iraq, Jan 15,

If we leave Iraq any time soon, the battle for Baghdad will probably lead to a conflagration that consumes all of Arab Iraq, and quite possibly Kurdistan, too. Once the Shia become both badly bloodied and victorious, raw nationalist and religious passions will grow. A horrific fight with the Sunni Arabs will inevitably draw in support from the ferociously anti-Shiite Sunni religious establishments in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and on the Shiite side from Iran. It will probably destroy most of central Iraq and whet the appetite of Shiite Arab warlords, who will by then dominate their community, for a conflict with the Kurds. If the Americans stabilize Arab Iraq, which means occupying the Sunni triangle, this won't happen. A strong,
aggressive American military presence in Iraq can probably halt the radicalization of the Shiite community. Imagine an Iraq modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. The worst elements in the Iranian regime are heavily concentrated in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence, the two organizations most active inside Iraq. The Lebanese Hezbollah is also present giving tutorials. These forces need increasing strife to prosper. Imagine Iraqi Shiites, battle-hardened in a vicious war with Iraq's Arab Sunnis, spiritually and operationally linking up with a revitalized and aggressive clerical dictatorship in Iran. Imagine the Iraqi Sunni Islamic militants, driven from Iraq, joining up with groups like al Qaeda, living to die killing Americans. Imagine the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunni Arab refugees. The Hashemites have been lucky and clever since World War II. They've escaped extinction several times. Does anyone want to take bets that the monarchy can survive the implantation of an army of militant, angry Iraqi Sunni Arabs? For those who believe that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the

epicenter of the Middle East, the mass migration of Iraq's Sunni Arabs into Jordan will bury what small chances remain that the Israelis and Palestinians will find an accommodation. With Jordan in trouble, overflowing with viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli Iraqis, peaceful Palestinian evolution on the West Bank of the Jordan river is about as likely as the discovery of the Holy Grail. The repercussions throughout the Middle East of the Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq are potentially so large it's difficult to digest. Sunni Arabs in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will certainly view a hard-won and bloody Shiite triumph in Iraq as an enormous Iranian victory. The Egyptians or the Saudis or both will go for their own nukes. What little chance remains for the Americans and the Europeans to corral peacefully the clerical regime's nuclear-weapons aspirations will end with a Shiite-Sunni death struggle in Mesopotamia, which the Shia will inevitably win. The Israelis, who are increasingly likely to strike preemptively the major Iranian nuclear sites before the end of George Bush's presidency, will feel even more threatened, especially when the Iranian regime underscores its struggle against the Zionist enemy as a means of compensating for its support to the bloody Shiite conquest in Iraq. With America in full retreat from Iraq, the clerical regime, which has
often viewed terrorism as a tool of statecraft, could well revert to the mentality and tactics that produced the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996. If the Americans are retreating, hit them. That would not be just a radical Shiite view; it was the learned estimation of Osama bin Laden and his kind before 9/11 . It's questionable to argue that the war in Iraq has

advanced the radical Sunni holy war against the United States. There should be no question, however, that an American defeat in Mesopotamia would be the greatest psychological triumph ever for anti-American jihadists. Al Qaeda and its militant Iraqi allies could dominate western Iraq for years--it could take awhile for the Shiites to drive them out.

186

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 187 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Iran
Iran attack will cause a global nuclear war that leads to human extinction Hirch Professor at the University og Califorina at San Diego 2008
(Seymour Hirsch, Professor of physics @ the University of California @ San Diego, 4/10/2k8 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HIR20060422&articleId=2317)

Iran is likely to respond to any US attack using its considerable missile arsenal against US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. Israel may attempt to stay out of the conflict, it is not clear whether Iran would target Israel in a retaliatory strike but it is certainly possible. If the US attack includes nuclear weapons use against Iranian facilities, as I believe is very likely, rather than deterring Iran it will cause a much more violent response. Iranian military forces and militias are likely to storm into southern Iraq and the US may be forced to use nuclear weapons against them, causing large scale casualties and inflaming the Muslim world. There could be popular uprisings in other countries in the region like Pakistan, and of course a Shiite uprising in Iraq against American occupiers. Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. And terrorist's attempts to get hold of "loose nukes" and use them against Americans will be enormously incentivized after the US used nuclear weapons against Iran. , it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons, and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons, or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. It will
not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country, and the US will become a pariah state. Third, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist, and many of its 182

non-nuclear-weapon-country signatories will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an attack by a nuclear nation. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon, and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. In the past, global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed.

187

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 188 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Japanese Relations (Spratly Islands)


US-Japan alliance is key to prevent war over the Spratly Islands. Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance, spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2, http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]

The Japan-U.S. alliance also probably serves as a deterrent against any one nation seizing control of the Spratly Islands and, by extension, the sea lanes and resources of the South China Sea . Formally, the area is
outside the Far East region that the United States and Japan agree is covered by Article 6 of the security treaty. For the countries vying for control of the sea, however, the proximity of two of the worlds great maritime forces must at

least urge them to use caution as they pursue their competition. Spratly Conflict goes nuclear Nikkei 1995
[The Nikkei weekly, Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to allow their economies to grow before being subjected to trade liberalization demands, says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, July 3, 1995, lexis] Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to allow their economies to grow before being subjected to trade liberalization demands, says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. He dismisses an argument put forward by some industrialized countries that fair trade can be realized when trading conditions are the same for all countries. It is not fair when small developing countries are obliged to compete with Japan and the U.S. under the same conditions, the outspoken champion of Asian interests insists. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum originated as a loose discussion platform. But it has become an institution, and agendas are prepared ahead of meetings. However, Mahathir is dissatisfied with its management, because, he says, group policy is decided by a handful of leading nations. He is also resentful of some countries' opposition to the Malaysian-proposed East-Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC), aimed at promoting economic cooperation in the region. The EAEC, which the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) defines as a part of APEC, doesn't stand in opposition to APEC, he says. "The EAEC and APEC can coexist," he says. The EAEC is just a conference, not a trade bloc like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAF-TA), he adds. Mahathir has gone to some lengths to bring Japan on board. Without the world's No. 2 economy, the EAEC will not be taken seriously by the international community, he says. Some have suggested also sending out invitations to Australia and New Zealand. But in order to join the EAEC, those two nations should not only just call themselves Asian countries, he says. They should also share values and culture with their Asian partners, he stresses, because the caucus is a group of Asian countries. Mahathir strongly opposes the use of weapons to settle international disputes. The prime minister hails the ASEAN Regional Forum as a means for civilized nations of achieving negotiated settlement of disputes. Many members of the forum, including Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand, have problems with their neighbors, but they are trying to solve them through continued dialogue, he adds. Three scenarios Mahathir sees Asia developing in three possible ways in future. In his worst-

case scenario, Asian countries would go to war against each other, possibly over disputes such as their conflicting claims on the Spratly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S., leading to full-scale, even nuclear, war.

188

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 189 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Japanese Relations (Middle Eastern Conflict)


US-Japan alliance is key to preventing war in the Middle East Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance, spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2, http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]

Recent events have focused international attention on relations between the United States and Islamic countries, which, with a few exceptions, are strained. Some have suggested that Japan can become a potential intermediary between the United States and the Muslim world because of Japans close relations with Arab governments, Muslim oil-producing states, and the nations of Central Asia; its relatively more flexible stance on human rights policies; and the absence of a strong tie to Israel. Japan can contribute to a U.S.-Islamic dialogue by asserting its view that vast disparities in income and an inconsistent U.S. commitment to human rights are impediments to the U.S. goal of stemming the rise of terrorism in the Islamic world. In
recent years, the United States has drifted away from the consensus prevalent in most of the industrialized world that extreme poverty is a primary driver of terrorism and political violence. The United States also needs to explain its reluctance to confront the regimes of its friends in the Middle East with the same human rights standards as those applied to Myanmar, China, or Indonesia.

189

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 190 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Japanese Relations (China/Taiwan Conflict)


US-Japan alliance is key to preventing China Taiwan war Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance, spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2, http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]

Regardless of whether Chinas development takes the bright path or the fearful one, however, reason for concern exists on one issue: the resolution of the status of Taiwan. Chinese citizens from all walks of life have an attachment to the reunification of Taiwan and the mainland that transcends reason. The U.S.-Japan alliance represents a significant hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem. Both Japan and the United States have clearly stated that they oppose reunification by force. When China conducted provocative
missile tests in the waters around Taiwan in 1996, the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups into nearby waters as a sign of its disapproval of Chinas belligerent act. Japan seconded the U.S. action, raising in Chinese minds the possibility that Japan might offer logistical and other support to its ally in the event of hostilities . Even though intervention is only a

possibility, a strong and close tie between Japanese and U.S. security interests guarantees that the Chinese leadership cannot afford to miscalculate the consequences of an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. The alliance backs up Japans basic stance that the two sides need to come to a negotiated solution.

190

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 191 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Japanese Relations (Korea)


US-Japan alliance is key to preventing North Korean War Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance, spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2, http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]

the the people, the North Korean military maintains an arsenal of thousands of rocket launchers and pieces of artillerysome of which are possibly loaded with chemical and biological warheadsawaiting the signal to wipe Seoul off the map. The DPRKs immense stock of weapons includes large numbers of Nodong missiles capable
Despite its years of famine; its evaporating industrial and energy infrastructure; and its choking, inhumane society, DPRK government still refuses to retreat to its place on the ash heap of history. Despite the poverty of of striking Japans western coastal regions and probably longer-range missiles capable of hitting every major Japanese city. The United States has two combat aircraft wings in the ROK, in Osan and Kunsan. In addition, some 30,000 U.S. Army troops are stationed near Seoul . Most military experts admit that the army troops serve a largely symbolic

function; if an actual war were to erupt, a massive North Korean artillery bombardment could pin down both the U.S. Eighth Army and the ROK armed forces at the incipient stage. The firepower the USFJ can bring to bear upon the Korean Peninsula within a matter of hours makes the U.S.-Japan alliance the Damoclean sword hanging over the DPRK. The DPRK leaders are masters of deception and manipulation, but they know that launching a military strike against the ROK will expose them to a strong and final counterstrike from U.S. forces in Japan.

