Harvard Impacts 2007‐8   

  All the impact cards  you need in one place!      
                      Harvard Debate 

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               

Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2  AIDS/HIV – Extinction ........................................................................................................................................................ 4  AIDS/HIV – Mutations ........................................................................................................................................................ 5  ANWR Drilling Bad -- Species ............................................................................................................................................ 6  Asian Wars Go Nuclear ........................................................................................................................................................ 7  Biopower -- Extinction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8  Capitalism Bad – War/All Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 9  Civil-Military Relations Good – Bacevich & Kohn ........................................................................................................... 10  Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything ....................................................................................................................... 11  Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything ....................................................................................................................... 12  Climate Change/Warming -- Brandenberg ......................................................................................................................... 13  Deference (Judicial) Good -- Readiness ............................................................................................................................. 14  Deference (Judicial) Bad -- Extinction ............................................................................................................................... 15  Deforestation Bad ............................................................................................................................................................... 16  Democracy Good – Diamond ............................................................................................................................................. 17  Democracy Good/Democide -- Rummel ............................................................................................................................ 18  Economy – Mead, Lewis, Beardon ..................................................................................................................................... 19  Economy – Zey/Ecxtinction ............................................................................................................................................... 20  Food Prices – Increase Kills a Billion – Tampa Tribune .................................................................................................... 20  Growth Bad – War.............................................................................................................................................................. 21  Growth Bad – War.............................................................................................................................................................. 22  Growth Bad -- Upswing Impact Magnifier......................................................................................................................... 23  Growth Bad -- Upswing Impact Magnifier......................................................................................................................... 24  Growth Good -- Growth Stops War.................................................................................................................................... 25  Growth Good -- Growth Saves Environment ..................................................................................................................... 26  Ethnic Conflict -- Shehadi .................................................................................................................................................. 28  Famine -- Extinction ........................................................................................................................................................... 29  Freedom – Petro ................................................................................................................................................................. 30  Genocide Impacts -- Gurr ................................................................................................................................................... 31  Hedgemony Bad – Extinction -- Chomsky ......................................................................................................................... 32  Hegemony Bad – War – Layne .......................................................................................................................................... 33  Hegemony Good – Khalilzad ............................................................................................................................................. 35  Unipolarity Good: Global War (Thayer) ............................................................................................................................ 36  Hegemony Good -- Global War (Thayer)........................................................................................................................... 37  Hegemony Good: Global War (Ferguson).......................................................................................................................... 38  Unipolarity Good: Extinction (Smil) .................................................................................................................................. 39  Human Rights – Hoffman................................................................................................................................................... 40  India Pakistan – Nabi.......................................................................................................................................................... 41  India Pakistan – Washington Times ................................................................................................................................... 41  Individual Rights -- Kateb .................................................................................................................................................. 42  Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact ..................................................................................................... 43  Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact ..................................................................................................... 44  Iran Proliferation Impacts – Sokolsky ................................................................................................................................ 45  Iran Proliferation – Schoenfeld ........................................................................................................................................... 46  Israel Preemption Of Iran – Nuclear War ........................................................................................................................... 48  Iran Strikes Bad – World War III ....................................................................................................................................... 49  Iran Strikes Bad – World War III ....................................................................................................................................... 50  Japan Rearm Impacts -- Economy ...................................................................................................................................... 52  Japan Rearm Impacts -- Iran ............................................................................................................................................... 53  Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea .................................................................................................................................. 54  Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea .................................................................................................................................. 55  2

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               
Japan Rearm Impacts – Nuclear War ................................................................................................................................. 56  Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression............................................................................................................. 57  Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression............................................................................................................. 58  Japan Rearmament Impacts -- Taiwan................................................................................................................................ 59  Japan Rearmament Impacts -- Terrorism............................................................................................................................ 60  Korean Proliferation Impacts .............................................................................................................................................. 61  Korean War Impacts – Africa News ................................................................................................................................... 62  Korean War Impacts – Economy ........................................................................................................................................ 63  Middle East War -- Steinbach............................................................................................................................................. 64  Middle East War -- Evron................................................................................................................................................... 64  Middle East War -- Blank ................................................................................................................................................... 65  Militarism -- Reardon ......................................................................................................................................................... 66  Minority Rights – Buckley ................................................................................................................................................. 67  Morality – Watson .............................................................................................................................................................. 68  Morality -- Gewirth ............................................................................................................................................................ 68  NATO Good ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69  Nuclear Power Good -- Lovelock ....................................................................................................................................... 71  Oil Wars – Extinction ......................................................................................................................................................... 72  Ozone Destruction Bad -- Extinction.................................................................................................................................. 73  Patriarchy – Reardon ......................................................................................................................................................... 74  Protectionism Bad – Extinction .......................................................................................................................................... 76  Peace Process – Generally Good ........................................................................................................................................ 78  Peace Process – Generally Good ........................................................................................................................................ 79  Poverty – Gilligan............................................................................................................................................................... 80  Privacy – Schoenman ......................................................................................................................................................... 81  Proliferation – Utgoff ......................................................................................................................................................... 82  Proliferation – End of the World ........................................................................................................................................ 82  Proliferation -- Miller ......................................................................................................................................................... 83  Racism -- Memmi ............................................................................................................................................................... 84  Readiness -- Key To Hegemony ......................................................................................................................................... 85  Readiness – Stops Global War ........................................................................................................................................... 86  Russian Economy -- David ................................................................................................................................................. 87  Saudi Arabian Economy -- David....................................................................................................................................... 88  Saudi Arabian Civil War -- Pollack .................................................................................................................................... 90  Separation of Powers Good –War/Redish .......................................................................................................................... 91  Species Loss – Extinction ................................................................................................................................................... 92  Space Militarization Bad – Robb ........................................................................................................................................ 93  Statism – Genocide & War ................................................................................................................................................. 94  Taiwan War Impacts – Hsuing & Straits Times ................................................................................................................. 95  Terrorism (Nuclear) – Easterbrook, Amhed, Haas ............................................................................................................. 96  Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo, Alexander .......................................................................................................................... 97  Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo, Alexander .......................................................................................................................... 98  Terrorism (Bioterrorism) – Steinbrenner & Ochs ............................................................................................................... 99  U.S.-Japan Alliance Good – General War ........................................................................................................................ 100  Viruses – Toronto Star ...................................................................................................................................................... 101  Viruses – Franz ................................................................................................................................................................. 101  Viruses – Ryan ................................................................................................................................................................. 102  Water Wars – Nuclear War............................................................................................................................................... 103 


6.165. 85 per cent of them African.8 million lives went down the drain. With Aids.85. a quarter of the population of Europe. the vector is humanity itself. setting a trend that was to become fairly common.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. http://209.+But+Aids+is+without+precedent. 4 .+But+unlike+the+plague. the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams .healtoronto. on the other hand.8 million people are already dead. But unlike the plague. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated. as a matter of fact. 2000.com/mbeki/Kommentare. But Aids is without precedent.+It+is+co mparable+only+to+the+Black+Death+of+the+Middle+Ages+in+the+terror+it+evokes+and+the+graves+it+fills. between 1347 and 1352. today easily cured by antibiotics and prevented by vaccines killed a full 40 million Europeans.000 Africans will die today. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the First World War. the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far.of a generation. IT THREATENS TO EXTINGUISH LIFE ON THE PLANET Mutuma Mathiu. It is simply a waste.+Aids+does+not+come+at+a+tim e+of+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Every age has its killer.rtf+Every+age+has+its+killer.104/search?q=cache:6tm_9OIp4c8J:www. 43. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes and the graves it fills. patriotism or simply racial pride. more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone. is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification. The Black Death .3 million infected worldwide (24. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy. 18. 2. July 15. The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. Last year alone. in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. the nice person in the next seat in the bus. HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony. AFRICA NEWS.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                AIDS/HIV – Extinction AIDS WILL KILL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IF NOT STOPPED.even the mere living out of a lifetime . Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood. Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration.the plague. Aids.

the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments. which can take ten years or more to kill its victims. 5 . or the intestines were increased. that acquiring those abilities would so change the virus that it no longer efficiently infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. If." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts. The virus has already shown itself to be highly mutable. Unlike the current version of AIDS. the virus might be spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. as Temin points out. p. it might be transmissible through coughs. But it is likely. would almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily). THE POPULATION EXPLOSION. 147-8 Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV can be slowed through public education and other measures. that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported. AZT. however. is worried that a relatively minor mutation could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. Professors of Population studies at Stanford University. If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the membranes of the mouth. and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug. might evolve new transmission characteristics. and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in the case of myxopatomis). for instance. Joshua Lederberg. but it could temporarily increase the transmission rate and reduce life expectancy of infected persons until the system once again equilibrated. and to a large extent on luck. the new strain might cause death in days or weeks. the lungs. We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate. What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                AIDS/HIV – Mutations FAILURE TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF AIDS TRIGGERS MUTATIONS THAT WILL KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. In effect it would produce an entirely different disease. To do so. If so. Infected individuals then would have less time to spread the virus to others. 1990. in this case people.

every one of us depends directly on the Earth's living systems -. animals. The remaining 5 percent. applied experimentally to the development of other drugs it continues. It is basically the characteristics of the living organisms that we are squandering that afford the best chances of improving our lives and those of our grandchildren -. March 19. the landscapes we enjoy each day. The great majority of medicines also are derived from plants. U. so if U. fungi and micro-organisms that have made the air we breathe. is such that as many as a quarter of all species may be lost within 25 years. 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is open for oil and gas exploration. and as many as two-thirds of them by the end of the century -. in ANWR. 6 . Brazil and Vietnam be expected to protect their own special places? IMPACT -SPECIES LOSS GUARANTEES HUMAN EXTINCTION ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH. others are encouraged to imitate that bad behavior. All of our food comes directly or indirectly from plants. Our relationship with the Earth.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                ANWR Drilling Bad -. Lexis (MHBLUE1256) Whether we realize it or not. It makes no sense to spoil all of that in the name of national security when the Congress won't even dare boost mileage standards. p. is a fragile and pristine place that hosts millions of migratory birds and sustains a large caribou herd that is essential to native tribes living in the area.S. when it acts badly.a tragedy in terms of the prospects for human progress. After all. however. many of the remainder from fungi and bacteria. how on earth can nations like Kazakhstan. Lexis (MHBLUE1255) As the Wilderness Society argues. most nations are much poorer than the United States. p. behavior matters in this world. 1999. wheat and rice. officials can't afford to protect a special place like ANWR. and a truly ignorant way to treat the systems on which we depend wholly for our survival now and in the future. The hypocrisy is appalling. the soil.but we seem unable or unwilling to act intelligently on this basic truth.S. 2002. May 23. and more than half of it from just three members of the grass family: corn.the plants. And almost all of the rest have been improved through knowledge gained about other naturally occurring compounds.Species ANWR DRILLING CAUSES WORLDWIDE SPECIES LOSS STAR TRIBUNE.

Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons. a Washington think tank. 2000 [“Top Administration Officials Warn Stakes for U. Defense Secretary William S. jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. Numerous U. economy.” said Bates Gill. too. p. Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile.S. There are elements for potential disaster.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Asian Wars Go Nuclear CONFLICT IN EAST ASIA GOES NUCLEAR Jonathan S. globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its massive markets. and North Korea may have a few. Japan and South Korea.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan.S. India. according to the Commerce Department. National Security and Intelligence Correspondent. For America. negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. There are 100. Landay. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year. In addition. a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia. President Clinton. Lexis] Few if any experts think China and Taiwan. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan.S. Are High in Asian Conflicts”. director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution. 7 . or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. North Korea and South Korea.S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. March 10. exports and resources _ indispensable to the U. the stakes could hardly be higher. “We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. cheap labor.000 U. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations.

and all things being equal. maintain. or destroying them. making them submit. There has been a parallel shift in the right of death. rather than one dedicated to impeding them. and organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces. causing so many men to be killed. This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply the reverse of the right of the social body to ensure.Extinction Michel Foucault. It is as managers of life and survival. 1984 (THE FOUCAULT READER. and ordering them. of bodies and the race. or at least a tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a lifeadministering power and to define itself accordingly. ed. monitor. p. Rabinow. optimize. And through a turn that closes the circle. 8 . the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. and multiply it. or develop its life. never before did regimes visit such holocaust on their own populations. control. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended. that endeavors to administer. Yet wars were never as bloody as they have been since the nineteenth century. they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone. subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction. that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars. "Deduction" has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one element among others. the West has undergone a very profound transformation of these mechanisms of power. working to incite.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Biopower -. Director of Institute Francais at Hamburg. optimize. 259-260) (PDBF1940) Since the classical age. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence. But this formidable power of death-and this is perhaps what accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits-now presents itself as the counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life. reinforce. making them grow. entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital.

in which events can only be conceived as a manifestation of the direct economic needs of a social class. Kolyma. and thereby serves as a screen behind which the death-world wrought by capital can be safely hidden from its potential victims. an undertaking welcomed by big capital. the deliberate and systematic extermination of whole groups of human beings. but rather an event produced by the unfolding of the logic of capitalism itself. Quite apart from an economism which simply ignores the dialectic between the economy on the one hand. of one of the imperialist blocs in the inter-imperialist world war. have either degenerated into a crude economism. but as the direct outcome of the utilitarian calculation of segments of the petty bourgeoisie and big capital. have become an integral part of the social landscape of capitalism in its phase of decadence. of the very barbarism of capitalism. which not only cannot be dissociated from anti-Semitism. it is just such a death-world that constitutes the meaning of one pole of the historic alternative which Rosa Luxemburg first posed in the midst of the slaughter inflicted on masses of conscripts during World War I: socialism or barbarism! Yet. the veritable hallmark of the fundamental irrationality of late capital. that is. the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda. for example. but synecdoches for the death-world that is a component of the capitalist mode of production in this epoch.Jewish -. and in the case of the capitalist class. be comprehended on the basis of a purely economic calculus of profit and loss on the part of "big capital. Worse. the few efforts of revolutionary Marxists to grapple with the Holocaust. Economism. was not a Jewish catastrophe. Kolyma. but rather futural events. in which politics. constitutes a political betrayal of the struggle for communist revolution by its incorporation into the politics of Holocaust denial. revolutionary Marxists have so far failed to offer one. can only be conceived as a direct and immediate reflection of the economic base. are so many examples of the future which awaits the human species as the capitalist mode of production enters a new millenium. which is one of the hallmarks of so-called orthodox Marxism. is the 9 . to use concepts first articulated by the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch. the prospect for a nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent. Kolyma. La Vieille Taupe's "fervor to contest the evidence of its [the Holocaust's] reality by every means possible. an undertaking which fatally diverted the scarce resources (material and financial) of Nazi Germany from the battlefields of the imperialist world war. and that the Holocaust has been routinely wielded for more than a generation by the organs of mass manipulation in the service of the myth of "democracy" in the West (and by the state of Israel on behalf of its own imperialist aims in the Middle-East). and Hiroshima are not "past". In that sense. this does not justify the claims of Holocaust denial. Thus. so many traps laid for anticapitalist radicality. for example. I want to argue that the Holocaust. because it so clearly serves their interests in mobilizing the working class to die in the service of democracy. such an "explanation" asks us to conceive of genocide not as the complex outcome of the unfolding of the operation of the law of value in the diverse spheres of social life. Auschwitz. While I am convinced that there can be no adequate theory of mass death and genocide which does not link these phenomena to the unfolding of the logic of capital. in its own small way." While Bordiga's reaction to Auschwitz fails to provide even the minimal bases for its adequate theorization. and the latter a quite literal crossing of the class line into the camp of capital itself. for example. simply cannot. For Guillaume. the reaction of the militants of La Vieille Taupe. and the political and ideological on the other (about which more later). in my view. a fabrication of the allies. This latter. And just as surely the ideology of antifascism and its functionality for capital must be exposed by revolutionaries. the former being an expression of theoretical bankruptcy. Auschwitz can only be a myth. but which constitutes a denial of the most lethal tendencies inherent in the capitalist mode of production. in his "Auschwitz ou le Grand Alibi" Bordiga explained the extermination of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. FUTURE GENOCIDES AND CONFLICTS ARE INEVITABLE. For the evidence of genocide is just so many deceptions. Auschwitz. nor an atavistic reversion to the barbarism of a past epoch. or led to a fatal embrace of Holocaust denial. confronted by the horror of Auschwitz. including the most fraudulent. and genocide. the mass death to which Chechnya has been subjected. on the alter of anti-fascism. Hence. and Hiroshima.part so as to save the rest. Nonetheless. designed to force it into dishonest compromise and eventual loss of resolve. as the reaction of one part of the petty bourgeoisie to its historical demise at the hands of capital by "sacrificing" its other -. UNLESS WE STOP IT. shaped Amadeo Bordiga's attempt to "explain" the Holocaust. such as Pierre Guillaume. which is based on a crude base-superstructure model (or travesty) of Marxist theory. The ethnic cleansing which has been unleashed in Bosnia and Kosovo. Moreover. Marxist theory has been silent or uncomprehending. is transformed by Bordiga into a rational calculation of its direct profit interests on the part of the capitalists. #36 Spring 2000. Internationalist Perspective. However. objective-real possibilities on the Front of history.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Capitalism Bad – War/All Impacts CAPITALISM IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF EVERY CONFLICT IN THE LAST CENTURY. a/online Mass death. Auschwitz. which could thereby liquidate a part of the petty bourgeoisie with the support of the rest of that same class. Indeed." It is quite true that capital has utilized antifascism to assure its ideological hegemony over the working class. the immediate need to extract a profit. as I will briefly explain. and Hiroshima are not merely the names of discrete sites where human beings have been subjected to forms of industrialized mass death.

November 12.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Civil-Military Relations Good – Bacevich & Kohn LOSS OF CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILTARY RISKS MILITARISM AND ENDLESS WAR Andrew Bacevich. Determined to preserve their freedom and their experiment in popular self-government. http://web. Americans knew instinctively that militarism was perhaps the foremost threat to their prospect of doing so. In the United States. p. professor of international relations at Boston University. our present-day military supremacy represents something quite different. it was also seen as having caused German aggression and thus as a force that created foreign threats. Recall that at the outset the New World was intended to be radically and profoundly new. War. One the oldest fears in civil military relations is militarism. the expectation that revolutionary advances in military technology might offer a tidy solution to complex problems. 10 . armies.mit. Richard H. The word militarism was invented by European leftist opponents of their government in the eighteen sixties. All of this-seeing armed force as the preeminent expression of state power and military institutions as the chief repositories of civic virtue. but after World War I. CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY. the displacement of civilian government by the military and the imposition of military values.htm. 2005. 2005. The fear of militarism was articulated in academia and Congress in the nineteen thirties. Curriculum in Peace. and perpetual war defined Europe. Princes. The vision of freedom animating the founders of seventeenth-century Anglo-America and of the eighteenth-century American republic distinguished their purpose from that of the Old World. this fear was expressed primarily toward internal problems. the erosion of civilian control-distorts if it does not altogether nullify important elements of the American birthright. perspectives and ideals on the rest of society. THE NEW AMERICAN MILITARISM: HOW AREMERICANS ARE SEDUCED BY WAR. Militarism came to be seen in the United States as a threat to freedom and democracy. Kohn is Professor of History and Chair. Chapel Hill. 32-3 In fact. The absence of these things was to provide a point of departure for defining America. constantly embroiled in bloody disputes over privilege and power.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_05fall/kohn. the outsourcing of defense to a professional military elite. This fear is rooted in the fear of standing armies and embedded in the US Constitution. pp. and Defense at the University of North Carolina.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               

Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything
DON’T ROLL THE DICE – NONE OF THEIR IMPACTS OUTWEIGHS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION John A. Eidsmoe is a Constitutional Attorney, Professor of Law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Colonel with the USAF, 1992 3 USAFA J. Leg. Stud. 35, p. 57-9 Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the wellproportioned columns of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skilful architecture which united national sovereignty with State rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No, if these columns fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them, than were ever shed over the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edifice of constitutional American liberty. It is possible that a constitutional convention could take place and none of these drastic consequences would come to pass. It is possible to play Russian roulette and emerge without a scratch; in fact, with only one bullet in the chamber, the odds of being shot are only one in six. But when the stakes are as high as one's life, or the constitutional system that has shaped this nation into what it is today, these odds are too great to take the risk. YOU MUST UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION Stephen L. Carter, professor of law at Yale, 1-1986 66 B.U.L. Rev. 71, p. 83-4 The fact that any rule can constrain creative freedom is sometimes missed by those who assert that constitutional theories fall into two categories, "interpretive" and "non-interpretive." The error is the assumption that one school assigns to the Constitution a different importance than the other. This simply isn't so. When Aloysius cries "intent of the Framers" and Bernadette ripostes "emergent moral consensus" their disagreement is not over the weight to be assigned to the Constitution, but rather over the rules that will bind the interpreter in the creative act of transforming its symbols into policy. Paul Brest and Laurence Tribe do not respect the Constitution any less than do Robert Bork and Raoul Berger; their argument is over what demands that respect places on the interpreter. Each theorist's view on the best means for channeling the creative imagination of the reader is put forth as a set of interpretive rules.] The crucial question for many constitutional theorists is whether the rules governing interpretation can be set out with clarity sufficient to render constitutional adjudication something other than the judge's imposition of her own value preferences. Those I call "delegitimizers" are of the view that mainstream liberalism cannot resolve this question: liberals, if they seek rules to cabin judicial freedom, are stuck with a Bickelean exaltation of process and a process that occasionally produces repugnant results. The only answer liberals can come up with, so the argument goes, is the fundamental rights form of judicial review, that is, to ignore the process -- and any coherent rules for interpretation that the process might require -- and impose better results. But this of course is what classical liberalism forbids, for there must, in liberal theory, be a way of recognizing law and distinguishing it from simple power. Judges in the liberal state are to enforce this recognizable law. If they do something else -- for example, enforcing their preferences and calling them law -- they are violating the rules that make liberal constitutional adjudication possible. Thus the essence of the critique is not that the fundamental rights jurisprudence reaches substantive results that are good or bad -- such notions are quite irrelevant 54 -- but rather, that liberal political theory cannot explain it. And if even liberals admit that they must sometimes step outside their own system in order to avoid morally repugnant results, then their system must on its own terms be immoral.


Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything
THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS NUCLEAR WAR – YOU MUST UPHOLD IT Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Oh, March, 2002 http://www.downwinders.org/Kucinich_Peace_p.html "Politics ought to stay out of fighting a war," the President has been quoted as saying on March 13th 2002. Yet Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution explicitly requires that Congress take responsibility when it comes to declaring war. This President is very popular, according to the polls. But polls are not a substitute for democratic process. Attributing a negative connotation here to politics or dismissing constitutionally mandated congressional oversight belies reality: Spending $400 billion a year for defense is a political decision. Committing troops abroad is a political decision. War is a political decision. When men and women die on the battlefield that is the result of a political decision. The use of nuclear weapons, which can end the lives of millions, is a profound political decision. In a monarchy there need be no political decisions. In a democracy, all decisions are political, in that they derive from the consent of the governed. In a democracy, budgetary, military and national objectives must be subordinate to the political process. Before
we celebrate an imperial presidency, let it be said that the lack of free and open political process, the lack of free and open political debate, and the lack of free and open political dissent can be fatal in a democracy. We have reached a moment in our country's history where it is urgent that people everywhere speak out as president of his or her own life, to protect the peace of the nation and world within and without. We should speak out and caution leaders who generate fear through talk of the endless war or the final conflict. We should appeal to our leaders to consider that their own bellicose thoughts, words and deeds are reshaping consciousness and can have an adverse effect on our nation. Because when one person thinks: fight! he or she finds a fight. One faction thinks: war! and starts a war. One nation thinks: nuclear! and approaches the abyss. And what of one nation which thinks peace, and seeks peace? Neither individuals nor nations exist in a vacuum, which is why we have a serious responsibility for each other in this world. It is also urgent that we find those places of war in our own lives, and begin healing the world through healing ourselves. Each of us is a citizen of a common planet, bound to a common destiny. So connected are we, that each of us has the power to be the eyes of the world, the voice of the world, the conscience of the world, or the end of the world. And as each one of us chooses, so becomes the world. Each of us is architect of this world. Our thoughts, the concepts. Our words, the designs. Our deeds, the bricks and mortar of our daily lives. Which is why we should always take care to regard the power of our thoughts and words, and the commands they send into action through time and space. Some of our leaders have been thinking and talking about nuclear war. Recently there has been much news about a planning document which describes how and when America might wage nuclear war. The Nuclear Posture Review recently released to the media by the government: 1. Assumes that the United States has the right to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. 2. Equates nuclear weapons with conventional weapons. 3. Attempts to minimize the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. 4. Promotes nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack. Some dismiss this review as routine government planning. But it becomes ominous when taken in the context of a war on terrorism which keeps expanding its boundaries, rhetorically and literally. The President equates the "war on terrorism" with World War II. He expresses a desire to have the nuclear option "on the table." He unilaterally withdraws from the ABM treaty. He seeks $8.9 billion to fund deployment of a missile shield. He institutes, without congressional knowledge, a shadow government in a bunker outside our nation's Capitol. He tries to pass off as arms reduction, the storage of, instead of the elimination of, nuclear weapons. Two generations ago we lived with nuclear nightmares. We feared and hated the Russians who feared and hated us. We feared and hated the "godless, atheistic" communists. In our schools, each of us dutifully put our head between our legs and practiced duck-and-cover drills. In our nightmares, we saw the long, slow arc of a Soviet missile flash into our neighborhood. We got down on our knees and prayed for peace. We surveyed, wide eyed, pictures of the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We supported the elimination of all nuclear weapons. We knew that if you "nuked" others you "nuked" yourself. The splitting of the atom for destructive purposes admits a split consciousness, the compartmentalized thinking of Us vs. Them, the dichotomized thinking, which spawns polarity and leads to war. The proposed use of nuclear weapons, pollutes the psyche with the arrogance of infinite power. It creates delusions of domination of matter and space. It is dehumanizing through its calculations of mass casualties. We must overcome doomthinkers and sayers who invite a world descending, disintegrating into a nuclear disaster. With a world at risk, we must find the bombs in our own lives and disarm them. We must listen to that quiet inner voice which counsels that the survival of all is achieved through the unity of all.

MORAL OBLIGATION TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION Daryl Levinson, professor of law at University of Virginia, Spring 2000 UC Law Review
Extending a majority rule analysis of optimal deterrence to constitutional torts requires some explanation, for we do not usually think of violations of constitutional rights in terms of cost-benefit

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


Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               

Climate Change/Warming -- Brandenberg
WARMING DESTROYS ALL LIFE ON EARTH Dr. John Brandenberg, Physicist, DEAD MARS, DYING EARTH, 1999, p. 232-3

The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuel use continues to power it. Rather than making painful or politically difficult choices such as inventing in fusion or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Let’s imagine that America and Europe are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fall. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs—a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not occur have paid little attention to life on Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and Russia… Suddenly, the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See, I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!” Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be a second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost – as is its water—because of the ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars – red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving.


Gilbert. Its size and penetration into every aspect of American life since the 1950s have made the military an unexpected influence over the nation's domestic and foreign policies. 197) Today. As an institution.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Deference (Judicial) Good -. the military institution stands as a force to be reckoned with by government leaders in the formation of national and military policy and strategy.Readiness DEFERENCE IS CRITICAL TO MILITARY CONFIDENCE AND READINESS Michael H. The federal judiciary contributes to the military confidence of their authority by being unwilling to review cases presenting issues challenging military authority and control. 1997 / 1998 (8 USAFA J. Lieutenant Colonel. the military might not possess the same confidence. USAFA Journal of Legal Studies. Stud. the military wields pervasive influence that can thwart effective oversight by traditional legislative and bureaucratic processes normally relied upon by the legislative and executive branches. Leg. 14 . US Air Force. Reviewing the path taken by the Supreme Court to arrive at this point will illuminate the issue at hand. Were the judiciary willing to pierce the seemingly impenetrable military shell.

Finally. Duke Law Journal. During the decade of history's largest peacetime military expansion (1979-1989). They knew that ancient republics had been overthrown by their military leaders.that because our adversaries are not restricted by our Constitution. Standing at the vanguard of "national security" law. . unknowingly drugged with LSD by the Central Intelligence Agency." In three recent controversies involving weapons testing. the judiciary must be willing to demand adherence to legal principles by assessing responsibility for weapons decisions. United Technologies. Especially in these times when weapons proliferation can lead to nuclear winter. . . Stanley. 13 these three decisions elevate the task of preparing for war to a level beyond legal accountability. 1 Our fears may be rooted in more recent history. 11 the Supreme Court ruled that private weapons manufacturers enjoy immunity from product liability actions alleging design defects. As the Supreme Court recognized a generation ago. but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds. They suggest that determinations of both the ends and the means of national security are inherently above the law and hence unreviewable regardless of the legal rights transgressed by these determinations. we should become more like our adversaries to secure ourselves -. virtually every facility in the nuclear bomb complex has been revealed to be contaminated with radioactive and poisonous materials. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that today the peoples of many nations are ruled by the military. The legal system can provide a useful check against dangerous military action. 10 civilian victims of atmospheric atomic testing were denied a right of tort recovery against the government officials who managed and performed the tests. . 15 . United States. could not pursue a claim for deprivation of his constitutional rights. We should not break faith with this Nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority. Other commentaries may distinguish between the specific losses that might have been preventable and those which were the random consequence of what is undeniably a dangerous military program. in Boyle v. ironically impelled by concerns for "national security. December. p.. more so than these three opinions would suggest.cannot be sustained if our tradition of adherence to the rule of law is to be maintained. Our strength grows from the resolve to subject military force to constitutional authority. 1597-1602 In this era of thermonuclear weapons. Prof – Depaul. 9 the Supreme Court ruled that an Army sergeant. more than 17.Extinction JUDICIAL DEFERENCE ENSURES EXTINCTION – OVERSIGHT IS NECESSARY TO CHECK DANGEROUS MILITARY ACTIONS Kellman ‘89 (Barry. . In United States v. when weapons production can cause cancer. the Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution. America must uphold its historical commitment to be a nation of law. A critical analysis of these decisions reveals that the judiciary. the judiciary has disallowed tort accountability for serious and unwarranted injuries. 4 the downing of an Iranian passenger plane. 7 remind Americans that a tragic price is paid to support the military establishment. This conclusion signals a dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility. The very underpinnings of constitutional governance are threatened by those who contend that the rule of law weakens the execution of military policy. To the contrary. the clean-up costs are projected to exceed $ 100 billion. 5 the Navy's frequent accidents 6 including the fatal crash of a fighter plane into a Georgia apartment complex.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Deference (Judicial) Bad -. 2 In the same period.000 service personnel were killed in training accidents. 3 Headlines of fatal B-1B bomber crashes. In Allen v. Their argument -. when soldiers die unnecessarily in the name of readiness: those who control military force must be held accountable under law. The judiciary must rigorously scrutinize military decisions if our 18th century dream of a nation founded in musket smoke is to remain recognizable in a millennium ushered in under the mushroom cloud of thermonuclear holocaust. Their fears were rooted in history. This Article posits that judicial abdication in this field is not compelled and certainly is not desirable. has abdicated its responsibility to review civil matters involving the military security establishment. notably the Rehnquist Court. This Article can only repeat the questions of the parents of those who have died: "Is the military accountable to anyone? Why is it allowed to keep making the same mistakes? How many more lives must be lost to senseless accidents?" 8 This Article describes a judicial concession of the law's domain. a tradition which we believe is firmly embodied in the Constitution.

p.° In the Darfur region of the Sudan. population pressure. AND THE RENEWAL OF CIVILIZATION. In the Philippines. forest and soil loss contributes to a relentless economic crisis that erodes all public institutions. cropland and forest degradation in the country's mountainous interior zones causes chronic poverty that's exploited by a persistent Communist insurgency. land scarcity. as criminal violence and kidnappings for ransom have soared. CREATIVITY.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Deforestation Bad DEFORESTATION CAUSES POLITICAL CONFLICT AND GENOCIDE Thomas Homer-Dixon. 2006. and helps sustain vicious fighting between political factions. 150 In Haiti. land shortages resulting from population growth and soil degradation were a major underlying reason for the bitter hatreds and violence that led to the horror of the 1994 genocide. 16 . political scientist & population researcher. and drought have encouraged attacks by Arab nomads and herdsman on black farming communities. encourages pervasive corruption. people try to escape the country any way they can— sometimes on boats as illegal refugees to the United States.' In Rwanda. producing hundreds of thousands of deaths. THE UPSIDE OF DOWN: CATASTROPHE.

accountability.carnegie. http://www. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. and the rule of law. The experience of this century offers important lessons. 17 . They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. civil liberties. PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Democracy Good – Diamond DEMOCRACY SOLVES NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt. within their own borders. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. p. with its provisions for legality. chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. GENOCIDE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION Larry Diamond. and enduring trading partnerships. the global ecosystem. property rights. popular sovereignty and openness. Democratic countries form more reliable. appears increasingly endangered. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. 1995. Precisely because.html // Nuclear. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. open. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations. The very source of life on Earth. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. Hoover Institution. December. Stanford University. they respect competition.

. Political Scientist. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. leads the list. from capture to sale in an Arab. as shown in table 1.S.8 The most absolute Power. Then there are the kilomurderers. and children. or 84 percent. All because they are all democracies. Moreover. To this I would add that the less democratic two states the more likely that they will fight each other.13 18 . Note that 18 percent of Golgothians are former Europeans. account for near 128. Let in Shakespeare's word's "This Land be calle'd The field of Golgotha. Yet such has happened. Iraq. Indonesia. Poles (4 percent).2 to 1. other regimes.4. Pakistanis (largely ethnic Bengalis and Hindus). Albania. women. Russia. Golgotha owes its existence to 12 Power. their megamurders are described in detail in Death By Governments. Then there is a much lower percentage of Ukrainians (6 percent). while although for democracies they suffer fewer battle-dead than Putting the human cost of war and democide together.000. during the first eighty-eight years of this century. Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Of course. non-democracies. as the case studies in this book will more than attest. and the 1940-45 indiscriminate bombing of German cities). war ceased between them. At the extremes of Power2. his census and the estimates of explorers also enables us to estimate Golgotha's racial and ethnic composition. The remaining 30 percent is made up of a diverse Koreans. drowned. For its indiscriminate bombing of German and Japanese civilians. Yet we have had no war--none--among them. As can be seen. Death By Government.000. and zero expectation of violence between any of these formerly hostile states. over twice as many as probably died in some 400 years of the African slave trade.1 shows the occurrence of war between nations since 1816. the United States must also be added to this list (see Statistics of Democide). the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. are from Asia and the Middle East.5. this total is still greater than democratic domestic and foreign democide. knifed. about one-fourth of the world's population.3 lists the fifteen most lethal regimes and figure 1. Angola. is Golgotha dominantly Asian? European? What region did most of its dead souls come from.Rummel DEMOCIDE BY TOTALITARIAN REGIMES HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS AND HAS CAUSED MORE DEATHS THAN ALL THE WARS OF THE 20TH CENTURY RJ Rummel. frozen. 1. and Vietnamese. and its complement Statistics of Democide. a new nation. or also taking into account forty-eight related territories.2. helpless citizens or foreigners. aside from warfare.000 people in this century… In each case." "government. this land is multicultural and multiethnic. but that at the end of that time there would be a European community with central government institutions. such massive megamurderers as the Soviet Union and communist China had huge populations with a resulting small annual democide rate. In some 70 years it likely chewed up almost 40. Even among primitive tribes. Europe has contributed 6 percent of its population to this land of the murdered. As described in Chapter 9 of Death By Government. University of Hawaii.000 men. AtatŸrk's Turkey (1919-1923). Most wars are between nondemocracies. So much for Golgotha and a summary overview of its statistics.000 people killed to the democide for this century.000. no other megamurderer comes even close to the lethality of the communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during 1975 through 1978. Its demography has yet to be precisely measured and only two rough censuses. Turk subjects. the amount of killing jumps by huge multiples. and children. These assertions are extreme and categorical. Stalin.000. its inhabitants believed in all the world's religions and spoke all its languages.6 Paradigmatic of this is Western Europe since 1945. Regimes are in reality people with the power to command a whole society. In no case has there been a war involving violent military action between stable democracies3. although they have fought. Nor is there any threat of war.HTM Power kills. This belligerence of unrestrained Power is not an artifact of either a small number of democracies nor of our era. but a plague of Power and not germs. moves toward a joint European military force by France and Germany. Rumania. http://www. as shown in figure 1. women. Vietnam. as the arbitrary power of a regime increases massively. such as the top five listed in table 1. For one thing the number of democratic states in 1993 number around seventy-five. Czechoslovakia (1945-46). starved. we have here a general principle that is gaining acceptance among students of international relations and war. was responsible for the death of still millions more killed by his henchman. Oriental. Consider table 1. However. Croatia (1941-44). as we move from democratic through authoritarian to totalitarian regimes.000 lives. the Korean and Vietnam Wars. the most recent constituting Death By Government.000 battle-dead for all this century's international and civil wars up to 1987.000. this is historically true of democracies as well. The more constrained the power of governments. Mexicans. tortured. or New World market. and dead men's Skulls"10 As clear from the megamurderers listed in table 1. crushed. in 1945 one would not find an expert so foolhardy as to predict not only forty-five years of peace. The cauldron of our most disastrous wars for many centuries. He ordered the death of millions. or modern democracies. in less than four years of governing they exterminated over 31 percent of their men. even without the excuse of combat Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls.2 and figure 1. Burundi. In other words. China and preceding Mao guerrillas. Hitler and Pol Pot are of course among these bloody tyrants and as for the others whose names may appear strange. they did or do not fight each other (depending on how war and democracy is defined." or .11 But this last census does allow us to rank this land of the murdered sixth in population among the nations of the living. the United Kingdom (primarily due to the 1914-1919 food blockade of the Central Powers in and after World War I. Some lesser kilomurderers were communist Afghanistan. Consider first war. These and other kilomurderers add almost 15. became democratic. DEATH BY GOVERNMENT. 2001.000. Several times more of them. Figure 1. Their names should forever warn us of the deadly potential of Power.1.6 summarizes the most prudent democide results and contrasts them to this century's battle-dead. or worked to death. The major and better known episodes and institutions for which these and other murderers were responsible are listed in table 1. Germans (4 percent). The more power a government has. It may come as a surprise to find Mao Tse-tung is next in line as this century's greatest murderers.2 bar graphs them.2 alone. almost 170. as everyone knows. In evaluating the battle-dead for democracies keep in mind that most of these dead were the result of wars that democracies fought against authoritarian or totalitarian aggression. checked and balanced.6 gives a bar chart of these totals.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Democracy Good/Democide -. but so is the evidence accumulated in this book. Figure 1. They create an oasis of peace. almost four times the almost 38. that had frequently gone to war (as have France and Germany in recent centuries). the odds of any Cambodian surviving these four long years was only about 2.500. around 22 percent. including those from all of Eastern Europe except the former USSR. which is pictured in figure 1. This new Power Principle is the message emerging from my previous work on the causes of war and this book on genocide and government . some 40 percent. It is these people that have committed the kilo and megamurders of our century and we must not lose their identity under the abstraction of "state.5 Moreover. and as the ultimate dictator. among us. the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite. that is the communist U. and Cambodians (2 percent). the highest proportion of any region's population in Golgotha. Portugal (1926-1982). absolute Power kills absolutely. or buried alive. by far.1 graphically overlays the plot of this on the total murdered. Indeed. Table 1. Chinese make up 30 percent of its souls. That is that democracies don't make war on each other.000 people. or those states that have killed innocents by the tens or hundreds of thousands. where Power is divided and limited." Table 1. while many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers.7 Were all to be said about absolute and arbitrary Power is that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the young and most capable of our species. These fifteen megamurderers have wiped out over 151.000. then there have been many democracies throughout history. slave--labor system created by Lenin and built up under Stalin. as well fascist Nazi Germany. women. hung. I can now be more specific about this.2 also shows the annual percentage democide rate (the percent of its population that a regime murders per year) for each megamurderer and figure 1. or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed. But much worse.R. totalitarian communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions. Far above all is gulag--the Soviet In total.5 displays two different ways of looking at this: the percent of Golgothians from a particular region and also the percent of a region's 1987 population in Golgotha. And whether considering the classical Greek democracies. the more it is diffused. Asians are the largest group while the former Soviet Union has contributed the most of its population. The souls of this monstrous pile of dead have created a new land. the forest democracies of medieval Switzerland. some might prefer to say that they rarely fought or fight each other). and Indonesia (1965-87). war is less likely. that is. The monstrous bloodletting of at least "communist. beaten. the list and its graph of this century's megamurderers--those states killing in cold blood. Power has killed over 203. Table 1. it seems. particularly World War I and II. and children have been shot. But still. burned. with Russians next at 24 percent. the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. As I already have made clear. but this would only be because the full extent of communist killing in China under his leadership has not been widely known in the West. and Uganda. once those states that had been mortal enemies. Table 1. saying that a state or regime is a murderer is a convenient personification of an abstraction. this would be enough. is from the territory of the former Soviet Union. and Yugoslavia.3. For their populations as a whole some less than megamurderers were far more lethal." "regime.S.000 of them. and Ethiopia. knowingly set in train events leading to the death of millions of others.000. Table 1.hawaii. Note immediately in the figure that the human cost of democide is far greater than war for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.000 or more men.4 lists those men most notorious and singularly responsible for the megamurders of this century these nine men should be entered into a Hall of Infamy.edu/powerkills/DBG.000 people. as well as authoritarian Hungary.CHAP1. have so far been taken. And indeed it has.9 The dead even could conceivably be near 360. bombed.2: China Warlords (1917-1949). While most. If one relaxes the definition of democracy to mean simply the restraint on Power by the 1 mass murder--what I call democide--in this century 4 participation of middle and lower classes in the determination of power holders and policy making.

com/group/BigMedicine/message/642) Bluntly. 19 . Beardon ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Walter Russell.S. http://groups. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy. and perhaps most of the biosphere. that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world. escalating it significantly. 2000 (Lieutenant Colonel in the U. are almost certain to be released. Summer. adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. under such extreme stress conditions. and even regional nuclear wars. p. Chris Lewis.converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death. we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North. These wars will so damage the complex. As the collapse of the Western economies nears. biological. Prior to the final economic collapse. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's. The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. fought to maintain the developed nations’ economic and political hegemony. forces there. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. In addition to immediate responses. 1998 [The Coming Age of Scarcity] Most critics would argue. will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization.yahoo. 30 The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression. probably correctly. Liutenant Colonel Bearden.S. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. rich against poor. Europe. we foresee these factors . 2000. As an example. one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. at least for many decades. China. once a few nukes are launched.whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States . then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization. the United States. As the studies showed. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates. and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth’s 6 to 8 billion people. Army. the only chance a nation has to survive at all. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it.will open their eyes to their folly. NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY.and others { } not covered . Without effective defense.attacks Taiwan. or even shrinks? In that case. economic and trading networks and squander material. Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations. Lewis.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Economy – Mead. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. including U. in a spasmodic suicidal response. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. Russia. and Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. 2000. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Or suppose a desperate China . suffering. is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. Mead. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. these neocolonial wars. However. with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. growth skeptic concedes. 1992.

Seizing the Future. since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security.measured by stockpiles of grain . indeed. These are the choices. stabilization of production/consumption through zero-growth policies. nor does anything mandate that the human species must even continue to exist. During the food crisis of the early 1970s. As a result. for instance. The Imperative of Growth states that in order to survive. a special purpose to the species’ existence. There is no guarantee that the human species will survive even if we posit." He also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of their income on food. our continued existence depends on our ability to continue the progress we have been making at higher and higher levels. a principle I will herewith describe along with its several corollaries. Humanity’s future is conditioned by what I call the Imperative of Growth. Professor of Management at Montclair State University. D. 20 .1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less. or cells. world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year. no outside force guarantees the continued progress of the human species. could the human species. executive director of the Expansionary Institute. must grow.are not abundant. Systems. food supplies . the species innately comprehends that it must engage in purposive actions in order to maintain its level of growth and progress. Choosing any alternative to growth. or temporarily reside in a state of equilibrium. Therefore. a natural stage in the evolution of the species’ continued extension of its control over itself and its environment.C.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Economy – Zey/Ecxtinction LOSS OF WORLD GROWTH CAUSES HUMAN EXTINCTION Michael G. "Even if they are merely blips. Food Prices – Increase Kills a Billion – Tampa Tribune A ONE DOLLAR INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES KILLS 1 BILLION Tampa Tribune. the human race. Zey. including extinction. p. 39-40 However. They can grow. world grain stocks were at 15 percent." he said. whether organizations. could have alarmingly pernicious side effects. That's troubling. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1. said Per Pinstrup-Andersen. 1998. grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season. In 1995. both materially and intellectually. decline. higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food. The Macroindustrial Era represents growth in the areas of both technology and human development. 34. have three basic directions in which to move. too. societies. So. pp. 1-20-96 On a global scale. any nation. director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington. Pinstrup-Andersen noted. In fact. Although 5 billion strong. history is littered with races and civilizations that have disappeared without a trace. he said. as many have.

