Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

1. We meet: the Dietzler evidence from the 1AC talks about how there is research involved in the development of the plan
2. Counter interpretation: Development means the deployment of technology outside the lab Chayes 85 -- Leading International Law Specialist, Kennedy Administration's Chief International Lawyer, and Felix Frankfurter
Professor of Law, Emeritus [deceased] (Summer 1985, Abram, Space Weapons: The Legal Context, Daedalus Vol. 114, No. 3, Weapons in Space, Vol. II: Implications for Security Pg. 202-203 http://www.jstor.org/pss/20024990)

Development
ACDA Director Gerard C. Smith was questioned on this subject by Senator Henry Jackson during the Senate hearings on approval of the ABM treaty. A written response was prepared by the administration after a thorough review of the negotiating record. It states: The prohibitions on development contained in the ABM Treaty would start at that part of the development process where field testing is initiated on either a prototype or breadboard model. It was understood by both sides that the prohibition on "development" applies

to activities involved after a component moves from the laboratory development and testing stage to the field testing stage, wherever performed. The fact that early stages of the development process, such as laboratory testing,
would pose problems for verification by national technical means is an important consideration in reaching this definition.19 4 The definition of "development" as any work performed outside the laboratory remains the official United States position, and has been reiterated in Arms Control Impact Statements issued since the adoption of the treaty.20 The line that is drawn is thus a functional one, related to the method accepted by both parties for verifying compliance with treaty provisions: "national technical means of verification" (NTM). It is fair to say that if an activity cannot be monitored by NTM, it is not prohibited by the treaty; the two parties, particularly the United States, have been unwilling to accept constraints that cannot be verified. Conversely, any test of a component is prohibited if it can be observed by national technical means (or could be observed if the country in question were complying with its treaty obligation not to use "deliberate concealment measures which impede verification by national technical means"). At least, there would be a heavy burden on it to establish that such activity was mere "research," and did not amount to development or testing within the meaning of the treaty.21

2. We meat we deploy technology beyond the Earths mesosphere 3. Standards They overlimit the topic to just exploration. The framers intent was to give us development and exploration and they define development as exploration No ground loss: they cant name an argument they dont read 4. Reasonability: reason for judge intervention 5. T is not a voter Prolif guarantees great power intervention escalates to nuclear war. Below, 2008 (Tim, Wing Commander RAF and MA Defense Studies Kings College London, OPTIONS FOR US NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: EXEMPLARY LEADERSHIP OR EXTRAORDINARY LUNACY?, A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES FOR COMPLETION OF GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, AIR UNIVERSITY MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, June) Proliferation. Roger Molander, of RAND Corporation, asserts that in the near future, a large number of countries are each going to develop a small number of nuclear weapons.5 The Union of Concerned Scientists considers this to be the greatest long term danger confronting both US and international security today.5 Proliferation increases risk in a number of ways. First, the more states that hold nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that one will have an insufficiently mature or robust nuclear doctrine to manage its capability responsibly. Tom Sauer suggests that developing states that do not have democratic political systems present a particularly high risk because in dictatorial regimes, the military are frequently in control, and as Sagan has observed, the military appear to be more inclined to initiate preventative attacks against adversaries than civilians.52 Second, the more widely proliferated nuclear weapons become, the more theoretical opportunities may be presented for theft of nuclear material. Third, proliferation increases the risk of nuclear intervention by an established nuclear power, including the five NWSs. Stephen Younger envisages several scenarios in which currently established nuclear powers might feel a need to intervene with nuclear weapons in present regional conflicts, especially if WMD are being employed or threatened. Moreover, since proliferation is frequently associated with reaction to nuclear development either within a bordering nation or regional counterpart, further proliferation is in turn likely to generate a quasi-exponential expansion of similar regional scenarios.53 Ambassador Lehman envisages a scenario in which

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

proliferation may induce a chain reaction of related regional arms races that could result in unintended and unexpected consequences far removed from the objectives of the proliferating nations, and in the United States specific case, a risk that the nation could get sucked into a conventional regional conflict which is subsequently escalated into nuclear warfare by its allies or their opponents.54

Even if the risk is relatively low the consequences are too high to risk. Allison 7 (Graham, Douglas Dillon Prof. Gov. and Dir. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard U. JFK School of Government, National Interest, Symposium: Apocalypse When? November/December, L/N)
Mueller is entitled to his opinion that the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is "exaggerated" and "overwrought." But analysts of various political persuasions, in and out of government, are virtually unanimous in their judgment to the contrary. As the national-security community learned during the Cold War, risk = likelihood x consequences. Thus, even when the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon was small, the consequences were so catastrophic that prudent policymakers felt a categorical imperative to do everything that feasibly could be done to prevent that war. Today, a single nuclear bomb exploding in just one city would change our world. Given such consequences, differences between a 1 percent and a 20 percent likelihood of such an attack are relatively insignificant when considering how we should respond to the threat. Richard Garwin, a designer of the hydrogen bomb who Enrico Fermi once called "the only true genius I had ever met", told Congress in March that he estimated a "20 percent per year probability [of a nuclear explosion--not just a contaminated, dirty bomb--a nuclear explosion] with American cities and European cities included." My Harvard colleague Matthew Bunn has created a model in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science that estimates the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack over a ten-year period to be 29 percent--identical to the average estimate from a poll of security experts commissioned by Senator Richard Lugar in 2005. My book, Nuclear Terrorism, states my own best judgment that, on the current trend line, the chances of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next decade are greater than 50 percent. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has expressed his own view that my work may even underestimate the risk. Warren Buffet, the world's most successful investor and legendary oddsmaker in pricing insurance policies for unlikely but catastrophic events, concluded that nuclear terrorism is "inevitable." He stated, "I don't see any way that it won't happen."