191

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 192 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Japanese Relations (Sino-Russian Ties)


A. Strengthening the US-Japan alliance is critical to loosen Sino-Russian ties and checking agression Brookes, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 5
(Peter Brooks, Senior Fellow at the heritage foundation, 8/15/05 An Alarming Alliance: Sino Russian ties tightening The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed081505a.cfm The first- ever joint Chinese-Russian military exercises kick off Thursday in Northeast Asia. The exercises are small in scale but huge in implication. They indicate a further warming of the "strategic partnership" that Moscow and Beijing struck back in 1996. More importantly, they signal the first real post-Cold War steps, beyond inflammatory rhetoric, by Russia and China to balance and, ultimately, diminish U.S. power across Asia. If America doesn't

take strategic steps to counter these efforts, it will lose influence to Russia and China in an increasingly important part of the world. Unimaginable just a few years ago, the weeklong military exercises dubbed "Peace
Mission 2005" will involve 10,000 troops on China and Russia's eastern coasts and in adjacent seas. This unmistakable example of Sino-Russian military muscle-flexing will also include Russia's advanced SU-27 fighters, strategic TU-95 and TU-22 bombers, submarines, amphibious and anti-submarine ships. The exercise's putative purpose is to "strengthen the capability of the two armed forces in jointly striking international terrorism, extremism and separatism," says China's Defense Ministry. But the Chinese defense minister was more frank in comments earlier this year. Gen. Cao Gangchuan said: "The exercise will exert both immediate and far-reaching impacts." This raised lots of eyebrows especially in the United States, Taiwan and Japan. For instance, although Russia nixed the idea, the Chinese demanded the exercises be held

500 miles to the south a move plainly aimed at intimidating Taiwan. Beijing clearly wanted to send a warning to Washington (and, perhaps, Tokyo) about its support for Taipei, and hint at the possibility that if there were a Taiwan Strait dust-up, Russia might stand with China. The exercise also gives Russia an opportunity
to strut its military wares before its best customers Chinese generals. Moscow is Beijing's largest arms supplier, to the tune of more than $2 billion a year for purchases that include subs, ships, missiles and fighters. Rumors abound that Moscow may finally be ready to sell strategic, cruise-missile-capable bombers such as the long-range TU-95 and supersonic TU-22 to Beijing strengthening China's military hand against America and U.S. friends and allies in Asia. Russia and China are

working together to oppose American influence all around their periphery. Both are upset by U.S. support for freedom in the region notably in the recent Orange (Ukraine), Rose (Georgia) and Tulip (Kyrgyzstan) revolutions
all of which fell in what Moscow or Beijing deems its sphere of influence. In fact, at a recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (i.e., Russia, China and the four 'Stans'), Moscow and Beijing conspired to get Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to close U.S. airbases. As a result, Uzbekistan gave America 180 days to get out, despite the base's continued use in Afghanistan operations. (Quick diplomacy by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld saved the Kyrgyz base, but it remains on the ropes.) Moreover, it shouldn't be overlooked that the "Shanghai Six" have invited Iran, India and Pakistan to join the group as observers, expanding China and Russia's influence into South Asia and parts of the Middle East. What to do? First, the Pentagon must make sure the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review balances U.S. forces to address both the unconventional terrorist threat and the big-power challenge represented by a Russia-China strategic partnership. Second, the

United States must continue to strengthen its relationship with its ally Japan to ensure a balance of power in Northeast Asia and also encourage Tokyo to improve relations with Moscow in an effort to loosen Sino-Russian ties. Third, Washington must persevere in advancing its new relationship with (New) Delhi in order to
balance Beijing's growing power in Asia and take advantage of India's longstanding, positive relationship with Russia. And be ready to deal. Russia has historically been wary of China. America must not ignore the possibilities of developing a longterm, favorable relationship with Russia despite the challenges posed by Russian President Vladimir Putin's heavy-handed rule. These unprecedented military exercises don't make a formal Beijing-Moscow alliance inevitable. But they

represent a new, more intimate phase in the Sino-Russian relationship. And China's growing political/economic clout mated with Russia's military would make for a potentially potent anti-American bloc. For the moment, Beijing and Moscow are committed to building a political order in Asia that doesn't include America atop the power pyramid. With issues from Islamic terrorism to North Korean nukes to a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, the stakes in Asia are huge. Washington and its friends must not waste any time in addressing the burgeoning Sino-Russian entente.

192

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 193 /414

Nelson <tournament>

North Korea
North Korean War goes nuclear CNN 2003
[CNN, N K. Warns of nuclear conflict, 2/26/2003 , http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/25/nkorea.missile/index.html] Pyongyang cites upcoming U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises scheduled to begin on March 4, as "reckless war moves" designed to "unleash a total war on the Korean peninsula with a pre-emptive nuclear strike". "The situation of the

Korean Peninsula is reaching the brink of a nuclear war," the statement, issued by the official Korean Central News Agency, says. The North also called on South Koreans to "wage a nationwide anti-U.S. and anti-war
struggle to frustrate the U.S. moves for a nuclear war." The United States denies it has any plans to attack North Korea, consistently saying it is seeking a diplomatic and political solution to the increasing tensions sparked by Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear program. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday wrapped up a four-day tour of Japan, China and South Korea during which he lobbied Asian leaders to support a multi-lateral approach to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Powell repeated the U.S. position that it had no intention of invading North Korea and had no plans to impose fresh economic sanctions on the impoverished communist nation. While Japan and South Korea indicated they might support a regional initiative to sway Pyongyang, China -- a key ally and aid donor to the North -appeared to remain unconvinced. China says the United States must deal with Pyongyang equally on a one-to-one basis. "We believe diplomatic, political pressure still has a role to play. And there are countries who have considerable influence with the North Koreans who will continue to apply pressure," Powell said Tuesday. "We also made it clear that if they begin reprocessing (nuclear material), it changes the entire political landscape. And we're making sure that is communicated to them in a number of channels." Powell would not be drawn on how would Washington react if Pyongyang did begin reprocessing but did say that the U.S. had "no intention of invading" North Korea. Tensions on the peninsula have been ratcheting up over the past few weeks with North Korea becoming increasingly provocative. On Monday, the North fired a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan, or East Sea, an act many believe was designed to upstage the inauguration of new South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun. (Roh sworn in) Last week, a North Korean MiG-19 fighter briefly flew into South Korean air space. (MiG incursion) The North has also threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the fighting of the Korean War.

193

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 194 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Pakistan Collapse
Pakistan Collapse leads to nuclear war and nuclear terrorism Brooks, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 2007
Peter Brookes, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 7/2/2007 (Peter, BARACK'S BLUNDER INVADE A NUCLEAR POWER? http://www.nypost.com/seven/08022007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/baracks_blunder_opedcolumnists_peter_brookes.htm? page=2)

The fall of Musharraf's government might well lead to a takeover by pro-U.S. elements of the Pakistani military but other possible outcomes are extremely unpleasant, including the ascendance of Islamist factions. The last thing we need is for Islamabad to fall to the extremists. That would exacerbate the problem of those terrorist safe havens that Obama apparently thinks he could invade. And it would also put Pakistan's nuclear arsenal into the wrong hands. That could lead to a number of nightmarish scenarios - a nuclear war with India over Kashmir, say, or the use of nuclear weapons by a terrorist group against any number of targets, including the United States.

194

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 195 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Sino-Russian Conflict
Sino Russian War leads to Extinction Sharavin Head of the Institute for Political and military analysis 2001,
(Alexander Sharavin, head of the institute for political and military analysis, 10/1/2001 The Third Threat http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5470.html)

Russia may face the "wonderful" prospect of combating the Chinese army, which, if full mobilization is called, is comparable in size with Russia's entire population, which also has nuclear weapons (even tactical weapons become strategic if states have common borders) and would be absolutely insensitive to losses (even a loss of a few million of the servicemen would be acceptable for China). Such a war would be more horrible than the World War II. It would require from our state maximal tension, universal mobilization and complete accumulation of the army military hardware, up to the last tank or a plane, in a single direction (we would have to forget such "trifles" like Talebs and Basaev, but this does not guarantee success either). Massive nuclear strikes on basic military forces and cities of China would finally be the only way out, what would exhaust Russia's armament completely. We have not got another set of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based missiles, whereas the general forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. In the long run, even if the aggression would be stopped after the majority of the Chinese are killed, our country would be absolutely unprotected against the "Chechen" and the "Balkan" variants both, and even against the first frost of a possible nuclear winter.

195

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 196 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Sunni/Shiite Conflict
A war between Sunnis and Shiites would spill over resulting in extinction Hutson Correspondent for Renew America 2007
(Warner Todd Huston, Correspondent for Renew America, recently appeared 1/24/2007, Media: Bushs flawed portrayal of the enemy in the State of the Union http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/070124)

Once again, a National U.S. paper "arguably" chooses sides with Europe's interests over that of America. Under Bush's rubric, a country such as Iran which enjoys diplomatic representation and billions of dollars in trade wit major European countries is lumped together with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat," Bush said, referring to the different branches of the Muslim religion. Trade? How is trade an assurance
of the benevolence of any nation? Nations didn't stop trading with Nazi Germany even as Hitler was Blitzkrieging through Europe, for instance. Even the USA was still trading with the Confederacy after the Civil War had already begun. The fact that Europe is still trading with Iran as if everything is hunkeydorie does NOT say one word as to the Iranian regime's status as a bunch of nice guys. Trade is one of the last things that is affected by war. Business is business, after all. Further Bush did not "lump together" al-Qaeda and Iran as if they were indistinguishable, as the Post seems to be claiming. Here is what Bush actually said: In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken. The president said that the Shia extremists in Iran are "second only to al Qaeda" among the enemies we face. He did not, however, say they were one and the same. The Post's simple-minded efforts to make Bush himself look simple minded only makes the Post out to be practicing partisan political demagogy. Bush's saying that Shia and Sunni extremism are only "different faces of the same totalitarian threat" is not to say they are wholly the same, only that they share a similar end game: total domination over the Middle East in the near term and the world in the long term. Using WWII as an example again, it would like saying that the Nazis and the Japanese were

indistinguishable merely because they both wanted to rule the world. No one would make such an absurd claim. Yet both threatened our extinction. Just as both Shia and Sunni extremism today threatens our interests and our way of life. Unfortunately, the Post seems to see no threat from Iran in particular and Shia extremism in general. Perhaps no one let the Washington Post in on the badly kept secret that Iran has been sending weapons, manpower, advisors and thousands of IEDs into Iraq to attack us since the first day Saddam's hold over the country ended. Not to mention the constant threat and rhetoric against us emanating from the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

196

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 197 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Russia-US
Russia-US conflict guarantees nuclear Armageddon nuclear stockpiles Bostrom Professor of philosophy at Yale, 2002
(Nick, Professor of Philosophy at Yale. Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, 2002, www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html)

A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance , is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently.