Christopher CHASE-DUNN. 1987). is probably now in the process of beginning a new upturn which will reach its apex around 2025. the picture becomes even grimmer when the influence of long-terni economic cycles is taken into account. p. will have been definitively eroded. Modelski and Thompson (1996) present a more complex interpretation of the systemic relationship between economic and war cycles. Director of the Institute for Research on World-Systems. while states always desire to go to war. in The Future of Global Conflict. ed. Although both Goldstein (1991) and Modelski and Thompson (1996) assert that such a global war can (somehow) be avoided. Beyond merely showing that the K-wave and the war cycle are linked in a systematic fashion. Bornschier and Chase-Dunn. a second period of economic growth follows a period of global war and the establishment of a new period of hegemony.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad – War AN UPCOMING UPSWING IN THE ECONOMY WILL KILL EVERYONE BY 2025. It is also widely accepted that by this period US hegemony. Utilizing data gathering by Levy (1983) on war severity. Goldstein (1988) demonstrates that there is a corresponding 50 to 60 year cycle in the number of battle deaths per year for the period 1495-1975. they can afford to do so only when economic growth is providing them with sufficient resources. This convergence of a plateauing economic cycle with a period of political multicentricity within the core should. 1989. In their analysis. 1999. It is widely accepted that the current K-wave. This finding is interpreted as showing that. the 50 to 60 year business cycle known as the Kondratieff wave (K-wave) has been in synchronous operation on an international scale for at least the last two centuries. 1983). already unravelling. other theorists consider that the possibility of such a core war is sufficiently high that serious steps should be taken to ensure that such collective suicide does not occur (Chase-Dunn and O’Reilly. result in the outbreak of full-scale warfare between the declining hegemon and the ascending core powers. As an extensive body of research documents (see especially Van Duijn. Goldstein’s research suggests that severe core wars are much more likely to occur late in the upswing phase of the K-wave. 21 . if history truly does repeat itself. which entered a downturn around 1967-73. a first economic upswing generates the economic resources required by an ascending core state to make a bid for hegemony. University of CaliforniaRiverside. 43 While the onset of a period of hegemonic rivalry is in itself disturbing. AND Bruce PODOBNIK. specific economic upswings are associated with an increased likelihood of the outbreak of core war. again. Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Lewis and Clark College. but it closely resembles Goldstein’s hypothesis. Goldfrank. Here.

Goldstein also raises the question of how these economic/war cycles impact the distribution of capabilities among the major powers. The lack of clarity on this issue may be traceable to the lack of specification among innovation. Prices. Cycles in innovation and investment are viewed as reinforcing the production long wave. in his view. AND William R. Severe wars usher in a phase of stagnation from which the world economy eventually recovers leading to another resurgence of robust economic growth. and production. war. Decades are required to rebuild. Investment increases on the upswing but. investment. inflation occurs. 1996. His 1991 analysis is one of the more sophisticated empirical studies to emerge after nearly a century of controversy (spatiotemporal boundaries: world system from the mid-eighteenth to the midtwentieth centuries). THOMPSON. professor of political science. sees economic upswings increasing the probability of severe wars. then the higher the rate of inflation. pp. Presumably. investment. 22 . 20-22 Goldstein (1985. eventually. Investors retrench and growth slows down as a consequence. Indiana University. these gains are offset by the losses brought about by wartime distortions and destruction. In addition to war. Another bout of severe war ensues and the cycle repeats itself. Center for the Study of International Relations. outlined in figure 2. Severe wars. When prices rise. the greater the severity. What is not exactly specified is whether innovation. War severity increases capability concentration. University of Washington. all three factors share some responsibility for generating the fluctuations in capability concentration. Goldstein’s analysis suggests that this process has gone on since at least 1495. Leading Sectors and World Powers. 1987. differential rates of innovation and production influence relative capability standings. the severity of the war greatly effects the rate of war-induced inflation— in other words. The ability to wage war makes severe wars more likely.3 The basic perspective that emerges from his analyses.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad – War GROWTH CYCLES MAKE SEVERE WARS INEVITABLE George MODELSKI. in turn. Relative capabilities then begin a process of diffusion as they move toward equality among the major powers. director. 1991a) has probably contributed more than anyone else to reviving the question of how wars and prosperity are linked. real wages decline. consume the surpluses and war chests and put an end to the growth upswing. While there may be some gains registered in terms of resource mobilization for combat purposes. Other things being equal. professor of political science. Yet he also notes that production (production waves are said to precede war/price waves by some ten to fifteen years) is already stagnating toward the end of the upswing. His 1988 analysis went some way in summarizing many of the arguments concerning economic long waves and war. are functions of war. Goldstein is careful to distinguish between production and prices. or some combination of the three processes is responsible for ending the upswing. This phenomenon is explained in terms of demand increases outstripping supply. 1988. Economic upswings create economic surpluses and full war chests.2. Increases in innovation facilitate economic growth but growth discourages further innovation. over investment results. As a result.

points to sensitivities to the exact dating of turning points.3. Long Cycles. Categorizing the same fatality data “strictly” by phase period (col. Not surprisingly. because long-term economic expansion aggravates the international struggle for markets and raw materials while domestically sharpening the struggle over the distribution of the fruits of that economic growth ([1928] 1984:95). here expressed as an average annual fatality rate in each phase. of the long wave. 4). Thus hardly any more wars occurred on the upswing phases than the downswings. 1988. p. Professor of International Relations. if the twentieth century is included. But in total battle fatalities (severity). Professor of International Relations.26 The first indicator (col. Up through 1892.4) according to the economic phase period in which the war “mainly” fell (see definitions above. 111).”17 New markets and resources are drawn into the capitalist system “not by accident. Nonetheless.” Specifically. is a very strong and consistent correlation. are usually applied on a large scale only at the beginning of the next long upswing” ([1926] 1935:111).Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad -. the internal dynamics of capitalism shape the long wave. an unusually large number of important discoveries and inventions in the technique of production and communication are made. GOLDSTEIN.” That is. but in face of the existing economic preconditions. . The greater severity of war on long wave upswings. and innovations are thus products. 3) derives from the list of fatalities (table 11. 239). fatalities follow the pattern of upswings and downswings throughout the 481-year span of the data. however. Goldstein. the main effect is on the twentieth century’s two world wars.4). Wars. I have tabulated six war indicators by phase period (table 11 . p. Long Cycles. 29 Kondratieff’s response to Trotsky’s argument was that Trotsky “takes an idealist point of view. there is a clear alternation between upswing and downswing phases. DESTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY Joshua S. twenty-seven during downswings. More severe wars occurred during upswing phases. 1988. . 244-248 The connection between economic phase periods and wars is investigated in several ways.28 in conjunction with the method just discussed. Kondratieff argued that “during the recession . and six seriously overlapped phase periods (see also table 11. above) are categorized (table 11.5. American University. American University.Upswing Impact Magnifier UPSWINGS ARE TWENTY-ONE TIMES DEADLIER THAN DOWNSWINGS Joshua S. “the most disastrous and extensive wars and revolutions occur” on the upswing of the long wave (p. each overlapping one to two years into an adjacent phase. pp. Likewise. which in turn shapes the superstructural factors such as innovation and war that Trotsky called “external.29 GROWTH CYCLES CAUSE WAR AND THE USE OF NEW.5). Thirty-one wars occurred during upswings. 23 . not causes. column 7). the average annual fatality rate was six times higher on upswings than on downswings. revolutions. the fatality rate on upswings is still more than four times higher than on downswings for both 1495—1892 and 1495— 1975. which. then. it is twenty-one times higher on upswings than downswings. Levy’s “great power wars” (class 2. except for the 1575—94 upswing. The results also show the weakest correlation to be in the period 1495—1620. With the exception of the (low-fatality) upswing of 1575—94.27 This indicator is also displayed as a bar chart in figure 11.

Upswing Impact Magnifier GROWTH SUPERCHARGES ARMS RACES. 1989. Distinguished Professor of Sociology AND Director of the Institute for Research on World-Systems at the University of California-Riverside. in War in the World System. The increasing availability of resources for war and the application of scientific research and development and national education systems to military technology lead to escalation of rounds of competition for superior arms capabilities among core states. p. CAUSING MASSIVE WARS Christopher CHASE-DUNN. Anchorage. 24 . but the availability of resources to engage in warfare and to fund arms races is an upward trend sustained by the growth of industrial production in the context of the world market. Professor of History at the University of Alaska. The development of new communications and transportation technologies increases the speed at which information about changes in military technology diffuses among competing states.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad -. 48 In McNeill’s analysis of military technology and military organization. the competition among sovereign states for scarce resources is a constant. further driving the trend toward more expensive and more destructive weapons. and Kenneth O’REILLY.

Some see the three major economic powers -.) GROWTH IS KEY TO PEACEFUL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PREVENTION Indra de Soysa. Countries with higher per capita wealth are far less likely to suffer internal conflict and are more likely to exhibit strong democracy—which is widely seen as promoting peace and conflict resolution.riding in different directions and threatening to pull the world economy apart. be lightly dismissed. 126 The question is. The most important challenge for economic cooperation in the years ahead will be to keep the world economy growing at a vigorous and sustainable pace. a society in which the economy is growing by 5 percent is around 40 percent safer than one that is declining by 5 percent. growth gives hope.as well as the social. unbalanced trade. What is most needed is the political will -the will of the United States.can be contained. ed. Each 5 percent of annual growth rate has about the same effect as a year of education for the population in reducing the risk of conflict. whereas rapid decline may galvanize people into action. With real economic growth the serious problems of world debt. Berdal and Malone. of course. surprising given the attention inequality has received as an explanation of conflict. Bringing about economic growth through development assistance is one obvious answer. ethnic. Germany and Japan -. Thus. But the interdependence resulting from economic integration has greatly reduced the effective autonomy of even large national economies. But there are no technical solutions to the economic problems the world is facing. Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution. For example. In this changed world. Thus. p. Inequality. and progress made toward their solutions. (By contrast. Japan.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Good -. has no effect on the risk of conflict according to the data. whether measured in terms of income or landownership. in Greed and Grievance. WHILE DOWNSWINGS GREATLY INCREASE RISK OF WAR Paul Collier. Nations have found that their policies are now less potent domestically. Anke Hoeffler and I have experimented with well over a hundred variants of our core specification. A Cold Peace: America. Nor is our result dependent upon a particular specification. affect other countries more strongly and produce sharp and often unwelcome changes in the trade and payments balances and exchange rates that link them with others. senior research associate at the International Peace Research Institute. in Greed and Grievance. and in none of these is inequality a significant cause of conflict. director. The results cannot. Germany. pp. 1992. racial and nationalist tensions and the violence to which they give rise -. professor of economics at Oxford. Japan and other major industrial countries to deal more effectively with their own problems and the will of all the major developed countries to work together for a common end . Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University.the United States. currency disequilibrium and unemployment -. Germany. Garten. Berdal and Malone. 2000. primary commodity exports are always significant. n11 See Jeffrey E. cooperation among the major economies in policymaking has become increasingly important. 25 . renewed efforts at promoting economic growth and democratic institutions seem to be the best long-term strategy for creating what UNESCO has termed “a culture of peace” in the developing world. a Twentieth Century Fund Book. ed. Development Research Group at the World Bank. the measures of inequality have proved to be significant in explaining economic growth and so are evidenfly not so noisy as to lack explanatory power. How can a country escape from resource dependence and manage to innovate? Economic growth is vital because the raising of per capita income proxies innovative capabilities. 97-98 The only result that supports the grievance approach to conflict is that a prior period of rapid economic decline increases the risk of conflict. This is. GROWTH SOLVES INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS Leonard Silk. Times Books. and the Struggle for Supremacy. other things equal. Presumably. 2000.Growth Stops War GROWTH REDUCES CONFLICT. 1992 / 1993 Foreign Affairs But slow growth in the world economy now makes the danger of a reversion to beggar-thy-neighbor policies a real one. however.

268 Inequality may also bring a risk of environmental degradation. that have a damaging influence on the global climate. 2003. could not have come out of a country whose citizens were not dedicated to environmental quality. ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION IS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH THROUGH GROWTH Jack Hollander. The act is solidly grounded in the moral commitment of the American people to preserve their environment and is a demonstration of the claim. This link was recognized as a principle by the Brundtland report. for in the short term that growth could bring on new environmental challenges. In the developed countries. such as the burning of coal and other dirty fuels in Chinese homes and factories. and the unique Endangered Species Act. He continues… Whether in affluent or developing countries. 183-184. to be sure. not poverty. Such environmental advances come out of affluence. The bigger ground for concern is pollution out of desperation: the resort by the poorest to shortsighted forms of agriculture or industry. 193-194 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) embodies many of this book’s themes and can even be seen as one of its major focal points. such as deforestation. that free and affluent people will take action to protect their environment when they perceive an important problem and believe there is an effective solution. whereas in the poor countries the average investment is only $161. In general. in the absence of any other means of survival. pp. made throughout this book. In fact. p. 26 . But it would surely be intolerably selfish to deny poor countries advancement on those grounds. whose robust economic growth and unequaled affluence have stimulated and supported ever stricter environmental protection. but at bottom the Endangered Species Act belongs to the American people. vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Good -. Nor could the act have come out of an impoverished country. including measures such as the Clean Water Act. The Real Environmental Crisis. 20:21 Vision. This despite the fact that both the biological diversity and threats to that diversity in poor countries are often much greater than in rich countries. A few extreme environmentalists raise concern about any and all economic growth in poor countries. the link between economic growth and environmental quality is vital. In these pages the emphasis has been on the historical experience of the United States. environmentalists. Editor-in-Chief of The Economist.687 per square kilometer. or may be so desperate in the face of population growth and poverty that they permit actions. Such a mandate. Scientists. and legislators played important roles. and it has been confirmed by the actual experience of many affluent countries.Growth Saves Environment GROWTH STOPS PEOPLE FROM DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT TO SURVIVE Bill Emmott. rising incomes bring better control of environmental damage. pp. Professor of Energy & Resources at Berkeley. involving huge expenditures of public and private money. the average investment in protected areas is about $1. as Chapter ii will argue. for poor countries may be unable to deal safely with toxic pollutants. It is probably the most far-reaching environmental statute ever adopted by any nation. 2003. the Clean Air Act. the gap between rich and poor countries in biodiversity conservation investments is enormous.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                27 .

December. The Russian Federation and Ukraine may fight over the Crimea and the Donbass area. The conflict may also spread by contagion from one country to another if the state is weak politically and militarily and cannot contain the conflict on its doorstep.Shehadi ETHNIC CONFLICTS WILL ESCALATE TO REGIONAL WARS Kamal Shehadi. This can happen in countries where more than one ethnic self-determination conflict is brewing: Russia. 81 This paper has argued that self-determination conflicts have direct adverse consequences on international security. 28 . there is a real danger that regional conflicts will erupt over national minorities and borders. will reach frightening levels. and India and Pakistan may fight over Kashmir. p. the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of individuals or groups willing to use them. As they begin to tear nuclear states apart. for example. Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This likelihood increases if a conflict over self-determination escalates into a war between two nuclear states.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Ethnic Conflict -. India and Ethiopia. 1983. or to trade them to others. Ethnic conflicts may also spread both within a state and from one state to the next. ETHNIC SELF DETERMINATION AND THE BREAK UP OF STATES. Lastly.

Wars. The realization that we may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one .” September/October. Worldwatch Institute's president. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor.H. the new famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible! Is it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases.. “On the Horizon: Famine.. droughts and shrinking grain stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal. However. and the demands of an exploding population? These are pushing the world's resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an ominous series of potential global crises at the same time! However.'s studies. nine of these areas are in serious decline. writes.kurtsaxon. 1996 (Douglas S.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Famine -.htm) As a result grain prices are the highest on record. grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world. "No other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices.D. In the early 1970s. If this happens on a global scale.N.com/foods004. The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. According to the U. Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-. all 17 major fishing areas in the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. WAR.even wars.Extinction FOOD INSECURITY CAUSES GLOBAL INSTABILITY. With world food stores dwindling. poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge. It's troubling because seafood--the world's leading source of animal protein--could be depleted quite rapidly.. http://www. Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is happening today? Where is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse before they get better.P. M.. Lester Brown. the Peruvian anchovy catch--the largest in the world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing. Ph. famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people! Although famines have occurred at various times in the past. In fact. the next couple of years will be critical. we will be in deep trouble. AND BILLIONS OF DEATHS – THREATENING EXTINCTION Winnail. floods and storms--could be catastrophic. especially for agriculture. This precarious situation is also without historical precedent! 29 . A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts..

and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare. 480. 30 . TOLEDO LAW REVIEW. one may still insist. However. That road leads to chaos. and the end of all human aspiration. Spring 1974. despotism. Wake Forest University.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Freedom – Petro EVERY INVASION OF FREEDOM MUST BE REJECTED Sylvester Petro.” Thus. Ask Solzhenitsyn. professor of law. tyranny. Ask Milovan Djilas. p. if one believes in freedom as a supreme value. In sum.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.

the state. And sometimes religious groups are persecuted – the Mohammedans by the Crusaders.Gurr GENOCIDE OUTWEIGHS ALL IMPACTS B. because in reality not all people have an equal voice in the formation of the characteristics of the state. 1981. True. Sometimes people are eliminated regardless of national origin – the Christians in Roman times. With genocide eventually there will be no people. i. This abstract concept of the state may at first glance appear meaningless. HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AS A REMEDY FOR GENOCIDE. is nothing but the combined will of all its people. Northwestern. But I am not concerned with the characteristics of the state but rather the essence of the state – the people. Harff-Gur. ethnocentric view of the world. the vanquished in international conflicts. Politics is the expression of conflict among competing groups. The culprit changes: sometimes it is a specific state. occasionally it is the winners vs. which is neither particular to a specific race.e. sometimes only certain groups are targeted. Sometimes whole nations vanish – the Amerindian societies after the Spanish conquest. or nation. one whose practical implications necessarily outweigh possible theoretical objections and as such should lift it above prevailing ideologies or politics. according to Kelsen.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Genocide Impacts -. 31 . according to Kelsen. as in Nazi Germany. Without a people there would be no state or legal system. the value of life. as in contemporary Cambodia. People make up a legal system. p. Sometimes a large part of the total population is eradicated. class. Genocide concerns and potentially effects all people. or those in power in a state. Prohibition of genocide and affirmation of its opposite. Those in power give the political system its character. 40 One of the most enduring and abhorrent problems of the world is genocide. The state. nor is it rooted in any one. Genocide is ultimately a threat to the existence of all. genocide is a universal concern. Since virtually every social group is a potential victim. are an eternal ethical verity. and in its crudest form the stronger against the weaker.

For the same reasons. however. acting rationally within a lunatic doctrinal framework as it threatens survival. articulated in UN resolutions calling for "Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. The US was joined in its abstention in 1999 by Israel. pp.' One can discern two trajectories in current history: one aiming toward hegemony. The concern for such action. 32 . The basic principle is that hegemony is more important than survival. evolution progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros. As noted earlier. Genghis Khans. In June.. action. it is rational to proceed nonetheless on the assumptions of the prevailing value system. the principle has been amply illustrated in the past half-century. that makes good sense if hegemony.S. 231-2 Throughout history it has been recognized that such steps are dangerous. with its short-term benefits to elite interests. For such reasons. rejecting the call of SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan that member states overcome their lack of "political will" and work toward a comprehensive accord to bar militarization of space. China again called for banning of weapons in outer space. What matters is whether we can awaken ourselves from the nightmare before it becomes all-consuming. and bring a measure of peace and justice and hope to the world that is. "The U.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hedgemony Bad – Extinction -. but the US again blocked negotiations. remains the only'one of the 66 member states to oppose launching formal negotiations on outer space. HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL. This. By now the danger has reached the level of a threat to human survival. Washington blocked negotiations at the UN Conference on Disarmament during the sessions that opened in January 2001. Linguists Professor @ MIT. Hardly novel." is motivated by widespread recognition that Washington intends to breach this barrier. But as observed earlier." in the words that animate the World Social Forum." Reuters reported in February. the US has refused to join the rest of the world in reaffirming and strengthening the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 to reserve space for peaceful purposes. I believe is a passing nightmare. within the reach of our opportunity and our will. in 2000 by Micronesia as well. Bertrand Russell once expressed some somber thoughts about world peace: After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies.Chomsky HEGEMONY THREATENS HUMAN SURVIVAL Noam Chomsky. right now. is ranked above survival in the scale of operative values. in accord with the historical standard for dominant states and other systems of concentrated power…. immediately after it was learned that the world had barely been saved from a war that might have "destroyed the Northern Hemisphere. No doubt the projection is accurate on some dimension beyond our realistic contemplation. a crucial difference today is that the stakes are far higher. and institutions. challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought. and Hitlers. The pattern is familiar throughout history. no one can foretell." Again. in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life." the Bush administration effectively vetoed yet another international effort to prevent the militarization of space. the other dedicated to the belief that "another world is possible. which are deeply rooted in existing institutions. so far maintained. Which trajectory will dominate. 2003. and peace will return .