1. Perm Do Both Their own author says that there is no single truthEngaging in political action and recognizing the power of the human race allows us to resist nuclear aggression Lifton and Markusen, Prof of International Relations @ Princeton U and Assist Researcher @ U of New York, 90 (Robert Jay and Eric, The Genocidal Mentality, P. 278-279)
Species awareness means awareness of human choice: "This is not the End of Timeunless we choose to make it so. We need not accept the death sentence . . . .We are not powerless." By choosing instead a human
future, we arein the words of the Polish Solidarity leader Adam Michnik"defending hope." And "hope is important. Perhaps more important than anything else." Hope is greatly enhancedas is the acceptance of individual mortalityby the sense of reasserting the immortality of the species. The task is intensified by the psychological upheavals we can expect in connection with the millennial transition of the year 2000. Whatever the millennial imagery, we must recognize that the hopeful future is not an apocalyptic

heavenly peace but rather expanded awareness on behalf of human continuity. This adaptation will not eliminate peoples need to define themselves in relation to otherness, but it can begin to subsume that otherness to larger human commonality. It must include struggles against widespread oppression and drastic human inequities by invoking the kind of originality in political action that has taken place in the
Solidarity movement in Polandand in related movements in Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgariaand was so cruelly frustrated in the student movement in China: Political action that enlarges, rather than blights or destroys, human possibilities. This

species-oriented approach would defy the given models of defiance. No one can claim knowledge of a single, correct path. Rather, there must be endless combinations of reflection and action and, above all, the kind of larger collective adaptation we have been discussing. At the same time, we must remain aware of persisting genocidal arrangements and expressions of genocidal mentality. We cannot afford to stop thinking. Nor can we wait for a new Gandhi or Saint Joan to deliver us. Rather, each of us must

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

join in a vast projectpolitical, ethical, psychologicalon behalf of perpetuating and nurturing our humanity. We are then people getting up from their knees to resist nuclear oppression. We clear away the thick glass that has blurred our moral and political vision. We become healers, not killers, of our species.

2. Theyve got the equation wrong A. Criticizing representations of nuclear presence doesnt preclude the need for concrete action Rorty, Professor of Humanities at the University of Virginia described as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, 97
(Richard, Truth, Politics, and Postmodernism, Spinoza Lectures, p. 51-2)
This distinction between the theoretical and the practical point of view is often drawn by Derrida, another writer who enjoys demonstrating that something very important meaning,

the paradox doesn't matter when it comes to practice. More generally, a lot of the writers who are labeled `post-modernist; and who talk a lot about impossibility, turn out to be good experimentalist social democrats when it comes to actual political activity. I suspect, for example, that Gray, Zizek, Derrida and I, if we found ourselves citizens of the same country, would all be
for example, or justice, or friendship is both necessary and impossible. When asked about the implications of these paradoxical fact, Derrida usually replies that voting for the same candidates, and supporting the same reforms. Post-modernist philosophers have gotten a bad name because of their paradox-mongering habits, and their constant use of terms like `impossible; `self-contradictory' and `unrepresentable'. They have helped create a cult of inscrutability, one which defines itself by opposition to the Enlightenment search for transparency - and more generally, to the `metaphysics of presence; the idea that intellectual progress aims at getting things clearly illuminated, sharply delimited, wholly

I am all for getting rid of the metaphysics of presence, but I think that the rhetoric of impossibility and unrepresentability is counterproductive overdramatization. It is one thing to say that we need to get rid of the metaphor of things being
visible. accurately represented, once and for all, as a result of being bathed in the light of reason. This metaphor has created a lot of headaches for philosophers, and we would be better off without it. But that does not show that we are suddenly surrounded by unrepresentables; it just shows that `more accurate representation' was never a fruitful way to describe

Even if we agree that we shall never have what Derrida calls "a full presence beyond the reach of play"; our sense of the possibilities open to humanity will not have changed. We have learned nothing about the limits of
intellectual progress. human hope from metaphysics, or from the philosophy of history, or from psychoanalysis. All that we have learned from `post-modern' philosophy is that we may need a different

We have been given no reason to abandon the belief that a lot of progress has been made by carrying out the Enlightenment's political program. Since
gloss on the notion of `progress' than the rationalistic gloss which the Enlightenment offered. Darwin we have come to suspect that whether such progress is made will be largely a matter of luck. But we have been given no reason to stop hoping to get lucky.

B. Even if our assumptions are flawed, it doesn't justify rejection of our affthese types of radical critiques are exaggerations with zero impact Jarvis, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Sydney, 2K (Darry1, International
Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism, p. 128)
Perhaps more alarming though is the outright violence Ashley recommends in response to what at best seems trite, if not imagined, injustices. Inculpating modernity, positivism, technical rationality, or realism with violence, racism, war, and countless other crimes not only smack of anthropomorphism, but as demonstrated by Ashley's torturous prose and reasoning,