197

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 198 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Taiwan/China War
China Taiwan War would draw in the US and lead to extinction Straits Times 2000
[The Straits Times, No One Gains in War over Taiwan, 6/25/00, Lexis]

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore . If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear
weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that

China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan
Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory

if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

198

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 199 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Taiwan
Taiwan is the most probable scenario for nuclear war Johnson President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, 2001 (Chalmers Johnson, President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, The Nation, 5/14/2k1 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010514&c=1&s=Johnson) China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. Since any
Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally would be viewed as a challenge to China's sovereignty, forwarddeployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect. The United States uses satellites to observe changes in China's basic military capabilities. But the coastal surveillance flights by our twelve (now eleven) EP-3E Aries II spy planes, like the one that was forced down off Hainan Island, seek information that is useful only in an imminent battle. They are inherently provocative and inappropriate when used to monitor a country with which we are at peace. The United States itself maintains a 200-mile area off its coasts in which it intercepts any aircraft attempting similar reconnaissance.

America's provocative military posture in East Asia makes war with China more likely because it legitimizes military strategies in both Beijing and Taipei as well as in Washington and Tokyo.

199

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 200 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terrorism Nuclear Escalation


Nuclear Terrorism leads to global nuclear war Chesney, JD candidate at Harvard Law, 1997
(Robert, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Journal, November)

The horrible truth is that the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, in light of the potential existence of a black market in fissile material. Nuclear terrorists might issue demands, but then again, they might not. Their target could be anything: a U.S. military base in a foreign land, a crowded U.S. city, or an empty stretch of desert highway. In one fell swoop, nuclear terrorists could decapitate the U.S. government or destroy its financial system. The human suffering resulting from a detonation would be beyond calculation, and in the aftermath, the remains of the nation would demand both revenge and protection. Constitutional liberties and values might never recover. When terrorists strike against societies already separated by fundamental social fault
lines, such as in Northern Ireland or Israel, conventional weapons can exploit those fault lines to achieve significant gains. n1 In societies that lack such pre-existing fundamental divisions, however, conventional weapon attacks do not pose a top priority threat to national security, even though the pain and suffering inflicted can be substantial. The bedrock institutions of the United States will survive despite the destruction of federal offices; the vast majority of people will continue to support the Constitution despite the mass murder of innocent persons. The consequences of terrorists employing weapons of mass destruction, however, would be several orders of magnitude worse than a conventional weapons attack. Although this threat includes chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapon's devastating [*32] potential is in a class by itself. n2 Nuclear terrorism thus poses a unique danger to the United States: through its sheer

power to slay, destroy, and terrorize, a nuclear weapon would give terrorists the otherwise-unavailable ability to bring the United States to its knees. Therefore, preventing terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons should be considered an unparalleled national security priority dominating other policy considerations. Nuclear terrorism will cause global nuclear war, leading to extinction Sid-Ahmed, Egyptian political analyst for the Al-Ahram newspaper, 2004:
(Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Egyptian political analyst for the Al-Ahram newspaper, Al-Ahram online, August 26, 2004,http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)

A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from
certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would

further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

200

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 201 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Terror = Extinction
Terrorist attack risks extinction. Alexander Prof and Director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies 3
(Yonah, Terrorism Myths and Realities, Washington Times, Prof and Director of Inter-University For Terrorism Studies) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that

the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended
to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements (hudna). Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare.

Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism (e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber) with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

201

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 202 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**NUKE WAR IMPACTS**

202

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 203 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Disease


Nuclear war collapses global infrastructure and causes mass disease pandemics Sagan, Former Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University, 1985,
(Carl, The Nuclear Winter, http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html)

In addition, the amount of radioactive fallout is much more than expected. Many previous calculations simply ignored the intermediate time-scale fallout. That is, calculations were made for the prompt fallout -- the plumes of radioactive debris blown downwind from each target-and for the long-term fallout, the fine radioactive particles lofted into the stratosphere that would descend about a year later, after most of the radioactivity had decayed. However, the radioactivity carried into the upper atmosphere (but not as high as the stratosphere) seems to have been largely forgotten. We found for the baseline case that roughly 30 percent of the land at northern midlatitudes could receive a radioactive dose greater than 250 rads, and that about 50 percent of northern midlatitudes could receive a dose greater than 100 rads. A 100-rad dose is the equivalent of about 1000 medical X-rays. A 400-rad dose will, more likely than not, kill you. The cold, the dark and the intense radioactivity, together lasting for months, represent a severe assault on our civilization and our species. Civil and sanitary services would be wiped out. Medical facilities, drugs, the most rudimentary means for relieving the vast human suffering, would be unavailable. Any but the most elaborate shelters would be useless, quite apart from the question of what good it might be to emerge a few months later. Synthetics burned in the destruction of the cities would produce a wide variety of toxic gases, including carbon monoxide, cyanides, dioxins and furans. After the dust and soot settled out, the solar ultraviolet flux would be much larger than its present value.

Immunity to disease would decline. Epidemics and pandemics would be rampant, especially after the billion or so unburied bodies began to thaw. Moreover, the combined influence of these severe and simultaneous stresses on life are likely to produce even more adverse consequences -- biologists call them
synergisms -- that we are not yet wise enough to foresee.

203

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 204 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Extinction


Nuke war is the highest risk for human extinction Kateb 1992
(George, The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture, Thinking About Human Extinction (1): Nuclear Weapons and Individual Rights, p. 111112)

Schell's work attempts to force on us an acknowledgment that sounds far-fetched and even ludicrous, an acknowledgment hat the possibility of extinction is carried by any use of nuclear weapons, no matter how limited or how seemingly rational or seemingly morally justified. He himself acknowledges that there is a difference between possibility and certainty. But in a matter that is more than a matter, more than one practical matter in a vast series of practical matters, in the "matter" of extinction, we are obliged to treat a possibility-a genuine possibility-as a certainty. Humanity is not to take any step that contains even the slightest risk of extinction . The doctrine of no-use is based on the possibility of extinction. Schell's perspective transforms the subject. He takes us away from the arid stretches of strategy and asks us to feel continuously, if we can, and feel keenly if only for an instant now and then, how utterly distinct the nuclear world is. Nuclear discourse must vividly register that distinctiveness. It is of no moral account that extinction may be only a slight possibility. No one can say how great the possibility is, but no one has yet credibly denied that by

some sequence or other a particular use of nuclear weapons may lead to human and natural extinction. If it is not impossible it must be treated as certain: the loss signified by extinction nullifies all calculations of probability as it nullifies all calculations of costs and benefits. Abstractly put, the connections between any use of nuclear weapons and human and natural extinction are several. Most obviously, a sizable exchange of strategic nuclear weapons can, by a chain of events in nature, lead to the earth's uninhabitability, to "nuclear winter," or
to Schell's "republic of insects and grass." But the consideration of extinction cannot rest with the possibility of a sizable exchange of strategic weapons. It cannot rest with the imperative that a sizable exchange must not take place. A so-called

tactical or "theater" use, or a so-called limited use, is also prohibited absolutely, because of the possibility of immediate escalation into a sizable exchange or because, even if there were not an immediate escalation, the possibility of extinction would reside in the precedent for future use set by any use whatever in a world in which more than one power possesses nuclear weapons. Add other consequences: the contagious effect on nonnuclear powers who may feel compelled by a mixture of fear and vanity to try to acquire their own weapons, thus increasing the possibility of use by increasing the number of nuclear powers; and the unleashed emotions of
indignation, retribution, and revenge which, if not acted on immediately in the form of escalation, can be counted on to seek expression later. Other than full strategic uses are not confined, no matter how small the explosive power: each would be a cancerous transformation of the world. All nuclear roads lead to the possibility of extinction. It is true by definition, but let us make it explicit: the doctrine of no-use excludes any first or retaliatory or later use, whether sizable or not. No-use is the imperative derived from the possibility of extinction. By containing the possibility of extinction, any use

is tantamount to a declaration of war against humanity. It is not merely a war crime or a single crime against humanity. Such a war is waged by the user of nuclear weapons against every human individual as individual (present and future), not as citizen of this or that country. It is not only a war against the country that is the
target. To respond with nuclear weapons, where possible, only increases the chances of extinction and can never, therefore, be allowed. The use of nuclear weapons establishes the right of any person or group, acting officially or not, violently or not, to try to punish those responsible for the use. The aim of the punishment is to deter later uses and thus to try to reduce the possibility of extinction, if, by chance, the particular use in question did not directly lead to extinction. The form of the punishment cannot be specified. Of course the chaos ensuing from a sizable exchange could make punishment irrelevant. The important point, however, is to see that those who use nuclear weapons are qualitatively worse than criminals, and at the least forfeit their offices. John Locke, a principal individualist political theorist, says that in a state of nature every individual retains the right to punish transgressors or assist in the effort to punish them, whether or not one is a direct victim. Transgressors convert an otherwise tolerable condition into a state of nature which is a state of war in which all are threatened. Analogously, the use of nuclear weapons, by containing in an immediate or delayed manner the possibility of extinction, is in Locke's phrase "a trespass against the whole species" and places the users in a state of war with all people. And people, the accumulation of individuals, must be understood as of course

204

Dowling Debate 2008-2009


the appropriate preserving steps.

File Name 205 /414

Nelson <tournament>

always indefeasibly retaining the right of selfpreservation, and hence as morally allowed, perhaps enjoined, to take

205

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 206 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Pollution


Nuclear arms race would cause pollution and destroy the environment Sierra Club, 2003
(No publish date, references 2003 in the past tense, http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment.html) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in 2003, which occurred after U.S. led forces entered the country, has offered another blow to social and environmental security in the region. The most troubling of cases concerns the Tuwaitha nuclear plant, located 48 kilometres south of Baghdad, where an estimated two hundred blue plastic barrels containing uranium oxide were stolen. After dumping the radioactive contents and rinsing out the barrels in the rivers, poverty-stricken residents used the containers for storing basic amenities like water, cooking oil and tomatoes. Extra barrels were sold to other villages or used to transport milk to distanced regions, thus making the critical problem increasingly widespread.[22] The mishandling of the radioactive material has profound effects on the environment and on the people and animals that depend on it. Toxic substances seep into the ground (rendering the soil unsafe), disperse through the air (spreading wide-scale pollution), and taint water and food supplies. Iraqs national nuclear inspector has forecasted that over a thousand people could die of leukemia.[23] In addition to stolen radiological materials, computers and important documents have also gone missing.[24] Given the right mix of technology and materials, radiological weapons such as dirty bombs and possibly even weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could be produced. It is worth noting that uranium oxide can be refined with the proper machinery and expertise in order to produce enriched uranium, a key ingredient in a nuclear bomb.[25] There is concern that such materials could end up in the hands of the very terrorist groups the US and UK military are trying to disable. [26] Unfortunately the coalition forces inability to effectively secure nuclear sites in Iraq may well have exacerbated the situation the war was supposed to avoid: the unlawful proliferation and use of WMD weapons.

