Impact File and Answers - Milwaukee Debate League

farctatemountainousΠολεοδομικά Έργα

29 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

50 εμφανίσεις

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


1

Impact File • Table of Contents



How to Use This File

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........

2

Argument Quick Reference

................................
................................
................................
..............................

3

Glossary

................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
..

4


Biodiversity

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........................

5

AT: Biodiversity

................................
................................
................................
................................
...................

7


Climate Change/Global Warming

................................
................................
................................
..................

8

AT: Climate Change/Global Warming

................................
................................
................................
.......

11


China Instability

................................
................................
................................
................................
...............

15

AT: China Instability

................................
................................
................................
................................
........

16


Deontology (Moral Obligation)

................................
................................
................................
...................

17

AT: Deontology (Moral Obligation)

................................
................................
................................
............

19


Drug Trade

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........................

20

AT: Drug Trade

................................
................................
................................
................................
..................

23


Economy

................................
................................
................................
................................
..............................

25

AT: Economy

................................
................................
................................
................................
......................

29


Hegemony

................................
................................
................................
................................
...........................

31

AT: Hegemony

................................
................................
................................
................................
...................

34


Oceans

................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
..

38

AT: Oceans

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........................

39


Proliferation
................................
................................
................................
................................
.......................

40

AT: Proliferation

................................
................................
................................
................................
...............

42


Terrorism

................................
................................
................................
................................
............................

43

AT: Terrorism

................................
................................
................................
................................
....................

45



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


2


How to Use This File


Impact:

E
xplanation of why something is important, and
thus how it influences the out
come of the
debate. Usually impacts need to be proven, not just assumed. (Snyder, “Code of the Debater”,
2008)


Impacts in debate are very impor
tant. They answer fundamental questions a judge must
answer at

the end of every round: What

happens if I vote not to pass the affirmative plan?
What happens if I do? Ultimately, impacts are tools that debaters use to make jud
ges care
about the issues
they’re

debating about.


In debate, debaters are urged to take their arguments to their terminal conclusion, also called
‘terminal impacts’. These impacts answer questions like, “What happens if the U.S. economy
were to collapse
?
” or “
What happens if we a
llow proliferation to go unchecked
?


These
t
erminal impacts, while seldom
the most probable of scenarios, are often times the logical
conclusion to affirmative or negative ‘worst
-
case scenarios’. They often end in extinction.


This file offers you a variety of terminal impacts that appear throughout the Wisconsin State
Novice Packet. Use
these terminal impacts

to give a little boost to both affirmative and
negative arguments.


For

instance, the Mexico Points
of Entry affirmativ
e argues that modernizing our points of
entry with Mexico is key to U.S.
-
Mexico trade, which is key to the overall U.S. economy. That’s
a pretty good story already, but adding a terminal impact gives the argument a little extra
boost: A strong U.S. economy

is key to prevent global nuclear war.


As you saw on the index, impact scenarios are listed by type, rather than by file. The reason
for this is that many files use the same terminal impacts.
For example,
the Mexico Affirmative,
Mexico Negative, the Immi
gration Reform Politics Disadvantage, the Venezuela Affirmative,
the Venezuela Negative, and the Cuba Affirmative and Negative files can all use the terminal
impact of

economic decline leads to war in relation to some argument found in those files.


In add
ition to the terminal impacts themselves, you’ll also find generic answers to these
impacts, which are found right after each impact scenario.
For example, m
aybe economic
decline doesn’t always lead to nuclear

war
. Maybe climate change is good for the
envi
ronment. Maybe there’s no risk of terrorist attacks from Latin American countries. All of
these arguments will be found in the Answers To: sections of this file.


To make things a little easier, we developed a quick reference guide on the next page. Use t
his
secondary index to quickly locate evidence by file, instead of impact type.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


3

Argument Quick Reference


Key:


File Name

Impact (Corresponding Advantage/Argument)



Cuba

Embargo Affirmative/Negative Files

Moral Obligation (Public Health Advantage)

................................
................................
................................
..........
17

Environment (Biodiversity
)

................................
................................
................................
................................
............

5

Economy (Biodiversity
)

................................
................................
................................
................................
....................

5

Nuclear Proliferation (U.S.
-
Latin American Relations)

................................
................................
......................
40

Global Warming (U.S.
-
Latin American Relations)

................................
................................
................................
..

8


Mexico

Points of Entry Affirmative/Negative Files

Economy (Trade)

................................
................................
................................
................................
...............................
25

Drug Trade (U.S.
-
Mexico Re
lations)

................................
................................
................................
...........................
20

Terrorism (U.S.
-
Mexico Relations)

................................
................................
................................
.............................
43

Hegemony (U.S
-
Mexico Relations)

................................
................................
................................
.............................
31


Venezuela

Engagement Affirmative/Negative Files

Drug Trade

(Venezuelan Stability)

................................
................................
................................
.............................
20

Hegemony (Venezuelan Stability)

................................
................................
................................
..............................
31

Economy (Oil Shocks
)

................................
................................
................................
................................
......................
25

Nuclear
Proliferation (Rela
tions)
................................
................................
................................
................................
40

Climate Change (Relations)

................................
................................
................................
................................
.............

8

Economy (Relations)

................................
................................
................................
................................
........................
25


China Market Access Disadvantage

China Instability

................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
.
15


Brazil

Sphere of Influence Disadvantage

Climate Change

................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

8

Hegemony

................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
............
31


Politics (Immigration Reform) Disadvantage

Economy

................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
...............
25

U.S.
-
Latin
American Relations

................................
................................
................................
................................
..

40,8

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


4

Glossary


Impact
: E
xplanation of why something is important, and thus how it influences the out
-

come
of the debate. Usually impacts need t
o be proven, not just assumed.


Hegemony
:
leadership or dominance, esp. by one country or social group over others. Refers
to U.S. leadership in most debate arguments.


Deontology
:

the study of the nature of duty and obligation
.


Proliferation
: A ra
pid increase in numbers. Often u
sed in debate to refer to the rapid increase
in nuclear weapons, or ‘nuclear proliferation’.


Biodiversity
:
the variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem.


Climate Change
:
the change in global climate patterns apparent from the
mid to late 20th
century onwards, attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
produced by the use of fossil fuels.







Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


5

Biodiversity


Biodiversity loss risks extinction


Walsh 10

[Bryan, covers environment, energy and


when the need arises


particularly alarming
diseases for TIME magazine, Wildlife: A Global Convention on Biodiversity Opens in Japan, But Can
It Make a Difference? October 18, 2010 http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com
/2010/10/18/wildlife
-
a
-
global
-
convention
-
on
-
biodiversity
-
opens
-
in
-
japan
-
but
-
can
-
it
-
make
-
a
-
difference/#ixzz131wU6CSp]


The story of non
-
human life on the planet Earth over the past few decades is a simple one:
loss
.
While there are always a few bright spot
s

including the recovery of threatened
animals like the brown pelican, thanks to the quietly revolutionary Endangered Species Act

on a planetary scale biodiversity is
steadily marching backwards
, with extinctions rising
and habitat destroyed
. Species

as di
verse as the tiger

less than 3,500 live in the wild
today

to tiny frogs
could be gone forever if the trends
keep heading downwards
.

In a
bitterly ironic twist, back in 2002 the United Nations declared that 2010 would be the
international year of biodiversi
ty, and countries agreed to" achieve a significant reduction of
the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level," as part of the
UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At this paper in Science shows (download a
PDF he
re), however, the world has utterly failed to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss, and
by
just about every measurement,
things are getting worse all the time
.

(Read the Global
Biodiversity Outlook if you really want to be depressed.) With that cheery bac
kdrop,
representatives from nearly 200 nations are meeting in the Japanese city of Nagoya

home
to Toyota and not a whole lot else

for the 10th summit of the CBD, where they will set new
goals for reducing species loss and slowing habitat destruction. At th
e very least, they should
know how critical the biodiversity challenge is

as Japanese Environment Minister Ryo
Matsumoto

said in an opening speech:

All life on Earth

exists thanks to

the benefits from
biodiversity

in the forms of fertile soil, clear water
and clean air.
We are now close to a
'tipping point'

-

that is, we are about to reach
a threshold beyond which biodiversity loss will
become
irreversible
, and may cross that threshold
in the
next 10 years

if we do not make
proactive efforts for conserving biodiversity
. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the executive secretary of the
CBD, struck an even darker note, reminding diplomats that they were on a clock

and time
was running out
: Let's have the courage to look i
n the eyes of our children and admit that
we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made by 110
heads of state to substantially reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. Let us look in
the eyes of our children

and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented
rate, thus mortgaging their future. But what will actually come out of the Nagoya summit,
which will continue until Oct. 29
?


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


6

Biodiversity



Biodiversity loss will cause planetary extin
ction

Diner
,

19
94



Judge Advocate General’s Corps of US Army [David N., Military Law Review, Winter,
143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, LN]


No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed
the God
-
like power of life and death
--

extinction or survival
--

over the plants and animals of the
world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination

with a single
-
minded determination to
master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race.
n67
In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and
yet the world
moved forward
, and new species replaced the old.
So why should the world be
concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other
species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at
which the ecosystem fails,
and then humans also would become extinct
. No one knows how many [*171] species the world
needs to support human life, and to find out
--

by
allowing certain species to become extinct
--

would
not be sound policy
. In addition to
food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind.
n68 2. Ecological Value.
--

Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the
environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to

man.
Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services
--

pollution control, n70 oxygen
production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value.
--

Scientific
value is the use of species for research into the

physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants
and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the
direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's speci
es
have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is
exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern
shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not m
ost, species are useless to
man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their
extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem,
the loss of a species

affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species
decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4.
Biological Diversity.
--

The main premise of species preservation is that dive
rsity is better than
simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally
has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within
species by reducing the number o
f individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems
.
"The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress
. . . . [l]ike a net, in
which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better
than a simple, unbranched circle of threads
--

which

if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By
causing
widespread extinctions
, humans
have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure
. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and
the du
stbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might
be expected if this trend continues
. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly
perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total
ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each
new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from
an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss
.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


7

Answers To: Biodiversity



No collapse
of biodiversity


species will adapt. Even if species are lost functional redundancy
means there’s no impact to biodiversity loss.


Doremus, Berkeley Law, 2
000

[Holly, Law Professor


Cal Berkeley, 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11,
L/N]


Reluctant to concede such losses,
tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a
catastrophe might be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the
apocalyptic vision is less credible today

than it seemed in the 1970s.

Nor is human
extinction probable any time soon.

Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment.
Even if the world

of the future
includes far fewer species, it

likely
will hold people.

n215 [*47]
One response to this credibility problem tones the stor
y down a bit, arguing not that humans
will go extinct but that ecological disruption will bring economies, and consequently
civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too may be overstating the case.
Most ecosystem
functions are performed by
multiple spe
cies.

