impact turns (found) 2010

8/8/2019 Impact Turns (Found) 2010

1/35

SCFI 2010 Impact WorkTeam Jabob and the STGs ___ of ___

1

Index

US-Russia War Good: 1NC Shell ....................................................................................................................... 2US-Russia War Good: 1NC Shell ....................................................................................................................... 3US-Russia War Good: 1NC Shell ....................................................................................................................... 4

US-Russia War Good: 2NC Ext .......................................................................................................................... 5US-Russia War Good: 2NC Ext .......................................................................................................................... 7Indo-Pak War Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................................... 8Indo-Pak War Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................................... 9Korean War Good 1NC...................................................................................................................................... 10Korean War Good 1NC...................................................................................................................................... 11Korean War Good 1NC...................................................................................................................................... 12Middle East Instability Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................... 13

Middle East Instability Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................... 14Middle East Instability Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................... 15Middle East Instability Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................... 16Middle East Instability Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................... 17Middle East Instability Good 1NC ..................................................................................................................... 18Afghan Instability Good 1NC ............................................................................................................................. 19 Terrorism Good 1NC.......................................................................................................................................... 20Terrorism Good 1NC.......................................................................................................................................... 21US-Russian Relations Low ................................................................................................................................ 22US-Russian Relations Bad ................................................................................................................................ 23US-Russian Relations Bad ................................................................................................................................ 24US-Russian Relations Good ............................................................................................................................. 25US-Russian Relations Good ............................................................................................................................. 26US-Russian Relations High ............................................................................................................................... 27NATO Bad: Hurts Russia ................................................................................................................................... 28NATO Bad: Generic ........................................................................................................................................... 29NATO Bad: Generic ........................................................................................................................................... 31NATO Bad- Generic ........................................................................................................................................... 32NATO Bad: Leads to Entanglement .................................................................................................................. 33NATO Bad: Causes Proliferation ...................................................................................................................... 34NATO Bad: Hurts Civilians ................................................................................................................................ 35


2/35


3/35


3

US-Russia War Good: 1NC Shell

3.US has first-strike capacity for nowArtyukov and Trukhachev, 06 [Oleg and Vadim, Centre for Research on Globalization, US Capable Of Wiping Out Russias Nuclear Capacity In ASingle Strike] 3/23/06, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2154

For the first time in the last 50 years theUSA is on the verge of attaining ultimate domination with regard to nuclear weapons.This means that Russia is no longer able to keep up with the United States. If a conflict were to break out, the USAwould be able to quickly and with impunity attack Russian territory, and Russia would have no means to mount aresponse. This is roughly the message of an article published in the latest edition of the American journal Foreign Affairs. Its authors calculated that incomparison with the USSR, the amount ofstrategic bombers at Russias disposal has fallen by 39%, intercontinental ballisticmissiles by 58% and the number of submarines with ballistic missiles by 80%. However the true scale of the collapse of theRussian arsenal is much greater than can be judged from these figures, they write. The strategic nuclear forces now at Russia's disposalare barely fit to be used in battle. Russian radar is now incapable of detecting the launch of American missiles fromsubmarines located in some regions of the Pacific Ocean. Russian anti-air defense systems might not manage tointercept B-2 stealth bombers in time, which could easily mean that they are able to inflict a strike with impunity onRussian nuclear forces. If Russian missile forces continue to decrease at the current rate, then in about 10 years only isolated missiles, which the

American anti-missile defense is capable of intercepting, will be able to deliver a retaliatory blow. It will probably soon be possible for the USAto destroy the strategic nuclear potential of Russia and China with a single strike, says the article. The articles authors come tothe conclusion thatall this may stabilize the worldwide hegemony of the USA and sustain the foreign policy course of theUSA, which aims to prevent the appearance of another power centre in the world of equal strength, and to excludethe possibility of weaker nations undermining American positions in key regions around the world, such as the inPersian Gulf. Russian experts reacted extremely guardedly to the article in the American journal. It is obvious that Russian strategicnuclear forces are experiencing difficult times. Modernization is being carried out, but at a very slow rate. In the1990s the Russian submarine fleet was almost totally destroyed. And it hardly seems possible to revive it in thecoming years, as this would require colossal funds . But it also obvious that it is completely unjust to talk of the USAs domination with regardto nuclear weapons. This aim is unattainable within the next decade. At least until 2015 it is unlikely that Russias nuclear containment capacity will noticeablydiminish, as there are still some launch systems among the strategic missile forces that Russia can still rely on for a considerable length of time, capable ofdelivering an effective retaliatory strike, senior academic at the RAN Institute of World Economics and International Relations Vladimir Dvorkin told Interfax. Hehas previously headed four research institutes in the Russian Ministry of Defense, devoted to problems of strategic weapons. However, the main message of the

article in the American journal is not that Russian nuclear forces are rapidly falling into decay and do not represent a significantthreat to the USA. It is just that in Washington ever more vehement arguments can be heard that Russia is of no particular value to theUSA as a political partner. We should take into account that this journal Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations. As recentlyas the 6th March it published a report entitled Russias incorrect course, the main idea of which was that Russias opinion is now only important to the USA oncertain questions and that the paths of the two countries are significantly diverging. Therefore the article on the forthcoming nuclear domination of the UnitedStates is no more than an attempt to scientifically expound the theory that Russia is of absolutely no use as a partner. Therefore it could be that we will not haveto wait long to find out something new about our own country. That prospect is no less gripping Comments from experts: Aleksey Arbatov, Director for the

Centre of International Security IMEMO RAN: At the current time there is no cause for concern. But in the next 10-15 years Russia will have toimprove the ground-based component of its nuclear forces for example, its ground-based radar system andwarning system for a missile attack. If it does not do that, then many systems will go out of date, nuclear parity will belost, and the USA will gain a definite advantage. But Russia has the means to not let that happen for example, our Topol-2 complex has noequals in the world, and it needs to be developed in sufficient quantity. In turn, Russian diplomacy must work to ensure that all nuclear powers decrease, notincrease the size of their nuclear arsenals.


4/35


4

US-Russia War Good: 1NC Shell

4. But, Russia is rapidly modernizing their military capacitythis makes a future warunwinnableMcDermott, 09[Roger, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent at Canterbury (UK) andSenior Fellow in Eurasian Military Studies, Jamestown Foundation, Washington, DC., on the Editorial Board of Central Asia and the Caucasus, Scientific Boardof the Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies, Editor of Central Asia, Graduate of the University of Oxford, Radio Free Europe, Russias ArmedForces Undergoing 'Unparalleled' Transformation]

In the aftermath of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008, Russia's political and military elites embarked on a highlyambitious program to reform and modernize the armed forces by 2020 . That program envisages abandoning the mass-mobilizationprinciple in favor of forming mobile, permanent-readiness forces, capable of reacting to the order to deploy within "one hour." In April 2009, U.S. Director of

National Intelligence Denis Blair said in unclassified written answers to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the ongoing reshaping ofRussia'sground forces will enable it to "militarily dominate" most of its neighbors. Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov has beencastigated by some domestic opponents who argue that his reform will destroy the Russian Army. Yet, dramatically downsizing its oversized officer corps tomaximize efficiency, switching from a division-based to a brigade-based table of organization, and reforming the General Staff Academy and the system ofmilitary education pale in comparison with the huge challenges involved in modernizing its aging equipment and weapons inventory. Many aspects of the reformagenda are so radical, far-reaching, and multifaceted that Western and Russian commentators have failed to identify the key elements. One widespreadmisconception is related to the affordability of the plan to downsize the officer corps by 205,000 by 2012. Since doing so will undoubtedly be very costly,

especially in light of the current economic crisis, many dismissed this as another failed bid to reform the structures. In fact, Western interpretations ofthese reforms have consistently underestimated key aspects of the program, assessing it primarily in terms ofRussian economic potential and stressing the officer downsizing. Many aspects of the present agenda, currently faradvanced, are thus missed, ignored, or simply ridiculed as signs of impending failure. They include the speed oftransferring to brigade structures; overhauling the system of military education; radically changing the General Staff