206

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 207 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Phytoplankton Scenario


A.) Nuclear war produces aerosol spikes killing phytoplankton Crutzen and Birks 83
(Paul, Director of the Air Chemistry Division of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, and John, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, in The Aftermath: The Human and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear War, ed. Peterson, p.84)

If the production of aerosol by fires is large enough to cause reductions in the penetration of sunlight to ground level by a factor of a hundred, which would be quite possible in the event of an all-out nuclear war, most of the phytoplankton and herbivorous zooplankton in more than half of the Northern Hemisphere oceans would die (36). This effect is due to the fast consumption rate of phytoplankton by zooplankton in the oceans. The effects of a darkening of such a magnitude have been discussed recently in connection with the probable occurrence of such an event as a result of the impact of a large extraterrestrial body with the earth (37). This event is believed by many to have caused the widespread and massive extinctions which took place at the Cretacious-Tertiary boundary about
65 million years ago.

B.) Phytoplankton depletion collapses the global carbon cycle causing extinction Bryant 03
(Donald, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Penn State, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, The beauty in small things revealed, Volume 100, Number 17, August 19, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/17/9647)

Oxygenic photosynthesis accounts for nearly all the primary biochemical production of organic matter on Earth. The byproduct of this process, oxygen, facilitated the evolution of complex eukaryotes and supports their/our continuing existence. Because macroscopic plants are responsible for most terrestrial photosynthesis, it is relatively easy
to appreciate the importance of photosynthesis on land when one views the lush green diversity of grasslands or forests. However, Earth is the "blue planet," and oceans cover nearly 75% of its surface. All life on Earth equally

depends on the photosynthesis that occurs in Earth's oceans. A rich diversity of marine phytoplankton, found in the upper 100 m of oceans, accounts only for 1% of the total photosynthetic biomass, but this virtually invisible forest accounts for nearly 50% of the net primary productivity of the biosphere (1). Moreover, the importance of these organisms in the biological pump, which traps CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in the deep sea, is increasingly recognized as a major component of the global geochemical carbon cycle (2). It seems obvious that it is as important to understand marine photosynthesis as terrestrial photosynthesis, but the contribution of marine photosynthesis to the global carbon cycle was grossly underestimated until recently. Satellite-based
remote sensing (e.g., NASA sea-wide field sensor) has allowed more reliable determinations of oceanic photosynthetic productivity to be made (refs. 1 and 2; see Fig. 1).

207

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 208 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Ozone Scenario


A). Nuclear war causes massive ozone depletion Sagan and Turco 90
(Carl, David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell, and Richard, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at UCLA, A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race, p. 57)

But in a nuclear war, the atmosphere would be so perturbed that our normal way of thinking about the ozone layer needs to be modified. To help refocus our understanding, several research groups have constructed models that describe the ozone layer following nuclear war. The principal work has been carried out by research teams at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (ref. 4.9). Both find that there is an additional mechanism by which nuclear war threatens the ozone layer. With massive quantities of smoke injected into the lower atmosphere by the fires of nuclear war, nuclear winter would grip not only the Earth's surface, but the high ozone layer as well. The severely disturbed wind currents caused by solar heating of smoke would, in a matter of weeks, sweep most of the ozone layer from the northern midlatitudes deep into the Southern Hemisphere. The reduction in the ozone layer content in the North could reach a devastating 50% or more during this phase. As time progressed, the ozone depletion would be made still worse by several effects: injection of large quantities of nitrogen oxides and chlorine-bearing molecules along with the smoke clouds; heating of the ozone layer caused by intermingling of hot smoky air (as air is heated, the amount of ozone declines); and decomposition of ozone directly on smoke particles (carbon particles are sometimes used down here near the ground to cleanse air of ozone).

B). Ozone depletion causes extinction Greenpeace 95


(Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer, http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html)

When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

208

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 209 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuke War Oceans


Nuclear war would result in the death of the entire ocean ecosystem Perkins, professor of effects of nuclear war, 01
(Simon Perkins, professor in the effects of nuclear war, May 22, 2001, Climate Conditions http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~samp/nuclearage/lonterm.html ) Assuming that you have been lucky enough to survive the initial hazards of a nuclear explosion what would happen next? Above ground zero the huge clouds of dust and debris will rise to 10 miles into the atmosphere. When merged together these clouds will effectively block out all sunlight plunging the sky into darkness for at least several weeks after. During this period the temperature will fall dramatically. Along the continent this could be as much as a 40c drop. For counties along the Northern Hemisphere this is enough produce an Arctic winter. Fortunately for us small islands like the UK will have a less dramatic temperature decrease due tot he warming effect of the oceans. Looking at some past examples of volcanic eruptions can give us some idea of biological effects; the severe cold would destroy most crops, rivers would freeze over and many animals would die of cold and hunger. The effect on tropical plants and creatures would be even more profound and biologists have concluded that many species will become extinct. Surely most of the plants and animals in the deep oceans would have a better chance? The average drop in the world's oceans would be only about 1 C3 and as most species are acclimatised to the cold conditions anyway. This would be the case in the Artic regions were species are used to long dark periods but for those in tropical waters most would die from lack of nutrients and light. The lack of light would disrupt the food chain of microscopic creatures dependent of photoplankton (algae). Within a few months all the fish would die off , the population decline for many species would be

irreversible.

209

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 210 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Biodiversity Scenario (1/2)


A). Nuclear winter following exchange kills all plant and animal life SGR 03
(Scientists for Global Responsibility, Newsletter, Does anybody remember the Nuclear Winter? July 27, http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/NuclearWinter_NL27.htm)

Obviously, when a nuclear bomb hits a target, it causes a massive amount of devastation, with the heat, blast and radiation killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people instantly and causing huge damage to infrastructure. But in addition to this, a nuclear explosion throws up massive amounts of dust and smoke. For example, a large nuclear bomb bursting at ground level would throw up about a million tonnes of dust. As a consequence of a nuclear war, then, the dust and the smoke produced would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface, so it would quickly become be dark and cold - temperatures would drop by something in the region of 10-20C - many places would feel like they were in an arctic winter. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. The drop in light and temperature would quickly kill crops and other plant and animal life while humans, already suffering from the direct effects of the war, would be vulnerable to malnutrition and disease on a massive scale.

B). We have high probability degree changes devastate entire ecosystems risking extinction Sagan and Turco, 1990
(Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell University, and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race, pg 22)

Life on Earth is exquisitely dependent on the climate (see Appendix A). The average surface temperature of the
Earth averaged, that is, over day and night, over the seasons, over latitude, over land and ocean, over coastline and continental interior, over mountain range and desertis about 13C, 13 Centigrade degrees above the temperature at which fresh water freezes. (The corresponding temperature on the Fahrenheit scale is 55F.) It's harder to change the temperature of the oceans than of the continents, which is why ocean temperatures are much more steadfast over the diurnal and seasonal cycles than are the temperatures in the middle of large continents. Any global temperature change implies much larger local temperature changes, if you don't live near the ocean. A prolonged global temperature drop of a few

degrees C would be a disaster for agriculture; by 10C, whole ecosystems would be imperiled; and by 20C, almost all life on Earth would be at risk. The margin of safety is thin. C) Nuclear war collapses ecosystems and kills all biodiversity Ehrlich et al, 1983
(Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University; Mark A. Harwell, Cornell University; Carl Sagan, Cornell University; Anne H. Ehrlich, Stanford University; Stephen J. Gould, Harvard University; biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 25 and 26 April 1983)., Science, New Series, Vol. 22, No. 4630, Dec. 23, 1983, pg 1293-1300, jstor)

The 2 billion to 3 billion survivors of the immediate effects of the war would be forced to turn to natural ecosystems as organized agriculture failed. Just at the time when these natural ecosystems would be asked to support a human population well beyond their carrying capacities, the normal functioning of the ecosystems themselves would be severely curtailed by the effects of nuclear war. Subjecting these ecosystems to low temperature, fire, radiation, storm, and other physical stresses (many occurring simultaneously) would result in their increased vulnerability to disease and pest outbreaks, which might be prolonged. Primary productivity would be dramatically reduced at the prevailing low light levels; and, because of UV-B, smog, insects, radiation, and other damage to plants, it is unlikely that it would recover quickly to normal levels, even after light and temperature values had recovered. At the same time that their plant foods were being limited severely, most, if not all, of the vertebrates not killed outright by blast and ionizing radiation would either freeze or face a dark world where they would starve or die of thirst because surface waters would be frozen and thus unavailable. Many of the survivors would be widely scattered and often sick, leading to the slightly delayed extinction of many additional species.

210

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 211 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Natural ecosystems provide civilization with a variety of crucial services in addition to food and shelter. These include regulation of atmospheric composition, moderation of climate and weather, regulation of the

Nuclear War Biodiversity Scenario (2/2)


hydrologic cycle, generation and preservation of soils, degradation of wastes, and recycling of nutrients. From the human perspective, among the most important roles of ecosystems are their direct role in providing food and their maintenance of a vast library of species from which Homo sapiens has already drawn the basis of civilization (27). Accelerated loss of these genetic resources through extinction would be one of the most serious potential consequences of nuclear war. Wildfires would be an important effect in north temperate ecosystems, their scale and distribution depending on such factors as the nuclear war scenario and the season. Another major uncertainty is the extent of fire storms, which might heat the lower levels of the soil enough to damage or destroy seed banks, especially in vegetation types not adapted to periodic fires. Multiple airbursts over seasonally dry areas such as California in the late summer or early fall could burn off much of the state's forest and brush areas, leading to catastrophic flooding and erosion during the next rainy season. Silting, toxic runoff, and rainout of radio- nuclides could kill much of the fauna of fresh and coastal waters, and concentrated radioactivity levels in surviving filter-feeding shellfish populations could make them dangerous to consume for long periods of time. Other major consequences for terrestrial ecosystems resulting from nuclear war would include: (i) slower detoxification of air and water as a secondary result of damage to plants that now are important metabolic sinks for toxins; (ii) reduced evapotranspiration by plants contributing to a lower rate of entry of water into the atmosphere, especially over continental regions, and therefore a more sluggish hydrologic cycle; and (iii) great disturbance of the soil surface, leading to accelerated erosion and, probably, major dust storms (28). Revegetation might superficially resemble that which follows local fires. Stresses from radiation, smog, erosion, fugitive dust, and toxic rains, however, would be superimposed on those of cold and darkness, thus delaying and modifying postwar succession in ways that would retard the restoration of ecosystem services (29). It is likely that most ecosystem changes would be short term. Some structural and functional changes, however, could be longer term, and perhaps irreversible, as ecosystems undergo qualitative changes to alternative stable states (30). Soil losses from erosion would be serious in areas experiencing widespread fires, plant death, and extremes of climate. Much would depend on the wind and precipitation patterns that would develop during the first postwar year (4, 5). The diversity of many natural communities would almost certainly be substantially reduced, and numerous species of plants, animals, and microorganisms would become extinct.