This functional redundancy means that a high
proportion of species can be lost without precipitating a collapse.

n217



Alt
ernate

cause
s outweigh


even if they stop biodiversity loss in one area, other contributing
factors mean that biodiversity los
s will continue.


Pynn
,

200
7

[Larry, staff writer at The Vancouver Sun, “Global warming not biggest threat: expert,”
The Vancouver Sun, http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6e2988da
-
31ab
-
4697
-
810d
-
7a008306d571&p=1]


"We all worry about c
limate change, as we should, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't worry
about protecting habitat," says James
Grant, a bio
logy
prof
essor at Concordia University

in
Montreal and co
-
author of a new report on threats to endangered species in Canada.
"The
really i
mmediate causes right now for many species are things like farming, urbanization and
habitat loss caused by the direct things we do."

Research by Grant and his pupils shows
the
biggest threat is habitat loss at 84 per cent, overexploitation 32 per cent, na
tive species
interactions 31 per cent, natural causes 27 per cent, pollution 26 per cent, and introduced
species 22 per cent. On average, species are threatened by at least two of the six categories
.
Human activities representing the biggest source of habi
tat loss and pollution are not
industrial resource extraction, but agriculture at 46 per cent and urbanization at 44 per cent.

"Farming is huge," Grant said in an interview. "The Prairies are one of the most affected
habitats in the world. We've turned the
m into wheat fields." The southern Okanagan
-
Similkameen is another example, home to about one
-
third of species at risk in B.C. as well as
a thriving agricultural industry, including vineyards, and increased urban development.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


8

Climate Change/Global
Warming


Best methodology shows positive feedbacks will push us past the tipping point


causes
extinction.


Guterl 12


Executive Editor of Scientific American, expert in Climate and Environment, Science
Policy, citing James Hanson, a NASA scientist (Fred
, “Climate Armageddon: How the World’s
Weather Could Quickly Run Amok”, 5/25/12; <
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how
-
worlds
-
weathe
r
-
could
-
quickly
-
run
-
amok
>)


The world has warmed since those heady days of Gaia, and scientists have grown gloomier in their
assessment of the state of the world's climate
. NASA climate scientist James Hanson has
warned of
a "Venus effect," in which
runawa
y warming turns Earth into an uninhabitable desert
, with a
surface temperature high enough to melt lead, sometime in the next few centuries
. Even Hanson,
though, is
beginning to look downright optimistic
compared to a new crop of climate scientists, who
fr
et that
things could head south as quickly as
a handful of years
, or even months, if we're
particularly unlucky
. Ironically, some of them are intellectual offspring of Lovelock, the original optimist
gone sour. The true gloomsters
are scientists who look a
t climate through the lens of "dynamical
systems," a mathematics that describes things that tend to change suddenly and are difficult to
predict. It is the mathematics of the tipping point

the moment at which a "system" that has been
changing slowly and pr
edictably will suddenly "flip."

The colloquial example is the straw that breaks
that camel's back. Or you can also think of it as a ship that is stable until it tips too far in one direction
and then capsizes. In this view,
Earth's climate is, or could soo
n be, ready to capsize, causing
sudden, perhaps catastrophic, changes
. And once it capsizes, it could be next to impossible to
right it again.
The idea that climate behaves like a dynamical system addresses some of the key
shortcomings of the conventional
view of climate change

the view that looks at the planet as a
whole, in terms of averages. A dynamical systems approach, by contrast, consider climate as a sum
of many different parts, each with its own properties, all of them interdependent in ways that a
re hard
to predict
. One of the most productive scientists in applying dynamical systems theory to climate is
Tim Lenton at the University of East Anglia in England. Lenton is a Lovelockian two generations
removed


his mentors were mentored by Lovelock. "We

are looking quite hard at past data and
observational data that can tell us something," says Lenton. "Classical case studies in which you've
seen abrupt changes in climate data. For example, in the Greenland ice
-
core records, you're seeing
climate jump. A
nd the end of the Younger Dryas," about fifteen thousand years ago, "you get a
striking climate change." So far, he says, nobody has found a big reason for such an abrupt change in
these past events

no meteorite or volcano or other event that is an obvious

cause

which suggests
that perhaps
something about the way these climate shifts occur simply makes them sudden
. Lenton
is mainly interested in the future. He has tried to look for things that could possibly change suddenly
and drastically even though nothi
ng obvious may trigger them.
He's come up with a short list of nine
tipping points

nine weather systems, regional in scope, that could make a rapid transition from one
state to another.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


9

Climate Change/Global Warming

Warming is anthropogenic and causes
extinction


best evidence proves.


Morgan 09


professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (Dennis Ray, “World on Fire: Two
Scenarios of the Destruction of Human Civilization and the Possible Extinction of the Human Race”
,
2009)


As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast
-
burning nuclear fire may seem, the
one consolation is that this future can be avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsible
world leaders change Cold War thinking to move a
way from aggressive wars over natural resources
and towards the eventual dismantlement of most if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand,
another scenario of human extinction by fire is one that may not so easily be reversed within a short
period of ti
me because it is not a fast
-
burning fire;
rather, a slow burning fire is gradually heating up
the planet as industrial civilization progresses and develops globally. This gradual process and
course is long
-
lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed, even if

responsible world leaders change
their thinking about ‘‘progress’’ and industrial development based on the burning of fossil fuels. The
way that global warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the
analogy of the proverbia
l frog in a pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water
is gradually rising. Instead of trying to escape, the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature
change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilit
ated. Though it finally realizes its
predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail


and the frog dies.
Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in heated water or not is irrelevant; it still serves as
a co
mparable scenario of how
the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a
runaway condition and take humanity by surprise. Unfortunately,
by the time the politicians finally
all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is ind
eed human caused, its
development could be too advanced to arrest
; the poor frog has become too weak and enfeebled
to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was
established in 1988 by the WorldMeteorological Orga
nization (WMO) and the United Nations
Environmental Programme to ‘‘assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio
-
economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of humanindu
ced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and
mitigation.’’[16]. Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far,
it has given four assessments.13 With all prior assessments came attacks fromso
me parts of the
scientific community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove that the theory had no basis
in planetary history and present
-
day reality; nevertheless, as more and more

research continually
provided concrete and empirical evid
ence to confirm the global warming hypothesis, that it is
indeed human
-
caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific consensus grew
stronger t
hat human induced global warming is verifiable.

As a matter of fact, according to Bill
McKibbe
n [17], 12 years of ‘‘impressive scientific research’’ strongly confirms the 1995 report ‘‘that
humans had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energy that they were now
damaging the most basic of the earth’s systems

the balance between

incoming and outgoing solar
energy’’; ‘‘. . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report


a constant
strengthening of the simple basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel.’’ [17]. Indeed,


Morgan Continues…

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


10

Cli
mate Change/Global Warming


Morgan continues…


12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming, with a stronger scientific consensus
that the slow burn is ‘‘very likely’’ human caused, but it also finds that
the ‘‘amount of carbon in the
a
tmosphere is now increasing at a faster rate even than before’’ and the temperature increases would
be ‘‘considerably higher than they have been so far
were it not for the blanket of soot and other
pollution that is temporarily helping to cool the planet.’
’ [17]. Furthermore, almost ‘‘
everything frozen
on earth is melting
. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since the air is warmer and therefore
holds more water than cold air, and ‘cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while
hot d
ays, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.’’ [17].
Unless drastic action is
taken soon, the average global temperature is predicted to rise about 5 degrees this century, but it
could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced
in recent years, the rise in global
temperature is melting the Arctic sheets. This runaway polar melting will inflict great damage upon
coastal areas, which could be much greater than what has been previously forecasted.

However,
what is missing in the IPC
C report, as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but
still plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have the most devastating, catastrophic
consequences for the long
-
term future of human civilization. In other words,
the IPCC report places
too much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account of the dynamics of
systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally different premise regarding the relationship between
industrial civilization and nature
.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


11

Climate Change/Global Warming

Warming and Co2 causes extinction rapidly no risk of turns

Leslie 10

(John Leslie “The Risk that Humans Will Soon Be Extinct” Philosophy Volume 85 / Issue 04
/ October 2010, pp 447 - 463) Cambridge Journals


Look next at the possibility of utterly disastrous climate change, a greenhouse
-
effect runaway.
The geolo
gical record reveals that major

jumps in temperature sometimes ha
ppen quite quickly. Now,
to get

the consensus needed for persuading the politicians in

Rio in 19
92

the International Panel on
Climat
e Change disregarded worst
-
case

predictions and latest
-
available evidence
. It even dealt with
biological

feedback loops in just one sentence:‘
Biological feedbacks have not yet


been taken
into account.’Has the
Panel since changed its ways
? There

is little sign of it. Politicians demand
findings that are very uncontroversial and the IPCC, remember, was
created to provide exactly such

findings. But scenarios involving
runaway overheating are readily

available
, bio
logical feedback
loops often playing crucial roles.

For

instance: (i)
Ocean waters warm up, becoming less able
to absorb


man
-
made carbon dioxide
, the fac
tor chiefly responsible for the

change; (
ii) waters rich
in nutrients rise to the warmed sea surface l
ess often so that phytoplankton grow more
slowly, absorb less

carbon dioxide and generate less dimethyl sulphide, a substance which
encourages the birth of the clouds that cool us in daytime
;

(iii
) many phytoplankton die
because carbon dioxide has acidifie
d the oceans; (iv) hotter weather increases production of
carbon


dioxide by plants and soil microbes;

(v)
tundra melt and peat bogs dry out, producing
yet more carbon dioxide and vast amounts of another greenhouse gas, methane, molecule for
molecule
perhaps thirty times as powerful
; (vi)
resultant changes in high altitude clouds make
them trap more heat;

(vii)
drought then kills vegetation, returning carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere;
(viii)
next, the ravages of methane and other greenhouse gases deple
te the
hydroxyls which are

so important in destroying those gases
;
(ix) there follows a retreat of

sea ice
so that less sunlight is reflected back into space; (x)
heating of the oceans thereupon releases
trillions of tons of methane which are at present lo
cked up in the clathrates of the continental
shelves
; (xi)
the new heat produces much more water vapour, an extremely important
greenhouse gas, so that a greenhouse runaway occurs. For advanced life forms, Earth
becomes uninhabitable.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


12

Answers To: Climat
e Change/Global Warming


No anthropogenic warming and no impact


scientific consensus flows our way.