Academy; introducing a civilian chaplaincy; rewriting the manuals on combat training; and focusing onnoncommissioned-officer(NCO) training and testing the new structures. 'New Look' By June 2009, the mass mobilization, division-basedsystem had already largely disappeared. In its place, more than half the required brigades were already formed and exercises and training were geared to testingand developing these new structures. The Russian media coined the phrase "new look" to describe these monumental changes. However, there appears to besomething more going on than simply concentrating on appearance; this is no public-relations campaign. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the ongoingtransformation of the Russian armed forces by measuring it in terms of Western paradigms, such as its inability to conduct noncontact warfare, or by

emphasizing the armed forces' lack of sophisticated modern weaponry. The Russian military is changing fast; few are able to perceivethe sheer breathtaking scale of these changes, and the familiar methods of assessing its conventional capabilitiesare passing into history. Analysts, commentators, and decision makers on all sides are unable to fit the "new look" Russian military into a familiarpattern. One thing is clear: By the end of this year, the Russian Army will be unrecognizable. While the main focus of the reform campaign is to produce mobile,permanent-readiness formations capable of intervention within a relatively short period, which some might perceive as a Western paradigm, in reality anyimprovement to Russia's conventional forces will have implications for the country's foreign and defense policies.While it is very likely that the structures that emerge will still compare unfavorably with Western militaries, they will nonetheless meet the needs ofa modern and potentially resurgent Russia, enhancing its capability to project power within its "near abroad." What must bestressed is that the current condition of these forces is so decrepit and desperately in need of modernizing that the reform agenda will not contribute to improving"interoperability" with NATO forces for future peace support operations. Such a benevolent strategy would require both political will and intensive supportingprograms agreed between Moscow and NATO. Both are unrealistic given the shift in the geopolitical landscape after the Georgia war and the ongoing oppositionin Moscow towards any future eastward expansion of the alliance. Moreover, without these programs, the lives of allied personnel could be potentiallyjeopardized by any ill-conceived plan to create interoperability. Indeed, analyses of the Russian military in the wake of the Georgia conflict, which exposed manyof its conventional failings, concentrated on its future military requirements in precisely this context. For instance, although one key feature of the large-scalemilitary exercises Kavkaz 2009 in late June was to test the new brigade structures under an "antiterrorist" guise, those exercises appeared to rehearse an

improved version of intervention in Georgia. Unrecognizable Much of the reform program also appears hurried, such as introducingwidespread changes within the manning system before a revised military doctrine (expected in late 2009) is published. On August

10, President Dmitry Medvedev sent a bill to the Duma that constitutes the legal basis for future intervention by the Russian military abroad in protection of itscitizens or its national interests. Until the reforms are completed, it is difficult to extrapolate policy implications, but one thing is clear: By the end ofthis year, the Russian Army will be unrecognizable.


5/35


5

US-Russia War Good: 2NC Ext

War is Inevitable Arctic ResourcesMatthews, 09 [Owen, Modern History at Oxford University, Newsweek's Moscow Bureau Chief, Istanbul Correspondent, Author of Stalin's Children: ThreeGenerations of Love and War, Mail Online, The Coldest War: Russia And U.S. Face Off Over Arctic Resources]

As the oil wells run dry, the planet's last great energy reserves lie miles beneath the North Pole. And as the U.S. andRussia race to grab them at any cost, the stage is set for a devastating new cold war. The year is 2020, and , from theMiddle East to Nigeria, the world is convulsed by a series of conflicts over dwindling energy supplies. The last untappedreserves of oil and gas lie in the most extreme environment on the planet - the North Pole - where an estimatedbonanza of 100 billion barrels are buried deep beneath the Arctic seabed. The ownership of this hostile no-man's-land is contested by Russia, Denmark, Norway, the U.S and Canada. And, in an increasingly desperate battle forresources, each begins to back up its claim with force. Soon, the iceberg-strewn waters of the Arctic are patrolled byfleets of warships, jostling for position in a game of brinkmanship . Russia's Northern Fleet, headed by the colossal but ageing guidedmissile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter The Great), and the U.S. Second Fleet, sailing out of Norfolk, Virginia, are armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles - andcontrolled by leaders who are increasingly willing to use them. For now, such a scenario is pure fiction. But it may not be for long. Only recently, respected British

think-tank Jane's Review warned that a polar war could be a reality within 12 years. And the Russians are already taking the race for the NorthPole's oil wealth deadly seriously. Indeed, the Kremlin will spend tens of millions upgrading Russia's Northern Fleet over the next eight years. And its Atomic

Energy Agency has already begun building a fleet of floating nuclear power stations to power undersea drilling for the Arctic's vast oil and gas reserves. A prototype is under construction at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk. The prospect of an underseaKlondike near the North Pole, powered by floating nuclear plants, has environmentalists deeply worried - not least because Russia has such a dismal record onnuclear safety and the disposal of radioactive waste. The new generation power stations will be engineered to the highest safety standards, says Russia, withtwo 35-megawatt reactors on a giant ship-like platform which will store its own nuclear waste. But even if there is no spillage of radiation, the plants are likely to

speed up the warming of Arctic waters and contribute to the disappearance of the polar ice cap. And there are other, even more chillingdangers in the race for the North Pole's resources - the prospect of war on the top of the world. A battle for the NorthPole would be the coldest war of all. Fought in a frozen wasteland, where nuclear submarines already prowl beneaththe polar cap - and occasionally break through it - a conflict in the Arctic would involve an arsenal of Cold War-erahardware. Since late 2007, Russian Bear and Blackjack tactical bombers have been flying perilously close toCanadian territory. Tensions reached a new level in 2008, when Canada declared a go-slow on issuing visas to Russian nationals in protest at theairspace violations. Soviet and U.S Cold Warriors spent decades fantasising about how to militarise the Arctic. JosephStalin sent millions of gulag prisoners to their deaths building an insane railway between the Arctic towns of

Salekhard and Igarka. Leonid Brezhnev built fleets of monster, nuclear-powered icebreakers in an attempt to keep apassage around northern Siberia open year-round. Today, Russia, Canada and the U.S. keep isolated military postsdotted across the Arctic Circle, supplied by helicopters and, in Russia's case, manned by shifts of shivering conscripts in tall felt boots and sheepskincoats. But above all, any confrontation over the Arctic would be a naval one, with Russia's Northern Fleet, based at Murmansk, confronting the U.S. Second

Fleet. Fully two-thirds of Russia's naval power is allocated to its Northern Fleet. The fleet also boasts Russia's newly-revamped nuclear missile submarines. The fleet is also armed with new, sea-launched Bulava intercontinentalballistic nuclear missiles, which are designed to evade U.S. missile defence shields and destroy entire cities. Clearly,Moscow sees the north as its most vulnerable, and easily expanded, frontier and seems willing to stake its claim withdevastating force. War over the North Pole was, until Russia's invasion of Georgia in August, an unlikely scenario.Now, though, as Russia becomes ever more aggressive (President Medvedev has just signed off on the latest round of a massive upgradeof the country's armed forces), it has come a step closer to the realms of the possible. The Kremlin has made it clear that ithas set its sights on domination of the last great wilderness on Earth. At stake is the massive mineral wealth hidden deep under theArctic seabed - much of it made more accessible as the ice cap retreats. Vladimir Putin, Russia's Prime Minister, long vowed to build an'energy empire' and dreamed of reversing the collapse of Russian power after the fall of the Soviet Union, an eventhe once called 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century'. And now Putin's hand-picked successor,President Dmitry Medvedev, has set his sights on the Arctic, a chunk of territory with massive mineral wealth. In astartling attempt to re-draw the map of the world, Moscow has signalled its intentions to annex a huge swathe of the continental shelf, which runs from NorthernSiberia, to include the entire North Pole. Medvedev set out his assertive strategy to expand Russia's borders northward at a meeting of Russia's national security

council in the Kremlin almost immediately after coming to power last year. 'Our biggest task is to turn the Arctic into Russia's resourcebase for the 21st century,' he told his top security lieutenants. The top of the world currently lies under internationalwaters, supervised by a United Nations Commission. The five countries with Arctic coastlines - Russia, Canada, theU.S, Denmark (which owns Greenland) and Norway - control only a 200-mile[Continued On Next]