requires a dubious logic to make such connections in the first place. Are we really to believe that ethereal entities like positivism, modernism, or realism emanate a violence" that marginalizes dissidents? Indeed,
where is this violence, repression, and marginalization? As self professed dissidents supposedly exiled from the discipline. Ashley and Walker appear remarkably well integrated into the academyvocal, published, and at the center of the Third Debate and the forefront of theoretical research. Likewise, is Ashley seriously suggesting that, on the basis of this largely imagined violence, global transformation (perhaps even revolutionary violence) is a necessary, let alone desirable, response? Has the rationale for emancipation or the tight for justice been reduced to such vacuous revolutionary slogans as "Down with positivism and rationality"? Apart from members of the academy, who has heard of positivism and who for a moment imagines that they need to be emancipated from it. or from modernity, rationality or realism for that matter? In an era of unprecedented change and turmoil, of new political and military configurations, of war in the Balkans and ethnic cleansing, is Ashley really suggesting at some of the greatest threats facing

humankind or some of the great moments of history rest on such innocuous and largely unknown nonrealities like positivism and realism? These are imagined and fictitious enemies, theoretical fabrications that represent arcane, self-serving debates superfluous to the lives of most people and, arguably, to most issues of importance in international relations.

C. Changing representational practices wont alter policylooking to structures and

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

politics is more vital Tuathail, 96 (Gearoid, Department of Georgraphy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Political Geography, 15(6-7), p. 664, science direct)
While theoretical debates at academic conferences are important to academics, the discourse and concerns of foreign-policy decision- makers are quite different, so different that they constitute a distinctive problem- solving, theory-averse, policy-making subculture. There is a danger that academics assume that the discourses they engage are more significant in the practice of foreign policy and the exercise of power than they really are. This is not, however, to minimize the obvious importance of academia as a general institutional structure among many that sustain certain epistemic communities in particular states. In general, I do not disagree with Dalbys fourth point about politics and discourse except to note that his statement-Precisely because reality could be represented in particular ways political decisions could be taken, troops and material moved and war fought-evades the important question of agency that I noted in my review essay. The assumption that it is representations that make action possible is inadequate by itself. Political, military and economic structures, institutions, discursive networks and leadership are all crucial in explaining social action and should be theorized together with representational practices. Both here and earlier, Dalbys reasoning inclines towards a form of
idealism. In response to Dalbys fifth point (with its three subpoints), it is worth noting, first, that his book is about the CPD, not the Reagan administration. He analyzes certain CPD discourses, root the geographical reasoning practices of the Reagan administration nor its public-policy reasoning on national security. Dalbys book is narrowly textual; the general contextuality of the Reagan administration is not dealt with. Second, let me simply note that I find that the distinction between critical theorists and post- structuralists is a little too rigidly and heroically drawn by Dalby and others. Third, Dalbys interpretation of the reconceptualization of national security in Moscow as heavily influenced by dissident peace researchers in Europe is highly idealist, an interpretation that ignores the structural and ideological crises facing the Soviet elite at that time. Gorbachevs reforms and his new security discourse were also strongly selfinterested, an ultimately futile attempt to save the Communist Party and a discredited regime of power from disintegration. The issues raised by Simon Dalby in his comment are important ones for all those interested in the practice of critical geopolitics. While I agree with Dalby that questions of discourse are extremely important ones for political geographers to engage, there is a danger of

fetishizing this concern with discourse so that we neglect the institutional and the sociological, the materialist and the cultural, the political and the geographical contexts within which particular discursive strategies become significant. Critical geopolitics, in other words, should not be a prisoner of the sweeping
ahistorical cant that sometimes accompanies poststructuralism nor convenient reading strategies like the identity politics narrative; it needs to always be open to the patterned mess that is human history.

3. Nuclear weapons have a sole purpose of maintaining peacepassivity through the alternative leads to inaction and hinders social progress Futterman, Former U.S. Nuclear Weapons Scientist, 94 (J.A.H., Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the
Bomb, Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua, www.dogchurch.org/books/nuke.html)
But this situation is different we now confront potential

enemies with enough force to convince them that they have no hope of seizing control of the world in the first place. So I help maintain that deterrence, a paradoxical, insufficient, but necessary part of making peace. I do other parts in my spare time. Still, there is the notion
that because I did research related to nuclear weapons, I deserve a greater portion of guilt for what happens if they are used. Let me point out that even the anti-nuclear activists contribute to the nuclear weapons business, because they make war on nuclear weapons instead of making peace. They are shooting the bearer of the bad news that we can't make global war safely anymore. It's as if they want war to be safer, so that humanity can continue as before, making wars that only kill some of us. I hand them back the guilt[20] some of them wish to hand me. In particular, I sometimes consider those who engage in anti-war or anti-nuclear actions (including some scientists who eschew defense research for moral reasons) without ever doing any actual peace-making to be in the same category that Dante seems to have placed Pope Celestine V. Celestine apparently abdicated the papacy out of fear that the worldliness that one must take on as Pope would jeopardize his salvation. Of him and his kind Dante says, [21] "...These are the nearly soulless, whose lives concluded neither blame nor praise. They are mixed here with that despicable corps of angels who were neither for God nor Satan, but only for themselves. The High Creator scourged them from Heaven for its perfect beauty, and Hell will not receive them since the wicked might feel some glory over them." In other words, I think that those who

engage in peace protests without engaging in the enfranchisement of the disenfranchised, the empowerment of the powerless, and the deterrence of the willfully destructive may be serving their own desire to be morally pure, more than the cause of peace. Instead of acknowledging the difference between

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

forcefully confronting a bully and being one, they advocate passivity, which just encourages the bully.