Taylor 2/13



Forbes magazine contributor on energy and environmental issues, citing a survey
published by Organization Studies, a peer
-
reviewed academic

journal (James, “Peer
-
Reviewed
Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis”, 2/13/13; <
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer
-
reviewed
-
survey
-
finds
-
majority
-
of
-
scientists
-
skeptical
-
of
-
global
-
warming
-
crisis/>)//
Beddow


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but
these
skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus
.
Don’t look now, but maybe a
scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.
Only 36 percent of geoscientists and
engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in
the peer
-
reviewed Organi
zation Studies. By contrast,
a

strong

majority

of

the

1,077

respondents

believe

that

nature

is

the

primary

cause

of

recent

global

warming

and/or

that

future

global

warming

will

not

be

a

very

serious

problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also know
n
as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent
surveys of
meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming
claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientis
ts and engineers, merely 36 percent of
respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief
that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or
central caus
e.” The authors of the survey report, however, note that
the overwhelming majority of
scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming
claims.
The survey finds that

24 percent of the scientist respondents fit
the “Nature Is Overwhelming”
model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that
changes to the climate are natural, normal
cycles of the Earth
.
” Moreover, “
they strongly disagree that climate change poses any
significant public risk and see no impact o
n their personal lives


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


13

Answers To: Climate Change/Global Warming

Don’t buy arguments about extinction from global warming


there is no substantive evidence
to support long
-
term warming trends.


Deming 11

geophysicist and associate professor at the Univ
ersity of Oklahoma (David, “Why I deny
Global Warming”, 10/19/11; <http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/10/david
-
deming/why
-
i
-
deny
-
global
-
warming/
>)


I’m a denier for several reasons.
There is no substantive evidence that the planet has warmed
significantly or
that any significant warming will occur in the future. If any warming does
occur, it likely will be concentrated at higher latitudes and therefore be beneficial.

Climate
research has largely degenerated into pathological science, and
the coverage of global

warming in
the media is tendentious to the point of being fraudulent.
Anyone who is an honest and competent
scientist must be a denier. Have you ever considered how difficult it is to take the temperature of the
planet Earth? What temperature will you mea
sure? The air? The surface of the Earth absorbs more
than twice as much incident heat from the Sun than the air. But if you measure the temperature of the
surface, what surface are you going to measure? The solid Earth or the oceans? There is twice as
much

water as land on Earth. If you decide to measure water temperature, at what depth will you take
the measurements? How will the time scale on which the deep ocean mixes with the shallow affect
your measurements? And how, pray tell, will you determine what
the average water temperature was
for the South Pacific Ocean a hundred years ago? How will you combine air, land, and sea
temperature measurements? Even if you use only meteorological measurements of air temperature,
how will you compensate for changes in

latitude, elevation, and land use?
Determining a mean
planetary temperature is not straightforward, but an extremely complicated problem. Even the best
data are suspect.

Anthony Watts and his colleagues have surveyed 82.5 percent of stations in the
U.S. H
istorical Climatology Network. They have found


shockingly


that
over 70 percent of these
stations are likely to be contaminated by errors greater than 2 deg C [3.6 deg F]. Of the remaining
stations, 21.5 percent have inherent errors greater than 1 deg C
. The alleged degree of global
warming over the past 150 years is less than 1 deg C. Yet even in a technologically advanced country
like the US, the inherent error in over 90 percent of the surveyed meteorological stations is greater
than the putative sign
al. And these
errors are not random, but systematically reflect a warming
bias related to urbanization.
Watts has documented countless instances of air temperature sensors
located next to air conditioning vents or in the middle of asphalt parking lots. A t
ypical scenario is that
a temperature sensor that was in the middle of a pasture a hundred years ago is now surrounded by
a concrete jungle. Urbanization has been a unidirectional process. It is entirely plausible


even
likely


that
all of the temperatur
e rise that has been inferred from the data is an artifact that
reflects the growth of urban heat islands.
The “denier” is portrayed as a person who refuses to
accept the plain evidence of his senses. But in fact it is the alarmist who doesn’t know what th
ey are
talking about. The temperature of the Earth and how it has varied over the past 150 years is poorly
constrained. The person who thinks otherwise does so largely because they have no comprehension
of the science. Most of these people have never done
science or thought about the inherent
difficulties and uncertainties involved. And what is “global warming” anyway? As long ago as the fifth
century BC, Socrates pointed out that intelligible definitions are a necessary precursor to meaningful
discussions.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


14

Answers To: Climate Change/Global Warming

Their extinction argument is flawed


in fact, global warming has significant benefits to the
environment that are discounted.


Deming 11

geophysicist and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma (Dav
id, “Why I deny
Global Warming”, 10/19/11; <http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/10/david
-
deming/why
-
i
-
deny
-
global
-
warming/>)


The definition of the term “global warming” shifts with the context of the discussion. If you deny global warming,
then you have denie
d the existence of the greenhouse effect, a reproducible phenomenon that can be studied
analytically in the laboratory. But if you oppose political action, then global warming metamorphoses into a
nightmarish and speculative planetary catastrophe
. Coastal
cities sink beneath a rising sea, species suffer
from wholesale extinctions, and green pastures are turned into deserts of choking hot sand.
In fact, so
-
called
“deniers” are not “deniers” but skeptics. Skeptics do not deny the existence of the greenhouse
effec
t. Holding
all other factors constant, the mean planetary air temperature ought to rise as the atmosphere accumulates
more anthropogenic CO2. Christopher Monckton recently reviewed the pertinent science and concluded that a
doubling of CO2 should resu
lt in a temperature increase of about 1 deg C.
If this temperature increase
mirrors those in the geologic past, most of it will occur at high latitudes. These areas will become more
habitable for man, plants, and other animals. Biodiversity will increase.
Growing seasons will lengthen.

Why is this a bad thing? Any temperature increase over 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2 must come from a
positive feedback from water vapor. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere, and
warm air holds mo
re water than cold air. The theory is that an increased concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere will lead to a positive feedback that amplifies the warming from CO2 by as much as a factor of
three to five. But this is nothing more that speculation.
Water vapor also leads to cloud formation. Clouds have
a cooling effect.
At the current time, no one knows if the feedback from water vapor will be positive or negative.
Global warming predictions cannot be tested with mathematical models. It is impossible

to validate computer
models of complex natural systems. The only way to corroborate such models is to compare model predictions
with what will happen in a hundred years.
And one such result by itself won’t be significant because of the
possible compoundin
g effects of other variables in the climate system. The experiment will have to repeated
over several one
-
hundred year cycles. In other words,

the theory of catastrophic global warming cannot be
tested or empirically corroborated in a human time frame.
It
is hardly conclusive to argue that models are
correct because they have reproduced past temperatures. I’m sure they have. General circulation models have
so many degrees of freedom that it is possible to endlessly tweak them until the desired result is obt
ained.
Hindsight is always 20
-
20. This tells us exactly nothing about a model’s ability to accurately predict what will
happen in the future. The entire field of climate science and its coverage in the media is tendentious to the
point of being outright fr
audulent. Why is it that every media report on CO2


an invisible gas


is invariably
accompanied by a photograph of a smokestack emitting particulate matter? Even the cover of Al Gore’s movie,
An Inconvenient Truth, shows a smokestack. Could it be that it
s difficult to get people worked up about an
invisible, odorless gas that is an integral component of the photosynthetic cycle? A gas that is essential to most
animal and plant life on Earth? A gas that is emitted by their own bodies through respiration? S
o you have to
deliberately mislead people by showing pictures of smoke to them. Showing one thing when you’re talking
about another is fraud. If the case for global warming alarmism is so settled, so conclusive, so irrefutable…why
is it necessary to repeat
edly resort to fraud? A few years ago it was widely reported that the increased
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause poison ivy to grow faster. But of course
carbon
dioxide causes almost all plants to grow faster. And nearly all of

these plants have beneficial human uses.

Carbon dioxide fertilizes hundreds or thousands of human food sources. More CO2 means trees grow
faster. So carbon dioxide promotes reforestation and biodiversity. Its good for the environment.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


15

China Stability


Collapse of stability in Asia risks nuclear war

Jonathon
Landy 2k
, National Security and International Correspondent [Knight Ridder, March 10]


Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to
fight. But
even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global
economy, and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakis
tan, and China all have nuclear
weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations,
negotiations, and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades
in Cold War Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are

the stakes as high and relationships so
fragile,” said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution
,
a Washington think tank. “
We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering
confrontations wit
h no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for
potential disaster
. In an effort to cool the region’s tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S.
Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotc
h Asia’s capitals this month. For
America,
the stakes could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia

committed to
defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea,
and the United States would instantly become embroiled
if Beijing moved against Taiwan

or North Korea attacked South Korea
. While Washington has no
defense commitments to either
India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global
taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international
nonproliferatio
n regime
.




Asian instability causes global nuclear war.

Ogura and Oh ‘97
, Toshimaru and Ingyu, Professors of Economics, Monthly Review, April 1997.


North Korea, South Korea, and Japan have achieved quasi
-

or virtual nuclear armament.
Although these coun
tries do not produce or possess actual bombs, they possess sufficient
technological know
-
how to possess one or several nuclear arsenals
. Thus,
virtual armament
creates

a new nightmare in this region
-

nuclear annihilation. Given the concentration of
economic
affluence and military power in this region and its growing importance to the world system,
any hot conflict among these countries would

threaten to
escalate into a global conflagration
.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


16

Answers To: China Stability


U.S. involvement checks escal
ation.

Ottens 10

[Nick, Atlantic Sentinel, Tension? What Tension?,, 1/18/2010, http://atlanticsentinel.com/2010/01/tension
-
what
-
tension/]


The United States is bound by law to arm Taiwan however and a recent sale of missiles met with strong
Chinese disappr
oval.
Sino
-
American relations are

still
shaky but

as Clinton said last Tuesday,

America’s future is linked to the future of this region, and

the future of
this region depends on
America
.
” Obama was even happy to call himself a “Pacific President” and for
good reasons:
East Asia is
fast becoming the new core of the world economy while politically, its integration can be
fragile at times.
US involvement

is able spark discontent but it also
helps smooth over
differences

by providing
greater power leadership

t
o

those
nations fearing Chinese
domination.

The
political discord should not be exaggerated
. Today’s tension springs
from

relatively
minor disagreements and will
, in the end,
be resolved.


No war.

Bitzinger and Desker 9

[Why East Asian War is Unlikely Richard A. Bitzinger and Barry Desker Richard A. Bitzinger
is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Barry Desker is Dean of the S. Rajaratnam
School of International Studies and Director of
the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore. Survival | vol. 50 no. 6 | December 2008

January 2009 | pp. 105

128 DOI
10.1080/00396330802601883]


Yet
despite all these potential crucibles of conflict,
the
Asia
-
Pacific, if not an area of serenity
and calm,
is certainly more stable than one might expect
.

To be sure, there are separatist
movements and internal struggles, particularly with insurgencies, as in Thailand, the Philippines and Tibet.
Since t
he resolution of the East Timor crisis, however,
the region has been relatively free of open
armed warfare.

Separatism remains a challenge, but
the break
-
up of states is unlikely. Terrorism is

a nuisance, but its impact is
contained. The North Korean nu
clear issue
, while not fully resolved,
is

at least
moving toward a conclusion with the likely denuclearisation of the peninsula.
Tensions between China and Taiwan
, while always just beneath the surface,
seem unlikely to erupt

in open conflict any time so
on, espe
-

cially given recent Kuomintang Party victories in Taiwan
and efforts by Taiwan and China to re
-
open informal channels of consultation as well as
institutional relationships between organisations responsible for cross
-
strait relations.