6/35


6

[Continued from Top]economic zone extending north from their northern coasts. Beyond that, it is a no-man's-land. Russia's President Dmitry Medvedevcontrols a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons, along with Russia's powerful Northern Fleet But under UN rules, an Arcticcountry's zone can be extended if it can prove that the undersea territory it wants to claim is geologically part of its own continental shelf - in other words, anatural extension of its own territory. Using this loophole, Russia has mounted a massive scientific and diplomatic effort to redraw the polar map. The Russiansmade what they claimed was their first major scientific breakthrough in the summer of 2007. The Rossiya nuclear ice-breaker, carrying 50 scientists and tons of

seismic equipment, nosed through the ice of the polar region, taking sonic and magnetic photographs of the seabed. After a freezing 45 days at sea, theRussians announced that they had discovered that an underwater ridge directly links Russia's Arctic coast to the North Pole. The Lomonosov Ridge, named after

the 18th-century founder of Moscow University, is an impressive piece of real estate - according to Moscow's claim, it guarantees Russia'srights over a polar territory half the size of Western Europe, which just happens to contain ten billion tons of oil andnatural gas deposits. Countries have fought devastating wars over much less. To push the point home, the Kremlin decided that aRussian submarine would plant a national flag on the bottom of the sea at the North Pole. The expedition, led by the bearded Artur Chilingarov, a celebratedRussian polar explorer, set out aboard the giant ice-breaker Akademik Fedorov carrying two MIR deep submergence vehicles. Accompanied by a businessman,an Australian adventurer and a Swedish pharmaceuticals millionaire, Chilingarov descended to a depth of 4,261m below the polar ice. And then, on the seabedat the geographic North Pole, the submersible dropped a three-foot Russian flag made of Siberian titanium. It also left another flag encased in a time capsule -the banner of the pro-Putin United Russia party. Unsurprisingly, the televised flag-planting sparked angry reactions from Russia's Arctic neighbours. 'This isn't the15th century,' stormed former Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay. 'You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say: "We're claiming this

territory."' The U.S also protested. But the point was made: Russia was deadly serious about its claim to the North Pole - and had the hardware, scientificclout and steely political will to push it through. It's impossible to build a permanent base at the North Pole simply because there's no land, and the giant chunksof sea ice jostle and drift in the Arctic. Nonetheless, the Russians have made an attempt. On a 16 sq km island of ice near the North Pole, the 'North Pole-35' icestation was established soon after Chilingarov's expedition. Three hundred tons of equipment, prefabricated buildings and food were offloaded on to

snowmobiles, along with 22 scientists, who raised the Russian flag over their snowbound station. For the past year, the inhabitants of this real-life Ice StationZebra have been the closest human inhabitants to the North Pole - until the station was abandoned early in the summer as the ice drifted rather too close toCanada's Fram Strait. But the North Pole isn't the resurgent Russian empire's only prize. Moscow is also believed to be readying a claim to an 18,000 sq milepiece of the Bering Sea, which separates Alaska from Russia's far east. Known as Chukotka, the region's governor until July was Chelsea football club owner

Roman Abramovich.A U.S.-Soviet Maritime Boundary Agreement awarded the undersea territory to the U.S. in 1990. Theagreement, signed by Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, wasdesigned as a post-Cold War gesture of reconciliation - and was bitterly opposed by Soviet hard-liners. Now, thecomplaints of these hardliners have become Kremlin policy, as the Russian media denounce the agreement as a treasonous act byShevardnadze, who later became the pro-Nato President of Georgia. Indeed, many members of the Kremlin-controlled parliament are demanding that the

agreement be reviewed, setting the scene for a diplomatic storm between Russia and the U.S. Russia is also stepping upthe military pressure in its push for Arctic riches. The Kremlin has increased the number of patrol flights over the Arctic by Tu-95 strategicbombers - known as Bears. These gigantic warplanes are designed to carry nuclear payloads. Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay was angry over theprovocative flights, which swing close to Canadian airspace. 'We're obviously very concerned about much of what Russia has been doing lately,' MacKay said ashe launched Operation Nanook, an Arctic military exercise designed to assert Canada's sovereignty over its own huge Northern Territories. 'When we see a

Russian Bear approaching Canadian air space, we meet them with an F-18. We remind them that this is Canadian sovereign airspace, and they turn back.' Andso with tension escalating, many believe the Arctic could be the scene of the next Russia-Nato clash. So far, Russia's sabre rattling is just that - rattling. What'smore, their chances of laying claim to the Arctic's riches are legally ambiguous. According to a study by Southampton's National Oceanography Centre's Law ofthe Sea Group, Denmark (which owns Greenland, the closest landmass to the North Pole) and Canada also have claims to the no-man's-land. 'Denmark couldbe given the North Pole,' said Helge Sander, the country's science minister. 'The preliminary investigations done so far are very promising.' But her optimism may

be misplaced. With billions of barrels of oil and a former superpower's hurt pride at stake, it looks like the battle for the North Pole is ever morelikely to be fought not by teams of lawyers, but the old-fashioned way, with a clash of Cold War hardware.


7/35


7

US-Russia War Good: 2NC Ext

Now is Key Economic and landrevenue stream volatile, population decreasingLieber, 07 [Robert J., Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University, "Persistent Primacy and the Future of the American Era",APSA Paper] 2007, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/1/0/5/pages211058/p211058-1.php

Constraints on the capacity of adversaries also needs to be taken into account. Russia under Putin has put pressure on its immediateneighbors and seeks to rebuild its armed forces, but Moscows ability to regain the superpower status of the formerSoviet Union remains limited. The Russian armed forces are in woeful condition, the total population is half that of theUSSR and declining by 700,000 per year, the economy is overwhelmingly dependent on revenues from oil andnatural gas and thus vulnerable if world market prices soften, and the long term stability of its crony capitalism andincreasingly authoritarian political system are uncertain. China, despite extraordinary economic growth and modernization, will continue todepend on rapid expansion of trade and the absorption of vast numbers of people moving from the countryside to the cities. It may well become a major military

challenger of the United States, first regionally and even globally, but only over the long term. As Mark Hass has noted, demography also works to theadvantage of the United States. Most other powerful states, including China and Russia as well as Germany andJapan, face the significant aging of their populations. Although the U.S. also will need to finance the costs of an agingpopulation, this demographic shift is occurring to a lesser extent and more slowly than among its competitors . Haasargues that these changes in global aging will be a potent force for the continuation of U.S. power dominance, both

economic and military. 31 Finally, the United States benefits from two other unique attributes, flexibility and adaptability. Time and again, America hasfaced daunting challenges and made mistakes, yet it has possessed the inventiveness and societal flexibility to adapt and respond successfully. Despite obviousproblems, there is reason to believe that the countrys adaptive capacity will allow it to respond to future requirements and threats. None of this assures themaintenance of its world role, but the domestic underpinnings to support this engagement remain relatively robust. Thus for the foreseeable future, U.S. primacyis likely to be sustainable. Americas own national interest and the fortunes of a global liberal democratic order depend on it.

No first-strike capacitysubmarine upgrades will guarantee second-strike capability in thefutureRFE, 08 [Radio Free Europe, Russia Hopes To Deploy New Nuclear Missile Next Year]

MOSCOW (Reuters) -- Russia hopes to deploy a new submarine-launched nuclear missile next year, underlining Moscow'sdetermination to upgrade its nuclear strike forces, a senior defense official has been quoted as saying. Colonel GeneralVladimir Popovkin, head of armaments for the Russian armed forces, told the Defense Ministry newspaper "Krasnaya zvezda" that Russia's recent war with

Georgia "compels us to rethink the current state of the armed forces and how they should develop further". President DmitryMedvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have both pledged to extend Russia's recent military build-up with extra funds to buy new, high-tech arms. On

October 1, Putin announced an extra $3.1 billion of spending next year, partly to replace equipment lost in the Georgia war. But despite the billions ofdollars spent since Putin came to power as president in 2000, Russia's million-strong armed forces remain poorlyequipped, badly paid, and reliant on a large proportion of unwilling conscripts . Defense analysts based in Moscow say much of theextra spending has not reached the front line because of corruption or mismanagement and many weapons programs are running late. One of these is theBulava, a submarine-launched long-range nuclear missile that Putin says will be capable of penetrating any missile defenses -- a reference to Washington'splans for a new global system to shoot down hostile missiles. The Bulava, a modified version of the land-based Topol-M, has had a checkered history withseveral test launch failures and is running at least two years late. The navy pronounced the latest Bulava exercise on September 18 a success, saying themissile flew from the White Sea right across Russia to the Far East. Popovkin, who is also deputy defense minister, said he hoped the armed forces wouldaccept the Bulava for service next year. Upgrading Russia's strategic nuclear forces remained a top priority because they were the cornerstone of its defenses."As long as we are a nuclear power, no hotheads will venture to attack our country," Popovkin said in the interview. "We have already this year started fitting out

strategic nuclear forces with the Topol-M missile," he added. Russia also planned to modernize its nuclear-capable Tupolev TU-160supersonic strategic bombers and to fully commission the first of three new nuclear-powered submarines to carry the

Bulava missile, he added. The first of these submarines, the "Yury Dolgoruky," was launched in February, six years after its original scheduled date,though it still lacks the missiles it was designed to carry.