D). Biodiversity collapse causes extinction Diner Judge Advocate Generals Corps-1994
[Major David N., United States Army Military Law Review Winter, p. lexis] By causing widespread extinctions,

humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

211

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 212 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**NUKE WAR PROBABILITY**

212

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 Nuclear war precedes all ethics Nye, Harvard Professor, 86

File Name 213 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Evaluated First

Joseph Nye, prof. of IR at Harvard University, 1986 Nuclear Ethics, p. 24 This leads us to the last and most difficult problem with nuclear weapons: that they risk nuclear holocaust. This holocaust is a case of extreme (excessive?) violence, since it may very well entail the end of all human civilization as well as the destruction of numerous other forms of life (probably everything except cockroaches). It is difficult to see how such a war can be viewed as following St. Augustine's just war standard of creating peace. Even outside the precepts of just war, it is hard to see the utilitarian aspects of such a war. It is extremely hard to defend as a step towards ultimate good, unless you believe that the world needs to be completely destroyed and started anew. Since nuclear holocaust is a combination of massive destruction and residual effects, possibly including the remaking of all life on the planet through genetic mutations and nuclear winter, it is essentially just an extension, albeit extreme, of the combination of excessive violence and residual effects. Since our earlier analysis of these two areas failed to provide an ethical framework for either of them even in isolation, we shall not even begin to try to defend their combination, nuclear holocaust, as ethically acceptable.

Nuclear war is the end of all ethics Nye, Harvard Professor, 86 Joseph Nye, prof. of IR at Harvard University, 1986 Nuclear Ethics, p. 24
The first of these ethical points is rather simple: if the intent of the overall war is ethically unsound, then the use of any weapons in such a cause is wrong, be they clubs or nuclear missiles. This fact does not let us differentiate ethically between nuclear and non-nuclear arms, but merely returns us to a basis for our original assumption that war can be just. This point does bear on the ethicality of all- out nuclear war, however, since although the announced intent of the war may be to save the earth from the yoke of Communism or Imperialism, the actual end of the war would probably be a silent, smoking planet. Each of us must draw our own conclusions as to the ethicality of such an action, based on our own cultural, religious, political, and ethical backgrounds. But it is an old ethical axiom that no right action aims at greater evil in the results, and my personal feelings on all out war is that there is no provocation that can ethically support such devastation.9 In the eloquent words of John Bennett, "How can a nation live with its conscience and . . . kill twenty million children in another nation . . .?"10

213

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 214 /414

Nelson <tournament>

214

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 215 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Schell
Extinction from nuclear war dwarfs all other impact calculus you must treat the RISK of extinction as morally equivalent to its certainty Schell, 82
Jonathan Fate of the Earth, pp. 93-96 1982 To say that human extinction is a certainty would, of course, be a misrepresentation just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. To begin with, we know that a holocaust may not occur at all. If one does occur, the adversaries may not use all their weapons. If they do use all their weapons, the global effects in the ozone and elsewhere, may be moderate. And if the effects are not moderate but extreme, the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down catastrophically. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a nuclear holocaust, or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely, and they tend to calm our fear and to reduce our sense of urgency. Yet at the same time we are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust, that the adversaries may use all their weapons, that the global effects, including effects of which we as yet unaware, may be severe, that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown, and that our species may be extinguished. We are left with uncertainty, and are forced to make our decisions in a state of uncertainty. If we wish to act to save our species, we have to muster our resolve in spite of our awareness that the life of the species may not now in fact be jeopardized. On the other hand, if we wish to ignore the peril, we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known, thoughtful people everywhere in the world realized that if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face the possibility of extinction. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. The discovery of the energy in mass of "the basic power of the universe" and of a means by which man could release that energy altered the relationship between man and the source of his life, the earth. In the shadow of this power, the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. In that sense, the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated, and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. At just what point the species crossed, or will have crossed, the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand, ready to be used at any second, is not precisely knowable. But it is clear that at present, with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with more being added every day, we have entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. Up to now, every risk has been contained within the framework of life; extinction would shatter the frame. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purpose would be drowned for all time. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as risk that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. To employ a mathematician's analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. In weighing the fate of the earth and, with it, our own fate, we stand before a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. We are in deep ignorance. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder should make us humble, our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat we now post to the world and to ourselves.

215

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 216 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Likely


With all the problems that the status quo presents a nuclear war will defiantly happen but with so many nuclear countries we cannot find out where it will start. Hirsch 05 [Jorge, Ph.D. @ Univ. of Chicago, professor of physics at Cal, member of the American Physical Society, a
society of physicists opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, Dec. 16, 2005, Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263] The nuclear hitmen: Stephen Hadley, Stephen Cambone, Robert Joseph, William Schneider Jr., J.D. Crouch II, Linton Brooks, and John Bolton are nuclear-weapons enthusiasts who advocate aggressive policies and occupy key positions in the top echelons of the Bush administration. A nuclear doctrine that advocates nuclear strikes against non-nuclear

countries that precisely fit the Iran profile: the "Nuclear Posture Review" and the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations." The doctrine of preemptive attack adopted by the Bush administration and already put into practice in Iraq, and the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (NSPD 17), which promises to respond to a WMD threat with nuclear weapons. 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, whose lives are at risk if a military confrontation with Iran erupts, and who thus provide the administration with a strong argument for the use of nuclear weapons to defend them. Americans' heightened state of fear of terrorist attacks and their apparent willingness to support any course of action that could potentially protect them from real or imagined terrorist threats. The allegations of involvement of Iran in terrorist activities
around the world [1], [2], including acts against America [1], [2], and its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. The determination of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that Iran has connections with al-Qaeda. Senate Joint

Resolution 23, "Authorization for Use of Military Force," which allows the president "to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States" without consulting Congress, and the War Powers Resolution [.pdf], which "allows" the president to attack anybody in the "global war on terror." The
Bush administration's willingness to use military power based on unconfirmed intelligence and defectors' fairy tales. The fact that Iran has been declared in noncompliance [.pdf] with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which makes it "legal" for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The course of action followed by the Bush administration with respect to Iran's drive for nuclear technology, which can only lead to a diplomatic impasse. The Israel factor [1], [2] .

216

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 217 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Likely Escalation


Mutually assured destruction insures a quick escalation of a nuclear war hence leading to all out destruction. Nuclear Files 2009, Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Project. (Mutually Assured Destruction, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/coldwar/strategy/strategy-mutual-assured-destruction.htm)

When the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the United States, the Cold War had entered a new phase. The cold war became a conflict more dangerous and unmanageable than anything Americans had faced before. In the old cold war Americans had enjoyed superior nuclear force, an unchallenged economy, strong alliances, and a trusted Imperial President to direct his incredible power against the Soviets. In the new cold war, however, Russian forces achieved nuclear equality. Each side could destroy the other many times. This fact was officially accepted in a military doctrine known as

Mutual Assured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration. MAD reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In short: Whoever shoots first, dies second.

217

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 218 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War Likely Middle East Prolif


The Arms Race in the Middle East is creating a breeding ground for a chance of a nuclear war. Nuclear war is guaranteed if the status quo continues. Cirincione, 8/21/2007
[Joseph, "The Middle East Nuclear Surge," http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/08/nuclear_surge.html]

Iran is still probably five to 10 years away from gaining the ability to make nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs. But its program is already sending nuclear ripples through the Middle East. The race to match Iran's capabilities has begun. Almost a dozen Muslim nations have declared their interest in nuclear energy programs in the past year. This unprecedented demand for nuclear programs is all the more disturbing paired with the unseemly rush of nuclear
salesman eager to supply the coveted technology. While U.S. officials were reaching a new nuclear agreement with India last month, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed a nuclear cooperation deal with Libya and agreed to help the

United Arab Emirates launch its own civilian nuclear program. Indicating that this could be just the beginning of a major sale and supply effort, Sarkozy declared that the West should trust Arab states with nuclear technology. Sarkozy has a point: No one can deny Arab states access to nuclear technology, especially as they are
acquiring it under existing international rules and agreeing to the inspection of International Atomic Energy Agency officials. But is this really about meeting demands for electric power and desalinization plants? There is only one nuclear power reactor in the entire Middle Eastthe one under construction in Busher, Iran. In all of Africa there are only two, both in South Africa. (Israel has a research reactor near Dimona, as do several other states.) Suddenly, after multiple energy

crises over the 60 years of the nuclear age, these countries that control over one-fourth of the world's oil supplies are investing in nuclear power programs. This is not about energy; it is a nuclear hedge against Iran. King Adbdullah of Jordan admitted as much in a January 2007 interview when he said: "The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region. . . . After this summer everybody's going for nuclear programs." He was referring to the war in Lebanon last year between Israel and Hezbollah, perceived in the region as evidence of Iran's growing clout. Other leaders are not as frank in public, but confide similar sentiments in private conversations. Here is where the nuclear surge currently stands. Egypt and Turkey, two of Iran's main rivals, are in the lead. Both have flirted with nuclear weapons programs in the past and both have announced ambitious plans for the construction of new power reactors. Gamal Mubarak, son of the current Egyptian president and his likely successor, says the country will build four power reactors, with the first to be completed within the next 10 years. Turkey will build three new reactors, with the first beginning later this year. Not to
be outdone, Saudi Arabia and the five other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates) at the end of 2006 "commissioned a joint study on the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." Algeria and Russia quickly signed an agreement on nuclear development in January 2007, with France, South Korea, China, and the United States also jockeying for nuclear sales to this oil state. Jordan announced that it, too, wants nuclear power. King Abdullah met Canada's prime minister in July and discussed the purchase of heavy water Candu reactors. Morocco wants assistance from the atomic energy agency to acquire nuclear technology and in

March sponsored an international conference on Physics and Technology of Nuclear Reactors. Finally, the Arab League has provided an overall umbrella for these initiatives when, at the end of its summit meeting in March, it "called on the Arab states to expand the use of peaceful nuclear technology in all domains serving continuous development." Perhaps these states are truly motivated to join the "nuclear renaissance" promoted by the nuclear power industry and a desire to counter global warming. But the main
message to the West from these moderate Arab and Muslim leaders is political, not industrial. "We can't trust you," they are saying, "You are failing to contain Iran and we need to prepare." It is not too late to prove them wrong. Instead of seeing this nuclear surge as a new market, the countries with nuclear technology to sell have a moral and strategic obligation to ensure that their business does not result in the Middle East going from a region with one nuclear weapon state - Israel - to one with three, four, or five nuclear nations. If the existing territorial, ethnic, and political disputes continue unresolved, this is a recipe for nuclear war.