And
whil
e in Asia there is no strong supranational political entity like the European Union,
there are many
multilateral organisations and international initiatives dedicated to enhancing peace and
stability
, includ
-

ing the Asia
-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (
AP
EC
) forum,
the Proliferation Security
Initiative and the Shanghai Co
-
operation Organisation
. In Southeast Asia, countries are united in a
common geopolitical and economic organi
-

sation


the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (
ASEAN)



which
is ded
icated to peaceful economic, social and cultural development, and to the
promotion of regional peace and stability.
ASEAN has played a key role in conceiving and
establishing broader regional institutions

such as the East Asian Summit, ASEAN+3 (China, J
apan and
South Korea) and the ASEAN Regional Forum.
All this suggests that war in Asia



while not
inconceivable


is unlikely.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


17

Deontology (Moral Obligation)


Failing to address issues of human value in the name of survivalist threats justifies mass
atrocities and tyranny of survival capable of wiping out all other values. You must evaluate
our moral claims.


Daniel
Callahan
, institute of Society and Ethics,
19
73
,
The Tyranny of Survival,
pp. 91
-
93)/


The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it
has been.
In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed
against the ri
ghts of individuals, including the right to
life. But my point goes deeper than that. It
is directed even at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an
intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental hum
an rights and values.
The
potential tyranny of survival as value is that it is capable
, if not treated sanely
, of wiping out all
other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive
single
-
mindedness that will stop at nothi
ng.

We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If,
both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and
if

survival is the
precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the
premise of a right to life

then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival
without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival
.
To put it more strongly
,
if the price of survival is hum
an degradation, then there is no moral
reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival
.

It would be the Pyrrhic victory to
end all Pyrrhic victories.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


18

Deontology (Moral Obligation)


Evaluate our systemic, probable impacts before you look at ex
tinction scenarios.
Probability

should be evaluated before magnitude


Rescher
, Prof. of Philosophy,

19
83

Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy,

Risk: A Philosophical
Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management


1983



A probability is a number between zero and one. Now numbers between zero and one can get to be
very small indeed: As N gets bigger, 1/N will grow very, very small.
What, then, is one to do about
extremely small probabilities in the rational manage
ment of risks? On this issue there is a systemic
disagreement between probabilists working in mathematics or natural science and decision theorists
who work on issues relating to human affairs
. The former take the line that small numbers are small
numbers
and must be taken into account as such. The latter tend to take the view that

small
probabilities represent extremely remote prospects and can be written off. (De minimis non curat lex,
as the old precept has it: there is no need to bother with trifles.) W
hen something is about as
probable as it is that a thousand fair dice when tossed a thousand times will all come up sixes, then,
so it is held, we can pretty well forget about it as worthy of concern.
The "worst possible case
fixation" is one of the most d
amaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about risk in real
-
life
situations. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is counterproductive
whenever we proceed without recognizing that, often as not, these worst possible outcomes a
re
wildly improbable (and sometimes do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all).

The crux in
risk deliberations is not the issue of loss "if worst comes to worst" but the potential acceptability of
this prospect within the wider framework of
the risk situation, where we may well be prepared "to
take our chances," considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. The worst
threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account, but it is emphatically not a
sati
sfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


19

Answers To: Deontology (Moral Obligation)


You can’t avoid negative consequences
--

Must evaluate
them
.


Issac
200
2

[Jeffrey, professor of political science at Indiana University, Dissent, Spring, ebsco]


As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught,
an
unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political resp
onsibility.

The concern may be
morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1)
It fails to see
that the purity of one’s intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends.
Abjuring violence o
r refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may
seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as
serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to se
e
that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of
powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice.

This is why, from the standpoint of
politics

as opposed to religion

pacifism is always a potentially immora
l stand. In categorically repudiating
violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect;
and

(3)
it fails to see that
politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of
act
ion, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant.

Just as the alignment with “good”
may engender impotence,
it is often the pursuit of “good” that generates evil.

This is the lesson of
communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough th
at one’s goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally
important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and
historically contextualized ways.
Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates t
hose who are
not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.


Extinction
risks are

qualitatively different


standard calculus doesn’t apply.

Sandberg 8

[Anders, (PhD in Neuroscience and Postdoc Research Fellow @ Future of Humanity Institute), Jason G.
Matheny, (Dept. Health Policy and Management @ Johns Hopkins School of Public Helath), and Milan M. Cirkovic,
(Senior Research Associate @ Research Observa
tory of Belgrade, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “How can we reduce
the risk of human extinction?” 9
-
9, http://www.thebulletin.org/web
-
edition/features/how
-
can
-
we
-
reduce
-
the
-
risk
-
of
-
human
-
extinction]


Such remote
risks may seem academic in a world plag
ued by immediate problems
, such as global
poverty, HIV, and climate change.
But

as intimidating as
these problems

are, they
do not threaten
human existence. In discussing the risk of nuclear winter
, Carl
Sagan emphasized the
astronomical toll of human exti
nction: A nuclear war imperils all of our descendants
, for as long
as there will be humans. Even if the population remains static, with an average lifetime of the order of 100 years,
over a typical time period for the biological evolution of a successful
species (roughly ten million years), we are
talking about
some 500 trillion people yet to come.

By this criterion, the stakes are one million times
greater for extinction than for the more modest nuclear wars that kill "only" hundreds of millions of people. There
are many other possible measures of the potential loss
--
including culture and science,
the evolutionary history
of the planet, and the significance of the lives of all of our ancestors who contributed to the future of their
descendants. Extinction is the undoing of the human enterprise.
There is a discontinuity between risks
that threaten 1
0 percent or even 99 percent of humanity and those that threaten 100 percent.
For disasters killing less than all humanity, there is a good chance that the species could
recover. If we value future human generations, then reducing extinction risks should
d
ominate our considerations.

Fortunately, most measures to reduce these risks also improve global
security against a range of lesser catastrophes, and thus deserve support regardless of how much one worries
about extinction. These measures include: * Rem
oving nuclear weapons from hair
-
trigger alert and further
reducing their numbers.

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


20

Drug Trade

Drug trade fuels corruption, regional instability, and terrorism across the globe.


O’Gara
200
7

(James, USEmbassyTexts&Transcripts, 3/5/07, “Panelists Discuss Fi
ght Against Illegal
Synthetic Drugs”,
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2007/03/20070305124132eaifas0.2672
083.html#a
xzz2XY6LABCs
)


U.S. Drug Enforcement Panelists: This is James O’Gara again.
Millions of dollars in the hands of
international drug mafias are “reinvested” by drug traffickers to corrupt and intimidate government
officials, to buy arms to kill th
ose who oppose them, and to prevent democratic governments from
controlling national territory in extreme cases.
Drug
-
lords are fundamentally anti
-
democratic, harking
back
--

as the name implies
--

to a feudalistic system of dominance by a chief who rules

by force of
arms.


This threat to democratic institutions is not a new phenomenon. For decades, the international illegal
drug trade has constituted a significant transnational security threat.
The illegal drug trade threatens
democratic governments,
undermines the rule of law, terrorizes populations, impedes economic
development, and causes regional instability. Its operations, organizations, and networks often fuel
arms and human trafficking, money laundering, and violent multinational gangs.

The ill
icit drug trade
finances insurgencies, as we have seen in Colombia and Afghanistan,
and also support the activities
of extremist groups around the world.


In Colombia,
the FARC, AUC, and ELN have abandoned their ideological focus in favor of the
cocaine pr
oduction and trafficking business
, likely receiving hundreds
of

millions of dollars annually
from the trade. These groups have
moved

from taxing drug proceeds
to increasingly controlling the
production and distribution of cocaine.

A growing body of report
ing by DEA and other agencies has
shown that local Taliban commanders in Afghanistan receive funding from the drug trade.
These
activities may include taxation of opium poppy farmers, laboratories, and narcotics transporters
passing through Taliban checkpo
ints; providing security/safe passage for drug shipments; collecting
“donations,” both monetary and supplies such as vehicles from wealthy traffickers to support the
Taliban cause.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


21

Drug Trade

Drug trade blocks progress in developing nations and causes ec
onomic and political
instability


Dadge 6/26

(David, UN Information Service Vienna, 6/26/13, “New psychoactive substances pose
severe challenges to public health systems, says UNODC Chief at high
-
level launch of World Drug
Report 2013”,
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2013/unisnar1172.html
)


VIENNA, 26 June (UN Information Service)
-

The
Executive Director of the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime (UNOD
C) Yury Fedotov warned today at a special meeting of the Commission on
Narcotic Drugs (CND) that the use of new psychoactive substances (NPS) is growing.
He said
concerted action was needed to prevent the manufacture, trafficking and abuse of these substan
ces.
Noting the impact of drugs and crime on some fragile countries,
Mr. Fedotov said, "…the drug trade
and organized crime continue to fuel economic and political instability around the world." Afghanistan,

in particular,
requires the full support of the
international community to prevent instability after the
withdrawal of international forces in 2014, he said. In both West Africa and the Sahel regions, Mr.
Fedotov stressed the need for greater assistance to prevent illicit drugs and crime hindering the
p
rogress of sustainable development. Mr. Fedotov

also
noted

that the international drug control
conventions were helping to contain and stabilize the level of drug consumption, but said there were
concerns about the violence generated by illicit drug traffi
cking, particularly, in Central America; as
well as the fact that some national laws and practices could be vulnerable to human rights violations.
"The real issue, however, is not to amend the conventions, but to implement them according to their
original
spirit and intention. A first step towards achieving this goal is to recognize that the
conventions were created to protect the health and welfare of mankind," said Mr. Fedotov. UNODC
was also helping in this, he said, by promoting a balanced approach to i
llicit drugs founded on
fundamental human rights and science
-
based prevention and treatment. Mr. Fedotov was speaking at
the opening of a special meeting of the CND to launch the UNODC flagship publication, the World
Drug Report 2013. Also in attendance wa
s UN Deputy Secretary
-
General, Jan Eliasson, who in his
own opening speech said: "As we work to shape a global agenda for peace, development and human
rights, let us address these drug and crime threats coherently and effectively for the benefit of all."


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


22

Drug Trade

The drug trade is a leading cause of instability, judicial collapse, and widespread violence in
Latin America


Redmond 5/31
(Helen, 5/31/13, “Drug war devastation in Latin America”,
http://socialistworker.org/2012/05/31/drug
-
war
-
devastation
)


AT THE end of March,
Guatemalan President Molina hosted a meeting with other presidents in
Central America to discuss the
violence, crime and corruption of the drug war
--
and the prospects for
drug legalization to undercut the power of the kingpins. It's not that
Molina, a former military general
who has been accused of torture and implicated in acts of genocide,
is

suddenly c
oncerned about the
welfare of Guatemalans. Instead, he
and the other presidents of Central and Latin America have
begrudgingly acknowledged the futility of combating the narcotraficantes
.
Three decades of the "war
on drugs" with no victory in sight, and th
e fact that drugs are as plentiful and cheap as ever, has led to
some re
-
examination of the drug war.