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name] Perm do the plan and ***Insert Alternative***

[Name]

Nuclear war is a threat beyond human comprehensiononly by combining acceptance of the possibility with critical inquiry can we hope to produce meaningful approaches Beres professor of political science and international law at Purdue University 99 (September, Louis Rene, "DEATH, THE HERD AND HUMAN SURVIVAL", http://www.crossx.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1392947)
To answer such questions we needn't contrast Descartes with the Epicureans (if we did, we should probably focus on the most complete exposition of the Epicurean system, De

we need to recognize is, as Santayana notes in Volume Three of The Life of Reason, that "everything moves in the midst of death." Raised by this understanding "above mortality" the triumphant soul of constantly perishing bodies
Rerum Natura of Lucretius), or with Spinoza, Locke or Hume. All acknowledges that everything, everywhere, is in flux, and that even the most enduring satisfactions are not at odds with personal transience. But let us take leave of the metaphysical, and return to the vastly more concrete realm of international affairs and US foreign policy What, exactly, must be done to bring individual Americans to the liberation offered by Santayana? Very little, if anything! "Immortal reason," Santayana notwithstanding, will not wean our minds from mortal concerns. Perhaps, over time, humankind will envisage the eternal and detach its affections from the world of flux, but that time is far in the future. For now, we must rely on something else, something far less awesome and far more mundane. We must rely on an expanding awareness that states in general, and the United States in particular, are not the Hegelian "march of God in the world," but the vicars of annihilation and that the triumph of the herd in world politics can only hasten the prospect of individual death. This, then, is an altogether different kind of understanding. Rather than rescue American foreign policy by freeing the citizenry from fear of death, it recommends educating this populace to the truth of an incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. By surrendering ourselves to states, we encourage not immortality but extinction. It is a relationship that can be more widely understood. There are great ironies involved. Although the corrosive calculus of geopolitics has now made possible the deliberate killing of all life, populations all over the planet turn increasingly to states for security. It is the dreadful

as the threat of nuclear annihilation looms ever larger, the citizens of nuclear states reaffirm their segmented loyalties, moved by the
ingenuity of states that makes possible death in the millions, but it is in the expressions of that ingenuity that people seek safety. Indeed, persistent unreason that is, after all, the most indelible badge of humankind. It follows from this that increasing human uncertainty brought about by an unprecedented vulnerability to

we will need to reduce the perceived threat of nuclear war and enlarge the belief that nuclear stability (as a short-term objective) is within our grasp. To make this possible we must continue to make progress on the usual and mainstream arms control measures and on the associated strategies of international cooperation and reconciliation.
disappearance is likely to undermine rather than support the education we require. Curiously, therefore, before we can implement such education "Death," says Norbert Elias in The Loneliness of the Dying, "is the absolute end of the person. So the greater resistance to its demythologization perhaps corresponds to the greater

But let us also be wary of nurturing new mythologies, of planting false hopes that offer illusions of survival in a post-apocalypse world. Always desperate to grasp at promises that allay the fears of personal transience, individual human beings are only too anxious to accept wishfantasies of security in the midst of preparations for Armageddon. Sapere aude! "Dare to know"! This motto for the Enlightenment suggested by Immanuel Kant acquires a special meaning at the end of a millennium. Just as repression of the fear of death by individuals can occasion activities that impair the forces of self-preservation, so can humankind impair its prospects for survival by denying the possibility of collective disintegration. Perhaps the closest we can come to really understanding what it would be like to endure a nuclear conflict is by studying the anatomy of life in the death camps of Nazi Germany and the aftermath of atomic holocaust in Japan. Although the analogies are certainly imperfect, there are no other darkly visionary sources of human experience to which we can so safely turn. The total immersion in death; the olfactory stimulation provided by tens of thousands of burning bodies; the overwhelming imagery of unending terror and loss that were the central features of these two atrocities, offer us the clearest human picture of life in a post-apocalypse world. At the time of their descent into hell, the
magnitude of danger experienced." Let us, then, reduce the magnitude of danger, both experienced and anticipated. survivors of Auschwitz and Hiroshima, of Treblinka and Nagasaki, reacted to the other-worldly grotesqueness of their conditions with what Yale psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton describes as a profound sense of "death in life." Witnessing, in the one case, the thrusting of newly-delivered babies, alive, into ovens, and in the other, the appearance of long lines of severely burned, literally melting, ghosts, the survivors found themselves--in Bruno Betteiheim's words, an "anonymous mass," or in the Japanese term, muga-muchu, "without self,

Such a total disruption of individual and social order, of one's customary personal and community supports, produced consequences that went far beyond immediate physical and emotional suffering. Indeed, this understanding is incorporated in the Japanese term for atomic bomb survivors, Hibakusha, which delimits four categories of victims, including those who were in utero at the time of the blast. Of course, in the case of nuclear war, the symbols and images that are needed to interpret the idea of total extinction simply do not exist. The absence of such symbols and images makes it impossible for us, in thinking about such a nuclear war, to follow Martin Buber's injunction to "imagine the real." Nevertheless, even if a global necropolis is not psychologically absorbable at the moment, imaginings of such a world must be encouraged.
without a center."