218

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 219 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Great Power War Likely


Great power wars are not obsolete and are still on the table
Professor John J. Mearsheimer (1998-99 Whitney H. Shepardson Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago) CFR February 25, 1999 http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/index.html Now I think the central claim thats on the table is wrong-headed, and let me tell you why. First of all, there are a number of good reasons why great powers in the system will think seriously about going to war in the future, and Ill give you three of them and try and illustrate some cases. First, states oftentimes compete for economic resources. Is it hard to imagine a situation where a reconstituted Russia gets into a war with the United States and the Persian Gulf over Gulf oil? I dont think thats implausible. Is it hard to imagine Japan and China getting into a war in the South China Sea over economic resources? I dont find that hard to imagine. A second reason that states go to war which, of course, is dear to the heart of realists like me, and thats to enhance their security. Take the United States out of Europe, put the Germans on their own; you got the Germans on one side and the Russians on the other, and in between a huge buffer zone called eastern or central Europe. Call it what you want. Is it impossible to imagine the Russians and the Germans getting into a fight over control of that vacuum? Highly likely, no, but feasible, for sure. Is it hard to imagine Japan and China getting into a war over the South China Sea, not for resource reasons but because Japanese sea-lines of communication run through there and a huge Chinese navy may threaten it? I dont think its impossible to imagine that. What about nationalism, a third reason? China, fighting in the United States over Taiwan? You think thats impossible? I dont think thats impossible. Thats a scenario that makes me very nervous. I can figure out all sorts of ways, none of which are highly likely, that the Chinese and the Americans end up shooting at each other. It doesnt necessarily have to be World War III, but it is great-power war. Chinese and Russians fighting each other over Siberia? As many of you know, there are huge numbers of Chinese going into Siberia. You start mixing ethnic populations in most areas of the world outside the United States and its usually a prescription for big trouble. Again, not highly likely, but possible. I could go on and on, positing a lot of scenarios where great powers have good reasons to go to war against other great powers.

Mandlebaum flows neg he concedes that great power war is still likely with Russia and China Michael Mandelbaum, American foreign policy professor at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 1999 Is Major War Obsolete?, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/
Now having made the case for the obsolescence of modern war, I must note that there are two major question marks hanging over it: Russia and China. These are great powers capable of initiating and waging major wars, and in these two countries, the forces of warlessness that I have identified are far less powerful and pervasive than they are in the industrial West and in Japan. These are countries, in political terms, in transition, and the political forms and political culture they eventually will have is unclear. Moreover, each harbors within its politics a potential cause of war that goes with the grain of the post-Cold War period-with it, not against it-a cause of war that enjoys a certain legitimacy even now; namely, irredentism. War to reclaim lost or stolen territory has not been rendered obsolete in the way that the more traditional causes have. China believes that Taiwan properly belongs to it. Russia could come to believe this about Ukraine, which means that the Taiwan Strait and the Russian-Ukrainian border are the most dangerous spots on the planet, the places where World War III could begin.

219

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 220 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuke War Not Likely


Nuclear war wont escalate; the US could disarm any nuclear opponent before they could retaliate Liber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania 2006
(Keir Liber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, Spring 2006, International Security, The End of Mad The Nuclear dimension of US Primacy http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7)

For nearly half a century, the worlds most powerful nuclear-armed countries have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the United States and the Soviet
Union possessed such large, welldispersed nuclear arsenals that neither state could entirely destroy the others nuclear forces in a rst strike. Whether the scenario was a preemptive strike during a crisis, or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise attack, the victim would always be able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor. Nuclear war was therefore tantamount to mutual suicide. Many scholars believe that the nuclear stalemate helped prevent conict between the superpowers during the Cold War, and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace today.1 The age of MAD, however, is waning. Today the

United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy vis--vis its plausible great power adversaries. For the frst time in decades, it could conceivably disarm the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a nuclear first strike. A preemptive strike on an alerted Russian arsenal would still likely fail, but a surprise attack at peacetime alert levels would have a reasonable chance of success. Furthermore, the Chinese nuclear force is so vulnerable that it could be destroyed even if it were alerted during a crisis.

220

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 221 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuke War Not Likely US Russia


A US first strike would cripple Russia, retaliation would be impossible Liber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania 2006
(Keir Liber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, Spring 2006, International Security, The End of Mad The Nuclear dimension of US Primacy http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.7)

A critical issue for the outcome of a U.S. attack is the ability of Russia to launch on warning (i.e., quickly launch a retaliatory strike before its forces are destroyed ). It is unlikely that Russia could do this. Russian commanders would need 713 minutes to carry out the technical steps involved in identifying a U.S. attack and launching their retaliatory forces. They would have to (1) confirm the sensor indications that an attack was
under way; (2) convey the news to political leaders; (3) communicate launch authorization and launch codes to the nuclear forces; (4) execute launch sequences; and (5) allow the missiles to fly a safe distance from the silos. 38 This timeline does not include the time required by Russian leaders to absorb the news that a nuclear attack is The End of MAD? 21 under way and decide to authorize retaliation. Given that both Russian and U.S. early warning systems have had false

alarms in the past, even a minimally prudent leader would need to think hard and ask tough questions before authorizing a catastrophic nuclear response.39 Because the technical steps require 713 minutes, it is hard to imagine that Russia could detect an attack, decide to retaliate, and launch missiles in less than 10 15 minutes. The Russian early warning system would probably not give Russias leaders the time they need to retaliate; in fact it is questionable whether it would give them any warning at all. Stealthy B-2 bombers could likely penetrate Russian air defenses without detection. Furthermore, low-flying B-52 bombers could fire stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles from outside Russian airspace; these missilessmall, radar-absorbing, and flying at very low altitude would likely provide no warning before detonation. Finally, Russias vulnerability is compounded by the poor state of its early warning system. Russian satellites cannot reliably detect the launch of SLBMs; Russia relies on groundbased radar to detect those warheads.40 But there is a large east-facing hole in Russias radar network; Russian leaders might have no warning of an SLBM attack from the Pacific.41 Even if Russia plugged the east-facing hole in its radar network, its leaders would still have less than 10 minutes warning of a U.S. submarine attack from the Atlantic, and perhaps no time if the U.S. attack began with hundreds of stealthy cruise missiles and stealth bombers.

221

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 222 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Major war is obsolete nuclear weapons and rising cost check aggression Michael Mandelbaum, American foreign policy professor at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 1999 Is Major War Obsolete?, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/ My argument says, tacitly, that while this point of view, which was widely believed 100 years ago, was not true then, there are reasons to think that it is true now. What is that argument? It is that major war is obsolete. By major war, I mean war waged by the most powerful members of the international system, using all of their resources over a protracted period of time with revolutionary geopolitical consequences. There have been four such wars in the modern period: the wars of the French Revolution, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Few though they have been,their consequences have been monumental. They are, by far, the most influential events in modern history. Modern history which can, in fact, be seen as a series of aftershocks to these four earthquakes. So if I am right, then what has been the motor of political history for the last two centuries that has been turned off? This war, I argue, this kind of war, is obsolete; less than impossible, but more than unlikely. What do I mean by obsolete? If I may quote from the article on which this presentation is based, a copy of which you received when coming in, Major war is obsolete in a way that styles of dress are obsolete. It is something that is out of fashion and, while it could be revived, there is no present demand for it. Major war is obsolete in the way that slavery, dueling, or foot-binding are obsolete. It is a social practice that was once considered normal, useful, even desirable, but that now seems odious. It is obsolete in the way that the central planning of economic activity is obsolete. It is a practice once regarded as a plausible, indeed a superior, way of achieving a socially desirable goal, but that changing conditions have made ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst. Why is this so? Most simply, the costs have risen and the benefits of major war have shriveled. The costs of fighting such a war are extremely high because of the advent in the middle of this century of nuclear weapons, but they would have been high even had mankind never split the atom. As for the benefits, these now seem, at least from the point of view of the major powers, modest to non-existent. The traditional motives for warfare are in retreat, if not extinct. War is no longer regarded by anyone, probably not even Saddam Hussein after his unhappy experience, as a paying proposition. And as for the ideas on behalf of which major wars have been waged in the past, these are in steep decline. Here the collapse of communism was an important milestone, for that ideology was inherently bellicose. This is not to say that the world has reached the end of ideology; quite the contrary. But the ideology that is now in the ascendant, our own, liberalism, tends to be pacific. Moreover, I would argue that three post-Cold War developments have made major war even less likely than it was after 1945. One of these is the rise of democracy, for democracies, I believe, tend to be peaceful. Now carried to its most extreme conclusion, this eventuates in an argument made by some prominent political scientists that democracies never go to war with one another. I wouldnt go that far. I dont believe that this is a law of history, like a law of nature, because I believe there are no such laws of history. But I do believe there is something in it. I believe there is a peaceful tendency inherent in democracy. Now its true that one important cause of war has not changed with the end of the Cold War. That is the structure of the international system, which is anarchic. And realists, to whom Fareed has referred and of whom John Mearsheimer and our guest Ken Waltz are perhaps the two most leading exponents in this country and the world at the moment, argue that that structure determines international activity, for it leads sovereign states to have to prepare to defend themselves, and those preparations sooner or later issue in war. I argue, however, that a post-Cold War innovation counteracts the effects of anarchy. This is what I have called in my 1996 book, The Dawn of Peace in Europe, common security. By common security I mean a regime of negotiated arms limits that reduce the insecurity that anarchy inevitably produces by transparency-every state can know what weapons every other state has and what it is doing with them-and through the principle of defense dominance, the reconfiguration through negotiations of military forces to make them more suitable for defense and less for attack. Some caveats are, indeed, in order where common security is concerned. Its not universal. It exists only in Europe. And there it is certainly not irreversible. And I should add that what I have called common security is not a cause, but a consequence, of the major forces that have made war less likely. States enter into common security arrangements when they have already, for other reasons, decided that they do not wish to go to war. Well, the third feature of the post-Cold War international system that seems to me to lend itself to warlessness is the novel distinction between the periphery and the core, between the powerful states and the less powerful ones. This was previously a cause of conflict and now is far less important. To quote from the article again, While for much of recorded history local conflicts were absorbed into great-power conflicts, in the wake of the Cold War, with the industrial democracies debellicised and Russia and China preoccupied with internal affairs, there is no great-power conflict into which the many local conflicts that have erupted can be absorbed.

Nuke War Not Likely Rising Costs

222

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 223 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuke War Not Likely Deterrence


Nuclear deterrence prevents great power
G John Ikenberry Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University The Rise of China and the Future of the West Foreign Affairs January/February 2008 http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/the-rise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west.html The most important benefit of these features today is that they give the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order. The fact that the United States, China, and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the existing order. In the age of nuclear deterrence, greatpower war is, thankfully, no longer a mechanism of historical change. War-driven change has been abolished as a historical process.