These
politicians are concerned about stability in the region
and the drug war is one of the leading drivers of instability
--
of social and economic disrup
tion, the
collapse of judicial systems and widespread, record
-
levels of violence against civilians and state
security forces.
But even raising the potential of legalization or decriminalization as an alternative to
militarized drug war enforcement sent wav
es of panic through the Obama administration. Obama
quickly dispatched Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano to Guatemala and Vice President Joe
Biden to Mexico.






Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


23

AT: Drug Trade



Changes in policy won’t stop the drug trade



cartels will just
consolidate networks


Youngers and Rosin, 05

(*Coletta, Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America,
consultant with the International Drug Policy Consortium, B.A. from the University of the South in
Political Science, M.A. from Princeton Unive
rsity, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, researcher at Oxford University, **Eileen, researcher at WOLA, “The U.S. “War on Drugs”: Its
Impact in Latin America and the Caribbean, “Drugs and Democracy in Latin America”, Rienner, 2005,

Google Books, JKahn)


A

similar
phenomenon happens with arrests of traffickers. Removing one set of international drug
dealers has

often simply
cleared

the

way

for

rivals

and new entrants to the drug trade,
rather

than

reducing

the

size

of

the

drug

marke
t
. Smashing the large Mexican and Columbian cartels led to the
formation of groups that are smaller and harder to detect
. Larger and more frequent drug seizures,
often offered as evidence of policy success are in fact inherently ambiguous indicators. They

may
instead reflect increased drug production and trafficking, as traffickers seed to compensate for their
anticipated losses.



State
-
based policies to combat drugs structurally fail


Freeman and Luis Sierra, 05

(*Laurie, Director for Yemen at the National Security Council, former
State Department Official, fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America, writer for the Washington
Post Mexico Bureau, M.A. in International Politics from Princeton University, degr
ee from Duke in
Latin American Studies, **Jorge, Knight International Journalism Fellow, degree in International
Journalism from the University of Southern California, defense policy and economics fellow at the
Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, Natio
nal Defense University, “Mexico: The Militarization
Traip”, 2005, part of “Drugs and Democracy in Latin America: The impact of U.S. Policy”
, Rienner,
Google Books
)


U.S. drug control policy

toward the Caribbean
has
failed

to

achieve

even

minimal

objectives
. Not
only is the drug trade as deepy rooted as ever in the area
; related
violence and

illicit
drug
consumption are
on

the

rise
. Changing U.S. priorities could, however, provide an opportunity for new
policy approaches across the region.
As the United S
tates turns its attention elsewhere
, the
Caribbean and
other countries may be given the flexibility they need to develop integrated alternative
policies

that take into account the complex socioeconomic challenges they face. It is vital that the
spectrum o
f public debate be broadened, that is, democratized.
Government resources
should

not

be

used

to delegitimize alternative to critical positions
, as has been the practice of the U.S. drug control
bureaucracy.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


24

AT: Drug Trade


US can never solve drug

trafficking in Central America


Carpenter, 12

(Ted Galen Carpenter is senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the
Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter served as Cato’s director of foreign policy studies from 1986 to 1995 and
as vice president for

defense and foreign policy studies from 1995 to 2011. He is the author of nine
and the editor of 10 books on international affairs; 1/4/12; “Drug Mayhem Moves South”;
http
://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/drug
-
mayhem
-
moves
-
south
)


The U.S. government is caught in a bind.

Clearly,
Washington does not want to see Central America
become a region of narco
-
states

in which the drug cartels are the political powers that really matter.
And
Central American leaders have a point when they argue that their countries are at risk largely
because of

their geographic location along
the route between drug
-
source

countries
an
d the
insatiable U.S. drug market
. According to the 2011 United Nations World Drug Report, the U.S.
market accounts for approximately 36 percent of world consumption of cocaine, and the figures for
other drugs are similar.¶
At the same time, U.S. leaders n
eed to guard against letting excessive guilt
make them receptive to what amounts to a financial shakedown from Central American regimes.
Murder rates in those countries were already among the highest in the world before the Mexican
cartels moved in.
The dr
ug gangs have certainly exacerbated security problems in Central America,
but they did not create them.




Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


25

Economy


Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.


Merlini, Senior Fellow


Brookings,
20
11

[Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Ce
nter
on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for
Inter
national Affairs (IAI) in Rome

A Post
-
Secular World?
Survival
, Volume 53, Issue 2

April 2011 ,
pages 117


130.


Two neatly opposed scenarios for
the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit
at the risk of oversimplification
. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post
-
Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into
an open and
traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might
be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have
just experienced, and the prospe
ct of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and
democracy similar to those of the first
.
Whatever the trigger
, the unlimited exercise of national
sovereignty,
exclusive self
-
interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be am
plified,
emptying, perhaps entirely, the half
-
full glass of multilateralism
, including the UN and the European
Union
. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have
potential religious dimensions. Short of wa
r, tensions such as those related to immigration might become
unbearable.

Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another,
the secular
rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or c
onverging
with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


26

Economy


Global economic crisis causes war


Royal 2010 [
Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic
Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,? in
Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and
Brauer, p. 213
-
215]


Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external confl
ict.
Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic
decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has
been considered at systemic, dyadic and national l
evels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on
the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership
cycle theory, finding that
rhythms in the global economy are associated with
the rise and fall of a pre
-
emi
nent power and the often
bloody transition
from one pre
-
eminent leader to the next. As such,
exogenous shocks such as

economic crises could usher in a redistribution of
relative
power

(see also
Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
increasing the risk of misc
alculation
(Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain
redistribution
of power
could lead to
a
permissive environment for

conflict as a rising power may

seek to
challenge a declining power

(Werner, 1999). Separately,

Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with
parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers,
although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions
and
security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of
trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding
economic conditions and security behaviour of sta
tes. He argues that
interdependent states are likely
to gain pacific benefits
from trade
so long as they have an optimistic view
of future trade relations.
However,
if
the
expectations
of future trade
decline,

particularly for difficult to replace items su
ch as
energy resources,
the likelihood for conflict increases
, as states will be inclined to use force to gain
access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations
either on its own or because it triggers prot
ectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others
have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level.
Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and
external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.
Economic conflict tends to spawn
internal conflict, which

in turn
returns the favour
. More
over, the presence of a recession tends to
amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self
-
reinforce each other. (Blomberg &
Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of
terrorism (Blo
mberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and
lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.
'Diversionary theory' suggests that,

when facing unpopularity
arisin
g from economic decline,

sitting

governments
have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts
to create a 'rally around
the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find
supporting evidence showing

that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated.
Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due

to the fact that
democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of



Royal 10 continues…
Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


27

Economy



Royal 10 continues..


domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that
periods of weak econo
mic
performance in the U
nited
S
tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity,
are statistically linked to an
increase in
the use

of

force
. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic
integration with an increase in the frequency
of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship
links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied
connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the
eco
nomic
-
security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other
perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict,
such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this

chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic
interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of
and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered
ancillary
to those views.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


28

Economy


Economic collapse causes global war.


Walter Russell
Mead
, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on
Foreign Relations, February 4, 20
09
, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic


History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their
leads
--
but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a
normal part of life during the 300
-
year rise of the liberal capitalist

system under the
Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish
Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two
World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the l
ist of financial crises.
Bad
economic times

can
breed wars. Europe was

a pretty

peaceful

place
in 1928, but the
Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped

bring

Adolf

Hitler to power. If the
current crisis turns into

a
depression, what rough
beasts might start slouching toward
Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi

to be born?
The U
nited
S
tates

may not, yet, decline,
but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we
may

still
have to fight
.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


29

Answers To: Economy


No causal relationshi
p between economic decline and war.

Ferguson 6

[Niall, MA, D.Phil., is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and
William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He is also a Senior
Research Fellow at
Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution,
Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct, “The Next War of the World”]


Nor can economic crises explain

the
bloodshed.

What may be the most familiar causal chain
in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak
of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi
Germany started the war

in
Europe
only after its econom
y

had
recovered.

Not all the countries affected by the Great
Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of
aggression. In fact,
no general relationship between economics and conflict is
discernible

for the century as

a whole.
Some wars came after

periods of
growth, others were
the causes

rather than the consequences

of economic catastrophe, and some severe

economic
crises were not followed by wars.


Economic decline doesn’t cause war.

Jervis 11

[Robert, Adlai E. Steve
nson Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political
Science, and a Member of the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia
University. Force in Our Times Saltzman Working Paper No. 15 July 2011
http://www.siw
ps.com/news.attachment/saltzmanworkingpaper15
-
842/SaltzmanWorkingPaper15.PDF]


Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts
of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interes
ts that would
bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero
-
sum sense of status
would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a
worsening of the current economic difficulties, which coul
d itself produce greater nationalism,
undermine democracy, and bring back old
-
fashioned beggar
-
thy
-
neighbor economic policies.
While these dangers are real,
it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to
lead the members of the communi
ty to contemplate fighting each other.

It is not so much
that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed


states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have
fought bloody civi
l wars. Rather it is that
even if the more extreme versions of free trade and
economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a pre
-
existing high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to belie
ve that
their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others.

Is it possible that
problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they
have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that
this argument does not appear
as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my
view) that
the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down
-
turn without anyone
suggesting that force of arms is the s
olution shows that even if bad times bring about
greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


30

Answers To: Economy


U.S. not key to the global economy


Caryl 10

[Christian, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Studies at the Mas
sachusetts
Institute of Technology and a contributing editor to Foreign Policy. His column, "Reality Check,"
appears weekly on ForeignPolicy.com, Crisis? What Crisis? APRIL 5, 2010,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/05/crisis_what_crisis?page=f
ull]


Many emerging economies entered the

2008
-
2009
crisis with healthy balance sheets.

In most
cases
governments reacted quickly and flexibly, rolling out stimulus programs or even
expanding poverty
-
reduction programs. Increasingly,
the
same
countries tha
t

have
embraced
globalization

and markets
are starting to build
social safety nets.

And there's another factor:
Trade is becoming
more evenly distributed

throughout the world.
China is

now
a bigger
market for Asian exporters than the U
nited
S
tates. Some
economists are talking about
"emerging market decoupling."

Jonathan
Anderson
, an emerging
-
markets economist at
the Swiss bank UBS,
showed

in one recent report
how car sales in emerging markets have
actually been rising during this latest bout of turmoil
--

powerful evidence that
emerging
economies no longer have to sneeze when America catches a cold
.