8/35


8

Indo-Pak War Good 1NC

1. No offense-war wouldn't escalate-it would devastate Pakistan solving global terrorismYoung 09 David H. Young is a Washington-based writer and analyst of international affairs and violent conflict. In various capacities, he has worked orconsulted for the International Rescue Committee, the Carter Center, the Israel Policy Forum, the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, the Center for Democracyand Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, Soliya, and Abraham's Vision. Graduated from Davidson College and earned a Master's Degree in Conflict Analysis and

Resolution from George Mason University Indo-Pak tensions and US options David H. Young Tuesday, 13 Jan, 2009

But according to a flood of recent press reports , if India seems likely to attack Pakistan, then both the Pakistan Army and the militants they aresupposed to destroy could find themselves facing the same grave threat in India. Various militant factions and supporters of the Taliban all the way from South

Waziristan to the Swat Valley could put their wars with Nato and Islamabad on hold and find their way to Kashmir or the Indian border. In the meantime, USand Nato forces in Afghanistan would be in the unfamiliar position of having neither friends nor foes on the other sideof the Afghan/Pakistan border. And this would present Washington with equally unfamiliar flexibility.The USpresidential transition could alter this dynamic, but under these circumstances, the most likely benefit to the US wouldmanifest in southern Afghanistan, where the resurgent Afghan Taliban would face potentially crippled supply lines of weapons and equipment, whichare currently flowing from the Pakistani Taliban and the tribal clans loyal to them in the NWFP and especially Fata. If those middlemen are busy at Pakistanseastern border, there will be fewer available at the western border. Another possibility is that, like their Pakistani counterparts, the Afghan Taliban might also flockto the Indian border or LoC to fight the Indians. Numerous Taliban leaders and foot soldiers are foreign-born and tied to the militant Pakhtun world by marriage

and lifestyle; but many are jihadists at heart and would drool at the prospect of a glorious war on numerous fronts. Though less likely, in either scenario , the

Afghan Taliban would be stretched uncharacteristically thin without support from across the border, and theUS/Nato/Afghan forces would be less hindered to improve security and perhaps earn a little loyalty from localPakhtun tribes in southern Afghanistan. At the very least, there would be fewer obstacles to US intelligence gatheringand infiltration, which is always in desperate need of a boost. Either way, however, a substantive contingent of the Pakistani Taliban andtheir supporters will probably remain in the NWFP/Fata and continue supporting the Afghan Taliban. In the end, Pakhtuns are notoriously territorial, and some will

not be interested in repelling the Indians from the land of their ethnic rivals in Pakistans eastern provinces . In this case, Washington would beable to test Pakistans claim that as limited as Islamabads assistance has been since 2001 the war on terror would be in a farworse state without Pakistans help. Willfully testing this claim has always been too risky for the US because the priceof being wrong could be frightfully high. But if Islamabad refuses to keep its contingent of soldiers on Pakistanswestern border anyway, then as a s ilver lining, Washington might be able to test this notion and use it as a basis forstrengthening or drastically altering the US-Pakistan relationship.

2. Pakistan spends billions on its military, an Indo-Pak war would end its military development and startfocus on the economy.Bokhari 05 three Master's degrees: a recent one in Political Science from U of T, specializing in nuclear disarmament in South Asia. As well as, an M.Phil,Defense and Strategic Studies from QAU Pakistan and an M.Sc. International Relations from the same institute, specializing in South Asian nuclear politics. MsBokhari has the honor of being a Track II Diplomat (1999-2001) from Pakistan to India and played a crucial role in citizen's diplomacy to see the success of thepresent peace process between India and Pakistan. Ms Bokhari has extensive experience of working with the Pakistani foreign office's policy research institutesin Pakistan: Islamabad Policy Research Institute (2001). Has lectured and attended various peace and disarmament schools and conferences: HarvardUniversity Program on Asia and International Relations, Cambridge University (UK), Itlay (ISODARCO), San Diego University (USA), Dalhousie University,Halifax, University of Beijing, China, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. Ms Bokhari has drafted fourinternational publications in the areas of war and terrorism peace, disarmament and nuclear confidence building measures and has lectured at variousinternational forums. She is currently working on her fifth one. She has also appeared as a strategic analyst on OMNI TV (Toronto), and PTV(Islamabad) She hasbeen affiliated with Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies (former) and has strong association with the Noble Peace Prize Pugwash Movements. She is amember of Canadian International Council. Sarah Bokhari Indo-Pak peace

The doves in Pakistan and the nuclear pessimist lobby are of the view that a normalisation of relations with India

would divert the huge resources spent on Pakistani defence and more towards intra-economic development. Musharrafand other military leaders have often admitted that the stability of Pakistan rests on two pillars, i.e. armed forces and economics [11]. For attracting foreigninvestment and seeking positive economic benefits, the Pakistani delegates at the 2004 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, prepared a brochurewhich, under the section Relations thaw with India, contained a passage with the phrase looks as though commerce may succeed where diplomats have so far

failed. There is no doubt that the trade benefits would be massive . Pakistan is a very poor country by all standards. In the last fifteenyears, the incidence in poverty in Pakistan has risen from 20 to 33%. Pakistans burgeoning population, nowapproximately 140 million, is poorly educated and cared for. According to the United Nations Development ProgramsHuman Development Report, for 2003 Pakistan spent 1.8% of i ts GDP on education and 0.9% on health, comparedto 4.5% on defense.


9/35


9

Indo-Pak War Good 1NC

3. Indo-Pak war key to a major reduction on terrorismFrontier India 08 emerged as a comprehensive and reliable source of public information. The website is an important resource for governments, policymakers, industrialists, political and economic experts, and researchers interested in International affairs. The content of Frontier India is provided by its staff, in

cooperation with affiliated experts and journalists from around the globe. The site is updated daily and is w3c schools compliant. December 24th, 2008

Both the Pakistani Army and the Jihadi organisations like Tehrik-e-Taliban & Jamaat-ud-Dawa have confirmed that they willparticipate in a war against India. Statistically we are looking at more than 70% of worlds Jihadist and their Pakistani Army supporters.Al Quiedawill not miss the opportunity to participate in such a mega event. In the words of a chief terrorist of the outlawed Tehrik-e-TalibanPakistan, Baitullah Mehsud time had come to wage a real jihad they had been waiting for as per the report of the news from Pakistan . This is anopportunity that has not to be missed by the countries engaged on war on terror. A war would benefit the US/NATO,

Afghanistan and India who suffer the brunt of Pakistan backed terrorist. Primarily, this brings all terrorist elements onsingle platform, which, would have been otherwise elusive. US is paying an estimated Pakistan almost one billiondollar a year to kill these terrorists and it bears no result. It will also represent an opportunity for US to wrest control ofthe Islamic Nuclear weapon for global good. For Afghanistan, it will be an opportunity to cross the line of control andhit targets of opportunity deep inside Pakistani terrorist breeding grounds. For Indian terrorism problem, a strike on

Pakistan will be the best option. Historically, India has missed the opportunity of dismembering Pakistan anddismantling its terrorist structure due to world pressure. The world opinion is favorable as now they themselves aresuffering from the international migraine called Pakistan. Pakistans economy is at its lowest and its militaryapparatus is very old. Even though the terrorist have declared that they will participate in fighting, there are areas inPakistan which would like to gain freedom. Breaking up Pakistan and dismantling its terror structure will greatlyreduce the world terror problem. Like minded allies like India, US, Afghanistan and Israel should jointly


10/35


11/35


11

Korean War Good 1NC

2. Korean War is Key to UnificationCoghlan, 08 (April 2008, Colonel David Coghlan, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub859.pdf, 1984 graduate of theRoyal Military College Duntroon, specialized in Ground Based Air Defense, deployments to East Timor and Afghanistan, Masters of Defence