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name] Representations of Fear in the 1AC are good

[Name]

A. Imagining nuclear annihilation is a project of survivaltheir alternative creates repression and denial which makes nuclear war more likely Lenz, Science and Policy Professor at SUNY, 90 (Nuclear Age Literature for Youth, p. 9-10)
A summary of Franks thought in Psychological Determinants of the Nuclear Arms Race notes how all people have difficulty grasping the magnitude and immediacy of the threat of nuclear arms and this psychological unreality is a basic

obstacle to eliminating that threat. Only events that people have actually experienced can have true emotional impact. Since
Americans have escaped the devastation of nuclear weapons on their own soil and nuclear weapons poised for annihilation in distant countries cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, we find it easy to imagine ourselves immune to the threat. Albert Camus had the same phenomenon in mind when he wrote in his essay Neither Victims nor Executioners of the inability of most people really to imagine other peoples death (he might have added or their own). Commenting on Camus, David P. Barash and Judith Eve Lipton observed that this distancing from deaths reality is yet another aspect of our insulation from lifes most basic realities. We make love by telephone, we work not on matter but on machines, and we kill and are killed by proxy. We gain in cleanliness, but lose in understanding. If we are to heed Camuss call to refuse to be either the victims of violence like the Jews of the Holocaust, or the perpetrators of it like the Nazi executioners of the death camps, we must revivify the

imagination of what violence really entails. It is here, of course, that the literature of nuclear holocaust can play a significant role. Without either firsthand experience or vivid imagining, it is natural, as Frank points out, to deny the existence of death machines and their consequences. In psychiatric usage denial means to exclude from awareness, because letting [the instruments of destruction] enter consciousness would create too strong
a level of anxiety or other painful emotions. In most life-threatening situations, an organisms adaptation increases chances of survival, but ironically, adapting ourselves to nuclear fear is counterproductive. We only seal our doom more certainly. The repressed fear, moreover, takes a psychic toll.

B. Images evoked by nuclear discourse serve as a way to tame the forces of nuclear power. Cohn, Research Fellow @ the Center for Psychological Studies, 97 (Carol, Slickems, Glickems,
Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language, Bulletin of At the Atomic Scientists, June, P. 1724, http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07aa.shtml)
These domestic images are more than simply one more way to remove oneself from the grisly reality behind the words; ordinary abstraction is adequate to that task. Calling the pattern in which bombs fall a "footprint" almost seems a willful distorting process, a playful, perverse refusal of accountability--because to be accountable to reality is to be unable to do this work.

The images evoked by these words may also be a way to tame the uncontrollable forces of nuclear destruction. Take fire-breathing dragons under the bed, the one who threatens to incinerate your family, your town, your planet, and turn it into a pet you can pat. Or domestic imagery may simply serve to make everyone more comfortable with what they're doing. "PAL" (permissive action links) is the carefully constructed, friendly acronym for the electronic system designed to prevent the unauthorized firing of nuclear warheads. The president's annual nuclear weapons stockpile memorandum, which outlines both short and long-range plans for production of new nuclear weapons, is benignly referred to as "the shopping list." The "cookie cutter" is a phrase used to describe a particular model of nuclear attack.

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

Good fear of death is distinct from irrational fearit allows us to reduce danger, live ethically, and prepare for a peaceful death on our own terms Gyatso, Tibetan monk, internationally renowned Gelug scholar, and teacher at the FPMT center Manjushri Institute in England, 03 (Geshe Kelsang, Fear of Death, Tharpa Publications, www.tharpa.com/background/fearof-death.htm)
Generally, our fear of death is an unhealthy and unrealistic fear-we don't want to die, so we ignore the subject, deny it, or get morbidly obsessed by it and think that life is meaningless. However, right now we cannot do anything about dying, so there is no point fearing death itself. What kind of fear is useful? A healthy fear of death would be the fear of dying unprepared, as this is a fear we can do something about, a danger we can avert. If we have this realistic fear, this sense of danger, we are

encouraged to prepare for a peaceful and successful death and are also inspired to make the most of our very precious human life instead of wasting it. This "sense of danger" inspires us to make preparations so that we are no longer in the danger we are in now, for example by practicing moral discipline, purifying
our negative karma, and accumulating as much merit, or good karma, as possible. We put on a seat belt out of a sense of danger of the unseen dangers of traffic on the road, and that seat belt protects us from going through the windshield. We can do nothing about other traffic, but we can do something about whether or not we go through the windscreen if someone crashes into us. Similarly, we can do

nothing about the fact of death, but we can seize control over how we prepare for death and how we die.
Eventually, through Tantric spiritual practice, we can even attain a deathless body.

C. Fear of nuclear weapons has prevented their use Rajaraman, Professor of Theoretical Physics at JNU, 2K2 (R., Ban battlefield nuclear weapons, The Hindu,
April 22, http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/04/22/stories/2002042200431000.html)
There were a variety of different reasons behind each of these examples of abstinence from using nuclear weapons. But one major common factor contributing to all of them has been an ingrained terror of nuclear devastation. The well documented images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the awesome photographs of giant mushroom clouds emerging from nuclear tests in the Pacific and the numerous movies based on nuclear Armageddon scenarios have all contributed to building up a deep rooted fear of nuclear weapons. This is not limited just to the abhorrence felt by anti-nuclear activists. It permeates to one extent or another the

psyche of all but the most pathological of fanatics. It colours the calculations, even if not decisively, of the most hardened of military strategists. The unacceptability of nuclear devastation is the backbone of all deterrence strategies. There is not just a fear of being attacked oneself, but also a strong mental barrier against actually initiating nuclear attacks on enemy populations, no matter how much they may be contemplated in war games and strategies. As a result a taboo has tacitly evolved over the decades preventing nations, at least so far, from actually pressing the nuclear button even in the face of serious military crises.