Aphitchaya
Nguanbanchong, a consultant for the British
-
based aid organization Oxfam, has studied the
crisis's effects on Southeast Asian economies. "The resear
ch so far shows that the result of
the crisis isn't as bad as we were expecting," she says.
Indonesia is a case in point: "People
in this region and at the policy level learned a lot from the past crisis." Healthy domestic
demand cushioned the shock when t
he crisis hit export
-
oriented industries; the government
weighed in immediately with hefty stimulus measures. Nguanbanchong

says that she
has
been surprised by the extent to which families throughout the region have kept spending
money on education even as

incomes have declined

for some. And that, she says, reinforces
a major lesson that emerging
-
market governments can take away from the crisis:
"Governments should focus more on social policy, on health, education, and services. They
shouldn't be intervenin
g so much directly in the economy itself."


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


31

Hegemony


US hegemony and alliances deter arms races, security competition, and wars


Thayer, Missouri State University Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Associate
Professor, 2006

[Bradley, American Empire: A Debate, p. 108
-
109,
http://books.google.com/books?id=YgE
-
1HjR70sC&pg=PT120&lpg=PT120&dq=%22The+fourt
h+critical+fact+to+consider+is+that+the+securi
ty+provided+by+the+power+of+the+United+States+creates+stability+in+international+politics%22+%
22Thayer%22&source=bl&ots=Iis_jTPT73&sig=LXJVWPrRNhtXHZm
-
t
-
gCsMKzLMo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R9rYUb_UGOG8jAKQ5IGABA&ved=0CC0Q6
AEwAA#v=onepage&q
&f=false
, accessed 7
-
6
-
13]


The fourth critical fact to consider is that
the security provided by the power of the United States
creates stability in international politics. That is vitally important for the world
, but easily forgotten.
Ha
rvard professor Joseph

Nye often compares the security provided by the United States to oxygen.
If it were taken away, a person would think of nothing else. If the security and stability provided by the
United States were taken away, most countries would b
e much worse off, and arms races, vicious
security competition, and wars would result.

It would be a world without NATO or other key U.S.
alliances.
We

can imagine easily conflict between traditional

rivals like Greece and Turkey,

Syria and
Israel, India a
nd Pakistan, Taiwan

and China, Russia and Georgia,

Hungary and Romania, Armenia
and Azerb
aijan, and an intense arms race

between China and Japan. In that world,
the breakup of
Yugoslavia would

have been a far bloodier affair that might have esca
lated to be
come another
European war
. In contrast to what might occur absent U.S. power,
we see that

the post
-
Cold War
world dominated by the U
nited States is an era of peace

and stability.


The United States does not provide security to other countries

because it

is

altruistic.
Security for
other states is a positive result
(what economists call

a positive externality)

of the United States
pursui
ng its interests. Therefore, it

would be a mistake to seek "benevolence" in great power politics.
In international politics, states advance their self
-
interest and
, most often,
what might

appear to be
"benevolent" actions are undertak
en for other reasons. To assist

Pakistani earthquake
refugees
, for
example,
is b
enevolent but also greatly aids

the image of the United States in the Muslim wo
rld

so
self
-
interest is usually

intertwin
ed with a humanitarian impulse.


The lesson here is straightforward:
Countries align themselves with the¶ Uni
ted States because to do
so coincides with their interests, and they will continue to do so only as long as their interests are
advanced by working with Uncle Sam.

In 1848, the great British statesman Lord Palmerston captured
this point best when he said:
"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our
interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."2


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


32

Hegemony

The present world is structured around American interests and in a post
-
American world, the
cur
rent world order would be destructured. The lack of structure without heg would lead to
potential conflicts.

Kagan,

Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution

2012 (
Robert W.,
February 11, “Why the World Needs America,” Wall Stree
t Journal,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213262856669448.html
, Accessed
online 7/6/13, AX)


If all of this sounds too good to be true
, it is.
The present world order was largely shaped by American
power and reflects American interests and preferences. If the balance of power shifts in the direction
of other nations, the world order will change to suit their interests and preferences. No
r can we
assume that all the great powers in a post
-
American world would agree on the benefits of preserving
the present order, or have the capacity to preserve it
, even if they wanted to. Take the issue of
democracy.
For several decades, the balance of po
wer in the world has favored democratic
governments. In a genuinely post
-
American world, the balance would shift toward the great
-
power
autocracies. Both Beijing and Moscow already protect dictators

like Syria's Bashar al
-
Assad.
If they
gain greater
relative influence in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more
autocrats hanging on to power
. The balance in a new, multipolar world might be more favorable to
democracy if some of the rising democracies

Brazil, India, Turkey, South Af
rica

picked up the
slack from a declining U.S. Yet not all of them have the desire or the capacity to do it.

What about the economic order of free markets and free trade?

People assume that

China and other
rising powers

that have benefited so much from the

present system
would have a stake in preserving
it
. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Unfortunately, they might not be able to help
themselves.
The creation and survival of a liberal economic order has depended, historically, on grea
t
powers that are both willing and able to support open trade and free markets, often with naval power
.
If a declining America is unable to maintain its long
-
standing hegemony on the high seas, would other
nations take on the burdens and the expense of sus
taining navies to fill in the gaps?

Even if they did, would this produce an open global commons

or rising tension?
China and India are
building bigger navies, but the result so far has been greater competition, not greater security.

As
Mohan Malik has note
d in this newspaper,
their "maritime rivalry could spill into the open in a decade
or two
," when India deploys an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean and China deploys one in the
Indian Ocean.
The move from American
-
dominated oceans to collective policin
g by several great
powers could be a recipe for competition and conflict rather than for a liberal economic order.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


33

Hegemony

Hegemony key to check conflicts


prevents the rise of hostile rivals


Khalilizad, Former US Ambassador to the UN, 95

[Zalmay, 3
-
22
-
95, Washington Quarterly, “Losing the moment? The United States and the world after
the Cold War.,”
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article
-
1G
1
-
16781957/losing
-
moment
-
united
-
states.html
, accessed 7
-
9
-
13, MSG]


Under the third option,
the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the
rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future.

On balan
ce,
this is the best
long
-
term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable

not as an end in itself, but
because a
world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the
global environment would be mo
re open and more receptive to American values
-

democracy, free
markets, and the rule of law.

Second,
such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional
hegem
ony by renegade states, and low
-
level conflicts.
Finally,
U.S. leadership would help preclude
the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another
global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers,
including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance
of power system.






Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


34

AT: Hegemony

American hegemony is impossible to support and administer
, and it will ult
imately fail at
providing stability.


Freeman, American Diplomat,
20
12

[Chas Freeman, 2
-
23
-
12, The National Interest, “The China Bluff,”
http://nationalinterest.org/print/commentary/the
-
china
-
bluff
-
6561, 7
-
6
-
13, JZ]


Actually,
we have a much bigger
problem than that presented by the challenge of dealing with a rising
China. We cannot hope to sustain our global hegemony even in the short term without levels of
expenditure we are unprepared to tax ourselves to support. Worse, the

logic of the
sort of u
niversal
sphere of influence we aspire to administer requires us to treat the growth of others' capabilities
relative to our own as direct threats to our hegemony. This means we must match any and all
improvements in foreign military power with additions t
o our own. It is why our military
-
related
expenditures have grown to exceed those of the rest of the world combined. There is simply no way
that such a militaristic approach to national security is affordable in the long term
, no matter how
much it may del
ight defense contractors.


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


35

AT: Hegemony


US hegemonic deterrence fails

questionable credibility and ignored threats


Monteiro, Yale political science professor, 10

[Nuno, P., Spring/Summer 2010, “Why U.S. Power Does Not Deter Challenges”,
http://yalejournal.org/2010/07/20/why
-
u
-
s
-
power
-
does
-
not
-
deter
-
challenges/
, accessed 7
-
3
-
13 BLE]


Since the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the United States has frequently threatened

dire
consequences for states that pursue policies contrary to its interests.

But despite the formidable
power that backs these threats,
they are often ignored.

When threatened with U.S. military action,
Milosevic did not fold, the Taliban did not give in,

nor did Saddam roll over.

Similarly, Iran and North
Korea continue to resist U.S. pressure to stop their nuclear programs. Despite their relative weakness
vis

à

vis the world's sole superpower, all these states defied it. In contrast, during the Cold War,

U.S.
threats were taken seriously by the Soviet Union, the world's other superpower. Despite their
tremendous power, the Soviets were deterred from invading Western Europe and coerced into
withdrawing their missiles from Cuba.
Why were U.S. threats heeded

by another superpower but are
now disregarded by far less powerful states?

Two explanations are commonly offered. The
first is that
the United States is militarily overextended and needs to make more troops available or to augment
its own power for its th
reats to be credible.

The
second is that while the Soviets were evil, they were
also rational. The enemies of today
, alas,
are not.

Both

these
views are wrong.

Despite being at war
in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States is capable of badly damaging any

regime that defies it
while suffering little itself. And America's new enemies are not more "irrational" than its old ones. If
U.S. threats were able to deter shoe
-
slamming "we will bury you" Soviet premier Khrushchev with his
3,000 intercontinental nucle
ar weapons, why are we unable to stop Kim Jong
-
Il and his handful of
rudimentary warheads

not to mention Ahmadinejad, who has none? Because
threats are not the
problem.

Deterrence and coercion do not only require credible threats that harm will follow from

defiance. They require credible assurances that no harm will follow from compliance. In order for
America to expect compliance with U.S. demands, it must persuade its foes that they will be punished
if and only if they defy us. During the Cold War, the ba
lance of power between the two superpowers
made assurances superfluous. Any U.S. attack on the Soviet Union would prompt Moscow to
retaliate, imposing catastrophic costs on America. The prospect of an unprovoked U.S. attack was
therefore unthinkable. Sovie
t power meant Moscow knew no harm would follow from complying with
U.S. demands. But
in today's world, none of our enemies has the wherewithal to retaliate. U.S.
threats, backed by the most powerful military in history, are eminently credible. The problem
is the
very same power advantage undermines the credibility of U.S. assurances. Our enemies feel
vulnerable to an American attack even if they comply with our demands.

They are

therefore
less likely
to heed them.
As the world's most powerful state, the Uni
ted States must work hard to assure other
states that they are not at the mercy of an unpredictable behemoth.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


36

Answers To: Hegemony

American hegemony does not solve conflict


Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato institute,
20
13

[Doug Bandow, special
assistant to President Reagan, editor of political magazine Inquiry, 7
-
5
-
13,
“Egypt and American Hubris,” http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/egypt
-
american
-
hubris
-
8692, 7
-
7
-
13, JZ]


American foreign policy is a wreck. The presumption that Washington co
ntrols events around the
globe has been exposed
to all
as an

embarrassing
illusion.