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Bad – War – Layne US HEGEMONY LEADS TO A NEVER ENDING CYCLE OF WARS IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A STABLE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM – AS AN OFFSHORE BALANCER WE COULD PREVENT THIS Christopher Layne. Former na. clearly recognized that economic interdependence could lead to strategic overextension: Our commerce is so universal and so penetrating that scarcely any question can arise in any part of the world without involving British interests. that NATO expansion is just the first step toward creating an American-dominated "Trans Eurasian Security System" {TESS}. 18 Of course.nineteenth-cenury British statesman Lord Rosebery." 17 There is a suggestive parallel between late Victorian Britain and the United States today.ing because each time the United States pushes its security interests outward. however. it is an exaggeration to sug-gest that the strategy of preponderance will involve the United States in 40 wars simultaneously. To do so. this process becomes self-sustain. the turbulent frontier in the periphery is constantly expanding. 1998 [World Policy Journal. instead of widening. the logic underlying the strategy of preponderance can be used to justify U. This consideration. however.S. the United States does not. however. Summer.a security struc. The late. 2.geration to note that the need to defend America 's perceived interest in maintaining a security framework in which economic interdependence can flourish has become the primary post-Cold War rationale for expanding its security commitments in East Asia and in Europe. China. Japan. One does not overstate in arguing that this expansion is potentially limitless.tional security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recently has suggested. it must continually enlarge the geographic scope of its strategic responsibilities to maintain the security of its already established interests. while the core remains constant. for example. Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. 15 iss. intervention anywhere. that ulti. intervene everywhere. and control over. “Rethinking American grand strategy: Hegemony or balance of power in the twentyfirst century?” vol. Johnson observes. India. For did we not strictly limit the principle of intervention we should always be simultaneously engaged in some forty wars. in fact. rather circumscribes the field of our actions. To preserve a security framework favorable to interdependence.mately will embrace Russia. and other countries-. As the political scientist Robert H." 16 Core and periphery are interdependent strategically.ture "that would span the entire {Eurasian} continent. which leads in turn to new uncertainty and further self-extension. proquest] Indochina and Bosnia demonstrate how the strategy of preponderance expands America 's frontiers of insecurity. threats to the new security frontier will be apprehended: "Uncertainty leads to self-extension. an exag. It is not. 33 . The posited connection between security and economic interdependence requires the United States to impose order on. the international system.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                34 .

If this happened. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision.S. protection. Similarly.S. China. Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -.to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. U. including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. First. withdrawal from the world. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oil-importing nations. Higher oil prices would reduce the U. Indonesia. and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. their own nuclear weapons. In Western and Central Europe. the Saudis might seek to acquire. Russia. free markets. increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. and potential new regional powers such as India. European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. and precluding its domination by rival powers. conflict. such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum. Germany -.an unlikely prospect -. would be harmed. stabilizing the region. U. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. Rand Corporation.Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. This could result in arms races. gross domestic product. the cost of necessary adjustments might be high. in the long run.would be the natural leading power. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. both sought regional hegemony.in the region. Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them.S. the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. Korea. If the United States stayed out of such a war -.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Good – Khalilzad Zalmay Khalilzad.especially since unification -. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. perhaps by purchase. standard of living. 35 . perhaps reducing U. <continued…> The extension of instability. Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry.S. Second.<continued…> Under the third option. Europe. and world economies.S. Britain and France fear such a development. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U. U. in the past. it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly. with the domination of Europe or East Asia. including a global nuclear exchange. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil. interests. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. rather than cooperating with each other. The same is also true of Japan. investments in these regions. and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. On balance. protection. With the shifting balance of power among Japan. such as nuclear proliferation. exports and imports and jeopardizing U. the security of every nation in the world. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. 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. and hostile hegemony in East Asia. China. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. To preclude this development. result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The Washington Quarterly 1995 What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Without U. European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. Iran and Iraq have. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia. and low-level conflicts. the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. withdrawal could not. In the Persian Gulf.S.S.S. and the rule of law. if it should so decide. it could gain a significant capability to damage the U. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -.democracy. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. Given Japanese technological prowess.S.S.S. Besides. including the United States. Finally. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages.S. Without U. Given a U. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities. Such a development would threaten U.

p. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.S. The U.S. AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH Bradley A. has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. increasing respect for human rights. Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization. In addition. The first has been a more peaceful world. Without U. and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. power. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally. particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. Professor Defense & Strategic Studies. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal. power behind it. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. spreading democracy helps maintain U.3 So. Rather. the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce. power. American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey.S. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. LIBERTY. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because. most notably France and West Germany. drought." Consequently. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists. in seeking primacy. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade. once states are governed democratically. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves. the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. the United States. Thayer. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. With its allies. The National Interest. Indonesia and Australia. the U. November/December. more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. 2006. 36 . Lexis THROUGHOUT HISTORY. leadership. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India.S. Indeed. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology. politics. a robust monetary regime. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power-Rome. Second. volcanic eruption. along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy.S. Whenever there is a natural disaster. as the world's police. particularly war's worst form: great power wars. a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank. primacy. de facto. Indeed they do. flood. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened. maximizes efficiencies and growth. Today. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. helping to ensure military prowess. South Korea and Japan. democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States CONTINUES Third. earthquake. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U. respect for international property rights.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly.S. such as in Darfur. Britain or the United States today. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse.S. India and Pakistan. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). U. it is important to note what those good things are. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. During the Cold War. it is because they are more open.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Unipolarity Good: Global War (Thayer) US HEGEMONY KEY TO PEACE. which are facilitated through American primacy. the United States assists the countries in need. Missouri State University.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. growing democratization--is directly linked to U. and mobility of capital and labor markets. typhoon or tsunami. And so. in general. Israel and Egypt. Abandoning the positions of his youth.

If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Good -. the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders. Whether they are terrorists. imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy.S. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home". To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. homeland and American global interests. U. Allies are a great asset to the United States. rogue states or rising powers. it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world. the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced. Thayer. Professor Defense & Strategic Studies. then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. 37 . in any of its guises. a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. The National Interest. Washington cannot call a "time out". and it cannot hide from threats. Indeed. p. must be avoided. primacy is secured because America. commands the "global commons"--the oceans. away from American soil. Indeed. The National Interest. 2006. as Barry Posen has noted. Lexis But retrenchment. Thus. Professor Defense & Strategic Studies. Missouri State University. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. while denying those common avenues to its enemies. In contrast. and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased.Global War (Thayer) RETRENCHMENT FROM US PRIMACY DISASTROUS – INCREASES WARS AND INSTABILITY Bradley A. November/December. does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. This requires a physical. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom. MAINTENANCE OF US HEGEMONY VITAL TO GLOBAL STABILITY Bradley A. retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy.S. it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. As a consequence. p. And when enemies must be confronted. at present. Missouri State University. history shows that threats must be confronted. that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. November/December. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world. predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies. Lexis A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U. a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. If the United States adopted such a strategy. 2006. on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Thayer. a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas. in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Indeed.

too. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. visit. perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. Be careful what you wish for. or even a return to the good old balance of power. Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible. The reversal of globalization-which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Good: Global War (Ferguson) Impact . The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents. of course. as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. aircraft carriers. History. Technology has upgraded destruction. except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. Incipient anarchy. School of Business. Religious revivals. while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. For the world is much more populous--roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world. unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions. the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas. September-October 2004 (“A World Without Power” – Foreign Policy) http://www. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates. the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis. With ease. and cruise liners. less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work. say. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder. beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir. Houston or Chicago. In Africa.html So what is left? Waning empires. systemic global instability. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. targeting oil tankers. For more than two decades. frontier--its critics at home and abroad must 38 . In Latin America. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. New York University and Senior Fellow. religious orders. Technology has transformed production. Stanford University. globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities. and magnifies all impacts Niall Ferguson. A coming retreat into fortified cities. Professor. wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U. now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite.org/publications/digest/3009996. Meanwhile.S. Hoover Institution. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. or do business. labor. who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons. it would inevitably become a less open society. The trouble is. increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point.loss of leadership causes multiple nuclear wars. Meanwhile.hoover.

“605–643 (DECEMBER 2005). It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. and Sudan. Congo. 39 . 640 The absence of a globally influential power in a world dominated by forces of globalization would be akin to the retreat of Roman power that stood behind the centuries of coherent civilization extending from Mauritania to Mesopotamia: a chaotic.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Unipolarity Good: Extinction (Smil) A GLOBAL LEADER IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVILIZATIONAL COLLAPSE Vaclav Smil. Were a number of such state failures to take place simultaneously in a world without any dominant power. “Be careful what you wish for. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder” . About 2 billion people already live in countries that are in danger of collapse. who would step in to defuse the most threatening ones? As Niall Ferguson has warned. A century ago a failure. University of Manitoba. Sierra Leone. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 31(4): “The Next 50 Years: Unfolding Trends. and there are no convincing signs that the number of failing and nearly failed states will diminish in the future (Foreign Policy/Fund for Peace 2005). Liberia. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. In today’s interconnected world such developments command universal attention and prompt costly military and humanitarian intervention: prominent recent examples include Afghani stan. Iraq. p. Somalia. Bosnia and Herzegovina. of a smallish (and particularly a landlocked) state would have been a relatively inconsequential matter in global terms. or chronic dysfunction. Distinguished Professor. long-lasting fragmentation that would be inimical to economic progress and greatly exacerbate many of today’s worrisome social and environmental trends.

in part because the "war on terrorism" is shifting attention and resources away from long-term development issues. The goals include targets for child and infant mortality. 40 . halving the number of people without access to clean water along with many others. gender. or any other status. the most important source of insecurity is not a terrorist threat but grinding. and cultural rights. the "war on terrorism" will only succeed in creating new generations of warriors. Yet more than three thousand African children die of malaria each day. November 2004. Why is terrorism given more attention than the scourge of violence against women? Millions of women are terrorized in their daily lives. Only a tiny percentage of the twenty-six million people infected with HIV/AIDS have access to the health care and medicine they need to survive. would the world be more secure? There is no easy answer to this question. How can we eradicate violent challenges to the existing world order if education is not universal? Without education and peaceful exchanges between peoples. For hundreds of millions of people in the world today. Many additional examples could be given. Every human being is entitled to a standard of living that allows for their health and wellbeing. More than a billion of the world's six billion people live on less than one dollar a day.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Human Rights – Hoffman BILLIONS WILL DIE WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION Paul Hoffman. social. shelter. If some of the resources and attention devoted to the "war on terrorism" were diverted to the eradication of world poverty or eliminating violence against women. the availability of primary education for all children. these goals will not be achieved. Clearly. This includes not only civil and political rights but also economic. True security depends on all of the world's peoples having a stake in the international system and receiving the basic rights promised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. yet no "war" on violence against women is being waged. and medical care. regardless of race. Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International. HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY. p. The discrepancy between these human rights promises and the reality of life for more than one-sixth of the world's people must be eliminated if terrorism is to be controlled. religion. 932-935. extreme poverty. According to the World Bank. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the entire human rights framework is based on the indivisibility of human rights. along with any serious action on the other pressing causes of human insecurity. this problem is more widespread than terrorist violence and invariably makes women insecure as well as second-class citizens in every corner of the world. Many governments have adopted the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015. including food. but the "war on terrorism" seems to sideline any serious discussions.

The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. September 8. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965. India Pakistan – Washington Times INDIA-PAKISTAN WAR MEANS EXTINCTION Ghulam Nabi Fai. 1 The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. July 13. and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. 41 . INDIA-PAKISTAN SUMMIT AND THE ISSUE OF KASHMIR.pakistanlink. a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan.html The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                India Pakistan – Nabi INDIA PAKISTAN WAR WILL TRIGGER A NUCLEAR WINTER Dr. the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 2001. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. http://www. Ghulam Nabi. Executive Director. The Director of Central Intelligence. and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir. 2003. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965. p.com/Letters/2001/July/13/05. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Kashmiri American Council. WASHINGTON TIMES. a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. the Department of Defense. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. p.

Princeton. the way is eased for massive ruin and for the possibility of extinction. Professor of Politics. THE INNER OCEAN. but the underlying moral principles of the American political system independently and clearly do so. parochial matter. In the case of the United States. but universalist in nature. (Michael Walzer has already made this point in just and Unjust Wars[ 1977]. the officials have so grossly violated the principles of the system that they must be understood as having intended its moral destruction and therefore to have created a situation in which a revolution against them is abstractly justified in behalf of the very system they have subverted. If officials of a legitimate government use nuclear weapons or threaten to do so. Further. even if positive claims to increased well-being may be nationally confined. They are the real revolutionaries. 116-7 I have rehearsed platitudes. The subjects of illegitimate governments—for example. how can there be consistent faith in rights when mass death is inflicted on others? The theory of rights recognizes no difference between one's fellows and foreigners so far as negative moral entitlements are concerned: everyone has an equal claim not to have rights violated. and whether or not their people suffer retaliation.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Individual Rights -.S. The justification is that these platitudes of individualism are not really platitudes. any legitimate government which has an effect on them must do so insofar as it can.Kateb INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS NECESSARY TO STOP DESTRUCTION VIA THE NUCLEAR STATE George Kateb. a legitimate government must not inflict massive ruin. p. Kven though their own government does not acknowledge and protect their rights. Freedom is the term used to refer to all those rights to which the U. 42 . the people of despotic states—are covered equally by this imperative: the claim to individual rights is not an enclosed. its essence would have been spiritually maimed. Yet how can there be consistent faith in rights when masses of people become passive victims? American citizens would not be acting to defend their freedom. The users of nuclear weapons would have engaged in a revolution against freedom. they would simply be enlisted in mass death. From these considerations— presumably the considerations that guide our lives—the absolute impermissibility of using nuclear weapons emerges. If political freedom institutionally survived the use of nuclear weapons. government rhetoric invokes freedom as the value that may be defended by nuclear weapons. The theory of the just war and elementary notions of common humanity may disallow any policy that risks or causes massive ruin. They are fundamental considerations that can wither through complacent or irritable inattention. Notice what underlies the pretended right to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. in dealing with foreigners. Constitution is devoted. 1992. The emphasis is on the death of millions of individuals. perhaps destroyed irretrievably. Individualism in the form of personal and political rights bars a government whose legitimacy rests on acknowledging and protecting those rights from acting in any way that risks or causes massive ruin at home or that threatens or inflicts it abroad. In their withering.) Above all.

On the other hand. Director. THE FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Georgetown. http://www. Such an intervention in turn could prompt Iran's rivals to step up their interference in the country.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact Iranian prolif causes it to intervene in Iraq Daniel Byman. 2005. Tehran has vital strategic interests in Iraq. Sunni-Shi'a tension will continue. armed. A nuclear-armed Iran would be far harder to the United States to coerce. Pakistan appears to have used a similar calculus in its decision to escalate the Kashmir insurgency and support anti-India terrorism after it developed its nuclear program.pdf The future of Iraq is uncertain in the near-term let alone the long-term. and make the regimes hesitant to embrace political reform. Such weakness has many ramifications. or bolster terrorism against Israel secure in the knowledge that it is protected from U. Iran is also likely to maintain a strong influence in Iraq. September 8. Already European counterterrorism officials are gravely concerned with the influence of veteran jihadists when they return from Iraq. retaliation by its atomic arsenal. Georgetown. Center for Peace and Security Studies.05. with jihadists from outside the country fanning the flames of sectarian violence.georgetown. 43 .pdf The biggest risk is that a nuclear weapon would make Iran more confident and aggressive. Truly massive civil strife is a possibility. jihadists who use the country as a new Afghanistan and send terrorists on missions to Europe. and close ties among the clerical establishment.05.georgetown. regardless of the accuracy of various allegations. These countries are not on the verge of civil war. history. But even a democratic or military government is likely to be weak and would find it difficult to stop violence within its territory. http://www.S. and neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. increase pressure on the Arab kingdoms of the Persian Gulf.Saddam Iraq on the United States. thus escalating the crisis. riding into Baghdad with the support of Iraqi soldiers trained. Because many in the Arab world will blame problems in the post. IRANIAN INTERVENTION IN IRAQ CAUSES CRISIS ESCALATION AND COMPLETE STATE COLLAPSE Daniel Byman.edu/sfs/programs/nssp/documents/Byman%20Testimony%20for%20HASC%2009.2 8.edu/sfs/programs/nssp/documents/Byman%20Testimony%20for%20HASC%2009. the United States. S. 2005. with the conflict generating tens of thousands of deaths and even more refugees and internally displaced people. Iranian intervention may increase dramatically as it seeks to help its Shi'a coreligionists (particularly those among their ranks friendly to Tehran). In addition. and recruited by the United States to fight the local insurgents. Iraq could emerge as a model of democracy for a region that is one of the least free in the world. U. Tehran could become more aggressive in Iraq or Afghanistan. A weak Iraq could also emerge as a major haven for anti-U. harm economic growth. Director. THE FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. reinforced by ideology. credibility would suffer. particularly if it leads to an all-out sectarian civil war. September 8. It is even possible that a new military dictator could take power.S. Center for Peace and Security Studies. Iraq could also splinter into three or more fragments or collapse completely.2 8. Should violence grow. but even a small number of terrorists sent could dramatically increase civil strife.

During most of the last 75 years. Such an outcome would do nothing to promote American national interests.S. None would foster American national interests. DC Iraq Coalition.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact THAT CAUSES VIOLENT MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT DETROIT NEWS. the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing. Seymour Hersh warns. is abominable. Hussein is very much in that Sunni dictatorial tradition. briefly. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U. they have been held together only through the heavy hand of the Sunni center. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988. March 2002." 44 . once unthinkable except as a last resort. Of course. complicity) is not reversed soon. Israel no longer needs U. http://www. "Should war break out in the Middle East again. at the very least. what he has done to Kuwait. with unpredictable results. ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO PEACE.globalresearch. Nevertheless." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes... spy secrets. military action might radically destabilize the Middle East. if not for all out nuclear war.S. Historically. and even the threat of nuclear war. Iraq might dissolve. one may argue that without the "rigor" imposed from Baghdad.. would now be a strong probability. September 22.S. 2002. if the familiar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U. A fragmented Iraq would introduce radical instability into the Middle East political system. Upheavals would probably metastasize. 1 Ousting Saddam Hussein might have more far-reaching consequences than most people imagine. MIDDLE EAST WAR GOES NUCLEAR John Steinbach. into three independent statelets. Much larger and more powerful neighbors would likely gobble each of them up soon enough. and to his own people. and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use.the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration.ca/articles/STE203A. they possessed little in common.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and. ". Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional. or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel. a nuclear escalation. p. Iraq is divided into three parts: the Shiite south. But such statelets would probably not be independent for long..html Meanwhile. In the words of Mark Gaffney. the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations. The possible splintering of Iraq as a result of U.S.for whatever reason. as the Iraqis did. nuclear targeting strategy. the Sunni center and the Kurdish north." and Ezar Weissman. These three constituent parts were soldered together after World War I..

Executive Director. if the U. http://www. p. Washington's worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile. Operation Iraqi Freedom. with nuclear options of their own. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with Iraq. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would be spring-loaded to go nuclear. but with more nations like France.org/publications/policyreview/3447161. perhaps. nuclear. Kosovo. Turkey. In such a world. and Egypt. it would be much. fails to hold Pyongyang accountable for its violation of the NPT or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons while appearing to reward its violation with a new deal--one that heeds North Korea's demand for a nonaggression pact and continued construction of the two light water reactors--South Korea and Japan (and later. or near-nuclear-armed nations. Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. and Just Cause. Similarly. Iran's acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could prompt one or more of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view military options through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm. it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends.S. 45 . The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track.S. Taiwan) will have powerful cause to question Washington's security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam.hoover. much more iffy. POLICY REVIEW. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions.html If nothing is done to shore up U. In addition.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation Impacts – Sokolsky IRANIAN PROLIFERATION CAUSES GLOBAL PROLIF AND NUCLEAR WAR Henry Sokolsky. October/November 2003.

and aware that Israel would no doubt try to hit them preemptively. Ephraim Sneh. Thus. the chairman of the Knesset's foreign-affairs and security committee. in any future crisis. Sneh was roundly criticized at home for his remarks. not because he was wrong but because. and all other critical nodes--so as to paralyze the enemy and thus rule out the possibility of attack. hardening. It is a nightmarish prospect. as Uzi Landau. this would not offer much reassurance. Israel is a tiny country. at the first hint from satellite intelligence or some other means that a missile fusillade was being prepared from. could not easily be repeated. The possibility that nuclear war might break out at any moment--by accident. Even so. to protect its populace. miscalculation. the question has arisen of what forcible steps Israel might take in order to deny nuclear weapons to its enemies. Lacking secure second-strike forces of their own. say. And it would have to strike not only at missile sites. If preemption is largely ruled out as an option. For the purpose of considering this eventuality. what then? To reduce its vulnerability--enemy missiles can arrive within ten minutes from firing--Israel may well be compelled to adopt a "launch-on-warning" posture for both its conventional and nuclear forces. "unnecessary chatter" could heighten the likelihood of Israel's being targeted for attack. surface-to-air defense--to ensure that the feat performed by Israel's air force in 1981. including by the United States. p. or design--would inevitably place an intolerable strain on Israel's freedom of military movement. a general in the Israeli army reserves and a leading member of the opposition Labor party. however. what this scenario leads to is the prospect of both sides' moving to a permanent position of hairtrigger alert. air bases. some of which it might well miss. spoke publicly of the possibility that the IDF might be compelled to "deliver a conventional counterstrike or preemptive strike" against Iranian atomic facilities. Iran or Iraq. These are the implications of launch-on-warning. the option he referred to may be less viable than it once was. and for which it was universally condemned at the time. and unlike the U. But whether or not Sneh should have spoken out. explained. but at a broader range of targets--communications facilities." In other words. Both Iran and Iraq have already taken measures--concealment. and take a no less heavy toll on civilian morale. "Israel should be wiped from the map"--to still more yawns by the international community. This past September. would have to punch first. once again. we may assume that Israel has indeed developed a secure retaliatory force of the kind Tucker saw as essential to stability.S. Iran and Iraq would be under tremendous pressure to launch their missiles first--to "use them or lose them.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation – Schoenfeld IRANIAN PROLIFERATION LEADS TO ISRAELI LAUNCH ON WARNING AND NUCLEAR WAR COMMENTARY.. Unlike its neighbors. This was not long after Teheran tested its Shahab-3 missile--to the yawns of the international community--and then displayed the missile in a military parade with banners draped from it reading. 146 Now. dispersion. Clearly. such a posture presents grave problems. Israel. and in a nuclear environment it would not have the luxury of waiting to assess the damage from a first strike before deciding how to respond. December 1998. storage bunkers. 46 .

it could step up support for violence against Israel or US and other Western military forces in the Persian Gulf region. only the former Taliban government in Afghanistan rivaled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. some of which govern territory or resources that Iran claims. 47 . Ahmadinejad’s unrepentant calls for Israel to be wiped off the map underscore the existential threat a nuclear weapon in Iran’s hands would pose to that country. as did most Arab states. p. First. 48. In one sense. maintain a revolutionary fervour. seeking little more today than to keep its regime in power and its enemies at bay. Vol. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be one more serious blow against a nuclear-nonproliferation effort that has taken numerous hits of late. Iran today presents the more dangerous proliferation challenge. and North Korea have in recent years created a dangerous momentum that threatens to blow the lid off these past accomplishments and lead to a rampantly proliferating world. Spring. President Kennedy and other observers in the 1960s thought the world might have a couple dozen nuclear powers by now. 228-9 It is worth underscoring why an Iranian nuclear weapon would be such a bad thing. Pakistan. Iran could become emboldened in other aggressive ways by possession of a bomb. IISS Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation. After all. but it is largely a status-quo country. Iran’s acquisition of the bomb. some might say.1. HARD POWER: THE NEW POLITICS OF NATIONAL SECURITYp. No. there is at least some remote possibility that Iran would give nuclear capabilities to a terrorist group under extreme circumstances. and three former Soviet republics as well as South Africa actually denuclearized after the Cold War. 2006. North Korea sits on a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons. Iran’s religious leaders. It could threaten its neighbors in the region. this is because the process of Iranian proliferation is still in the present tense – in contrast to the past tense in North Korea. why not simply tolerate a Mideast Muslim counter to Israel presumed nuclear capability? There are many responses to this flawed way of thinking. where non-proliferation efforts have failed. over the past one to two decades. However. Thankfully. IRANIAN PROLIF POSES MORE SERIOUS THREAT OF WAR THAN NORTH KOREA – LESS LIKELY TO BE DETERRED AND RESTRAINED Mark Fitzpatrick. by contrast. 2006. Tehran could be emboldened by knowing that retaliation against its aggression could become more difficult if it had a nuclear deterrent. with the world’s five permanent UN Security Council members having the bomb. Given this record. with South Asia having gone nuclear in the last decade.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                IRANIAN PROLIFERATION BAD – MANY REASONS Kurt M. But the real arguments are threefold. CSIS & Brookings. earlier forecasts of the nonproliferation regime’s demise have not come to pass. After the Cold War ended. would increase the risks much more. Any re-emergence of Pyongyang’s spent reunification dreams is held in check by the mighty deterrent forces wielded by its much more powerful neighbours. O’Hanlon. In particular. even as the world watched the entire process unfold right before its collective eyes. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and other groups has not only directly led to violence against Israel and American military forces in Saudi Arabia. The dangers Iran presents to Western interests are complex and growing. Survival. Campbell & Michael E. But most European powers and America’s East Asian allies showed remarkable restraint throughout this period. 69 Notwithstanding North Korea’s sales activity. and with even North Korea’s presumed arsenal apparently being tolerated (or at least not severely opposed) by the international community. Iran now appears to be having a hand in helping Iraqi insurgents improve the improvised explosive devices they have used with such deadly effect against coalition troops and indigenous security forces in Iraq. it again seemed likely that many states would obtain the bomb. India. Second. and more likely. but also to violence against Jewish populations in Latin America. Third. starting with the fact that Muslims already have the bomb (in Pakistan and India) which counters the notion that fairness somehow requires that we allow another country with a large Islamic population to obtain a nuclear capability. regional leadership aspirations and support for liberation struggles seeking change through terrorist means.