Studies from the University of New South Wales, member of the U.S. Army War College Class of 2008)

The final and most ominous reunification scenario is one of war that leads to the military defeat of the DPRK. 43 NorthKorean initiated war is the worst case of all these scenarios, and although the likelihood is remote given the capabilities of the North Korean military, thepossibility of a precipitative event (including an accidental one) triggering war cannot be ruled out. Although North Korea isunlikely to prevail in a conventional campaign against the South, there is the possibility that Kim Jong-il could initiatewar out of desperation (the so-called cornered rat syndrome44) or related to this, facing irreversible economic decline but stillpossessing a strong military, he may resort to preventative war to gain a negotiating position favorable to Pyongyang.Given that North Korea is unlikely to get to such a position against a prepared enemy, the optimal time for North Korea to attack is during a periodof low tension, ideally when the United States is preoccupied elsewhere.45 Assuming that Kim Jong-il is more interested in state survival thanstate suicide, this option is remote. However, considering the stakes, it cannot be discounted. Despite the perils of predictions and the almost unlimited

combinations of the scenarios presented, some conclusions can be drawn to guide stakeholder approaches to reunification andbeyond. First, despite the optimism of the 1990s, none of the scenarios discussed envision early reunification, and it seems that for the foreseeable future thestatus quo on the Korean Peninsula will remain. Second, the likelihood of the gradual scenario in which 6 the two Koreas reunite in a soft landing appears, as it ispredicated on fundamental reform by North Korea, to be highly unlikely. Consequently, all scenarios suggest to one extent or another that reunification is not

going to be soft46 and in the case of system collapse or war, could be potentially devastating for the Korean Peninsula. Third, with status quo likely to bein effect for the foreseeable future, this provides all interested parties time to prepare to comprehensively reduce theimpact of a reunification hard landing and subsequent absorption by the South. Fourth, bearing in mind the cost ofreunification, the longer North Korea survives, the more anachronistic it will become; the greater the disparitybetween North and South; and the higher the eventual cost of reunification. Finally, despite the time available from the status quooption, the worst case wildcards of unexpected collapse and/or war cannot be discounted and must be planned for. Given these scenarios, a raft of prospects,opportunities, and challenges is presented to stakeholders in the region. The next part of this discussion will examine how these stakeholders may respond tothese challenges.

3. Korean War leads to China and U.S. InterventionOlsen 2004(Edward A Olsen, November 2004, Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School,http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2004/nov/olsenNOV04.html)

Were Korea to unify as a result of a warthat would entail U.S. interventionin order to rescue the ROK from the DPRK by eliminating its nuclearcapabilities, creating circumstances likely to lead to Chinese involvement as well,thereby the resulting united Korean statewould be unable to pursue many optionsnuclear includedthat the foreign interventionists are prepared to block. Moreover, a united Korea thatwould emerge from warwould likely be so damaged by the war that it could not pursue a nuclear option. Similarly, albeit far less dangerous to all concerned , were a united Koreato emerge as a result of any North Korean collapse scenario, the burdens imposed on South Koreans as they pick upthe pieces and try to assemble a viable Korean nation state would be so formidable that Seouls abject dependenceon foreign assistance would compel such a united Korea to acquiesce to all the foreign benefactors desires thatKorea not pursue a nuclear option.The costs and risks associated with the renewed war and catastrophic collapse scenarios make it clear why they should be avoided if possible for the sake of Korea s future. Even if the United States and othercountries might perceive these scenarios in a somewhat favorable light because they would almost certainly preclude a nuclear option for the resulting united Korea, the inherent costs and risks are too large.Similarly, the potential for preemptive North Korean regime change to create costly long-term burdens for the resulting united Koreathat would foreclose its nuclear optionon balance make this scenario veryundesirable for Korea.[29] Were any country or countries to pursue that sort of scenario via economic, political, or military means, it/they would end up paying the price in both financial terms and in future relationswith Korea.


12/35


12

Korean War Good 1NC

4. Without war intervention, a unified Korea will be nuclearOlsen 2004(Edward A Olsen, November 2004, Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School,http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2004/nov/olsenNOV04.html)

Clearly there is a better option. The United Statesand any of the other countries that want to avoid a nuclearKoreashould develop policies designed to help both Koreas mutual engagement policies intended to reconciletheir differences and create the means to develop a unified Korea. For the United States and its South Korean ally this would entailgreater appreciation by Washington of President Roh Moo-hyuns version of President Kim Dae-jungs sunshine policy now called the policy of peace and

prosperity[30] and the ways President Roh uses the policy to expand South Koreas engagement with North Korea.[31] Such support by the UnitedStatespreferably in conjunction with China, Japan, and Russiawill minimize the chance that the Mugunghwa/Rose ofSharon nuclear option will ever be contemplated seriously by Koreans because of their collective sense of gratitude and obligation toward the externalpowers that will have acted as facilitators and catalysts for peaceful Korean reconciliation and unification.

If the United States and the other major powers were to abstain from such engagement in assisting the two Koreas to becomeone, especially if the United States were to be perceived in both Koreas as once again pretending to be supportive of a Koreanreunification agenda while expecting it will fail (as others have in the past) that Koreans can see as analogous to the free vote congressionalmetaphor,[32] it could well set the stage for inter-Korean bilateral negotiationswithout any external mediation or assistancewhich

might produce a united Korea with reasons to be well disposed toward a nuclear option. The foundation ofthose reasonswould be Korean nationalism that is already motivating both Koreas fervor for reuniting and would receive a tremendous boost were the two Koreas toresolve their differences solely on their own. A united Korean nation state spawned by such a process is virtually certain to be very conscious of its independence

and national pride. While it is conceivable that such a Korean state could pursue a neutralist foreign policy as some have advocated,[33] a nationalisticunited Korea is far more likely to be pragmatic in its international realism, perhaps aligning Korea with Kenneth Waltzscontention that greater possession of nuclear weapons can enhance geopolitical stability.[34] This would enable Korea tostrive to be on a par with its Chinese and Japanese neighbors. Since the PRC is a major nuclear power and Japan has the technologicalknow-how to become a nuclear power very rapidlymaking Japan a de facto virtual nuclear power[35] it is all too easy to visualize anationalistic united Korea that owed no obligation to any external power for its creation contemplating a nuclearoption in order to generate a stabilized regional balance of power. Such a Korea might well perceive the notions embodied in theMugunghwa/Rose of Sharon literary metaphor as the essence of realism capable ofmaking Korea a truly formidable poison shrimp. Clearly,however, none ofthis would be in U.S. national interests regarding its nuclear non-proliferation policies.On balance the most prudent approach the United States can take toward the Korean nuclear issue is to avoid the war-based, collapse-based, regime change-based, and autonomous negotiations-based scenarios for resolving inter-Korean tensions. Instead, the United Statespreferably in conjunction with regional partnersshould do its utmost to be supportiveof the inter-Korean engagement processes that can reconcile Korean differences and reunify the Korean nation in astate that will have moral and geopolitical obligations toward its external benefactors and the international system they play major roles inshaping. That approach will simultaneously resolve the Korean nuclear issues and the longstanding issues surroundinga divided Korea that should have been resolved decades ago.