Egypt teeters on the brink,

again.
Syria worsens by the day
.
Israeli
-
Palestinian negotiations are dead
,
with another intifada in the wind.
North Korea threatens to nuke th
e world
.
Violence grows in Nigeria
.
The
Europeans

have gone from disillusioned to
angry with

President Barack
Obama
.
Argentina,
Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela reject U.S. leadership in Latin America
. Even
Iranian reformers
support Iran’s nuclear program
. Zi
mbabwe’s vicious Robert Mugabe is likely to retain power in
upcoming elections. Iraq is friendly with Iran and supporting Bashar al
-
Assad. The
Afghan
government remains corrupt, incompetent, and without legitimacy
.
Bahrain cracks down on
democracy supporte
rs

with Washington’s acquiescence.
China and Russia resist U.S. priorities in
Syria and elsewhere
.
Venezuela without Chavez looks like Venezuela with Chavez.


It wasn’t supposed to be this way. America was the unipower, the hyperpower, the sole superpower,

the essential nation. Washington was the benevolent hegemon.

Only members of the axis of evil had
something to fear from the United States.
All the U.S. government had to do was exercise
“leadership” and all would be well.

That
U.S. pride swelled with the

end of the Cold War

is hardly a surprise.
But what

unfortunately
emerged was

a
rabid arrogance
, the view that “what we say goes.” It was
the very hubris

about
which
the ancient Greeks warned.


Alas,
this

all
proved to be a world of illusion
, filled with s
moke and mirrors.
On 9/11

a score of
angry

young
Muslims brought war to America
, destroying the World Trade Center and damaging the
Pentagon. A bunch of
ill
-
equipped and ignorant Afghan fundamentalists refused to admit that they
were defeated, and more tha
n a decade later still resist the United States backed by a multitude of
allies

and a covey of local elites.
The invasion of Iraq was met by IEDs instead of flowers, and
created an ally in name only, with Baghdad ready to thwart U.S. military objectives wh
en it saw fit.


American pleading, threats, promises and sanctions had no effect on

the course of events in
North
Korea. Civil and military conflicts ebbed and flowed and political contests waxed and waned in
Congo, Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe with
Washington

but
an ineffective bystander
. Russia’s
Vladimir
Putin ignored U.S. priorities both before and after the fabled “reset” in relations. China
protected North Korea and bullied its other neighbors, despite diplomatic pleadings and military
pivots.




Bandow Continues…

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


37

Answers To: Hegemony


Bandown Continues…


As for succeeding events,
where is the evidence that Morsi, Egypt’s generals and the Egyptian
people sat around awaiting the opinion of U.S. policymakers?

Washington’s support for the odious
Mub
arak left it with little credibility.
Maybe the generals can be bought with the promise of more
military aid, but even they know that the U.S. cannot protect them if their soldiers refuse their orders.
Morsi’s fate was decided in Cairo, not Washington.


Americans understandably pine for a simpler world in which Washington is the center of the world
and the U.S. orchestrates international events. Alas, that world never really existed. It certainly does
not exist today.


Instead of embracing the illusion of

Washington’s omniscience, Washington officials should
acknowledge the limitations on their power and influence. They should reflect on events spinning out
of control in Egypt. It’s time for the more “humble” foreign policy that candidate George W. Bush
pr
omised in what seems to be a lifetime ago.



Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


38

Oceans


Ocean destruction will ensure planetary extinction


Craig 03



Associate Professor at Indiana University School of Law [Robin Kundis, “Taking Steps
Toward Marine Wilderness Protection”, McGeorge Law Rev
iew, Winter, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155,
LN]


Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as
they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political
debates. For example, besides significant tourism value
s
-

the most economically valuable ecosystem
service coral reefs provide, worldwide
-

coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other
environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production.
856 Waste treatme
nt is another significant, non
-
extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef
ecosystems provide. 857 More generally,
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global
geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks o
f living organisms,
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary
elements
." 858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore,
human degradation of marine ecosystems
impairs the planet's ability to support lif
e
.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the
functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to
keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indi
cating that
more diverse ecosystems are more stable." 859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on
their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of
interrelatedness among component species is hig
her on coral reefs than in any other marine
environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued
components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on
sustaining the rest of

the reef system. 860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine
ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non
-
use
biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wak
e of marine disasters, like
the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. 861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for
marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole
or even primary justification

for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have
considerable force and merit." 862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how
little we know about the sea
-

and about the actual effect of human activities on marine

ecosystems.
The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to
detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring
-

even though
we are not completely sure about causation o
r about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the
NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time
we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine
wilderness whe
never we can
-

especially when the United States has within its territory relatively
pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.
We may not know much about the sea,
but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we wi
ll take most of the
biosphere

with us
. The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once
-
complex and productive ecosystem
almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying
fishermen's nets, and converting the web

of life into brainless, wraith
-
like blobs of jelly." 864 More
importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


39

Answers To
: Oceans


Marine ecosystems are resilient.


Kennedy et al 02

[Victor S. Kennedy et al, University of Maryland, COASTAL AND MARINE
ECOSYSTEMS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF U.S. RESOURCES,
2002, p.
http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marin
e.cfm
]


There is evidence that

marine organisms and ecosystems are resilient

to

environmental

change
. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the
biological

components of
marine systems are
tightly coupled to physical factors,

allowing them to respond quickly to r
apid environmental
change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable
.

Some
species

also
have wide
genetic variability

throughout their range,
which

may
allow

for
adaptation

to climate change.




Size of the oceans means no significant impact from
current activities.

Bjørn
Lomborg 01
, Director, Environmental Assessment Institute, THE SKEPTICAL
ENVIRONMENTALIST, 2001 p. 189


But
the oceans are so incredibly big that our impact

on them
has been astoundingly
insignificant

-

the oceans contain more than 1,000 billion liters of water. The UN’s overall
evaluation of the oceans concludes: “
The open sea is still relatively clean. Low levels of lead,
synthetic compounds and artificial radionuclides
, though widely detectable,
are

biologically
insignificant. Oil slicks and litter are common

among sea leans,
but are
, at present, a
minor

consequences to communities of organisms living in ocean waters.

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


40

Proliferation


Proliferation snowballs and puts everyone on hair trigger


every s
mall crisis will go nuclear.


Sokolski

2009
, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, serves on the U.S. congressional
Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, (Henry, Avoiding a
Nuclear
Crowd, Policy Review June & July, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)


At a minimum,
such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed during the Cold
War.

After World War II, there was a clear subordi
nation of nations to one or another of the two superpowers’ strong
alliance systems


the U.S.
-
led free world and the Russian
-
Chinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace
with only small, nonindustrial wars. This alliance tension and syste
m, however, no longer exist. Instead, we now have one
superpower, the United States, that is capable of overthrowing small nations unilaterally with conventional arms alone,
associated with a relatively weak alliance system ( nato) that includes two Europe
an nuclear powers (France and the uk).
nato is increasingly integrating its nuclear targeting policies. The U.S. also has retained its security allies in Asia (Japa
n,
Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence of an increasing number of nuclear

or nuclear
-
weapon
-
armed or
-
ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried to cope with independent nuclear powers by making them “strategic partners” (e.g.,
India and Russia), nato nuclear allies (France and the uk), “non
-
nato allies” (e.g., Israel and Pakist
an), and strategic
stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a nation actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g., Iran or North Korea, which,
we
insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In this world, every nuclear power center
(our European
nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security relatio
ns
or ties with one another but none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as being
as
important as the ties between Washington and each of these nuclear
-
armed entities (see Figure 3).
There are limits
,
however, to what
this approach can accomplish. Such
a weak alliance system, with

its expanding set of
loose
affiliations, risks becoming

analogous to

the international system that failed to contain offensive
actions prior to
World War I.

Unlike 1914, there is no power today that can rival the projection of U.S. conventional forces anywhere on
the globe. But
in a world with
an
increasing

nu
mber of
nuclear
-
armed

or nuclear
-
ready
states
, this may not
matter

as much as we think. In such a world,
the
actions of just one
or two

states or groups
that might threaten to

disrupt or
overthrow a nuclear weapons state could check U.S. influence or ignit
e

a
war
Washington
could have difficulty containing.
No

amount of
military science

or tactics
could assure
that
the U.S.
could disarm

or neutralize
such
threatening

or unstable
nuclear
states
.
22 Nor could diplomats or our intelligence
services be relied upon to keep up to date on what each of these governments would be likely to do in such a crisis (see
graphic below): Combine these proliferation trends with the others noted above and
one cou
ld easily create the
perfect nuclear storm: Small differences between

nuclear
competitors

that
would put all actors on edge;
an overhang of nuclear materials

that
could

be called upon to
break out

or significantly ramp up existing
nuclear deployments;
and
a variety of potential new nuclear actors developing weapons

options in the wings.
In such a setting,
the military and
nuclear rivalries

between states
could easily be much more intense than
before.

Certainly
each

nuclear
state’s military would place an e
ven higher premium

than before
on being
able to weaponize

its military and civilian surpluses
quickly
, to deploy forces that are survivable, and to have forces
that can get to their targets and destroy them with high levels of probability. The advanced mil
itary states will also be even
more inclined to develop and deploy enhanced air and missile defenses and long
-
range, precision guidance munitions,
and

to develop

a variety of preventative and
preemptive war options
.

Certainly, in such a world,
relations
b
etween states could become far less stable.

Relatively
small developments



e.g., Russian support for
sympathetic near
-
abroad provinces; Pakistani
-
inspired terrorist strikes in India, such as those experienced recently in
Mumbai; new Indian flanking activi
ties in Iran near Pakistan; Chinese weapons developments or moves regarding Taiwan;
state
-
sponsored assassination attempts of key figures in the Middle East or South West Asia, etc.


could easily
prompt nuclear weapons deployments

with “strategic” consequ
ences (arms races, strategic miscues,
and
even nuclear war
).

As Herman Kahn once noted, in such a world “
every quarrel

or difference of opinion
may
lead to violence

of a kind
quite different

from what is possible today.”
23 In short, we may soon see a futu
re
that neither the proponents of nuclear abolition, nor their critics, would ever want.

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


41


Proliferation


Prolif will cause nuclear use and extinction

Utgoff 02

Victory, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analysis, Survival, Summer pp. 87
-
90


In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot
-
out with nuclear
weapons, and that such s
hoot
-
outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the
maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is
stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late
1800s. With
most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six
-
shooters’ on their hips, the world
may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather
on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations
.

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


42

Answers To:

Proliferation


Proliferation will be slow and non
-
threatening


their predictions have no empirical validity.


Mueller

2009
, Chair of National Secuirty Studies and Prof of Poli Sci at Ohio State, Winner of the
Lepgold Prize for the best book on Internatio
nal Relations in 2004 awarded by Gtown, (John,
Atomic
Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism From Hiroshima To Al
-
Qaeda,
p. xii
-
xiii)


The second part of the book assesses
the effects of the spread of nuclear weapons

within
and
to states
.
A

prevailing
technological f
ixation has inspired a

concomitant
assumption
, or
assertion,
that because

the
weapons exist, war must inevitably follow, that it is weapons and
arms races, not people, that

principally and inexorably
cause war. This

perspective
has led to

decades of
intens
e
, and mostly
futile and unnecessary, anguish over arms control

and
disarmament issues

or gimmicks. Moreover,
despite endlessly repeated predictions
,
remarkably few countries have taken advantage of the opportunity to develop nuclear
weapons
, and the
sporadic proliferation that has taken place has
, contrary to urgent
forecasts,
been of very little consequence
.