Unlike in the case of Iraq. [Continues…] Why a Nuclear Attack on Iran Is a Bad Idea Now that we have outlined what is very close to happening. The Middle East will explode. and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons. 2005.S. and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. Iran will no longer threaten Israel. In a best-case scenario. However. In a worst-case scenario. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. will destroy all nuclear. the U. The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Saudi Arabia. and popular uprisings in Pakistan. and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly more devastating nuclear attack. a regime change will ensue. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb. CAN A NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN BE AVERTED. the U. and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons. chemical. and a pro-Western government will emerge. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U. NOVEMBER 21.ANTIWAR. they will certainly be used again. HTTP://WWW. the long-term consequences are dire. leaving no Iranian nuclear program.COM/ORIG/HIRSCH.-Israeli attack. will stop them with nuclear weapons. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U. bombs were nuclear. In the short term.S. it will happen without warning. resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. 48 . Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent.PHP?ARTICLEID=8089 The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran.S.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Israel Preemption Of Iran – Nuclear War AN ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN CAUSES A GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Jorge Hirsch. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will storm into Iraq. and missile facilities in Iran with conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons in a lightning surprise attack. civilian or otherwise. will succeed. enough to erase Earth's population many times over. even in the best-case scenario. the U.S.S. let us discuss briefly why everything possible should be done to prevent it.

atimes. on the urging of Cheney. Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear strike on Iran. A US preemptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass. perhaps even of a global nuclear conflagration. # Bush. it would mark a point of no return in international relations. It threatens to sink a large oil super-tanker in the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz. has significantly lowered the threshold of nuclear war. for the first time since 1945. It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles." The same day at Davos. given the geopolitical context. Clear from a reading of their public statements and their press. Iran. and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for much of OPEC oil. Bush signaled a significant backdown. for the reasons stated above. the US is left with little option but to launch the unthinkable . a subject neither the Bush administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about. http://www. The mullahs in Iran slowly loose influence. This is unlikely for the reasons stated above. decides to activate Conplan 8022. The strait has two 1-mile-wide channels for marine traffic. as well as by Israel's nuclear force. The Iran response includes activating trained cells within Lebanon's Hezbollah. No ground troops are used and it is proclaimed a swift surgical "success" by the formidable Pentagon propaganda machine. such as former National Security Council heads.The latest Iranian agreement to reopen talks with Moscow on Russian spent fuel reprocessing has taken some of the edge off of the crisis for the moment. launches a calculated counter-strike using techniques of guerrilla war or "asymmetrical warfare" against US and NATO targets around the world. The Eastern province of Saudi Arabia around Ras Tanura contains a disenfranchised Shi'ite minority. the White House knows this. Shi'ites do most of the manual work in the Saudi oilfields. "However. choking off 40% of all world oil flows. It is well prepared for a new Holy War. potentially in de facto alliance with the Sunni resistance there targeting the 135. Israel faces unprecedented terror and sabotage attacks from every side and from within its territory from sleeper cells of Arab Israelis. Brent Scowcroft or even Zbigniew Brzezinski. Iran declares an immediate embargo of deliveries of its 4 million barrels of oil a day. The timetable for that is likely some time about March-May. separated by a 2-mile-wide buffer zone. Rice's State Department expressed concern the Russian-Iran talks were a stalling ploy by Tehran. which proposes increased monitoring of the reprocessing facilities for weapons producing while avoiding sanctions. The West extends new offers of economic cooperation in the development of Iran's oil and gas infrastructure and Iran is slowly welcomed into the community of the World Trade Organization and cooperation with the West. Iran is a vast. There are some 2 million Shi'ite Muslims in Saudi Arabia. from a posture of defense to offense. the Iranian government knows well what cards its holds and what not in this global game of thermonuclear chicken. At that point there are several possible outcomes. at least for the moment. Iran included. and a new regional relaxation of tensions opens the way for huge new economic development in the entire Middle East region. I do believe people ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power. the strike range would not reach the territory of the US. Its mountainous terrain makes any thought of a US ground occupation inconceivable at a time the Pentagon is having problems retaining its present force to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. In essence.000 remaining US troops and civilian personnel. Iran activates trained sleeper terror cells in the Ras Tanura center of Saudi oil refining and shipping. .. Even with sagging popularity. # The IAEA refers Iran to the UN Security Council. There are saner voices within the US political establishment. Rumsfeld and the neo-conservative hawks. Iran's asymmetrical response also includes stepping up informal ties to the powerful Hamas within Palestine to win them to a Holy War against the US-Israel "Great Satan" Alliance. like India and Pakistan. an air attack bombing of Iran's presumed nuclear sites. Jan 31. "The Russians came up with the idea and I support it . including. after a new Israeli government is in place. it includes activating considerable Iranian assets within Iraq.html] The question then is. stating. with deployment of nuclear weapons. Rice told the World Economic Forum that Iran's nuclear program posed "significant danger" and that Iran must be brought before the UN Security Council. it seems quite probable that Russia and China will veto imposing sanctions. Asia Times. who clearly understand the deadly logic of Bush's and the Pentagon hawks' preemptive posture. "total spectrum dominance" is powerless against the growing "asymmetrical war" assaults around the globe. when someone like Iran calls the US bluff with a formidable response potential. more than double the land area of France and Germany combined. along with China and ElBaradei of the IAEA. This scenario. Should Iran be brought before the UN Security Council for violations of the NPT and charges of developing weapons of mass destruction.Geopolitical risks of nuclear war . On Friday. 49 . Washington is trying to appear "diplomatic" while keeping all options open. It is Saudi Arabia's main export route. desirable as it is.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Strikes Bad – World War III STRIKES RISK NUCLEAR WORLD WAR III F. making up 40% of Aramco's workforce.nuclear strike. prepared for such a possibility. I don't believe that non-transparent [sic] regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon. The danger of the initial strategy of preemptive wars is that. that is. # Iran. Israel would be the closest potential target. A new government in Israel pursues a peace policy in Palestine and with Syria." At the same time.. strategically central expanse of land. The Pentagon's awesome war machine. what will Washington do? The fundamental change in US defense doctrine since 2001. with well over 70 million people and one of the fastest population growth rates in the world. Bush announced publicly that he backed the Russian compromise. so long as it respects NPT and IAEA conditions. which has historically been denied the fruits of the immense Saudi oil wealth.com/atimes/Middle_East/ HA31Ak02. William Engdahl. such as an economic embargo on Iran. is permitted to develop a small arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the growing military threat in its area posed by the US from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Emirates. The question is whether their faction within the US power establishment today is powerful enough to do to Bush and Cheney what was done to Richard Nixon when his exercise of presidential power got out of hand. if the world does not join it against the US-Israeli action. as now. World War III begins in a series of miscalculations and disruptions. In short. is extremely unlikely in the present circumstances. Iran would be allowed to develop its full fuel cycle nuclear program and its sovereignty is respected. Bush added. 2006 [“A high-risk game of nuclear chicken”.

antiwar. to be achieved through threat (deterrence) and use of nuclear weapons. Colin Powell was an American hero. [3]. starts throwing mini-nukes around.S. However.pdf]. [2]. But courageous men and women are not easily deterred. the principle of just war. His courageous and principled action earned him respect and gratitude. [5]. A great catastrophe will have been averted. many more countries will strive to acquire nuclear weapons. most Americans believe the Iraq invasion was wrong. which in turn would lead to the use of larger nuclear weapons by the U.S. References to the old mission are nowhere to be found in the current Los Alamos documents. which the United States helped to create.) Conscientious objection to the threat and use of nuclear weapons is a moral choice. Their voices have not been heard.S. it will be a one-way downhill slide toward a bottomless pit.The Military's Moral Dilemma . nuclear bomb explodes. or should have known. [3] [. This is a big world 50 .pdf]. his future destroyed.pdf] when the new U. and delivered the pivotal UN address that paved the way for the U.S. military law recognizes that there is no requirement to obey orders that are unlawful. just as the U. has just declared that it will defend Israel militarily against Iran if needed. played a significant role in ending the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon Papers. Today. The mission of LANL used to be described officially as "Los Alamos National Laboratory's central mission is to reduce the global nuclear danger" [1] [.S. and his great past achievements forgotten. akin to the moral choices faced by Colin Powell and Dan Ellsberg. [5]). many principled individuals have done it in the past and will continue to do it in the future ( see [1]. . [2] are a start. The mainstream media could have effectively raised public awareness of the possibility that the U. Those who contribute their labor to the scientific and technical infrastructure that makes nuclear weapons and their .S.pdf]. That will sound ridiculous once the U. Still. Professor of Physics at the University of California San Diego. Even if the nuclear weapons used are small. In anticipation of it. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will usher in a new world order. as it did with Iraq's Osirak. crosses the nuclear threshold against a non-nuclear country. We will have entered a path of no return. In February 2003. The U. and Colin Powell is disgraced.America's Collective Responsibility Blaming the administration or the military for crossing the nuclear threshold is easy. they have not done so ([1]. no matter how small.php?articleid=8577] The U. cannot be predicted with certainty. He knew that he would face prosecution for breaking the law. they have chosen to almost completely hide the issue. and it hopes to deter certain actions. Scientific organizations and organizations dealing with arms control and nuclear weapons could have warned of the dangers associated with the Iran situation. [5]. a military analyst. to keep information secret or to leak it. and potential casualties in the hundreds of thousands. Either way. [8]. [6]. And so will future generations. would use nuclear weapons against Iran.S. Up to the moment the first U. Even U. because they are likely to cause escalation of the conflict they violate the principle of proportionality and will cause unnecessary suffering.S.pdf] its members and civilian employees what the consequences are of violating provisions concerning the release of information about the nuclear capabilities of U. provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. but are not likely to elicit a meaningful response or a change in plans and are a far cry from forceful action. The ultimate goal is that no nation other than the means of delivery possible bear a particularly heavy burden of moral responsibility.S. We may never know which choices prevented it if it doesn't happen. perhaps only in the hundreds [. The use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country can be argued to be in violation of international law. are choices for each individual to make – extremely difficult choices that have consequences. It is not impossible that the U. Their voices have barely been heard U.S. demanding public discussion of the administration's plans. A telltale sign that this is the plan is the recent change in the stated mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory. But there are still choices to be made.S. But not choosing is not an option. Once the U. policies that directly involve the fruits of their labor.com/orig/hirsch. he chose to follow orders despite his own serious misgivings. The nuclear abyss may turn out to be a steep precipice or a gentle slope. To disobey orders and laws and to leak information are difficult actions that entail risks. The paths these two men followed were radically different. and many will succeed. Anything could get the ball rolling. and passing new laws or resolutions. All Americans could have voiced their opposition to these policies and demand that they be reversed. [4].S. may be facing a difficult moral choice at this very moment and in the coming weeks. Presumably this includes a scenario where Israel would initiate hostilities by unprovoked bombing of Iranian facilities. but was convinced it was the correct moral choice.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Strikes Bad – World War III US ATTACK ON IRAN RISKS A GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR AND THE COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION Jorge Hirsch. http://www. intervention is likely to be further bombing of Iran's facilities." To follow orders or to disobey orders. But it is utterly . So far. Members of Congress could have raised the question forcefully. the fall into the abyss can be averted by choices made by each and every one of us. [4]. invasion of Iraq the following month. [2] [. [9]. widely respected and admired at the time he was appointed secretary of state in 2001. the Los Alamos mission statement has been recently changed to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to protect our homeland from terrorist attack. Scientists and engineers responsible for the development of nuclear weapons could have voiced concern [. attack with nuclear weapons. Daniel Ellsberg. for the first time in 12 years? Because it is well aware of moral choices that its members may face. The Navy has just reminded [. The Nuremberg Tribunal. Letters to the president from some in Congress [1]. including underground installations that can only be destroyed with low-yield nuclear bunker-busters. public support for military action will quickly disappear. Witness the current uproar over cartoons and try to imagine the resulting upheaval in the Muslim world after the U. calling for public hearings.S. even in a world where wars are fought with sticks and stones.S. that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran was a possibility given the Bush administration's new policies. [7]." That is the present and future role of the U. will succeed in its goal. [4].S. nukes Iran. [3]. [8]). All Americans knew.pdf]. nuclear weapons policies became known. Why right now. forces in Iraq were not greeted with flowers. where nuclear weapons are developed. [2]. [7]. indicating that the change was deliberate and thorough. Feb 20. But if we make the wrong choices. The media will carry a heavy burden of responsibility. should have a nuclear weapons arsenal. Iran's reaction to a U. [2]. improbable. Once the American public becomes fully aware that military action against Iran will include the planned use of nuclear weapons. the principle of proportionality. So far they have failed to do so and are derelict in their responsibility to their constituents. we will know what they were. Such nuclear weapons may cause low casualties. including civilian employees.S. and customs that make up the law of armed conflict. .The Nuclear Abyss . planners may hope that it will deter Iran from responding. [6]. and Iran would respond with missiles targeting Israel.Men and women in the military forces. .The United States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in which it will enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear weapons. but the nuclear threshold will have been crossed.S. leading in a few months or a few decades to global nuclear war and unimaginable destruction. [3]. nuclear arsenal. established that "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. common standards of morality ([1]. thus saving lives. So far. but responsibility will be shared by all Americans. 2006 [“America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss”. which is being increasingly addressed in non-mainstream media. it is likely that such an attack would provoke a violent reaction from Iran and lead to the severe escalation of hostilities.S. forces. U.

the levels of violence and death as a proportion of the population were much higher than they have been in Iraq. TRIGGING GENOCIDE AND COLLAPSING U. 2007. and Rwanda. sectarian conflicts. however. indeed. This report will address in greater detail some of the ways of making more forces available for this struggle. Success will give the United States critical leverage against Iran. which is now positioning itself to become the regional hegemon after our anticipated defeat. to control ethnically and religiously motivated civil wars on two occasions. however: in 1995 in Bosnia and in 1999 in Kosovo. as it threatened to do in the 1990s. In the Balkans. One clear lesson of post–Cold War conflicts is that ignoring civil wars is dangerous and can generate grave.25396/pub_detail. 51 . Success in Iraq. If the United States allows Iraq to slide into full-scale civil war. chaotic region in the heart of the Middle East and on the front line of the Sunni-Shiite divide into a secure state able to support peace within its borders and throughout the region. There are more than 1 million soldiers in the active and reserve ground forces. would transform the international situation. Iraq’s diverse neighbors. the introduction of U. and soldiers and Marines are not interchangeable beans. LEADERSHIP Kagan. both Sunni and Shia. The results have been disastrous.S. If this war were the vital national priority that it should be.S. First. the president has finally called for a significant increase in the size of the ground forces—the warriors who are actually shouldering much of the burden in this conflict. Consequently. both to support operations in Iraq and to be prepared for likely contingencies elsewhere. The United States could also devote a significantly higher proportion of its national wealth to this problem in two ways. the conflict took a new turn as Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia in support of the . Before turning to that consideration. on the other hand. have opposing interests in how the conflict is settled. CHOOSING VICTORY: A PLAN FOR SUCCESS IN IRAQ. civil war and genocide also spread. much of sub-Saharan Africa in widespread conflict and death.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iraq Civil War A FULL-SCALE CIVIL WAR WILL LEAD TO A REGIONAL WAR. and the troops required to control such conflicts are larger than the U. It is possible to contain ethno-sectarian civil wars.asp American forces in Iraq today are engaged in the pivotal struggle of our age. indeed humiliation. Many others are engaged in vital tasks in the United States and elsewhere from which they could not easily be moved. And success will convert a violent. but only by ending them. have already made clear their determination to enter Iraq and its struggles if America withdraws and the conflict escalates into greater sectarian violence or civil war. the United States could commit many more soldiers to the fight. http://www.aei. A civil war has become a regional war. America cannot (or should not) involve itself in civil. Some now argue that victory is beyond our grasp. There can be no question that victory in Iraq is worth defeat would be catastrophic. Inaction in considerable American effort or that Afghanistan in the 1990s led to the rise of the Taliban and its support for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda—and therefore indirectly to the 9/11 attacks. The United States has the military power necessary to control the violence in Iraq. the armed forces of the states neighboring Bosnia and Kosovo were much more directly involved in the struggle than those of Iraq’s neighbors. destabilizing important states in the Middle East and creating a fertile ground for terrorism.S. as civil wars often do intervened. Internal strife in Iraq has already generated a large displaced population within the country and significant refugee flows into neighboring lands. The United States has recently internationally recognized transitional government. however. and European forces in strength in Bosnia and Kosovo has ended the killing and prevented that conflict from spreading throughout the region. along with its allies. Above all .org/publications/pubID. Inaction. In Rwanda. we should reflect on the fact that the United States between 2001 and 2006 has committed only a small proportion of its total national strength to this struggle . failure in Iraq now will likely lead to regional war. In Somalia. characterized by the collapse of the central government and the widespread mobilization of the population in internal conflict. Afghanistan. January 5. Additionally. however. The main purpose of the report that follows is to consider in detail what amount of armed force would be needed to bring the sectarian violence in Baghdad down to levels that would permit economic and political development and real national reconciliation. where our inability to contain conflict in Iraq is badly tarnishing our stature. they say. and only 140. in Somalia led to a larger civil war in which radical Islamists took control of most of the country by the end of 2006. Neither of these arguments is valid. Both efforts were successful in ending the violence and creating the preconditions for peace and political and economic imperfect: much of the ethnic cleansing had already been accomplished in both areas before the United States intervened with armed force. It will strengthen America’s position around the world. the consequences will be epochal. unintended consequences for America’s future security. The United States has faced ethno-sectarian conflict on at least five occasions in the past fifteen years. however. Those neighbors. American Enterprise Institute. successive American administrations allowed the conflicts to continue without making any serious attempts to control or contain them. The United States can and should sustain larger ground forces than it now has. involving Congo and.000 of them are in Iraq at the moment. military could possibly deploy. In late December.

Japan remains the largest economy in Asia. 1998 [Los Angeles Times. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. Despite its decade-long stagnation. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn’t money.” 52 . ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES WORLD WAR Walter Russell Mead. p. Economic Policy Toward Japan”] The ongoing changes within Japan's economy provide both American policymakers and businesses with opportunities to craft a new economic relationship between Japan and the United States. It’s the financial markets. At the bottom. THE ALLIANCE IS KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Laura D’Andrea Tyson. undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin’s power in Russia. even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. “Markets Biggest Threat To Peace. millions of people lost their jobs. 2000 [Council on Foreign Relations. the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. and the rules change. thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire. Task Force members agree that this relationship must rest on the premise that a healthy Japanese economy serves America's economic and geopolitical interests. U. senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Too bad. That’s the thing about depressions. Let the world economy crash far enough. and its major ally in the Asia-Pacific region. M1] Even with stock markets tottering around the world. the president and the Congress seem determined to spend the next six months arguing about dress stains.” August 23. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. “Future Directions for U. It was blood: World War II.S.S. Former Economic Advisor to the Clinton Administration and total MILF. B. They aren’t just bad for your 401(k). stocks began to collapse in October. to be exact. America's third-largest trading partner. We stop playing “The Price is Right” and start up a new round of “Saving Private Ryan.Economy A. The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts -. Wages plummeted. staged a rally. not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. then the market headed south big time.