223

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 224 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuke War Not Likely International System


The international system prevents wareconomic, military, and ideological trends have changed. Christopher Fettweiss, April prof security studies naval war college, Comparative Strategy 22.2 April 2003 p
109-129 Mackinder can be forgiven for failing to anticipate the titanic changes in the fundamental nature of the international system much more readily than can his successors. Indeed, Mackinder and his contemporaries a century ago would hardly recognize the rules by which the world is run todaymost significantly, unlike their era, ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed, where World War III is, in Michael Mandelbaums words, somewhere between impossible and unlikely.25 Geopolitical and geo-strategic analysis has not yet come to terms with what may be the central, most significant trend of international politics: great power war, major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each other, is now obsolete.26 John Mueller has been the most visible, but by no means the only, analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next century are next to nil.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments supporting this revolutionary, and clearly controversial, claim. First, and most obviously, modern military technology has made major war too expensive to contemplate. As John Keegan has argued, it is hard to see how nuclear war could be considered an extension of politics by other meansat the very least, nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of the would-be aggressor.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been dramatic, at least in the last few decades, because nuclear threats are not credible in the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers. It is unlikely that a game of nuclear chicken would lead to the outbreak of a major war. Others have argued that, while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational exercise, the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make todays great powers shy away from direct conflict.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced Angells warnings, and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences, especially now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher. Second, the shift from the industrial to the information age that seems to be gradually occurring in many advanced societies has been accompanied by a new definition of power, and a new system of incentives which all but remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient exercise. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world, encapsulated in the globalization metaphor so fashionable in the media and business communities, has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national wealth is accumulated.30 For millennia, territory was the main object of war because it was directly related to national prestige and power. As early as 1986 Richard Rosecrance recognized that two worlds of international relations were emerging, divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest.31 The intervening years have served only to strengthen the argument that the major industrial powers, quite unlike their less-developed neighbors, seem to have reached the revolutionary conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige. For these states, wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in economic, rather than military, reach. National wealth and prestige, and therefore power, are no longer directly related to territorial control.32 The economic incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been. Increasingly, it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than power. In Edward Luttwaks terminology, geopolitics is slowly being replaced by geoeconomics, where the methods of commerce are displacing military methodswith disposable capital in lieu of firepower, civilian innovation in lieu of militarytechnical advancement, and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases.33 Just as advances in weaponry have increased the cost of fighting, a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war could possibly bring. Angells major error was one that has been repeated over and over again in the social sciences ever sincehe overestimated the rationality of humanity. Angell recognized earlier than most that the industrialization of military technology and economic interdependence assured that the costs of a European war would certainly outweigh any potential benefits, but he was not able to convince his contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war. The idea of war was still appealing the normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of fighting, and that proved to be the more important factor. Today, there is reason to believe that this normative calculation may have changed. After the war, Angell noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were surrendering of certain dominations, a recasting of patriotic ideals, a revolution of ideas.34 The third and final argument of Angells successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has occurred, that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state interaction. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated. Beliefs, ideologies, and ideas are often, as Dahl notes, a major independent variable, which we ignore at our peril.35 Ideas, added John Mueller, are very often forces themselves, not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . . . it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily

224

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 225 /414

Nelson <tournament>

measured, treated with crisp precision, or probed with deductive panache.36 The heart of this argument is the moral progress that has brought a change in attitudes about international war among the great powers of the world,37 creating for the first time, an almost universal sense that the deliberate launching of a war can no longer be justified.38 At times leaders of the past were compelled by the masses to defend the national honor, but today popular pressures push for peaceful resolutions to disputes between industrialized states. This normative shift has rendered war between great powers subrationally unthinkable, removed from the set of options for policy makers, just as dueling is no longer a part of the set of options for the same classes for which it was once central to the concept of masculinity and honor. As Mueller explained, Dueling, a form of violence famed and fabled for centuries, is avoided not merely because it has ceased to seem necessary, but because it has sunk from thought as a viable, conscious possibility. You cant fight a duel if the idea of doing so never occurs to you or your opponent.39 By extension, states cannot fight wars if doing so does not occur to them or to their opponent. As Angell discovered, the fact that major war was futile was not enough to bring about its endpeople had to believe that it was futile. Angells successors suggest that such a belief now exists in the industrial (and postindustrial) states of the world, and this autonomous power of ideas, to borrow Francis Fukuyamas term, has brought about the end of major, great power war.40

225

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 226 /414 Nuke War Not Likely North Korea

Nelson <tournament>

North Korea wouldnt Use a nuclear weapon, to many complications Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, 2005
(George Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, Spring 2005, Naval War College Review, If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken, https://portal.nwc.navy.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005.pdf)

history of successful nuclear deterrence suggests that nations have indeed been in awe of nuclear weapons, have been deterred by the prospect of their use, even while they were intent on deterring their adversaries as well. Would the nations that have been so successfully deterred (sinceNagasaki) fromusing nuclear weapons not then be stopped in their tracks once deterrence had failed, once the anticipated horror of the nuclear destruction of even a single city had been realized ?2 Another of the more probable scenarios has been a use of such weapons by North Korea, a state perhaps not quite as
Yet on the more positive note, the undeterrable as the suicidal pilots of 11 September 2001 but given to rational calculations that are often very difficult to sort out. This use could come in the form of a North Korean nuclear attack against Japan, South Korea, or even the United States.3 The nearest targets for a North Korean nuclearweaponwould be South Korea and Japan, but therewould be many complications should Pyongyang use such weapons against either.

226

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 227 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuke War Not Likely Pakistan


Nuclear Power plants have excellent security CTC Sentinel, The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational and research institution based in the Department of Social Sciences at the West Point, 2009
(CTC Sentinel, The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational and research institution based in the Department of Social Sciences at the West Point, July 2009 http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel-Vol2Iss7.pdf)

Pakistan has established a robust set of measures to assure the security of its nuclear weapons. These have been based on copying U.S. practices, procedures and technologies, and comprise: a) physical security; b) personnel reliability programs; c) technical and procedural safeguards; and d) deception and secrecy. These measures provide the Pakistan Armys Strategic Plans Division (SPD)which oversees nuclear weapons operations a high degree of confidence in the safety and security of the countrys nuclear weapons.2 In terms of physical security, Pakistan operates a layered concept of concentric tiers of armed forces personnel to guard nuclear weapons facilities, the use of physical barriers and intrusion detectors to secure nuclear weapons facilities, the physical separation of warhead cores from their detonation components, and the storage of the components in protected underground sites. With respect to personnel reliability, the Pakistan Army conducts a tight selection process drawing almost exclusively on officers from Punjab Province who are considered to have fewer links with
religious extremism or with the Pashtun areas of Pakistan from which groups such as the Pakistani Taliban mainly garner their support. Pakistan operates an analog to the U.S. Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) that screens individuals for Islamist sympathies, personality problems, drug use, inappropriate external affiliations, and sexual deviancy. 3 The

army uses staff rotation and also operates a two-person rule under which no action, decision, or activity involving a nuclear weapon can be undertaken by fewer than two persons.4 The purpose of this policy is to reduce the risk of collusion with terrorists and to prevent nuclear weapons technology getting transferred to the black market. In total, between 8,000 and 10,000 individuals from
the SPDs security division and from Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau agencies are involved in the security clearance and monitoring of those with nuclear weapons duties. 5 Despite formal command authority structures that

It imposes its executive authority over the weapons through the use of an authenticating code system down through the command chains that is intended to ensure that only authorized nuclear weapons activities and operations occur. It operates a tightly controlled identification system to assure the identity of those involved in the nuclear chain of command, and it also uses a rudimentary Permissive Action Link (PAL) type system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons. This system uses technology similar to the banking industrys chip and pin to ensure that even if weapons fall into terrorist hands they cannot be detonated.6 Finally, Pakistan makes extensive use of secrecy and deception. Significant elements of Pakistans nuclear weapons infrastructure are kept a closely guarded secret. This includes the precise location of some of the storage facilities for nuclear core and detonation components, the location of preconfigured nuclear weapons crisis deployment sites, aspects of the nuclear command and control arrangements,7 and many aspects of the arrangements for nuclear safety and security (such as the numbers of those removed
cede a role to Pakistans civilian leadership, in practice the Pakistan Army has complete control over the countrys nuclear weapons. under personnel reliability programs, the reasons for their removal, and how often authenticating and enabling (PAL-type) codes are changed). In addition, Pakistan uses deceptionsuch as dummy missilesto complicate the calculus of adversaries and is likely to have extended this practice

Taken together, these measures provide confidence that the Pakistan Army can fully protect its nuclear weapons against the internal terrorist threat, against its main adversary India, and against the suggestion that its nuclear weapons could be either spirited out of the country by a third party (posited to be the United States) or destroyed in the event of a deteriorating situation or a state collapse in Pakistan.
to its nuclear weapons infrastructure.

227

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 228 /414

Nelson <tournament>

No Nuclear Terror
Nuclear Power plants have excellent security Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managed by Battelle 2004,
(Scott W. Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managed by Battelle, A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity,, Battelle Press, 2004)

But, of course, airline crashes are not the only way for a terrorist to attack a nuclear power plant. Truck bombs and armed attacks are certainly something to consider. It turns out that nuclear power plants are one of the few facilities in our national infrastructure that does consider these things. Every U.S. nuclear power plant has a trained armed security force who is authorized to use deadly force to protect the plant. Not wanting to
give any terrorists alternative ideas, but if I had a choice of going after a facility either totally unprotected or protected with only a night watchman versus a facility with a team of military capable troopers armed with automatic weapons, it would not be a tough choice. That is not to say these wackos are afraid to die. Clearly, they have demonstrated that they are not. However, one would assume that they do want to have a reasonable chance of successfully completing their vile mission. In that regard, a nuclear power plant would be a tough nut to crack.