[Insert Impact of Nuclear Korea]


13/35


13

Middle East Instability Good 1NC

1. Middle East war stays local, and countries dont get involved in wars they dont have tiestoNo escalationCook, Takeyh, and Maloney, 7-- (Douglas Dillon Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ray, Senior Fellow For Middle Eastern Studies atthe CFR, Suzanne, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, June 28, ,online:http://www.cfr.org/publication/13702/why_the_iraq_war_wont_engulf_the_mideast.html)

Long before the Bush administration began selling the surge in Iraq as a way to avert a general war in the Middle East, observersboth inside and outside the government were growing concerned about the potential for armed conflict among theregional powers. Underlying this anxiety was a scenario in which Iraqs sectarian and ethnic violence spills over intoneighboring countries, producing conflicts between the major Arab states and Iran as well as Turkey and theKurdistan Regional Government. These wars then destabilize the entire region well beyond the current conflict zone, involving heavyweights likeEgypt. This is scary stuff indeed, but with the exception of the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds, the scenario is far from an accuratereflection of the way Middle Eastern leaders view the situation in Iraq and calculate their interests there. It isabundantly clear that major outside powers like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey are heavily involved in Iraq. Thesecountries have so much at stake in the future of Iraq that it is natural they would seek to influence politicaldevelopments in the country. Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to wareither to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq. Thereasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one thing:self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, couldthreaten domestic political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather thanprojecting power and thus have little capability for sending troops to Iraq. Second, there is cause for concern about the so-calledblowback scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their home countries, plunging the region into conflict. Middle Eastern leaders are preparing forthis possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and became a

source of instability,Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries. In thelast month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh isalso building a 700 kilometer wall along part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the kingdom. Finally, there is noprecedent for Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis and the Saudis didsend small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab

countries other than Syria, which had a compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed forces either toprotect the Lebanese from the Israelis or from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was regarded as someoneelses fight. Indeed, this is the way many leaders view the current situation in Iraq. To Cairo, Amman and Riyadh, the situation inIraq is worrisome, but in the end it is an Iraqi and American fight. As far as Iranian mullahs are concerned, they have longpreferred to press their interests through proxies as opposed to direct engagement. At a time when Tehran has access andinfluence over powerful Shiite militias, a massive cross-border incursion is both unlikely and unnecessary . So Iraqis will remainlocked in a sectarian and ethnic struggle that outside powers may abet, but will remain within the borders of Iraq.TheMiddle East is a region both prone and accustomed to civil wars. But given its experience with ambiguous conflicts , the region has alsodeveloped an intuitive ability to contain its civil strife and prevent local conflicts from enveloping the entire MiddleEast.Iraqs civil war is the latest tragedy of this hapless region, but still a tragedy whose consequences are likely tobe less severe than both supporters and opponents of Bushs war profess.


14/35


14


2. Middle East instability increases oil pricesMcElroy 10 (Kevin, What Will Make Oil Prices Rise this Summer?, Wyatt Investment Research July 2, http://www.wyattresearch.com/article/what-will-make-oil-prices-rise-this-summer/5366 )

But I believe that oil is one minor war-action away from higher highs this summer. That brings me to something my wife and Iencountered yesterday. I should note, Im writing todays issue from a hotel room in Boston. My wife and I are celebrating our first wedding anniversary this

week. After spending yesterday afternoon ferrying between Bostons harbor islands, we encountered what I believe may be the catalyst forhigher oil prices this summer. In Boston Common, amid the hot dog stands and balloon vendors, hundreds of pro-Palestinian protestersgreeted us on our walk back to our hotel in Back Bay. Being on vacation, and trying desperately to avoid television, we werent aware of the recentheadlines from Gaza where Israeli commandoes boarded a flotilla of activists headed for Israels blockade of the 20mile strip of Palestine. The protestors all had the same old pro-Palestine signs, along with some language about a blockade but Ididnt think much of it Ive seen similar signage at International Monetary Fund protests in Washington DC, Republican rallies in Philadelphia, Democrat rallies inBaltimore, and pro-life/pro-choice marches everywhere in between. If you rally a few college students for a cause that someone finds worthy of protest,eventually, the Israel/Palestine contingent will show up to remind us that yes, the two nations still dont get along.But Im not here to pick sides Id sooner kick

over a hornets nest than wade into Israeli-Palestinian politics. Im here to survey the situation for its profit potential. And simply put, war in theheadlines almost always means higher oil prices. War in the Middle East, even more so. Take a look at this chart that plots

oil prices in 2008 dollars since the end of World War II:You can see how oil prices seem to track Middle East war headlines and littleelse. Will Israel and Palestine resume hostilities? I dont know, but its exactly these kinds of headlines that act as acatalyst for higher oil prices. I use the word catalyst as a direct metaphor. If you remember from high school chemistry, a catalyst is a substance thatincreases the rate of a reaction. A skirmish in Gaza might not pinch the hose of oil supply one iota, but it can have the effect ofmaking people bid the price of oil higher regardless of real supply and demand forces. And as we remember from the summer of2008, sometimes higher oil prices themselves are a catalyst for ever-higher oil prices.

Perceived Middle East increases prices Investors fear shortageEllis 6-- (Byron A., PH.D., Executive Director at the Jethro Project Middle East Instability Drives Crude Oil Prices, Jethro Project, June,http://www.jethroproject.com/Energy%20Prices-Rev4.pdf)

Many politicians and pundits attribute higher prices to increased demand, shortages, or supply manipulations by

energy companies. Demand, however, has not increased significantly and crude oil is plentiful. British Petroleum (BP)Statistical Review of World Energy June 2005, documented that in 2000 worldwide crude oil production was 74,950 million barrelsper day and increased to 80,260 million barrels per day in 2004, or a 7 percent increase in 5 years. According to the Energy Information Administration (March2006, International Petroleum Monthly), average total world demand in2005 was 83.62 million barrels per day

and average total world supply was 84.08 million barrels per day. The Economist (Aug. 13, 2005) also indicated that crude is plentiful, andthis is expected due to the lure of higher prices. Furthermore, supply manipulation by refiners would have significantlycurtailed refinery output. However, the Annual Energy Review 2004 documented increases in refinery output, in spite ofindustry consolidation. The three leading world petroleum consumers are the United States, Japan, and China. US consumption in 1990 was about 18 millionbarrels per day and rose to about 21 million barrels per day in 2005; Japan's consumption in 1990 was 5.2 million barrels per day and was approximately 5.4million barrels per day in 2004. Chinas consumption in 1990 was approximately 2.5 million barrels per day and about 7 million barrels per day in 2005. US and

Japans consumption remained almost constant between 1990 and 2004, at about 5 and 20 million barrels per day, respectively. So, what is driving upthe price of crude oil?The main reason for the increase is instability in the Middle East. Instabilitycauses traders to bid up future prices and provides refiners with the opportunity to charge as much as the market can

bearAnd,

hints of preemptive strikes on Iran create further market instability and heighten the belief of future crude oilshortages. Perceived future shortages means that the future price of a barrel of crude oil will continue to increase.Under perceived market instability, the ability to increase margins (raise prices)does not require output reduction(shortage), higher demand, or supply manipulation; it merely requires consumers to believe that a shortage, or pentup demand, exist. Additionally,industry consolidation from 319 operable refineries in 1980 to 149 in 2004 facilitates the psychologicalperception of shortages and hence margin increases.


15/35


15


1. High oil prices are key to alternative energy developmentKyle 8 (Steven, Professor of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, For Alternative Energy's Sake--Keep Oil Prices High , ScientificAmerican, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=keep-oil-prices-high)

As oil and related energy prices soared to record highs over the past two years, interest in alternative fuels soared, too.Hybridcars have appeared seemingly overnight, and proposals for solar, wind and other renewable technologies are being

made everywhere. We need to remember, however, that all this action has one causehigh oil pricesand progress couldgrind to a halt if those prices fall again. It might seem ridiculous to worry about such a thing; dont we all want tospend less on oil? And isnt hoping for that just whistling in the dark? Not necessarily.At present, it is virtually axiomatic in the popularpress that growth in demand from the U.S., China, India and elsewhere will keep oil prices high forevermore. But thiscommon wisdom ignores the possibility of recession, or even depression, reducing demand growth to near zero, justas new drilling (mostly overseas) increases supply. Recession is already upon the U.S., and Chinas economy is slowing rapidly. As WallStreet collapsed in October, oil prices dropped to around $70 a barrel. Saudi Arabias stated goal of maintaining a price floor of $80 a barrel or higher suddenly

seemed optimistic.So what is the problem? In the short run, nothing. But sustained development of new energy sources always rests onthe condition of the old ones. Coal did not arise as Europes main energy source until Europeans had cut downvirtually all their forests for fuel, and the later switch to oil did not occur until the scarcity of coal drove its price high. Inthe 1970s Americans responded to high oil prices with alternative energy projects and more fuel-efficient cars. Butwhen prices dropped in the 1980s, we threw caution to the windalong with the energy projects. We purchased everlarger cars and SUVs and moved to ever more distant suburbs. Sure enough, now that oil prices have spiked again, we are lookingat the same alternatives we had relegated to niche markets then. Today renewable technologies such as wind andsolar are close to being competitive with fossil fuels. But we can say good-bye to that prospect if oil prices decline to $60to $70 a barrel, which could easily happen in a recession, as we witnessed in October. Two years of lower prices can turn hybrid cars into abad financial proposition for consumers, and green technology start-up companies could go bankrupt as demand fortheir goods dries up. Even a temporary decrease in petroleum prices would undermine the long-term development ofthe alternatives we all know we need.