S." he said. noted that Japan is not alone in trying to engage Iran commercially.htm] "Japan can be very helpful. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions. B. he noted. THE US – JAPAN RELATIONSHIP IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE IRANIAN NUCLEARIZATION Takashi Kitazume. a professor of law at the University of Tokyo. but also needs to be something that is more broadly persuasive to the people of both nations. particularly the Bush administration. Staff Writer Japan Times. 2005 [“Despite improvement.S.S.Iran A. and Egypt. and Just Cause. Europeans have to be a little bit more threatening about what the potential consequences of continued nuclear provocation are. "Will the Japanese people be ready for an expanded role of Japan in the security alliance with the U. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would be spring-loaded to go nuclear. it would be much. In such a world. Washington’s worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile. Japan's public opinion toward the U. http://www. must put on the table a more positive vision for Iran if Iran takes steps to stop its nuclear ambitions." he said.japantimes. terrorist attacks suggest that Japan will move in the direction of playing a greater role in the bilateral security alliance. Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view military options through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm. he added. many other countries have major projects in Iran. it would be only natural for Japan and the United States to have differences on some issues. relations need more work”. much more iffy. but with more nations like France. and the U. Japan-U.S. Japan and the U. Calder said. senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. so that nations can work together to have Iran drop its nuclear ambitions through closely coordinated pressure. http://classified. In fact. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam. with nuclear options of their own. 53 . March. to alter their strategies.S.html/] If nothing is done to shore up U. If we are to be successful .policyreview. the crucial issue is the nuclear program. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track. 2003 [“Taking Proliferation Seriously”. with the U.S.S. it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends. fails to hold Pyongyang accountable for its violation of the npt or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons while appearing to reward its violation with a new deal — one that heeds North Korea’s demand for a nonaggression pact and continued construction of the two light water reactors — South Korea and Japan (and later. Taiwan) will have powerful cause to question Washington’s security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. Kosovo." he said. "The only way we're going to have success vis-a-vis Iran would be for Europe. Iran’s acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could prompt one or more of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. if the U. Kubo also pointed out that while government-to-government ties have improved dramatically.com/ads/kkc/2005/kkc20050303b. Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. as the "odd man out. And while developments since the Sept.? Of course that is determined between leaders. "Essentially today. or near-nuclear-armed nations. Fumiaki Kubo. potentially. Japan would be well advised to postpone its project to develop the Azadegan oil field in southern Iran. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with Iraq. perhaps.org/oct03/sokolski_print. noted that even though they are close allies. Turkey. and the world in stabilizing the broader international relationship with Iran. . nuclear. IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION LEADS TO NUCLEAR WAR Henry Sokolski. 2001. Similarly. is not so favorable. 11. But in the short term. Kurt Campbell. to the U.S. Operation Iraqi Freedom. Calder agreed that public opinion is vital for security policy.S.. it is unclear whether the Japanese public will support it.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts -. In addition. ." he added. Europe has offered just carrots and America has only offered sticks." he said.

However. The Agreed Framework was no longer functional. currency. visited North Korea and reached a deal in which Pyongyang agreed to freeze missile launches in exchange for continued assistance. However. In Perry's view. Following the launch of the Taepodong-1 ballistic missile in 1998. US-JAPAN ALLIANCE IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE THE NORTH KOREAN CRISIS Masaru Honda. North Korea has produced enough plutonium since 2003 for six to eight nuclear warheads. 7/7. which has influence over North Korea. a former U. a joint statement was released after the six-party talks that called on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons development plan. Senior Staff Writer – Asahi News. 2006 [“Japan must lobby U. Although the North Korean threat has grown. gaining the total cooperation of China and Russia--two key players on the council as well as the six-party talks--will not be easy.S.com/english/Heraldasahi/TKY200607070248. William Perry. Instead.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea A. President Bill Clinton. Washington got fed up with North Korea's covert activities. http://www. the administration of U. the United States started up the six-party talks by bringing in China. In 2005. However. In the worst-case scenario. 54 . defense secretary. the six-party talks.S. could be the next to go. and North Korea began openly manufacturing plutonium.S. The moratorium on North Korea's nuclear weapons development has already broken down. For the time being. That led to greater mistrust between the United States and North Korea.S. The policy of setting moratoriums on North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile development programs was an initiative of the administration of U. the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework in 1994. mainly through the United Nations Security Council. including the counterfeiting of U. President George W. Bush suspected that North Korea was secretly planning to produce weapons-grade material through uranium enrichment. Japan and the United States plan to tighten the noose around North Korea. Pyongyang announced that it possessed nuclear weapons.S.html] The multiple missile firings Wednesday by North Korea shattered Pyongyang's moratorium on such launches. and imposed economic sanctions. After the nuclear crisis that emerged on the Korean Peninsula in 1994.asahi. That agreement was supposed to have prevented North Korea from producing plutonium for nuclear warheads. the Bush administration has rejected bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang. Last fall. which could develop into a framework for regional security. to talk directly with Pyongyang”.

http://www.missile/index." Powell would not be drawn on how would Washington react if Pyongyang did begin reprocessing but did say that the U.S. political pressure still has a role to play. Powell described North Korea's missile launch as "not surprising". On Monday. FAILURE TO SOLVE NORTH KOREA RESULTS IN NUCLEAR WAR CNN. Pyongyang accused Washington of flying a spy plane into North Korean airspace. U."The situation of the Korean Peninsula is reaching the brink of a nuclear war. it changes the entire political landscape." The United States denies it has any plans to attack North Korea." "If it renounces its nuclear development program.S. and anti-war struggle to frustrate the U.S.cnn.S.html] PYONGYANG. as "reckless war moves" designed to "unleash a total war on the Korean peninsula with a pre-emptive nuclear strike". 55 . short-range missile system and was "fairly innocuous. we and the international community will offer them many things that they want. moves for a nuclear war. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday wrapped up a four-day tour of Japan.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea B. "We also made it clear that if they begin reprocessing (nuclear material). 2003 [“N. including a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Powell repeated the U. China says the United States must deal with Pyongyang equally on a one-to-one basis. Korea warns of nuclear conflict”. the North fired a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan. China and South Korea during which he lobbied Asian leaders to support a multi-lateral approach to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. 2/26." the statement. consistently saying it is seeking a diplomatic and political solution to the increasing tensions sparked by Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear program. saying the test appeared to be of an old. China -. a North Korean MiG-19 fighter briefly flew into South Korean air space.S. "This is the time to make a determined effort to safeguard peace and have it firmly rooted on the peninsula. says." Powell said Tuesday. an act many believe was designed to upstage the inauguration of new South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun." He called the security environment "rather unsettling" and urged Pyongyang to "abandon nuclear development.-South Korean joint military exercises scheduled to begin on March 4. issued by the official Korean Central News Agency. Roh added. And there are countries who have considerable influence with the North Koreans who will continue to apply pressure. Tensions on the peninsula have been ratcheting up over the past few weeks with North Korea becoming increasingly provocative. The North also called on South Koreans to "wage a nationwide anti-U. or East Sea.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/25/nkorea. (Roh sworn in) Last week.a key ally and aid donor to the North -." In another development Tuesday.appeared to remain unconvinced. And we're making sure that is communicated to them in a number of channels. position that it had no intention of invading North Korea and had no plans to impose fresh economic sanctions on the impoverished communist nation.North Korea has repeated warnings to its citizens and military that it believes the United States is preparing to launch a large-scale attack on it. Pyongyang cites upcoming U." he said. had "no intention of invading" North Korea. North Korea (CNN) -. (MiG incursion) The North has also threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the fighting of the Korean War." Turning point Roh himself avoided mention of the incident at his swearing in. While Japan and South Korea indicated they might support a regional initiative to sway Pyongyang. "We believe diplomatic. but said the region was at an "historical turning point.S.

pdf] However.nautilus. A terrorist threat should. 2000 [“The Nuclear Dimension of the US-Japan Alliance”. A second danger will continue to be that Russian missiles will be fired on the United States by accident or as a result of unauthorized action. Over the longer run.S. in my view. Director of Policy Planning at State Department. national security policy is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. any realistic appraisal of nuclear dangers would suggest that neither rogue states/terrorist groups nor a deliberate Russian attack is the right focus if the goal of U. http://www. 56 .Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – Nuclear War REARM TRIGGERS NUCLEAR CONFLICT Morton H. The most immediate danger is that India and Pakistan will stumble into a nuclear war following their nuclear tests and their apparent determination to deploy nuclear forces. these threats will be eclipsed by the danger that the non-proliferation regime will collapse and other states will develop nuclear weapons. become a matter of serious concern only if there is much wider dispersal of nuclear weapons among states stemming from an open collapse of the nonproliferation regime.org/archives/library/security/papers/Halperin-US-Japan. Halperin.

Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. As the Chinese government develops relations with the Putin government. so that they would continue providing needed economic support for Russia." under a "dictatorship of law" and that Russia has a major role in the world. determined to assure that Russia is. Second.S. and his actions since assuming the presidency of Russia on January 1. The ever-closer relationship between Russia and China strengthens the author itarian tendencies within Russia. and of democracy.' Putin declares his support for political democracy and movement toward a market-oriented economy. forces to address both the unconventional terrorist threat and the big-power challenge represented by a Russia-China strategic partnership. The Heritage Foundation.S. the Chinese Communist Party has revived direct relations with the Communist Party in Russia and also ties between the Chinese and Russian parliaments. SINO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS TRIGGER RENEWED RUSSIAN AGGRESSION Constantine Menges. all coordinated from the Chinese side through its Communist Party. 426] Of equal concern is the possible reemergence of an authoritarian dictatorship in Russia under President Putin or a successor. B. the Pentagon must make sure the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review balances U. http://www. p. provide many opportunities to cultivate allies in Russia and to fan suspicion of the U. the United States must continue to strengthen its relationship with its ally Japan to ensure a balance of power in Northeast Asia — and also encourage Tokyo to improve relations with Moscow in an effort to loosen Sino-Russian ties. These multiple relationships. STRENGTHENING THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE IS CRITICAL TO LOOSEN SINO-RUSSIAN TIES Peter Brookes. As Russia moved toward dictatorship.org/Press/Commentary/ed081505a. This is especially true of China's ever-expanding and mutually profitable relationships with the Russian military and its military production and research entities. Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. 2005 [“China: The Gathering Threat”. 57 . thereby increasing the risk that it will become more aggressive internationally. Putin would attempt to maintain a Potemkin democracy for the purpose of deceiving the major democracies.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression A. Our in-depth analysis of President Putin has included insights into his personal development.heritage.cfm] First. 8/15. in his words. but the evidence to date suggests that Russia is gradually moving toward a more autocratic path. his work in the Soviet foreign intelligence service (KGB). a "strong state. disciplined. 2000. 2005 [“An Alarming Alliance: Sino Russian Ties Tightening”. Putin is an intelligent. whether ultranationalist or Communist. and systematic leader.

Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21st century. it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. January 25. the threat to Ukraine. world stability. http://www. and its allies.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans. Russian imperialists. of course. Turkey. 58 . or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Moreover. Iran. if successful.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression C. but for peace. and Afganistan will increase. if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors. and Western jobs would be created. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services.S. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region. but also the U. THIS CAUSES GLOBAL CONFLICT WHICH ESCALATES INTERNATIONALLY Ariel Cohen. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1065. Moreover. the Mediterranean Sea. Moreover. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. And. Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modern market economies and free societies.S. tens of thousands of U.cfm] Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U. The U.S. have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995).S. these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. 1996 [“The New ‘Great Game’: Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”. and the Middle East. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable. a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. and security.heritage. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south.

The alliance backs up Japan's basic stance that the two sides need to come to a negotiated solution. In his book The Korean War. THIS CAUSES EXTINCTION The Straits Times. Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. 59-72] The U.2 p. In south Asia. raising in Chinese minds the possibility that Japan might offer logistical and other support to its ally in the event of hostilities. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities.truce or a broadened war.-Japan alliance represents a significant hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem. this means South Korea. action. which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. Japan seconded the U. Both Japan and the United States have clearly stated that they oppose reunification by force. the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal.S. short of using nuclear weapons. June 25. Lexis] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. 59 . If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War. 2000 [“Regional Fallout: No One Gains in War Over Taiwan”. then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups into nearby waters as a sign of its disapproval of China's belligerent act.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts -. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability. THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE IS CRITICAL TO STOP CHINESE AGGRESSION AGAINST TAIWAN Yukio Okamoto. In the region.Taiwan A. president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. we would see the destruction of civilisation. If China were to retaliate. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted. could enter a new and dangerous phase. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Japan. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and --horror of horrors -. east Asia will be set on fire. Even though intervention is only a possibility. 2002 [Washington Quarterly 25. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. B.S. security interests guarantees that the Chinese leadership cannot afford to miscalculate the consequences of an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later. the Philippines and. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle.S. When China conducted provocative missile tests in the waters around Taiwan in 1996. to a lesser extent. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway.raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Security Adviser to Japanese Cabinet. Singapore. hostilities between India and Pakistan. a strong and close tie between Japanese and U.

Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. As we look at the alliance with Japan. it has exactly those qualities. Here. the entire region is ablaze. Americans were reminded in the most profound way that. Israel and its Arabstate neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive. What. the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon. exactly. not surprisingly.42-3] Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale war between states. steadfast support in dealing with this new problem of international terrorism have been highly evaluated in the United States. would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human. Secondly. p. Second Edition. one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear-weapons state on the planet. the consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclearconflict possibilities. 60 . With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already many years old. our territory is vulnerable to attacks. half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli cities.Terrorism A. Before long. such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. multilateral peace settlement. 2003 [11/18. tangible. US – JAPAN ALLIANCE IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE TERRORISM Daily Yomiuri. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities. conflict has escalated to nuclear forms. our people began to review our alliance relationship abroad in terms of whether or not they contributed directly to helping deal with a current problem. Public grief in Israel over the many thousands dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public mood. TERRORISM CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR CONFLICT – THE ULTIMATE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION Louis Rene Beres. 1987 [“Terrorism and Global Security”. and all countries in the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. such a war would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations. it seems to me Japan has changed its security role in a very impressive way.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts -. LN] On September 11. only the interests of the Palestinians—as defined by the PLO—seem to have been left out. consider the following scenario: Early in the 1990s. On the eve of the proposed signing of the peace agreement. like other countries. Only such a paradigm would allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration and the outer limits of human destructiveness. Those alliances which fostered timely. 2001. B. For example. whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria retaliate against Israel. Of course. ranging from a nuclear attack upon a non-nuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible consequences. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the Soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue. How might such far-reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. Therefore. there are permanent military campaigns that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq.

North Korean nuclear weapons could start a nuclear domino effect in Northeast Asia.Q. CSIS & Brookings. HARD POWER: THE NEW POLITICS OF NATIONAL SECURITYp. Survival. aside from illicit exports by Chinese and Russian entities. and China cut off all new nuclear cooperation under US pressure in 1997. the greater its odds of successfully delivering a nuclear warhead against Seoul or another population center (even in the United States.fathered projects in mining and zirconium production that should by now have ended. 2006. 230 There are several reasons why such an arsenal poses a grave risk. if North Korea someday collapses.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Korean Proliferation Impacts NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION BAD: MANY REASONS Kurt M. First. Khan network. US/ROK deterrence could be weakened if North Korea thought it had a nuclear trump card. 2006. NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR ASSISTANCE VITAL TO SUCCESSFUL IRANIAN PROGRAM Mark Fitzpatrick. South Africa and Southeast Asia. South Korea. Finally. No. the more bombs North Korea possessed.Q. Third. Iran’s main sources of sensitive nuclear technology have been Russia. and Taiwan. Second. p. Campbell & Michael E. Spring. 48. IISS Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation. China and the A.1. 61 . however. its nuclear materials could fall into the hands of those who would sell them to the highest bidder. which would in turn weaken global nonproliferation more broadly. Should war then result. Vol. save for two grand. each of which reflects more generic concerns described earlier. possibly provoking Japan. A. Khan and his lieutenants are out of business and responsible governments and international organisations have squeezed other black marketers throughout Europe. O’Hanlon. Russia’s nuclear assistance now appears to be narrowly limited to the Bushehr power reactor. 65 To date. North Korea might sell some nuclear technology or even materials to terrorists or other states. North Korea is one of the few remaining potential sources of nuclear technology available to Iran today. probably by means other than missile attack).

62 . There have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. p. surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. A foreign visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum alert for any eventuality. the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. Ever since the end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s. she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. the world is anxious that military tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. In the DPRK. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. apart from America itself.If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably reduce earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Japan and South Korea. online Lusaka . Last year. Naturally. It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or buildup in the north through spy satellites. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US. However. military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Korean War Impacts – Africa News WAR ON THE PENNINSULA WILL END LIFE ON EARTH AFRICA NEWS. Although the DPRK regards herself as a developing country. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World. she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. It is therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. 1999. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. for example. December 25. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines. it is extremely difficult to conclude. Whether this is really so. a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Early this year.

SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Korean War Impacts – Economy A NORTH KOREAN WAR WILL COLLAPSE ASIAN ECONOMIES Brad Glosserman is director of research at Pacific Forum CSIS. bringing untold devastation to both North and South Korea. p. 2003. 17 Failure to reach a negotiated solution could trigger a war in Northeast Asia. 63 . The economies of South Korea and Japan would be hard hit. and the ripples would spread through China as well. could unleash waves of refugees. War. destroying the stability that is the prerequisite for economic development. or even the fear of war. and possibly Japan. October 30.

Evron MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY CAUSES NUCLEAR ESCALATION Yair Evron.. ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO PEACE.the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration. nuclear targeting strategy. 123-4] The potential risks involved in the functioning of the superpowers’ C3 may recur in the Middle East and.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and. the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing. March 2002. The probability of erroneous decisions is therefore higher.html Meanwhile.globalresearch.. if the Arab-Israeli peace process fails to advance and in particular were the situation to return to the level of conflict that preceded the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. complicity) is not reversed soon. or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel. if not for all out nuclear war. The outcomes can be divided into two major categories of events: misperception of an enemy action that is mistakenly understood as a conventional or nuclear attack on the state’s nuclear bases or on the state in its entirety.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Middle East War -. http://www. a nuclear escalation.." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. Israel no longer needs U.S.. and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use. for example. There also exist processes of escalation that are totally distinct from technical failure. Such a misperception could cause a rapid escalation." Middle East War -. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. Professor of International Relations at Tel Aviv University. The latter case is most often the function of the erroneous interpretation of various enemy actions. as the Iraqis did. Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional. at the very least.. DC Iraq Coalition.for whatever reason.Steinbach MIDDLE EAST WAR GOES NUCLEAR John Steinbach. would now be a strong probability. once unthinkable except as a last resort." and Ezar Weissman. and which derive exclusively from human error. deriving from misperception of the enemy’s behavior. the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations.S. 1994 [“Israel’s Nuclear Dilemma”. in some cases. These factors are liable to yield disastrous outcomes.ca/articles/STE203A. with apparently greater intensity. p. or the combination of technical failure and human error. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988. ". A high level of conflict tends to promote the tendency of decision-makers to view the other side’s actions with great concern. In the words of Mark Gaffney. Seymour Hersh warns. 64 . "Should war break out in the Middle East again. if the familiar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U. spy secrets. the intensity of the conflict could reinforce the potential for errors of perception among decisionmakers. These factors center on technical failures of warning systems. and even the threat of nuclear war. The persistence of intense conflicts in the Middle East will of course contribute to the potential danger of misperceptions. The second category comprises the escalation from a conventional war to the use of nuclear weapons. Hence.

65 . Further opportunities to start these civil wars or use such weapons must be firmly deterred and discouraged. Israel and the United States should act together to make sure that they never get to make another similar choice. Arafat and his allies have chosen war and hatred. 118 After seven or more years of America's best efforts. p. every form of conflict along the spectrum from rock throwing to nuclear war can take place.Blank WMDS WILL BE USED IN MIDDLE EAST CIVIL WARS Stephen Blank. In today's Middle East. US Army War College. we now should see with whom we are dealing and the multiple fronts of the real Middle East war. February 2001. Strategic Studies Institute.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Middle East War -. WORLD & I. Rather than choose peace and democracy. Governments there have long since used weapons of mass destruction in other states' civil wars. professor.

Reardon MILITARISM CAUSES EXTINCTION Betty Reardon. to move us from the present condition of continuous armed conflict. leaving in ashes people's hopes for even a minimal standard of life. potential nuclear annihilation. housing. Fourth. They help to point out that we must attend to the obstacles to these expectations in an integrated. Arms development cannot be relied upon to prevent aggression and warfare. in a highly militarized world. social structures. However. or global levels. human rights. that the life and well-being of the Earth’s peoples will not be harmed as a consequence of imbalanced security policies. The arms produced for national defense have been used to maintain racist. uncared for children roam the streets of the world's great cities. unemployment is increasing. national.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Militarism -. The technological arms race. as more people of the world fall into poverty. a UN consultant. and armed conflict. preparation for war. 21-25 The very weapons we have developed to defend our security are themselves a threat to our security in the potential consequences of their use in combat and in the actual processes of their development and testing. A case can be made that. that the basic needs of life will be met. and disarmament and security. neither the world nor any of its people will be secure. Inflation is rampant. Women's experiences and feminine values are sources of such alternatives. and ecological collapse toward the achievement of a truly just world peace and authentic global security. on the contrary. millions are without clean. Until we understand the connections among these four expectations and the other global problems deriving from their frustration. comprehensive fashion based on an understanding of the interrelationships among them. and reduced living conditions to circumstances that of themselves were lethal. fundamental education. with its advancing weapons development. Yet. But little public heed has been paid. eroding rather than assuring our expectation of protection or "defense. Feminine Characteristics as Approaches to Peace and Security The discussions in this book and elsewhere of the need for women's participation in public affairs are essentially a call to valorize those feminine characteristics that are conducive to peace and comprehensive approaches to security. Yet a review of the Declaration of the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination against Women provides a list of a broad and tragic range of impediments to women's personal well-being that still prevail throughout the world. repressive systems that deny the personal well being and human rights of ethnic groups and political dissenters. Most of these are women. 66 . potable water. Next. WOMEN AND PEACE—FEMINIST VISIONS OF GLOBAL SECURITY. 1993. that human dignity and integrity will be respected. trafficking encourage armed conflict. arms production and Apartheid and racism in various forms impede the social development of many indigenous peoples. local conflicts rage that daily impose death and suffering on noncombatants as well as armed forces. The 1991 war in the Persian Gulf and the 1992 war in a disintegrating Yugoslavia took uncounted numbers of civilian lives. produced hundreds of thousands of refugees. that we can be protected from preventable harm and cared for in times of disaster without enduring greater harm. A flourishing trade in conventional arms fuels the flames of these conflicts and consumes resources in a truly incendiary manner. or political policies at local. Yet." Each of these expectations has been the focus of major United Nations reports and declarations on development. women's movements and initiatives are insisting that we must turn our attention to meeting these four fundamental expectations that constitute authentic security. and health care of any kind. adequate food. has also further diverted resources from social and human purposes as it escalates to the point of the possibility of total destruction. p. and personal well-being and possibilities for individual and social development will not be impeded by traditional customs. the environment. Third. Some feminists argue that these characteristics hold the greatest possibilities Alternative approaches are an urgent necessity.