4. Embracing their alternative without reducing the threat of nuclear war will failour aff is a precursor to their framework. Louis Rene Beres, professor of international law @ Purdue, 1994, 11 Ariz J Int'l & Comp Law l, l/n
Rather than rescue humankind by freeing individuals from fear of death, this perspective recommends educating people to the truth of an " incontestable relationship between death and geopolitics. By surrendering ourselves to States and to traditional views of selfdetermination, we encourage not immortality but premature and predictable extinction. It is a relationship that can, and must, be more widely understood. There are great ironies involved. Although the corrosive calculus of geopolitics has now made possible the
This, then. is an altogether different kind of understanding. deliberate killing of all life, populations all over the planet turn increasingly to States for security. It is the dreadful ingenuity of States that makes possible death in the billions, but It is in the [*24] expressions of that ingenuity that people seek safety. Indeed, as the threat of nuclear annihilation looms even after the Cold War, .'1 the Citizens of conflicting States

As a result increasing human uncertainty brought about by an unprecedented vulnerability to disappearance is likely to undermine rather than support the education required. Curiously, therefore, before we can implement such education, we will need to reduce the perceived threat of nuclear war and enlarge the belief that the short-term goal of nuclear stability is within our grasp. To make this possible we must continue to make progress on the usual and mainstream arms control measures and on the associated
reaffirm their segmented loyalties, moved by the persistent unreason that is. after all, the most indelible badge of modern humankind. strategics of international cooperation and reconciliation. In t h i s connection, arms control [*25] obligations must fill not only on nuclear weapon Stales, but also upon non-nuclear States that threaten others with war or even genocide

5. TurnNumbing

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

Even if they win that we do not really know the impact to nuclear wardenying that destruction can occur through the criticism furthers numbing Lifton and Markusen, Prof of International Relations @ Princeton U and Assist Researcher @ U of New York, 90 (Robert Jay and Eric, The Genocidal Mentality, P. 203)
Dissociation is called forth to cover over and deny ignorance. Not

only are we much more ignorant about what we call nuclear war than we care to admit, but "we don't know how much we do or do not know about it." Since,
as the Israeli philosopher Avner Cohen points out, "we do not really know how to conceive of nuclear warfare as a concrete actuality, how it could be properly kept under control and how it might be brought to termination," it is less than responsible to claim how such an event could be "managed, controlled or concluded." But all evidence suggests that "no matter what nuclear war might be, it would not be the kind of rule-governed practice" often assumed on the basis of past wars. And while the principle of deterrence has a long history in political and military practice going back to the time of the Greek city-states, the consequences, should deterrence fail and the deterrer act on his threat, were always limited: after the war and destruction, there would be recovery and resumption of life. Precisely the present absence of those limits "should deterrence fail," the uncertainty or

unlikelihood of any significant amount of human life remaining, radically distinguishes nuclear deterrence from that tradition. Dissociation, especially in the form of psychic numbing, helps blur that distinction by denying not only our ignorance but also what we can be expected to know.

6. There is a method to our madness Nuclear weapons are designed to deter warsthey secure the world Gusterson, Assoc Prof of Anthropology and Science Studies @ MIT and Adjunct Fellow @ Harvard Us Center for Psychology and Social Change, 93 (Hugh, Ethnographic Writing on Militarism, Journal of Contemporary
Ethnology, April, Vol. 22, No.1, P.72)
How can the anthropologist and the political citizen learn to live together in the same person in such a situation? How, for ex- ample, should one write about an interview subject like Lester,3 who told me that, although his university colleagues tried to talk him out of working at a nuclear weapons laboratory, their objec- tions did not trouble him? He believes that it is more ethical to work on

nuclear weapons than on less destructive conventional weapons because nuclear weapons are designed to deter wars rather than to fight them. He says that he could never work as a lawyer defending murderers or other criminals but feels mor- ally comfortable with his work as a nuclear warhead designer, and even wonders if it might be morally reprehensible not to work on nuclear weapons because, as he sees it, they make the world more stable. Lester is puzzled by those
who cannot see that nuclear weapons make us safer by making war unthink- able. Like most of his colleagues, he is confident that

nuclear weapons can be controlled by humans, that technological progress is unavoidable and beneficial, and that nuclear weapons are the embodiment of a transcendent rationality, which alone can discipline the dark impulses leading humans to make war. Everything in his life, where he sees the atom bent to the experimental
will of human rationality on a daily basis, confirms those beliefs. Lester does not worry that the United States will misuse the hydrogen bombs he designs, bombs he describes as "no more strange than a vacuum cleaner. You don't feel a fear for them at all." In fact, he sees weapons technology as "beautiful." "How do I explain that?" he asked me. "To me, a spectrometer is a very pretty thing ... and you feel badly that it's going to be destroyed [in a nuclear test]."