16/35


16


2. Alternative Energy developments are key to preventing global warmingThompson 2-- (Elizabeth A., Aggressive energy research needed to curb global warming, MIT News, October 31,http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/global.html)

Regulations alone will not stabilize climate or curb global warming, says an international team of climate andtechnology experts that includes an MIT engineer. What's needed is the development of advanced technologies for alternativesources of energy that allow both climate stabilization and economic development. In a paper published in the Nov. 1 issue of thejournal Science, the researchers evaluate several advanced energy technologies for their ability to supply carbon-emission-free energy and their potential for large-scale commercialization. They found that no existing alternative energysource, nor combination of sources, could adequately replace the energy produced by fossil fuels. The team'sconclusion:massive research commitments are needed to develop these technologies to effectively slow globalwarming. "To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our energy systems while maintaining energy prices atcomparable levels to today will take revolutionary change as opposed to evolutionary change," said Howard J. Herzog, aprincipal research engineer at MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment and co-author of the Science paper. The study's call for prompt and aggressiveenergy research and development distinguishes it from the Bush administration's Energy Plan, which focuses on domestic oil exploration, and the recent UnitedNations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "Mitigation" report, which indicates that existing technologies can stabilize human-induced adverse climate

change. During the last century, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from about 275 partsper million to about 370 parts per million. Unchecked, it will pass 550 parts per million by the end of this century, thereport states. Climate models and paleoclimate data indicate that 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide, if sustained, couldeventually produce global warming comparable in magnitude (but opposite in direction) to the global cooling of the last Ice

Age."What our research clearly shows is that scientific innovation can only reverse this trend if we adopt anaggressive, global strategy for developing alternative fuel sources that can produce up to three times the amount ofpower we use today," said Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University and the leader of the team. " Currently, thesetechnologies simply don't exist--either operationally or as pilot projects." The team focused on alternative energy sources includingterrestrial solar, wind, biomass, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and fission-fusion hybrids. The team also explored non-primary power technologies that couldcontribute to climate stability and slowing down global warming, such as conservation, hydrogen production, superconducting global electric grids andgeoengineering.

[Insert Warm]


17/35


17


Increase in Oil prices reduces consumptionRhein 5 ( Eberhard, senior adviser at the European Policy Center, Why high oil prices are a force for good, Energy Bulletin, October 30,http://www.energybulletin.net/node/8589)

The international community has been laboring for 10 years under the Kyoto Protocol negotiations to agree on aglobal reduction of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions of less than 10 percent by 2012. So the markethas achieved within a few months what international bureaucrats - hampered by resistance from key consumer countries like the UnitedStates, China, Australia and India - have struggled to obtain in a decade .What does this teach us? First, there is nothing moreeffective than the price mechanism to induce human beings to change their consumption habits.The doubling of oilprices during the last year has raised the prices of air transport, shipping, electricity, steel and, of course, of fuel forautomobiles or heating. Every citizen in the world is equal when confronted with the oil price increase. This may not be just,but it is effective. And that is what counts in this strategic area. Second, a 10 percent cut in demand for gasoline is huge, given theeffect of excise taxes and consumers' addiction to their cars.Excise taxes serve as a powerful damper of gasoline price fluctuations.Adoubling of the oil price has produced only a 10 percent decline in demand for gasoline because the price of gasolinecontains more than 60 percent of excise taxes, which are calculated per tonnage and therefore not affected by the

price increase. Americans, with hardly any excise taxation on gasoline, feel the pinch much more than Europeans. Theyshould expect an even deeper cut in consumption .In addition, the demand for gasoline is not very sensitive to price changes: Modern citizenswould rather cut consumption elsewhere than renounce their cars, air-conditioning and heating.Third, the longer oil prices stay at the high level of more than $50

per barrel, the greater the impact on the demand for oil. People will buy cars that consume less fuel and shift from gasoline to dieselengines. In Belgium, 70 percent of the cars bought in the first half of 2005 were equipped with diesel engines, which offer the double advantage of lowerconsumption and lower fuel prices. People will invest more in new energies and energy-saving devices, which are suddenlybecoming profitable. It is no surprise that the shares of renewable energy companies have skyrocketed during thelast few months. Finally, can we say whether oil prices will decline again in a few years? Hardly anybody expects this to happen . The general expectationis for the price to stay above at least $50 per barrel, because of supply problems and rising demand. The oil industry is discovering few new reserves, and thecost of production is rising steeply as less accessible reserves are tapped. Meanwhile, the demand for oil and energy continues to rise, as billions of people inAsia and Latin America claim their fair share of global prosperity. Politicians should be preparing citizens worldwide for a future in which energy prices will remainhigh, and policy makers should be ready to keep the oil price near the present level by raising the level of excise taxation when necessary. Unfortunately, mostpoliticians are still too myopic or timid to deliver such a message. This needs to change.The high oil price is a bonanza for advocates of the Kyoto Protocol, whowill probably claim for the protocol what the market has achieved: the decline of carbon dioxide emissions. If oil prices can be maintained at or above today's high

levels, there is less urgency for the extension of the protocol beyond 2012 . The market is doing the job - and it embraces all types ofenergy consumption, which the Kyoto Protocol does not. It becomes therefore almost immaterial whether or not China and the United States will one dayjoin.If the market takes an extended dip, however, as it did in the 1990s, the protocol - particularly its mechanism for trading emission rights - may still be usefulas a safety valve.


18/35


18


High oil prices improve the U.S. economyFive ReasonsThomas 8 (Joe, Dean, Cornell University's Johnson School of Management and a Professor of Operations Management, Viewpoint -- High Oil PricesCould Help U.S. Manufacturing, August 8, Industry Week, http://www.industryweek.com/articles/viewpoint_--_high_oil_prices_could_help_u-s-_manufacturing_17024.aspx)

The higher oil prices that have shocked American industry and consumers alike may contain more than a silver lining, theypresent a golden opportunity to propel the U.S. into a more productive and efficient future. The short-term pain of highertransportation costs will turn into long-term gains if national policy aims forward instead of backward.Both presidential candidates have addressed this issue

mostly in response to higher gas prices for consumers. But the responses so far -- more offshore drilling and conservation -- address only part of the problem. Anational policy based on alternative energy, natural gas, better mass transportation, more stringent auto mileagestandards, tax breaks for greener technologies and offshore drilling (although results will be years in the future) and nuclearenergy will be necessary to power up industry and consumers .As we discovered when the IRS gave tax breaks to consumers who drovegas-guzzling SUVs and classified them as trucks leading to a surge in SUV demand, government can and does affect behavior quite significantly. Of course,

private industry must respond as well. The manufacturing industry has taken the lead, with more local production anda more efficient supply chain instituted out of necessity. The days of sourcing lumber in the Pacific Northwest,shipping it to China for production of furniture, and sending it back to Chicago or Dallas as a new dining room tablewill be less common now that a container from Shanghai to Long Beach costs $8,000, compared to $3,000 less than10 years ago. Prices have dropped from $140 a barrel, but the era of cheap oil is over and no amount of debate on tire pressure can change that. Here arefive outcomes that are likely if Americans embrace the end of cheap oil and pol iticians, industry and consumers act accordingly. 1. TheU.S. will keep many of our manufacturing jobs. High oil prices and the devaluation of the dollar have made Asiangoods more expensive to purchase and ship, and I believe this will keep the manufacturing sector stable. Many U.S.industries will keep current jobs and transfer fewer jobs offshore. Still, the initial investment required for plants in some heavy industries that have moved

overseas is so high that new plants will not be built in some capital-intensive industries. The overall benefit will occur not just for final productassembly, but across the supply chain. Much of the U.S. economic growth comes from small- and mid-sizedenterprises, which can provide better customer service and faster response time by keeping their manufacturing local. This competitive advantagewill keep their manufacturing jobs in the U.S. 2. More U.S. auto production. Even though GM and Ford are closingfactories and trying to build fewer trucks and more small cars, a transformation that will result in fewer jobs , theoverallemployment may stay stable-- or increase -- due to foreign investment. With the cost of auto components, including steel,rising, foreign auto firms like Honda, Toyota and Hyundai will purchase more components in the U.S. and assemble cars