A key reason for this is that the
possession of
such

expensive
armaments actually conveys

in almost all cases rather
little advantage

to the
pos
sessor. In the main,
they are difficult to obtain, militarily useless, and a spectacular waste
of money and scientific talent
.

Because of this, and
contrary to the policy consensus, diffusion
of the weapons is by no means inevitable, and

nuclear proliferat
ion
, while not necessarily
desirable,
is unlikely to
accelerate or
prove

to be
a major danger.

At the same time,
anxious
and ill
-
advised antiproliferation efforts have

actually enhanced the appeal of

or the
desperate desire for

nuclear weapons for some reg
imes, and the
wars and extreme
sanctions

they have inspired
have been a

necessary
cause of far more deaths than

have
been inflicted by
all nuclear detonations

in all of history.




Cant solve
-

States that will proliferate aren’t calculating

Mueller
, Chair of National Security Studies and Prof of Poli Sci at Ohio State, Winner of the Lepgold
Prize for the best book on International Relations in 2004 awarded by Gtown, (Released for sale
about 10
-
20
-
09, Publisher registered 11
-
5
-
‘9)
’9

(John,
Atomic Ob
session: Nuclear Alarmism From
Hiroshima To Al
-
Qaeda,
p.112
-
113)

Especially in the last four or five decades,
the decision to go nuclear

or to abandon nuclear
programs
has been

a rather
idiosyncrati
c

one. Mostly, it has not been
the product of

grander
forc
es but rather of
internal politics

stemming from the dedicated machinations,
and

the
peculiar

perspectives and
personalities
, of specific leaders or governing coalitions. Thus
Hymans finds that
leaders who have pursued weapons

in recent decades are "driven

by fear
and pride," must "
develop a desire for nuclear weapons that goes beyond calculation, to self
-
expression," and are quite rare
.

Cascadology
, he stresses, "
paints an exceedingly dark
picture by lumping the truly dangerous leaders together with the me
rely self
-
assertive
ones
.
"31


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


43

Terrorism


Nuclear terrorism escalates to global nuclear war, ensures extinction via nuclear winter


Dennis Ray

Morgan
,

2009

[
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yangin Campus, South Korea, “World
on Fire: Two Scenarios of
the Destruction of Human Civilization and Possible Extinction of the Human
Race,” FUTURES v. 41, pp. 683
-
93, ScienceDirect.
]


In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’
[10].4 In Section 1, Moore p
oints out what most

terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear
tensions between powerful countries. No doubt,

they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these
tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange
. As Moore points out,

all that militant terrorists
would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel
.
Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system
,

‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full
powers should Moscow
be destroyed,’’

it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United
States’


[10].

Israeli leaders

and Zionist supporters

have
, likewise,

stated

for years that if Israel were to
suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state,

it
would retaliate with the suicidal
‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East
. Furthermore
,

the Israeli Samson
option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti
-
Semitic’’ European cities

[10]. In that case, of
course,

Rus
sia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be
involved as well, as

thousands, if not[u] tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more
powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, woul
d rain upon most of the major cities in the
Northern Hemisphere
. Afterwards[u/], for years to come, [u]massive radioactive clouds would drift
throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be
genetically tr
ansmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years,
taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well.

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


44

Terrorism



Terrorists will use nukes if they can obtain them



Dr Ian

Kearns
,

2010

[
Resea
rch Director, British American Security Information Council, “Keeping the Lid
On: Nuclear Security and the Washington Summit,” BASIC, 4
-
7
-
10,

http://www.basicint.org/pubs/BASIC
-
Nuke
... y
-
full.pdf
, accessed 4
-
10
-
10.
]


2.1

The risk of nuclear terrorism is real. The intent of certain terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Aum
Shinrikyo to go nuclear if possible has been demonstrated but recent investigations into the issue have
also
concluded that the risk of terrorist groups acquiring the capability is ‘not negligible’

(ICNND, 2009:
39).




A bomb can be easily smuggled to its target


Matthrew

Bunn
,

2010

[
Associate Professor, Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
Unive
rsity, SECURING THE BOMB 2010, April 2010, p. 22.
]


A crude terrorist nuclear bomb would be considerably larger than the plutonium or HEU at its core,
perhaps weighing a ton or so. Nevertheless,

just as interdicting smuggling of nuclear materials poses
imm
ense challenges, it would also be extremely difficult to stop terrorists from smuggling a crude
nuclear weapon to its target. A nuclear bomb might be delivered, intact or in ready
-
to
-
assemble pieces, by
boat or aircraft or truck. The length of national bor
ders, the diversity of means of transport, the vast scale
of legitimate traffic across borders, and the ease of shielding the radiation from plutonium or especially
from HEU all operate in favor of the terrorists.

Building the overall system of legal infra
structure,
intelligence, law enforcement, border and customs forces, and radiation detectors needed to find and
recover stolen nuclear weapons or materials, or to interdict these as they cross national borders, is an
extraordinarily difficult challenge.20


Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


45

AT: Terrorism


Current provisions are succeeding in

counter
ing

terrorism in Latin America


Sullivan 8
(James. P Sullivan, specialist in Latin American affairs, Congressional Research Service
report for Congress, “Latin America: Terrorism Issues,” 7/14/09,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/
organization/128377.pdf
)


Over the years, the United States has been concerned about threats to Latin American and ¶
Caribbean nations from various terrorist or insurgent groups that have attempted to influence or ¶
overthrow elected governments. Although
Latin America has not been the focal point in the war on
terrorism,

countries in the region have struggled with domestic terrorism for decades and ¶
international terrorist groups have at times used the region as a battleground to advance their ¶
causes.
¶ The State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism highlights U.S. concerns
about ¶ terrorist threats around the world, including in Latin America. The April 2009 report
maintained ¶ that terrorism in the region was primarily perpetrated by terro
rist organizations in
Colombia and ¶ by the remnants of radical leftist Andean groups.
Overall
, however,
the report
maintained that the ¶
threat of a transnational terrorist attack remained low

for most countries in
the hemisphere. ¶
The report also stated

that regional governments “took

modest
steps to improve
their counterterrorism capabilities and tighten border security”

but that progress was limited by ¶
“corruption, weak government institutions, ineffective or lack of interagency cooperation, weak ¶ o
r
non
-
existent legislation, and reluctance to allocate sufficient resources.”
The report lauded
counterterrorism efforts in Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Paraguay, Mexico, and El Salvador,

but ¶
noted that some other countries “lacked urgency and resolve t
o address counterterrorism ¶
deficiencies.” It also noted that
most hemispheric nations had solid cooperation with the United ¶
States on terrorism issues, especially at the operational level, with excellent intelligence, law
enforcement, and legal assista
nce relations.

Impact File





Wisconsin State Novice Packet







2013
-
2014


46

AT: Terrorism

No evidence that Latin American
-
based terrorist organizations pose any threat to the United
States


Council on Foreign Relations, 2008
(“U.S.
-
Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality,”
Council On Foreign Rel
ations, 2008, www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LatinAmerica_TF.pdf)


Much of the recent interest about transnational threats in Latin America stems from concerns that the region
may serve as a base or breeding ground for terrorist organizations
.

This fear was highlighted when some of the
people involved in an incipient terrorist plot at John F. Kennedy airport in New York were found to have come
from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. Attention has also focused on the triborder area where Argentina
,
Brazil, and Paraguay meet, which is home to considerable criminal activity and relatively low levels of
government control.
There is some evidence that Hezbollah has had a limited presence in the area for
purposes of money laundering, but there is no

str
ong

evidence

thus far
that
Middle East

terrorist operatives
have had

much
success making inroads into Latin America.

Similarly, although Hugo Chavez’s ties with Iran
and provocative statements about the¶ United States have raised concern in many quarters,
there is little
evidence that Venezuela currently presents a haven for

Islamic
terrorism.

Nonetheless, as Admiral Stavridis,
Commander of the U.S. Southern¶ Command, expressed to Congress earlier this year, while narcoterrorism¶
(addressed below) is a cons
tant struggle for the region, ‘‘Islamic radical¶ terrorism is a much less immediate
force in the region, but it has the¶ potential to become of greater concern to us.”More immediately relevant are
transnational gangs that have been tagged as a serious emer
ging threat to hemispheric security. The two¶
most prominent and dangerous gangs, the M
-
18 and the MS
-
13, have¶ somewhere between 50,000 and
100,000 members distributed among¶ number of Central American countries (especially Guatemala, El¶
Salvador, and Ho
nduras) and the United States. The Congressional¶ Research Service recently reported that
more than 1,300 members of¶ the MS
-
13 have been arrested in the United States in the past two and¶ half
years. By many accounts, the origin of transnational gangs ste
mmed¶ from the release of tens of thousands of
criminals, deported from the¶ United States to Central American nations, where often the receiving¶
governments were uninformed of the criminal background of the¶ deportees, leaving their judicial and prison
s
ystems unable to control¶ them.¶ State agencies in Central America and the United States have made¶
concerted effort to understand and address the threat. In 2004 the¶ FBI created a special task force on gangs,
which works with Central¶ American government
s. The State Department, Department of Homeland¶ Security
(DHS), the U.S. Agency for International Development,¶ and the Department of Justice have also developed
initiatives that¶ support and work with Central American governments on gang
-
related¶ ues and

threats. The
IDB and USAID have funded a variety of youth¶ and educational programs in an effort to dissuade Central
American¶ youth from gang involvement. There have also been meetings between¶ local law enforcement
officials in the United States and the
ir Central¶ American counterparts to facilitate coordination and information
sharing.
The threat posed by transnational gangs should not be overstated, as it has been in some of the more
tendentious analyses of the problem in recent years.

The UN Office on

Drugs and Crime has found that, while
gangs in Central America ‘‘represent a source of criminality, they¶ do not appear to be responsible for a
particularly disproportionate share¶ of the murders in the countries where they predominate. Their role¶ in dru
g
trafficking . . . is also dubious.’’¶ Still, the gangs do contribute¶ to already high rates of crime and further
undermine weak governance¶ in several Central American countries; if not met with effective anticrime¶
strategies in Latin America and contin
ued coordination between Central¶ American governments and the
United States, such gangs could become¶ an increasingly problematic threat to security and stability.¶ 25The
Task Force finds that the United States must be vigilant toward emerging threats wit
hout letting them hamper
U.S. policy in other critical areas. In¶ addition,
claims that terrorists are using Latin America as a launching pad
for attack on the United States are thus far unfounded