Perm do both

CP gets rolled backfuture presidents

Cooper 97 [Phillip, Professor of Poli Sci @ University of Vermont, Administration and Society, Lexis, Mike] Even if they serve temporary goals, executive orders can produce a significant amount of complexity and conflict and not yield a long-term benefit because the next president may dispose of predecessors orders at a whim. It may be easier than moving a statute through Congress and faster than waiting for agencies to use their rule-making processes to accomplish policy ends, but executive

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

orders may ultimately be a much weaker foundation on which to build a policy than the alternatives

Executive Orders are perceived by Congress. Moe and Howell, Fellow for the Hoover Institution and Harvard Professor, 99
Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, senior fellow for the Hoover Institution and Associate Professor for the Government Department at Harvard University, Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A theory, LexisNexus.com 12-99

What is likely to happen in Congress, then, when presidents take unilateral action by issuing executive orders that shift the policy status quo? The answer is that legislative responses (if there are any) will be rooted in constituency. An executive order that promotes civil rights, for example, will tend to be supported by legislators from urban or liberal constituencies, because it shifts the status quo in their preferred direction, while members from conservative constituencies will tend to oppose it. The fact that this executive order might
well be seen as usurping Congress's lawmaking powers, or that it has the effect of expanding presidential power, will for most legislators be quite beside the point. Thus, if Congress tries to take any action

at all in responding to the executive order, the battle lines will be determined by the order's effects on legislative constituencies, not by its effects on Congress's power vis-avis the president.
Perm do the CP

1. Normal means is that weaponization projects occur on the Pentagons black budget no one would know until the plan is developed Hsu 10 (Jeremy, 05 May, Is a New Space Weapon Race Heating Up?, SPACE.com,
http://www.space.com/8342-space-weapon-race-heating.html) "Space has been militarized since before NASA was even created," said Joan Johnson-Freese, a space policy analyst at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. Yet she sees weaponization as a different issue from militarization because "so much space technology is dual use" in terms of having both civilian and military purposes, as well as offensive or defensive use. Such uncertainty regarding space technology can make it tricky for nations to gauge the purpose or intentions behind new prototypes, including the X-37B space plane or the HTV-2 hypersonic glider. The U.S. military could even be using the cloak of mystery to deliberately bamboozle and confuse rival militaries, according to John Pike, a military and security analyst who runs GlobalSecurity.org. He suggested that the X-37B and HTV-2 projects could represent the tip of a space weapons program hidden within the Pentagon's secret "black budget," or they might be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

1. Non UQ won't pass in South Korea And, FTA doesn't solve, renegotiated over rice
Korea Herald 9-18-11 (Korea Herald is Korea's premier English newspaper, "Parties to clash over U.S. FTA again", 9/18/11, http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110918000239, DA 10/7/11, KC Ruling and opposition parties are preparing to lock horns once again over the free trade agreement between Korea and the U.S. Main opposition Democratic Party lawmakers on the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs and trade left the meeting room as the Grand National Party submitted the FTA ratification bill to the panel Friday. The Democratic Party vowed to expose shortcomings in the revisions made to the KORUS FTA and block its ratification while the ruling Grand National Party promised to seek approval from opposition parties in passing the bill

10

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

at the parliamentary session. DP lawmakers said that they will confirm a Wikileaks revelation of further FTA concession. Last week, the website released a U.S. diplomatic cable that Kim Jong-hoon, Minister for Trade, on Aug. 29, 2007 told then U.S. Ambassador to Korea, Alexander Vershbow, and then-congressman Earl Pomeroy after the FTA signing that the Korean government would renegotiate tariff rates for rice imports with the U.S. after 2014. This date is when the suspension of the application of tariffs to rice by the World Trade Organization is to expire. The allegation contradicts the governments stance that rice tariffs and FTA would be dealt separately. Rep. Kim Dong-cheol of DP said the information shows Koreas submissive attitude toward the U.S. Yes, we do respect Korea-U.S. alliance but this is too much, he said. He suspected that there are more things behind the FTA deals. Kim and other opposition lawmakers are also expected to pitch their voices against the GNPs unilateral reference of the FTA bill. Last Friday, the opposition walked out of the room when Foreign Affairs Minister Kim Sung-hwan explained future procedure of the FTA bill passage and its effect after the reference. Rep. Yoo Ki-june of the GNP fired back that the credibility of Wikileaks is weak. Besides, we have seen FTAs bringing us benefits in the cases of ASEAN states, Chile and Singapore. The bill must be passed, he said. Rep. Nam Kyung-pil of GNP, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said the bill will not be passed without the consent of the opposition parties. Meanwhile, U.S. bureaucrats and politicians are also moving for the swift ratification of the FTA. The Daily Astorian cited Jim Wayman, political counselor for the U.S. Embassy to Korea, saying that it is critical that the Obama administration and Congress start moving soon to ratify the agreement. The longer the delay the greater chances of failure. President Lee Myung-bak is strongly behind it and wants to get it done before the state visit on Oct. 13, he said, while expressing hopes that the Korean government and the National Assembly will pass the deal by the end of the year.

GOP loves space sees it as a national security issue Whittington, Mark, author of multiple books on space and a frequent contributor to various periodicals,
2/9 Yahoo! News, House GOP Eyes Climate Change Research for Cuts, Funding for Human Space Flight, Feb 9, 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110209/us_ac/7815432_house_gop_eyes_climate_change_research_for_cu ts_funding_for_human_space_flight In the search for extra funding for NASA's human space flight program, a group of House Republicans believe it has found a potential source within NASA's budget. That source is the $1.8 billion currently spent on Earth science. A letter, signed by House NASA supporters such as Bill Posey and Sandy Adams of Florida and Pete Olson of Texas, was send to Congressman Harold Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Frank Wolf, chairman of the House Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA funding. The letter suggests that while the immense budget deficit does require budget cutting, NASA's human space flight program is a national security priority. "Our nation's ability to access to is a critical national security asset and plays an important role in our future economic competitiveness. Space is the ultimate high ground and nations such as China, Russia, and India are anxious to seize the mantle of space supremacy should we decide to cede it. We must not put ourselves in the position of watching Chinese astronauts plant their flag on the moon while we sit Earth bound by our own short sightedness."