228

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 229 /414

Nelson <tournament>

No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (1/6)


The Nuclear Taboo is to strong to break, the longer we wait for a nuclear war the less likely it becomes Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, 2005
(George Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, Spring 2005, Naval War College Review, If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken, https://portal.nwc.navy.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005.pdf)

One often hears references to a taboo on the use of nuclear weapons, but people usually have difficulty putting their finger on exactly what that means. A taboo surely is more than simply something we want to avoid, something we disapprove of, for we do not hear of taboos on bank robberies or on murder. A taboo, then, refers to something that we are not willing even to think about doing, something about which we do not weigh benefits and costs but that we simply reject. The best example in ordinary life is the taboo on incest. If a
six-year-old girl asks whether she could marry her brother when they grow up, her parents typically do not reason with her, perhaps suggesting, Your brother and you are always squabbling about your toys; surely you can find someone else more compatible to marry.We instead respond simply,No one marries their brother or sister! The child quickly enough picks up the signal that this is something that is simply not done. Another such taboo is, of course, cannibalism. Air Force crews are briefed on hundreds of measures they can take to survive after a crash, but one subject never touched upon is that of avoiding starvation by consuming the body of a dead comrade. The entire question is just not thinkable . The taboo on nuclear

weapons use that seems to have settled into place over the nearly sixty years sinceNagasaki may indeed have taken this form.We do not hear many discussions of the costs and benefits of a nuclear escalation, but a somewhat unthinking and unchallenged conclusion that such escalation is simply out of the question .
Related, though hardly identical, is speculation as to whether a customary international law on the use of nuclear weapons may be said to have emerged, by which the battlefield application of such weapons has become illegal without any international treaties being signed or ratified, simply because they have gone so long unused.16 How such a custom or

taboo is developed and what happens to it when violated will play an important part in our assessment of what the world would be like after a new nuclear attack. The fact that the nuclear taboo is not violated decade after decade, that nuclear weapons are not used again in anger, arguably strengthens the taboo, but
there are also a few ways in which that state of affairs may endanger it. The reinforcement comes simply from the general sense that such an act must be unthinkable because no one has initiated one for so long; it is in this sense that customary international lawis held to be settling into place by which the abstinence of other states presses our own state to abstain. People did not begin speaking about a nuclear taboo for a number of years after Nagasaki. It was only in the late 1950s, after more than a decade had passed without repetition of the experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the feeling arose that a barrier now existed to treating nuclear weapons as just another weapon.17 But in time there will be hardly anyone alive who was a victim of the 1945 attacks, hardly anyone who remembers seeing the first photographs of their victims or who recalls the nuclear testing programs of the 1950s and 1960s. Further, an unwelcome result of the bans on nuclear testing, intended to shield the environment and discourage horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation, is that some of the perceived horror of such weapons may be fading, so that ordinary human beings will be a little less primed to reject automatically the idea of such weapons being used again. The only fair test of the long-term viability of the nuclear taboo would,

of course, be for the world to manage to keep that taboo observed and intact. The net trend, the net result, of a prolongation of non-use is most probably that such non-use will be strengthened and renewed thereby, just as it seems to have been over the decades of the Cold War and its aftermath. There have been parallel taboos in other areas of warfare, taboos that have indeed been violated in the last several decades. The
world for many years sensed the development of such a taboo on chemical warfare; the effective prohibition was reinforced by the Geneva Protocol but observed even by states that had not yet ratified the protocol (the best example being the United States at its entry intoWorld War II). A similar taboolike aversion was thought to apply to biological warfare.18 The long period since naval forces have confronted each other on the high seas (broken only by the Argentine-British war over the Falklands) may have had some similar characteristics. The longer one goes without engaging in some form of

warfare, the stranger and less manageable that kind of conflict will seem, and the more the public and others will regard it as simply not to be contemplated. [Continues on next page: No text omitted]

229

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 230 /414

Nelson <tournament>

No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (2/6)


[Continues from previous page: No text omitted] Similarly, the worlds resistance to the proliferation of nuclear weapons has at times seemed to be mobilizing a widespread popular feeling that a taboo or customary international lawwas developing on proliferation as well. Ordinary people and even military professionals in many countries were coming to assume that nuclear weapons were so horrible, and so different, that it simply made no sense to think of even acquiring them..

If a nuclear weapon was use countries would rally against the nation preventing retaliation Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, 2005
(George Quester, Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, Spring 2005, Naval War College Review, If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken, https://portal.nwc.navy.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005.pdf)

This entire question might seem the more interesting at first to those who are pessimistic about future risks and who might thus regard speculation about an end to the nuclear taboo as overdue . Yet, to repeat, pessimism may not be necessary, since analysis of the likely consequences of nuclear escalation might stimulate governments and publics to head it off. The chances are as good as three out of five that no nuclear event will occur in the period up to the year 2045that there is a better than even chance that the world will be commemorating a full century, since Nagasaki, of the non-use of such weapons. But analysts and ordinary citizens around the world to whom the author has put these odds typically dismiss themas too optimistic. Indeed, the response has often been a bit bizarre, essentially that we have not been thinking at all about the next use of nuclear weapons, but we think that you are too optimistic about such use being avoided. Such responses in Israel,
Sweden, Japan, or the United States might support the worry that people around the world have simply been repressing an unpleasant reality, refusing to think about a very real danger. Yet the possibility remains that the relative inattention is not simply a repression of reality but rather a manifestation of the unthinkableness of nuclear weapons use One could also introduce another wedge of hope, that any such use of nuclear weapons between now and 2045 would be

followed by reactions and consequences that reinforced rather than eroded the taboo. That would be the case if the world did not retreat in the face of such use but rallied to punish it, and as a result the perpetrator did not advance its interests by such an escalation but actually lost the battles and territories that were at issue.

230

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 231 /414

Nelson <tournament>

No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (3/6)


Tannenwald, Director of the International Relations Programs at Brown Unviersity, 2005
(Nina Tannenwald, Director of the International Relations Programs at Brown Unviersity, 2005, Stigmatizing the Bomb, International Security 29.4 (2005) 5-49, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/v029/29.4tannenwald.html#authbio)

The nuclear taboo, however, also has an intersubjective or a phenomenological aspect: it is a taboo because people believe it to be. Political and military leaders themselves began using the term to refer to this normative perception starting in the early 1950s, even when, objectively, a tradition of nonuse hardly existed. If actors see the use of nuclear weapons as if it were a taboo, as their rhetoric suggests, then this could affect their choices and behavior. In the words of sociologists William and Dorothy Thomas, "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."18 This subjective (and intersubjective) sense of "taboo-ness" is one of the factors that makes the tradition of nuclear nonuse a taboo rather than simply a norm. Although one might be skeptical that this is just empty rhetoric, this belief is not entirely detached from reality . Evidence for the taboo lies in discourse, institutions, and behavior. The most obvious evidence lies in discoursethe way people talk and think about nuclear weaponsand how this has changed since 1945. This includes public opinion, the diplomatic statements of governments and leaders, the resolutions of international organizations, and the private moral concerns of individual decisionmakers. The discourse evidence is supplemented both by international law and agreements that restrict freedomof action with respect to nuclear weapons, and by the changing policies of states that downgrade the role of nuclear weapons (e.g., shifts in NATO policy, he
denuclearization of the army and marines, and the buildup of conventional alternatives). As the inhibition on use has developed over time, it has taken on more taboo-like qualitiesunthinkingness and taken-for-grantedness. As a systemic phenomenon, the taboo exists at the collective level of the international community (represented especially by the United Nations), but this need not mean that all countries have internalized it to the same degree. As

noted earlier, the taboo is a de facto, not a legal, norm. There is no explicit international legal prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons such as exists for, say, chemical weapons. Although resolutions passed in the UN General Assembly and other international forums have repeatedly proclaimed the use of nuclear weapons as illegal, the United States and other nuclear powers have consistently voted against these. U.S.
legal analyses have repeatedly defended the legality of use of nuclear weapons as long as it was for defensive and not aggressive purposes, as required by the UN charter. 19 As the 1996 World Court advisory opinion on the issue confirmed, although increasing agreement exists that many, if not most, uses of nuclear weapons are illegal under the traditional laws of armed conflict, there is by no means agreement that all uses of nuclear weapons are illegal. 20 Nevertheless, legal use has

been gradually chipped away through incremental restrictionsan array of treaties and regimes that together circumscribe the realm of legitimate nuclear use and restrict freedom of action with respect to nuclear weapons. These agreements include nuclear weapons-free zones, bilateral and multilateral arms control agreements, and negative security assurances (i.e., political declarations by the nuclear powers that they will not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are members of the NPT). Together, these agreements enhance the normative presumption against nuclear use. By multiplying the number of forums where a decision to use nuclear weapons would have to be defended, they substantially increase the burden of proof for any such decision.21 Many of these legal constraints have been incorporated into U.S. domestic practice, where they are reflected in constraints on deployments and targeting, proliferation, arms control, and use. 22 Thus, while the legality of nuclear weapons remains in dispute, the trend line of decreasing legitimacy and circumscribed legality is clear.

231

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 232 /414

Nelson <tournament>

No Escalation - Nuclear Taboo Wont Be Broken (4/6)


Nuclear weapons wont be used even if its in their best interest Paul, Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security, 1995
(T.V. Paul, Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security, December 1995, Nuclear Taboo and War Initiation in Regional Conflicts, JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION, Vol. 39 No. 4) These stringent definitions of social taboos may not be fully applicable in the nuclear context. However, the tradition of nonuse has been characterized by many scholars as equivalent to a taboo (e.g., Hoffmann 1966,99; Schelling 1980, 260). In this context, the term taboo is used in its figurative and loose sense-as an unwritten and uncodified prohibitionary norm against nuclear use. It is also used to the extent that both social and nuclear taboos are based

on the fear of consequences of a given course of action. The latter arose as a response to a realization of the danger or the unforeseeable consequences involved in nuclear war. The analysis in this article elaborates on
the moral, normative, legal, and rational constraints involved in the use of nuclear weapons and their possible role in the formation and evolution of the taboo U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles initially used the term taboo to describe the prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons. On October 7, 1953, he was reported to have said: "Somehow or other we must manage to remove the taboo from the use of these weapons" (quoted in Bundy 1988, 249). Dulles was in favor of developing usable nuclear weapons to obtain the battlefield military objectives of the United States. Schelling

popularized the concept of a tradition of nonuse in his writings in the 1960s. In his words, what makes atomic weapons different is a powerful tradition for their nonuse, "a jointly recognized expectation that they may not be used in spite of declarations of readiness to use them, even in spite of tactical advantages in their use" (Schelling 1980, 260). A tradition in this respect is based on a habit or disposition that prevents the use of nuclear weapons as a serious option for consideration by decision makers.3 As Schelling (1994, 110) argued, the main reason for the uniqueness of nuclear weapons is the perception that they are unique and that once introduced into combat, they could not be "contained, restrained, confined, or limited." Although prolonged conventional war can also cause somewhat similar levels of destruction, the difference is in the perception of the impact. The swiftness with which destruction can take place is the distinguishing point in this respect.4 Clearly, the nuclear taboo has developed largely as a function of the awesome destructive power of atomic weapons. The potential for total destruction gives nuclear weapons an all-ornothing characteristic unlike any other weapon invented so far, which, in turn, makes it imperative that the possessor will not use them against another state except as a last-resort weapon. This means a nuclear state may
not use its ultimate capability unless a threshold is crossed (e.g., unless the survival of the state itself is threatened).