here, enjoying cost savings in purchasing and transportation and providing additional U.S. manufacturing jobs. 3. Less Driving. TheFederal Highway Administration reported Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May compared to a year earlier. For the first four months of theyear compared to 2007, we drove 40.5 billion less miles.This trend has major implications for train and bus usage andless tax revenue for the nation's highway system. Lower tax revenue is a problem, but less driving and smaller cars will decrease oilconsumption and provide side benefits, cleaner air and fewer highway fatalities. 4. Green Investment. It is noweconomically feasible to invest in wind, solar and other alternative energies. GE has a two-year backlog on turbines for largewindmills. The private sector will find ways to improve the technology and lower the cost for a range of energy sourcessuch as biofuels. But wind and biofuel will not be enough by themselves and industry must discover how to make solar power andother alternative energies economically efficient. 5. National Energy Policy. For years, gas prices were too low and itmade us do things that were not economically justifiable or sustainable. The presidential race features candidates who advocatedrilling -- which will take years to produce results -- and to produce more ethanol from corn, which is a mistake in my opinion. Biomass, grass and sugarcane are much more efficient as sources for ethanol than corn. A comprehensive energy policy which incorporates

ideas to help manufacturing, the environment, and the economy can be called "all of the above." We need drilling; weneed nuclear power; we need renewable energy. Higher energy prices make many of these efficient.


19/35


19

Afghan Instability Good 1NC

Turn- an unstable Afghanistan is key to preventing Indo-Pak War.Finel 09, Bernard Finel, Atlantic Council contributing editor, is a senior fellow at the American Security Project, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nuclear War,9/1/2009, http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/afghanistan-pakistan-and-nuclear-war

As the foreign policy community has started to seriously question whether the war in Afghanistan serves America's strategic interests, regional experts Jari

Lindholm and Joshua Foust have offered up a new rationale: preventing a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Foust writes: The big danger, asit has been since 1999, is that insurgents, bored or underutilized in Afghanistan, will spark another confrontationbetween India and Pakistan, and that that confrontation will spillover into nuclear conflict. That is worth blood andtreasure to prevent. Lindholm argues: Without access to the training grounds of Afghanistan, Pakistans intelligence service wouldve found it difficult tobuild the militant armies it sent to invade Indian-controlled Kashmir in the early 90s; and without Kashmir in flames, the nuclear close-calls of 1999 and 2001never would have happened. Why We Fight Prevent is an awfully strong word, isnt it? Realistically, were talking about reducing (at best) the risk of nuclearwar rather than preventing it. How many American lives is it worth to reduce the already low risk of nuclear war between India and Pakistan? Is this ahumanitarian argument? That the loss of life in South Asia would be so great as to justify the investment? We cant build a consensus on Darfur, and mostAmericans regret the Somalia intervention which saved hundreds of thousands at the cost of 19 American lives. Is it an environmental issue? Concern overpotential fallout and maybe broader climactic considerations? We cant even build a consensus on a carbon bill to address the certainty of climate change wheneven the most aggressive bill would cost a fraction of the cost of the Afghan war. So structurally, it is an argument which relies on appeals to unlikely risks and

vague principles to justify the very real loss of American lives and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. Second, theargument relies on incoherent strategic logic. Fixing Afghanistan would have no effect on the risk of nuclear war

and might indeed increase it by some tiny fraction. Lindholm and Foust seem to believe that Islamist radicals, if allowedto return to Afghanistan, would create pressure for the Pakistani government to behave more aggressively towardIndia or independently provoke a conflict between the two. The first is almost certainly the reverse of what would occur. The secondunlikely but also unrelated to Afghanistan. Does radicalism in Afghanistan pressure Pakistan into more extreme behavior? Clearly not. Some indiscreetPakistani strategists consider Afghanistan as providing strategic depth in the case of a conflict with India. The concept is fuzzy frankly, because unless thePakistani army plans to retreat over the border with no infrastructure or supplies to avoid Indian advances, there is no compelling conventional strategicdepth argument. But, on the other hand, having as a neighbor a state that would unquestionably take Pakistans side in a conflict would provide some

opportunity to retreat strategic assets, leadership, and potentially provide a base for guerrilla resistance against an Indian incursion. In short, what aTaliban controlled Afghanistan might provide Pakistani leaders is a small measure of reassurance that in a conflict,the Pakistani army would not find itself crushed between an Indian advance and a closed Afghan border. But while ina constrained and unlikely case, the strategic depth provided by Afghanistan could provide Pakistan with someoptions in the case of an Indian attack, there is no way in which the strategic depth provided by Afghanistan couldaid in the development of an offensive military option against India. In short, strategic logic suggests that a Taliban-

controlled Afghanistan would reduce the risk of conflict by reducing insecurity among Pakistani elites. Because it would notprovide Pakistan with any additional offensive capabilities, it ought not increase insecurity among Indian decision makers. Lower levels of insecurity usuallyresult in lower levels of risk taking and less pressure for military pre-emption in times of crisis. An Islamist and likely anti-Indian regime in Afghanistanalmost certainly eases the security dilemma in South Asia rather than increasing it.


20/35


20

Terrorism Good 1NC

1. Terrorism helps U.S. hegemony Key to Iraq WarPeoples Daily 02( A year after the September 11 attack, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200209/11/print20020911_103025.html)

Diplomatic Gains after "September 11": Taking advantage of the unprecedented moral support extended to theUnited States by the international community ,America has successfully organized an international counter-terroristalliance, and has gained political dominant power; it has strengthened its relations with its allies, at the same time ithas pushed forward its ties with other big powers, particularly US-Russian relations; US troops have entered Central Asia,gone deep into South Asia and returned to Southeast Asia, and further enhanced the superiority of its global strategy. In the anti-terrorist war, it has put into practice its theory of military revolution, and displayed and consolidated its militarysuperiority. Generally speaking, the US status as the superpower has become more prominent after "September 11 ". HiddenDiplomatic Troubles: It is over-confident of its military strength and is inclined to adopting a relatively oversimplified methodof dealing with terrorism, it gives priority to the military ; unilateralism rears up its head, its hegemonist tendency becomesmore conspicuous, it has unilaterally terminated the ABM (Anti-ballistic missile) treaty and forced through the NMD (national missile defense) system, it has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol and the CTBT (comprehensive [nuclear] test ban treaty ), it rejects theInternational Criminal Court's restraint on the United States, it extends more unequivocal support to Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflicts and threatens to attack Iraq in defiance of everything; economically, it wages an iron and steel trade war,while asking other countries to cut down subsidies to agricultural products , it has decided to provide American farmers with financialaid of US$13 billion. The Bush administration's new concept of security: also called "offensive realism" Supremacy to security of nativeland;Object of precaution is not a specific category of countries, but rather it is countries, groups and even individualswith attacking "abilities";Security Measures Taken in USCombating terrorism has become a long-term component part and near-term main task of USstrategy, US ties with other countries, to some extent, depends on other countries' cooperation with the United States inthe fight against terrorism; The focus of counter-terrorism is preemptive strike at the source of threat abroad, or called"preventive intervention", the present object of its preemptive strategy is the so-called "axis of evil" countries,especially Iraq; Proceeding from the need of countering threats, it may employ any means, particularly lowering the nuclear threshold; The Asia-Pacificregion becomes the focus in its regional military strategy;While guarding against non-traditional security threat, it maintains vigilanceon the question of traditional security, particularly preventing the emergence of a leading power on the Eurasiancontinent.

[Insert Heg Good]


21/35


21

Terrorism Good 1NC

Terrorism helps the U.S. economyWhen a disaster strikes, the government spendsmoney to rebuild and stimulates growthNoah 01 ( Timothy, senior writer for Slate magazine, contributing editor to The Washington Monthly, a staff writer at The New Republic and acongressional correspondent for Newsweek, and cum laude graduate of Harvard, Will Terrorism Resuscitate the U.S. Economy?, September 12,http://www.slate.com/id/1008279)

The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post both predict in their Sept. 12 news columns that the havocwrought by yesterday's events may bring on a recession. Chatterbox thinks they couldn't have it more

wrong. While the destruction of the World Trade Center, the multiple plane cras

impact turns (found) 2010

Documents