Winners Win Walter Russell Mead Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 6/20/11 Business Insiders, Here's How Obama Can Save His Presidency, http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-obama-can-save-his-presidency-2011-6, Holden Choi Americans are realistic enough to understand that the breakdown of the blue social model is a messy process and that perhaps no president can deliver a pain free transition to the next stage. But what they arent hearing from President Obama is a compelling description of what has gone wrong, how it can be fixed, and how the policies he proposes will take us to the next level. What they hear from this administration are defensive responses: Hooveresque calls for patience mingled with strange-sounding attacks on ATMs and sharp, opportunistic jabs at former President Bush. The White House has responded to strategic challenges at home and

11

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

abroad with tactical maneuvers. Voters sense that we live in historic times that demand leadership of a different kind. What does President Obama think about the fiscal squeeze forcing trade-offs between state employee benefits and services to the poor? How much trouble is the American middle class in and what changes are needed to save it? The President of the United States has to own this conversation. His vision, his initiatives must dominate the political scene. His opponents may fight him and defeat his proposals in Congress that is not the worst thing that can happen. Harry Truman did very well running against a do-nothing Congress in 1948. At a time of historic anxiety and tension like the present, the President of the United States cannot be an administrator, a fence-sitter, a finger-pointer. He must first and foremost stand for something and he must be able to make that something resonate with the voters. The Presidents job is to lead. The longer the President fails to dominate the discussion about where this country is going the more his authority will erode. In the end, a failure to define the problem and outline a convincing solution will hurt more than what now appears his likely failure to regenerate healthy economic growth by the next election. He may have only one chance to get this right. A failed attempt to define the problem and control the discussion would further fuzz the Presidents image and reinforce the sense among many voters that the man is not up to the hour. The Obama Presidency can still be saved, but only if the President becomes the kind of inspiring and effective leader these tough and uncertain times demand.

Normal means is that weaponization projects occur on the Pentagons black budget no one would know until the plan is developed Hsu 10 (Jeremy, 05 May, Is a New Space Weapon Race Heating Up?, SPACE.com, http://www.space.com/8342-space-weapon-race-heating.html) "Space has been militarized since before NASA was even created," said Joan Johnson-Freese, a space policy analyst at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. Yet she sees weaponization as a different issue from militarization because "so much space technology is dual use" in terms of having both civilian and military purposes, as well as offensive or defensive use. Such uncertainty regarding space technology can make it tricky for nations to gauge the purpose or intentions behind new prototypes, including the X-37B space plane or the HTV-2 hypersonic glider. The U.S. military could even be using the cloak of mystery to deliberately bamboozle and confuse rival militaries, according to John Pike, a military and security analyst who runs GlobalSecurity.org. He suggested that the X-37B and HTV-2 projects could represent the tip of a space weapons program hidden within the Pentagon's secret "black budget," or they might be nothing more than smoke and mirrors

Non-unique: The Hubble replacement telescope just received more funding that should have triggered the trade-off Space News 9/22 [Hubble Replacement Gets Some Additional Bucks, 9/22/11,
http://www.kscvisit.com/news/?p=206 DA 10/7/11 APS] The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) got some encouraging news when the US Senate Appropriations Committee decided to bump the funding for the already over-budget Hubble Space Telescope replacement. The JWST is scheduled for deployment sometime in 2018. If congress continues to fund this project, it is going to be one BIG telescope that will be peering back in time through the myriad dusty space clouds that currently hide objects by looking only at the infrared spectrum. When complete the JWST will be 21.3 feet in diameter and orbit about 1 million miles from Earth. The Webb telescope is a partnership between NASA, European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency. Once it goes into orbit, the observatory will serve 1000s of astronomers world-wide. Unlike the Hubble Telescope, the JWST has a folding, segmented primary mirror that will be adjusted to shape after launch. JWST will work primarily

12

Gator Debate 2011-12 [File Name]

[Name]

in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum but will also have some capability to view the visible range. There will be 4 science instrument packages onboard: NearInfraRed Camera, Near InfraRed Spectograph, Mid-InfraRed Instrument and a Fine Guidance Sensor Camera. If the name James Webb might is not immediately recognized as a person of science, theres good reason. James Webb ran NASA from early 1961 through 1968. It was Webbs vision that made NASA more than a political tool in the race to the moon, but directed the organization to be a balanced scientific exploration vehicle

1. No impact to climate changethe rate of warming is slowing down now.

Science Daily, 5-5-2008 (Science Daily, Will Global Warming Take A Short Break? Improved Climate Predictions Suggest A Reduced Warming Trend During The Next 10 Years, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080502113749.htm CBato)

To date climate change projections, as published in the last IPCC report, only considered changes in future atmospheric composition. This strategy is appropriate for long-term changes in climate such as predictions for the end of the century. However, in order to predict short-term developments over the next decade, models need additional information on natural climate variations, in particular associated with ocean currents. Lack of sufficient data has hampered such predictions in the past. Scientists at IFM-GEOMAR and from the MPI for Meteorology have developed a method
to derive ocean currents from measurements of sea surface temperature (SST). The latter are available in good quality and global coverage at least for the past 50 years.

With this additional information, natural decadal climate variations, which are superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend, can be predicted. The improved predictions suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the following 10 years. Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change wont be as bad as previously thought, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years, adds Latif. That is like driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills
and valleys before you reach the top, explains Dr. Johann Jungclaus from the MPI for Meteorology. In some years trends of both phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise.

2. Single Policy of the plan doesnt reduce all emissionsat worst it takes decades to make a change

13