WHAT WE OWE OUR COUNTRY. 67 . It means merely that there is general acquiescence in the proposition that indifference to the rights of minorities can mutate. I remember a perfect expression of what I am talking about. in any case.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Minority Rights – Buckley FAILURE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TRIGGERS GENOCIDE William Buckley. one might have called workaday anti-Semitism. now virtually eradicated or vastly diminished. to genocide. A distinguished public figure remarked casually that he would today leave the table in protest if he heard spoken such aninadversions on the Jews as were routinely spoken at his father's table when he was a boy. 1990. The change doesn't mean (no change ever will) the end of ethnic-oriented derisive humor. even though much of it is selfconsciously surreptitious m tone. p. 24 A second change has to do with what. nationally renowned conservative writer. No doubt the most immediate cause of this sea change was the Holocaust. and during this century has done so. It was a private lunch.

riots. he remains silent. By the principle of the intervening action. philosophy professor. EVEN IF IT MEANS OUR OWN DEATH Watson. it does not affect his moral duty not to torture his mother to death. There is a strict analogy here between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral. The moral world contains pits and lions. Martin Luther King. Chicago. philosophy professor. the reply would be that these rights cannot justifiably be secured at the price of the rights of blacks. if a prisoner of war undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration will hurt no one. The ultimate test always harks back to the highest principle – recant or die. and deaths that ensued and that were shaking the American Republic to its foundations. 68 . WORLD HUNGER AND MORAL OBLIGATION. WE AREN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF INTERVENING ACTORS Alan Gewirth.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Morality – Watson WE MUST ACT MORALLY. Similarly. Since the moral responsibility is not the son’s. Washington University. or that he does not harm them but only fails to help them. p. For example. if one is to be moral. one distributes available food in equal shares even if everyone dies. was repeatedly told that because he led demonstrations in support of civil rights. The point is rather that it is only through the intervening lethal actions of the terrorists that his refusal eventuates in many deaths. 1994. (PDNSS1622) An example of this principle may help to show its connection with the absolutist thesis. 118-9. 1977. it was King’s opponents who were responsible because their intervention operated as the sufficient conditions of the riots and injuries. One may even have to sacrifice one’s life or one’s nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would preserve it. so that her correlative right remains absolute. Jr. King might also have replied that the Republic would not be worth saving if the price that had to be paid was the violation of the civil rights of black Americans. ABSOLUTISM AND ITS CONSEQUENTIALIST CRITICS. however. It follows from the principle of the intervening action that it is not the son but rather the terrorists who are morally as well as causally responsible for the many deaths that do or may ensue on his refusal to torture his mother to death. but one looks always to the highest light. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save one’s life or nation. Morality -. The ultimate test always harks back to the highest principle – recant or die – and it is pathetic to profess morality if one quits when the going gets rough. he was morally responsible for the disorders. or that he intends their deaths obliquely but not directly. As for the rights of other Americans to peace and order. pp. The important point is not that he lets these persons die rather than kills them.Gewirth JUST LIKE MARTIN LUTHER KING WASN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE OF WHITE SUPREMACISTS. 38. That an action is necessary to save one’s life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or moral. and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian.

Above all. 766-7] Initial analyses of NATO's future prospects overlooked at least three important factors that have helped to ensure the alliance's enduring relevance. it works to prevent such conflicts from arising at all by actively promoting stability within the former Soviet bloc. And. But even the United States has a significant stake in preserving a peaceful and prosperous Europe. NATO clearly serves the interests of its European members.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                NATO Good COLLAPSE OF NATO CAUSES MULTIPLE ESCALATORY NUCLEAR WARS John Duffield. Most importantly. and as the host for considerable direct foreign investment by American companies — remain substantial. at a deeper level. but also the relatively new concerns raised by conflicts in neighboring regions. Since the end of the cold war. In addition to strong transatlantic historical and cultural ties. given the existence of nuclear weapons. In fact. the United States could easily be drawn into a future major war in Europe. moreover. These include not only the residual threat posed by Russian military power. 1994 [Political Science Quarterly 109:5.11 69 . NATO has helped stabilize Western Europe. products. the alliance has begun to develop two important new functions. the consequences of which would likely be even more devastating than those of the past. the pessimists failed to consider NATO's capacity for institutional adaptation. American economic interests in Europe— as a leading market for U. Assistant Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia. First. In all these ways. NATO still serves to secure its members against a number of actual or potential dangers emanating from outside their territory. NATO is increasingly seen as having a significant role to play in containing and controlling militarized conflicts in Central and Eastern Europe. NATO has contributed to making the use of force in relations among the countries of the region virtually inconceivable. Second.S. they underestimated the extent to which external threats sufficient to help justify the preservation of the alliance would continue to exist. By damping the security dilemma and providing an institutional mechanism for the development of common security policies. If history is any guide. p. NATO pessimists overlooked the valuable intra-alliance functions that the alliance has always performed and that remain relevant after the cold war. as a source of valuable imports. whose states had often been bitter rivals in the past.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                70 .

The North Pole. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources. including London. there will still be hard times. seem more concerned about threats to people than with threats to the Earth. Extra heat from any source. Global warming. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people. Even if they were right about its dangers. global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited.000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. since he spoke. like a fire. is accelerating and almost no time is left to act. energy source . the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1. as we piled on fuel. Their grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat. Venice. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm. PhD Medicine – London School of Hygiene – Fellow of the Royal Society. worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. When that happens. was far-sighted to say that suggests it could be even more serious. in the 18th century. and in some ways are like a planetary disease. and according to Swiss meteorologists. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. which is global warming.co. The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming. is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback. not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its well being. New York and Tokyo. only one billion people lived on Earth. I find it sad and ironic that the UK. But we do not have 50 years.uk/commentators/article61727. 2004. winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. Not only the Arctic is changing. Gaia. These fears are unjustified. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger. in 30 years. few options remain. The scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100. but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway. and make cosmetic attempts. May 24. let us use the small input from renewables sensibly. and its effects are more than additive. to hide the political embarrassment of global warming. that greenhouse gases and temperatures both are rising.now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet. which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners. if we burn crops grown for fuel this could hasten our decline. will then be no more than a point on the ocean surface. and even if we act successfully in amelioration. Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of southern Florida under water. But with six billion. is amplified. The prospects are grim. as did more than 20. and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice. He may even have underestimated. its white reflecting ice. little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. there are no doubts least because through our eyes the Earth has seen herself in all her glory. The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time. Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. Worse still. THE INDEPENDENT. and this is what I fear will happen in much of the world. as in war. important among them is the denial of climate change in the US where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed.independent. and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver.ece Sir David King. p. But in the Arctic. We are tough and it would take more than the climate catastrophe to eliminate all breeding pairs of humans. its 71 . What makes global warming so serious and so urgent is that the great Earth system. but through civilisation we redeem ourselves and become a precious asset for the Earth.000 to one. By all means. We have stayed in ignorance for many reasons. we can not continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables.000 years. the Green lobbies and the media. and for the world. their biodiversity. whether from greenhouse gases. The Green lobbies. goal of so many explorers. such as the Kyoto Treaty.000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer. their impact was small enough for it not to matter what energy source they used. When. what is at risk is civilisation. available. civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear . So what should we do? We can just continue to enjoy a warmer 21st century while it lasts. oxygen. burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation. may become dark sea that absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight. rejects their warnings and advice. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds. that will stretch our grandchildren to the limit. True. not There is a chance we may be saved by an unexpected event such as a series of volcanic eruptions severe enough to block out sunlight and so cool the Earth. the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately. we may die even sooner. mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen. the disappearance of Arctic ice or the Amazon forest. and they are not. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300. It was a warning of worse to come.Lovelock RENEWED NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT PREVENTS OTHERWISE INEVITABLE EXTINCTION James Lovelock. wind. imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars. the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20. warming is more than twice as great as here in Europe and in summertime. enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world. http://comment. Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction.the one safe. Director of the Marine Biological Society. torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's kilometre-high glaciers. Whatever doubts there are about future climates. new evidence of climate change the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far. and failed to notice. which should have given priority to global warming. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. the Government's chief scientist. but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Nuclear Power Good -. It may take a disaster worse than last summer's European deaths to wake us up. but by then the sea will have risen seven metres. the area of the US. and Most of us are aware of some degree of warming. tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time. As individual animals we are not so special. because. Calcutta. and prefers to listen to the Greens. which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists. and growing.

their implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification for their continued existence. The Carter Doctrine. and durability. made it plain that US military might would be applied to the project of dominating the world’s oil wealth: henceforth.” In the past 60 years. 2003. While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945. 72 . War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. power. while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US. ostensibly in response to the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. or engaged in direct or indirect military action. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy. the US military and intelligence services have grown to become bureaucracies of unrivaled scope. Rather. If all-out competition is pursued with the available weapons of awesome power. core faculty member at New College of California. But after the end of the Cold War the American military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. the US military apparatus grew exponentially. During the Cold War. The Party’s Over: Oil. or its allies. including military force. the result could be the destruction not just of industrial civilization. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national groups opposing that hegemony. Even citizens of nations that export oil – such as Venezuela and Iran – use only a small fraction of the energy US citizens use per capita.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Oil Wars – Extinction OIL WARS CAUSE EXTINCTION Richard Heinberg. p. any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an “assault on the vital interests of the United States” and would be “repelled by any means necessary. but of humanity and most of the biosphere. 230 Today the average US citizen uses five times as much energy as the world average. declared in 1980. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. its agents. it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a total of 19 countries and stationed troops. foreign or domestic. in dozens of others. This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world.

” With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer. http://www.priweb. Therefore.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp. 73 . all these theories are possible but also have many faults and create much controversy in determining if it is the one exact theory which will explain this historic mass extinction.the Supernova explosion. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species. these problems could cause widespread destruction of life.htm Lastly.This was the biggest extinction event in the last 500 million years. Permian Extinction. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destruction. A supernova occurring 30 light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone layer for several years.large amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus “global and atmospheric cooling. and researchers want a theory that is scientifically rigorous. a new theory has been proposed.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Ozone Destruction Bad -.Extinction OZONE DESTRUCTION EMPIRICALLY CAUSED MASS EXTINCTIONS ON EARTH Paleontological Research Institute.

instantly or eventually. all the soil. all the water. 74 . and the interlocking and the international nature of the military order which even defines the major rifts in world politics. as described by a leading feminist in an address to the Community Aid Abroad State Convention. ‘intelligence’ networks. to survive the toughest violent initiation. spheres of influence derived from their supply. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. 30-2 (PDNSS6401) In an article entitled “Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War” (1983). which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to “strut their stuff” as we watch with increasing horror. Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. intervention—both overt and covert. Reardon. the rise in the number of national security states. Australia: These then are the outward signs of militarism across the world today: weapons-building and trading in them. Director of the Peace Education Program at Teacher’s College Columbia University. and supply of hardware to. A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance. . (Spretnak 1983) These cultural tendencies have produced our current crisis of a highly militarized. To prove dominance and control. paralyzed. which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used. to all living things. But there is no longer any battlefield. 13 the militarization of diplomacy. If we believe that war is a “necessary evil. to shed the sacred blood of the hero.” that patriarchal assumptions are simply “human nature. Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. not parity. 1993. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial. Melbourne. why are discussions in our national forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is badly needed . p.” then we are locked into a lie. Neither are they solely economic. to distance one’s character from that of women. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. violent world that in spite of the decline of the cold war and the slowing of the military race between the superpowers is still staring into the abyss of nuclear disaster. She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Patriarchy – Reardon PATRIARCHY IS THE ROOT OF THE WAR SYSTEM Betty A. all the air. training of military personnel. to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay—all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. torture. the despoilation of the planet. Since a major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions. largescale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend. the positioning of military bases on foreign soil. and training of police. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking. . more and more countries coming under direct military rule.

The more disasters. a shorter and shorter period between undulations of disaster and rebound.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Population – Tobias OVERSHOOT CAUSES TOTAL GLOBAL EXTINCTION THROUGH BIODICDE AND NUCLEAR CONFLICT Michael Tobias. Dartmouth. the more rapid the human population resurges. for example. The will mean. 1998. WORLD WAR III: POPUALTION AND THE BIOSPHERE AT THE END OF THE MILLENNIUM. For those who temporarily survive this vague and distant bang. The logic of all things finite permits catastrophe only up to a point. will admit to no succession. the more people. within a human generation or less. must unleash a global Armageddon on a scale that will admit to no swift and easy population resurgence thereafter. What this has meant is that the more epidemics. or whimper – however one view the generic calamity – it might be a blessing. or an ecological virus of global proportions. and pesticide-resistant insects. crime. p. Tragedy invokes biological success. But the irony must not be missed. the dreams and miracles of the most recent several hundred million years of biological activity. eventual extinction. war and infant mortality. The events of which I speak would undo. one that has totally closed the ecological circle of attrition. namely. 408 The second pattern of millennial long waves is analogous to mutational bacteria. beyond which a tragedy too vast. viruses. There must come a time when one inferno will actually prevent us from repopulating. Such ineluctable confluences of human numbers following the wake of human self-destruction. assistant professor of Environmental Affairs and Humanities. the more people. the more disasters. But there is no consolation whatsoever in this posthuman scenario. of course. A nuclear holocaust. 75 .

. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. and the jealous envy of genius. In 1930. economist. trade and foreign exchange controls. facing only a mild recession. fear of challenge. "for a nation to specialize in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to them. More fundamentally. That being so. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true. The protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change. that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. is the only solution. Check on how the issue is being taught in the schools. after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace). Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West. WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS. US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. But to trade is to become 76 . If mankind is to survive. the market place is a most humane institution. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. and specialization increases output. then these primeval fears must be defeated. and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports . Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends." he said. "Over the same span of history.a major factor leading to the American Civil War. when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule. and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism." In the 20th century. which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. In the late 19th Century. and there should be no consent to the current waves of restrictive trade or capital control legislation being passed. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition . rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. effectively moving communities farther apart. even warfare." Protectionism Bad – War (Spicer) PROTECTIONISM CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR Michael Spicer. When trade is cut off entirely. Free trade is too important an issue to leave in the hands of politicians. member of the British Parliament.thus. "For thousands of years. a period that also saw no major wars." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE TRADE A century and a half ago French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial. 121 The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring. to crush his rival. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes. the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization possible. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . The result? World trade came to a grinding halt. or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. . p. The protectionist is not against the use of every kind of force. ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries. The depression in turn led to World War II.free-market. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Protectionism Bad – Extinction PROTECTIONISM MEANS EXTINCTION MILLER AND ELWOOD International Society for Individual Liberty 1988 http://www. 1996. followed by citizen action. etc. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970. the tireless effort of productive men and women has been spent trying to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce and trade. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace. the real producers may as well be on different planets. it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free trade. over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws." WHAT CAN YOU DO? Silence gives consent. and that it is important to your future. Within a year. monetary devaluation. Widespread public understanding of this issue.html TRADE WARS: BOTH SIDES LOSE When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B".

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               
interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.


Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Peace Process – Generally Good
THE PEACE PROCESS IS KEY TO PREVENT REGIONAL WAR Zaki Chehab, Arab Political Journalist, 2006

[“War – Who can stop it now?”, Jul 24th, http://www.newstatesman.com/200607240016]
There is a lesson that Israel needs to learn from its failure to prevent Hezbollah's missiles from raining down on its cities, even though its military has recourse to US-made Patriot missiles which, in theory, should divert or stop them. The message is that the only way forward is a long-term solution that will bring justice to the Palestinians and peace to Lebanon and Israel. And this can be achieved only by "an honest broker": that is to say, one who can and will enforce a just peace plan on both Israel and the Palestinians. Israel must not be given preferential treatment. Forcing the weak party (the Palestinians or the Lebanese) to accept deals will ensure that those deals do not last. The key to resolving the crisis in the region is not, as the US president, George W Bush, suggests, simply to release the captured soldiers. Nor does the answer lie in plans such as those outlined by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for the deployment of a European or international force on the border between Lebanon and Israel. This would provide only a partial solution. Behind the current crisis is the long-term crisis: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Only a revival of the peace process, marked by a genuine commitment from Israel (which must be guaranteed by the United States, the United Nations and Europe and based on the "road map"), will give the Palestinians a ray of hope that the end of the occupation is in sight.


Roy Balleste, Associate Law Library Director at Nova Southeastern University School of Law, 2004 [Revista de Derecho Puertorriqueno 43 Rev. D.P. 249 “The International Status of Jerusalem: The Legacy of Lasting Peace”p. 275-6]
Once again, I am reminded of the words of St. Thomas Aquinas. He stated that "friends need not agree in opinion, but only upon such goods as conduce to life, and especially upon such as are important; because dissension in small matters is scarcely accounted dissension." Cooperation for success is the key to a permanent solution for the legal status of Jerusalem. As of 18 February 2003, the city of Jerusalem was still called "the key to peace." Now there is a constant mention by the media of a new agreement or 'road map' for the final settlement of peace in the region. President George W. Bush recently announced the potential establishment of a road map for peace. If this plan is finally implemented, Jerusalem will be discussed when phase three of the plan is implemented in 2005. The only remaining comment to be made concerns the entry into force of any proposed new agreement. Whether this or any other agreement will work is a matter of excitement. Since failure by either party will be enough to prevent a resolution, it will be a matter of some anxiety to see whether sufficient cooperation is gathered, and in what sort of timetable. Finally, it has been my attempt to create an analysis, to inform and propose. Not to end, but to provide an additional alternative. I have analyzed international legal issues pertaining Jerusalem with a high conviction that the application of international legal agreements is the proper method of resolving most difficult international disagreements, no matter what they might be. In the end, a common goal should be achieved: the resolution of the Jerusalem question, an indispensable goal with international legal implications. In my humble opinion, there is little understanding about the legal significance of the city, and yet Jerusalem represents an invaluable asset for humanity. It is the most "potential" place on the planet for the creation of new peace, and its religious significance is a remainder to future generations of the accomplishment of human beings in the pursuit of world peace. But above all, the legal framework of Jerusalem may become its greatest legacy to humanity, the legacy of lasting peace.


Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Peace Process – Generally Good

[“Two preconditions for hope in the Middle East”, London (UK): Jul 19, p. 19, PROQUEST]
The election of Hamas both illustrated the dangers of democracy without a stable political foundation and that the Palestinians could not be a real peace partner. So, however, did Israeli unilateralism and reliance on isolation of the Palestinians. Israel's efforts to drive Hamas from political power simply made things worse. Isolated and impoverished Palestinians became more extreme; Iran, Syria and outside extremists gained more footholds; and Mahmoud Abbas, the PA's new leader, became weaker. Israel's extraordinary sensitivity to casualties and hostages made it vulnerable in other ways. The IDF invasion of Gaza and attacks on Hamas further radicalised younger and more militant Palestinians and they - not politicians or their parents - have the guns and ability to carry out attacks. Two things must happen if thereis to be any real hope. First, the United Nations must help Lebanon disarm Hizbollah, stop it receiving further arms from Iran and Syria and halt its military aid to Hamas. Brokering a ceasefire and another hollow UN peacekeeping force will have only a cosmetic impact, at best. Second, the Quartet group of Middle East mediators must put severe pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians: on Israel, to halt unilateral expansion into the West Bank and aid moderate Palestinian voices; on the Palestinians, to understand that aid and support are tied to either Hamas changing or going. This must be followed by a "road map" that confronts both sides with a true peace plan, specific final settlement proposals and a time schedule. Half measures and conventional diplomacy have all the value of putting lipstick on a pig and will be neither Halal nor Kosher. THE PEACE PROCESS IS KEY TO DEMOCRACY PROMOTION States News Service, 2006 [“BUSH RENEWS U.S. COMMITMENT TO PEACE IN MIDDLE EAST” 7-22 LN] America remains committed to lasting peace in the Middle East. The United States and our partners will continue to seek a return to the road map for peace in the Middle East, which sets out the pathway to establishing a viable democratic Palestinian state that will live in peace with Israel. We will continue to support moderate leaders, like Palestinian Authority President Abbas. We will continue to call on Hamas to end its acts of terror. And now, more than ever, the Palestinians need leaders who are not compromised by terror and who will help the Palestinian people provide a future for their children based on regional peace and security. In the long-term, this peace will come only by defeating the terrorist ideology of hatred and fear. The world's best hope for lasting security and stability across the Middle East is the establishment of free and just societies. America and our allies will act decisively because we know our security is at stake in this struggle and we know the cause of freedom will prevail.


capital punishment. 19541973). in effect. in fact accelerating. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals. James Gilligan. This form of violence. the Vietnam war (possibly two million. soldiers in warfare. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years. and the U. James Gilligan observes. not covered by any of the majoritarian. Dr. in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence. equally immersed. In other word. thermonuclear war. By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society. every fifteen years. unending. the equivalent of an ongoing. and to a deeper degree. This is. These are not acts of God.000 deaths per year from armed conflict. ruling-class protected media. it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence. or genocide. throughout the world. in effect. throughout the world. all the more insidious. and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices..S. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure. This is. corporate. and every single year. in fact accelerating. including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year. unending. two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period.iacenter.R (232 million). thermonuclear war. 2000. suicide.org/violence. GILLIGAN PHD PSYCHIATRY – HARVARD PROFESSOR 1998 (Cited by Mumia “A Quiet and Deadly Violence”) http://www. VIOLENCE: REFLECTIONS ON OUR DEADLIEST EPIDEMIC. as contrasted by those who are above them. and every single year. 1935-1945). Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year cause by structural violence compare with about 100. is invisible to us and because of its invisibility. and so on. concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer.htm We live. two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade. on the average. MD. 80 . which continues year after year.000 deaths). Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence. p 195-196. of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Poverty – Gilligan POVERTY IS THE EQUIVALENT TO A WOULD-BE THERMONUCLEAR WAR BETWEEN THE FORMER-USSR AND THE US EVERY 15 YEARS. Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School. as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths. such as the deaths we attribute to homicide. the equivalent of an ongoing. the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575. such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths. on the average.S. as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths. --(Gilligan. J.S.

1984. people have a right to a private life. People can be held socially accountable only for respecting the rights of others. and can be thought to have obligations to promote the welfare of society only if these obligations have been voluntarily assumed or if especially pressing reasons are operative. 81 . Professor of Philosophy. p. University of South Carolina.21.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Privacy – Schoenman PRIVACY IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT TYRANNY Ferdinand Schoeman. In other words. PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF PRIVACY. George Orwell’s novel 1984 presents one picture of what life would be like in a society which did not limit itself in the way Benn prescribes. (DRGCL/B1128) Benn suggests that part of our notion of a person as free is that he is subject to the authority and scrutiny of others only within reasonable and legally safeguarded limits.

Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped. political and ideological. if not all. Fall. the world may even be a more polite place than it is today.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Proliferation – Utgoff NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CAUSES EXTINCTION Victor Utgoff. but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. 1997. SURVIVAL. but the very life on earth.dsi. Forces. and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis. nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips.2002. Proliferation – End of the World PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND THREATENS SURVIVAL Alla Karimova. rejecting a policy aimed at the domination of one by another. we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. 82 . With most.html (MHHAR2216) Proliferation of nuclear weapons on the planet is the major threat to the survival of humanity.unimi. p. Nuclear weapons are able to destroy not only what has been created by mankind throughout the past centuries. Possibilities of a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Creation in Central Asia.uspid. and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. In the epoch of nuclear disarmament it is necessary to work out a new world conception based on the principles of refraining from the threat or use of force. Deputy Director of the Strategy. http://www. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Uzbekistan.it/proceed/cast97/karimova. 87-90 In sum. widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons. as well as of respect of every nation's rights to self-determination: social.

but rather because her existing stockpile of atomic missiles would make it too costly for us to threaten China. Libya. and Germany alone could use our economic power to dictate the enforcement mechanism of a treaty designed to protect against Armageddon.S. As September 11th also shows. The U. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U. and chemical weapons. however. or Germany. Normal trade sanctions. America seems to be doing little while many of our foes acquire the strength to destroy U. If it's politically impossible for America to use military force against currently non-hostile dictators then we should use trade sanctions to punish nations who don't agree to our proliferation policy. Under this approach. believe that if only the U. This is not because China has proved herself worthy to have the means of mass annihilation. needs to deploy secondary boycotts. cities. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons. do not provide the punishing power necessary to induce dictators to abandon their arms. should reinterpret international law to give no rights to tyrants.. we should be entirely Machiavellian. for example. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This would obviously be intolerable to France. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach.S. We should demand that countries like Iraq. With dictatorships. It's too late to stop the Chinese from gaining the ability to decimate us.True. We can't rely upon deterrence to prevent an atomic powered dictator from striking at us. the Nazi's killed millions of Jews even though the Holocaust took resources away from their war effort. the world's cultural elites would be shocked and appalled if we took preventive military action against countries that are currently doing us no harm. What about the rights of those countries I have proposed threatening? America should not even pretend to care about the rights of dictators.S. there exist evil men in the world who would gladly sacrifice all other goals for the opportunity to commit mass murder. however. The U. should take not even the slightest unnecessary chance that some dictator. biological. America should create a treaty. France and Britain allowed Nazi Germany's military power to grow until Hitler was strong enough to take Paris. 83 . the greater the pressure on other countries to sign. In the 21st century the only leaders whom we should recognize as legitimate are those who were democratically elected. or perhaps even a European city. To make trade sanctions an effective weapon the U. but for the next ten years or so it is not too late to stop some of our other rivals.S. if France did not sign.S. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders. they would be unable to trade with the U. 2002.Miller THE GREATEST RISK OF EDXTINCTION IS FROM PROLIFERATION James D. What is truly shocking. We shouldn't demand that China abandon her nuclear weapons. p. Germany and France adopted the treaty every European nation would have to sign or face a total economic collapse.S. would be willing to give up his life for the opportunity to hit America with nuclear missiles. perhaps a dying Saddam Hussein. Iran. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. not even the right to exist. For example. If we simply don't trade with a nation other countries will sell them the goods that we used to provide. Remember. Miller.S. Once the U. any country which violated America's policy on weapons proliferation would face almost a complete economic boycott.shtml The U. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe.. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic. Smith College. and • not trade with any country which violates our policy on weapons proliferation. The more countries which sign the treaty. professor of economics. January 23. however. http://www. the U.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Proliferation -. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy.S. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. Once most every country has signed. we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. It's obviously in our self-interest to prevent as many dictators as possible from acquiring the means to destroy us.nationalreview. NATIONAL REVIEW. is that America is doing almost nothing while countries that have expressed hatred for us are building weapons of mass destruction. and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons.com/comment/comment-miller012302.S. and.S. We should have an ethically based foreign policy towards democratic countries. Germany initially signed this treaty then nearly every other country would be forced to do so. we should deal with them based upon what is in our own best interests. the signatories of which would agree to: • only trade with countries which have signed the treaty. say.

It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. SOMEDAY YOU MAY TOO BE THE STRANGER WHO WILL BE IN NEED OF RESPECT Memmi. In short. the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. 165 (DRGCL/B1046)] Of course.Memmi RACISM MUST BE REFUSED – ITS REFUSAL IS A PRECONDITION FOR MORALITY AND FOR THE CONTINUATION OF SOCIETY. Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Racism -. this is debatable. however implicit it might be. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. "Recall. There are those who think that if one is strong enough. the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death." says the Bible.indeed. RACISM. the roles will be reversed. 1997 [Albert." which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. One day. 84 . "that you were once a stranger in Egypt. It is an ethical and a practical appeal -. p. it is a contract. perhaps.

involvement in combat.Heritage Foundation) http://www.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Readiness -. thereby preserving peace. Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security @ the Institute for International Studies.org/Research/ MissileDefense/BG1394. 2000 (The Facts About Military Readiness -. Heritage Foundation.S.heritage. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest. potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests. 85 . Therefore.Key To Hegemony READINESS IS CRUCIAL FOR HEGEMONY Jack Spencer.cfm Military readiness is vital because declines in America’s military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. inevitably leading to U.

in stability. Spring 1997. 31] Edward Olsen's article in Strategic Review said that our forces should leave Northwest Asia and center our military posture on U. STRATEGIC REVIEW. We are now supremely powerful and can enforce peace by intervening before a limited war spreads. p. Professor of History and Classics at Yale. But post-Cold War instability makes a proactive U. British appeasement before the world wars facilitated aggression. READINESS SOLVES GLOBAL CONFLICT Donald Kagan. power and thus not be a neutral act that would leave the situation as it stands. ORBIS. 1997 [Donald. 1998 [Wyatt. Retired General Partner and Purple Heart. but is essential to preserve peace.S. The last three-quarters of the twentieth century strongly suggest the opposite conclusion: major war is more likely to come when satisfied states neglect their defenses and fail to take active part in the preservation of peace. and likelihood of war would be infinitely greater than the cost of continuing to uphold the existing 86 . and most devastating means of changing the balance of international power. policy essential. although one of the most common errors in modern thinking about international relations is the assumption that peace is natural and can be preserved merely by having peace-seeking nations avoid provocative actions.S. The cost of the resulting upheaval in wealth. 188-9] America's most vital interest therefore.S. The diminution of U. It will be expensive in money and lives. Fall 1998. p. It is vital to understand that the current relatively peaceful and secure situation is neither inevitable nor immutable. it would be critical step in undermining the stability of the international situation. and the American people must be prepared to pay that cost. Instead. But peace does not keep itself.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Readiness – Stops Global War PROACTIVE DETERRENCE SOLVES WWIII Barnes. territory. is maintaining the general peace for war has been the swiftest. It reflects two conditions built up with tremendous effort and expense during the last half century: the great power of the United States and the general expectation that Americans will be willing to use that power when necessary. most expensive. The alternative is World War III. Calculations based on the absence of visible potential enemies would immediately be made invalid by America's withdrawal from its current position as the major bulwark supporting the world order.

however. since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. If conditions get worse. But with the Communist Party out of office. If war erupts. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war. however. Should Russia succumb to internal war. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. A major power like Russia not suffer civil war quietly or alone. the consequences would be even worse. the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more. Russia's 89 republics. Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken. the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. http://www. ten years ago. In a society where. in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show. food. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all. but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe.personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. and medical care. but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life. Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force.foreignaffairs. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions. nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. krais. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. Within Russia. would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. economic deterioration will be a prime cause. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force. political scientist. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing. Meanwhile.David RUSSIAN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CAUSES A CIVIL WAR THAT ESCALATES AND GOES NUCLEAR Steven David. From 1989 to the present. Draftees serve closer to home. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). civil war is likely. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay. making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of antiAmerican groups and states.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Russian Economy -.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far). p. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. it reached 9. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow. Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending.even though in decline -. January/February 1999. -.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars. housing. it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. power devolves to the periphery. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial. and wages. the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. So far.does 87 . An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China.html If internal war does strike Russia. particularly attacks on nuclear plants. unemployment scarcely existed. With the economy collapsing. Russia retains some 20.

Meanwhile. Always afraid of a coup. Even if all of these demands are met (so far only the last has been addressed). p. the religious threat to the regime will persist. The government thinks that the damage done to the economy by failing to raise taxes or make major spending cuts is less dangerous than the alternative. Led by different members of the royal family. This extremist opposition is no longer just made up of the lower classes and fringe elements that violently took over Mecca's Grand Mosque in 1979. Religion in Saudi Arabia also does more to undermine the current regime than to prop up its legitimacy. and called for the creation of a consultative council to assist the king in governing.000 full time. Since the Gulf War.David SAUDI ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES INTERNAL DESTABILIZATION AND CIVIL WAR Steven David. making an interruption in its flow even more dangerous.000 men) and the National Guard (30. Islam. which might alienate large portions of the population. especially those with religious educations who found no jobs waiting for them on graduation. communications between the Guard and the military are kept to a minimum. the estimated $ 65 billion it spent on the Gulf War only exacerbated matters. The timid Saudi government must constantly buy the people's loyalty with material comforts. The same factors that have kept its regime in power -. But if the economy continues to deteriorate. Saudi Arabia's per capita GDP plunged from $ 17. Struggling to cope with these problems. They enjoy substantial support in the cities and among the younger generation. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. the regime has never learned to convince its subjects to sacrifice for the good of the state (nor have the citizens learned to weather privation). only to return home and find a government of questionable Islamic purity in a state 88 . the military. Unemployment among high school and university graduates rose to an alarming 25 percent. the two forces pursue distinct missions and draw on separate segments of the population: the regular military gets its recruits mostly from cities and towns while the Guard uses rural tribesmen. the outcome will be catastrophic not just for the United States but for the world. To prevent a coordinated coup. as a result. there seems little hope of major cuts in expenditures. Oil has spared the Saudi government from the need to tax its citizens.000 reserves). Saudi Arabia is extremely vulnerable to internal war. That might not have become a problem had oil prices not begun to drop in the 1980s.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars.000 early in that decade to around $ 7. While dividing the military in this way may make it more difficult for a discontented prince to seize power at the head of a united army.and if the kingdom succumbs to civil war. But as long as the royal family continues to benefit from government spending by receiving lavish kickbacks from foreign contractors.the oil economy. Meanwhile. but this has the side effect of enhancing their distinct identities. And their ranks are swollen with the hundreds of disgruntled Saudi volunteers who fought a holy war against the Russians in Afghanistan.the traditional power base of the royal family.foreignaffairs. Sunni notables have urged the government to sever ties with non-Muslim countries. even as oil revenues plummet (oil export earnings are expected to shrink from $ 43 billion in 1997 to just over $ 29 billion in 1998). Instead. there is even less hope for Saudi Arabia -.000 today. many of them from the Najd region -.could now fuel an insurrection. political scientist. Fabulous oil wealth has been a mixed blessing for Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers have split the military into the regular armed forces (roughly 100. global dependence on Saudi oil will only increase in coming years. 15. it includes well-educated members of the middle class.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Saudi Arabian Economy -. the Saudi military presents another possible source of division. Sunni Muslim religious leaders have launched unprecedented challenges to the royal family. it also means that a struggle in the royal family could pit the armed forces against the Guard. the government will have to make hard choices that could rock the Saudi state. http://www. January/February 1999. Meanwhile.html AS LIKELY as is conflict in Mexico. the royal family -. when the Saudi government welcomed "infidel" troops from the West. questioned the royal family's business dealings. A country built on contradictions. in the face of increased expenses the Saudi economy has become more and more dependent on it. the government has incurred large deficits since 1983. Rather than reduce its reliance on oil.

The bad economy intensifies religious extremism. 150 percent in 1979. And all this occurred at a time when the United States was less dependent on foreign petroleum than it is now. which in turn exacerbates divisions in the armed forces. Destruction of these facilities would paralyze production and take at least six months to repair. and infighting. economy even now. whose 1980 riots shook the foundations of the Saudi regime. causing spiraling inflation and a decline in savings rates that plagues the U.S. The oil shocks of the 1970s threw the United States into recession. 89 . For either side to cripple oil production would not be difficult. Cutting the Saudi pipeline today would cause a severe worldwide recession or depression.000 Saudi Shiites in the oil-rich east. A power struggle in the royal family over succession to the throne. would have a massive and protracted impact on the price and availability of oil worldwide. Prices for oil shot up 400 percent in 1973.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                where the standard of living had plummeted. with reserves estimated at 25 percent of the world's total. The real risk lies not with the onshore oil wells themselves. A crisis in the planet's largest oil producer. If unconventional weapons such as biological agents were used in the oil fields. As the disruptions of 1973 and 1979 showed. gas lines. In a Saudi civil war. as belligerents seek the revenue and international recognition that come with control of petroleum. As the above suggests. national hysteria. the oil fields will be a likely battle site. production could be delayed for several more months until workers were convinced it was safe to return. Short of physical attack. Global demand for oil (especially in Asia) will increase in the coming decades. and 50 percent (in just 15 days) in 1990. while non-Persian Gulf supplies are expected to diminish. the mere threat of diminished oil supply can cause panic buying. squabbles over shares of an ever-shrinking economic pie. its declining ability to buy their support may ignite a renewal of their violent protests. it is the gravest threat imaginable to American interests. The catalyst for civil war can therefore come from one of several different sources. Complicating matters still further are the 500. Trillions of dollars were lost worldwide. which are spread over a 100-by-300 mile area. Saudi Arabia suffers from the fact that the various threats to domestic peace all reinforce one another. but in the country's dependence on only a few critical processing sites. As the central government runs out of cash. Stanching the flow of Saudi oil would devastate the United States and much of the world community. or disenchantment in the military with the royal family's selfish behavior could all set off a major conflagration.

or whether Exxon gets contracts instead of Lukoil or Total. Saudi Arabia is not only the world's largest oil producer and the holder of the world's largest oil reserves. Today.org/20030701faessay15401/kenneth-m-pollack/securing-thegulf. probably causing a global downturn at least as devastating as the Great Depression of the 1930s.a figure expected to increase rather than decrease in the future. and its oil is absurdly economical to produce.html America's primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large. but it also has a majority of the world's excess production capacity. 90 .S. and if that foundation were removed. July/August. Brookings. Direct or Research. This fact has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories leveled against the Bush administration during the run-up to the recent war. the global economy would collapse. 2003. which the Saudis use to stabilize and control the price of oil by increasing or decreasing production as needed. So the fact that the United States does not import most of its oil from the Persian Gulf is irrelevant: if Saudi oil production were to vanish. The Persian Gulf region has as much as two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves. the sudden loss of the Saudi oil network would paralyze the global economy. the price of oil in general would shoot through the ceiling.foreignaffairs. Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Because of the importance of both Saudi production and Saudi slack capacity. U. plentiful oil. with Saudi Arabia alone responsible for roughly 15 percent -. roughly 25 percent of the world's oil production comes from the Persian Gulf. destroying the American economy along with everybody else's. Nor do they depend on the amount of oil that the United States itself imports from the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. interests do not center on whether gas is $2 or $3 at the pump.Pollack SAUDI INSTABILITY CAUSES GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE Kenneth Pollack. The reason the United States has a legitimate and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Saudi Arabian Civil War -. http://www. with a barrel from Saudi Arabia costing anywhere from a fifth to a tenth of the price of a barrel from Russia. if not worse. FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

In any event. concerned about his failure to resolve significant social and economic problems at home. simply to defer public attention from his domestic failures. Given both the relatively limited cost imposed by use of separation of powers and the great severity of the harm sought to be avoided. common sense should tell us that the simultaneous division of power and the creation of interbranch checking play important roles toward that end. when the power of the executive branch reached what are widely deemed to have been intolerable levels. the reason for that may well have been the resilience of our political traditions. no one wants to be forced into the position of saying. The widespread violations of individual rights that took place when President Lincoln assumed an inordinate level of power. we need only look to modern American history to remind ourselves about both the general vulnerability of representative government. and the direct correlation between the concentration of political power and the threat to individual liberty. if we have begun to take the value of separation of powers for granted. Law Clerk at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But the question is whether we wish to take that risk.J." 91 . But imagine a situation in which a President. 449. the political history of which the Framers were aware tends to confirm that quite often concentration of political power ultimately leads to the loss of liberty. 1991 41 Duke L. For just as in the case of the threat of nuclear war. the President was presumably elected by a majority of the electorate. Although it would be all but impossible to create an empirical proof to demonstrate that our constitutional tradition of separation of powers has been an essential catalyst in the avoidance of tyranny. one should not demand a great showing of the likelihood that the feared harm would result. and may have to stand for reelection in the future. To be sure. at this particular point in time. p. has callously decided to engage the nation in war. and Elizabeth Cisar. To underscore the point. are well documented. Although in neither instance did the executive's usurpations of power ultimately degenerate into complete and irreversible tyranny. However. but for the existence of separation of powers.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Separation of Powers Good –War/Redish Collapse of constitutional balance of power risks tyranny and reckless warmongering Martin Redish. "I told you so. but for the system established by separation of powers. In actuality. no defender of separation of powers can prove with certitude that. thought by many to be a politically and morally justified exercise. one need imagine only a limited modification of the actual scenario surrounding the recent Persian Gulf War. given the obvious severity of the harm that might result. Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern. among the most important of which is separation of powers itself. In summary. the war was an extremely popular endeavor. Indeed. Because the Constitution reserves to the arguably even more representative and accountable Congress the authority to declare war. the Constitution has attempted to prevent such misuses of power by the executive. Arguably as egregious were the threats to basic freedoms that arose during the Nixon administration. 472-3 In any event. his authority as Commander in Chief to engage the nation in war would be effectively dictatorial. It remains unproven whether any governmental structure other than one based on a system of separation of powers could avoid such harmful results. it would be political folly to be overly smug about the security of either representative government or individual liberty. tyranny would be the inevitable outcome. for example.

animals. which were caused by natural phenomena. As various life forms disappear. such as pollination.a tragedy in terms of the prospects for human progress. and nutrient cycling. Our descendents may one day view the wholesale burning of this genetic library much as we view the burning of the library in Alexandria in 48 BC 92 . the landscapes we enjoy each day. if that is the right word. leading to irreversible changes in the earth's ecosystem. to where it can eradicate much of life. Earth Policy Institute. Unlike previous extinction events. 1999. p. Lexis (MHBLUE1256) Whether we realize it or not. SPECIES LOSS THREATENS PLANETARY SURVIVABILITY AND DIVERSITY Lester Brown. principally through the loss of tropical rainforests. and if it continues it could tear huge gaps in its fabric.0 – RESCUING A PLANET UNDER STRESS AND A CIVILIZATION IN TROUBLE. however. is such that as many as a quarter of all species may be lost within 25 years. It is basically the characteristics of the living organisms that we are squandering that afford the best chances of improving our lives and those of our grandchildren -. seed dispersal. For the first time in the earth's long history. As we burn off the Amazon rainforest. PLAN B 2. many of the remainder from fungi and bacteria. May 23. and a truly ignorant way to treat the systems on which we depend wholly for our survival now and in the future. and as many as two-thirds of them by the end of the century -. This loss of species is weakening the web of life. and more than half of it from just three members of the grass family: corn. this one is of human origin. they diminish the services provided by nature. 95 We are now in the early stage of the sixth great extinction. wheat and rice. 2006.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Species Loss – Extinction ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH. insect control. Our relationship with the Earth. we are in effect burning one of the great repositories of genetic information. Species of all kinds are threatened by habitat destruction. the soil. And almost all of the rest have been improved through knowledge gained about other naturally occurring compounds. every one of us depends directly on the Earth's living systems -. one species has evolved. fungi and micro-organisms that have made the air we breathe.the plants.but we seem unable or unwilling to act intelligently on this basic truth. p. All of our food comes directly or indirectly from plants. The great majority of medicines also are derived from plants. applied experimentally to the development of other drugs it continues.

they could still position deadly satellites disguised as commercial assets near or in the path of our most vital military satellites. 1999 [The Washington Quarterly. our targeters on satellite photos. and virtually all of our new generations of weapons on the Global Positioning System satellites for pin-point accuracy. 84] If history has taught us anything. and much of that power resides in our ability to use space for military applications. 93 . A large percentage of our military communications now passes through space. Senator. it is that a future more like the second scenario will prevail. By encouraging potential adversaries to deploy weapons into space that could quickly destroy many of these systems. It defies reason to assume that nations would sit idle while the United States invests billions of dollars in weaponizing space. a space-based arms race would render many of these more vulnerable to attack than they are today. Our troops rely on weather satellites. Even if our potential adversaries were unable to build a competing force. lose the most from a space-based arms race.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Space Militarization Bad – Robb SPACE MILITARIZATION CAUSES WAR Chuck Robb. in a relative sense. The first is that Americans would. Winter. p. The United States is currently the preeminent world military power. This second scenario suggests three equally troubling consequences. leaving them at an unprecedented disadvantage.

especially in relation to 'national security.uow. War is not simply a byproduct of the state system. war is part and parcel of the state system.' One of the most telling indictments of the state system is found in Leo Kuper's book Genocide. but are also precarious in the representative democracies.html Is the state system really so bad? War is the most obvious indictment of the system. p. to be moderated and regulated when it becomes too dangerous to populations.edu. UPROOTING THE WAR SYSTEM.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/uw07. State elites (and many others) see the world as a state-structured world. The reason for this reluctance is the concern for the autonomy of the state. the massacre of the Bangladeshis by the Pakistan army in 1971 and the extermination in Cambodia beginning in 1975. and the activities of spy agencies and secret police. maintaining the 'integrity' of the state system is more important for state elites than intervening against genocide. As wars have become more destructive. and all action is premised on this perspective. Technology and Society at the University of Wollongon. In short.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Statism – Genocide & War A STRONG STATE MAKES GENOCIDE AND WAR INEVITABLE Brian Martin is associate professor in Science. There are many other social problems caused. the United Nations) to intervene against even the most well documented genocidal killing. The state is not the only way to embody and sustain unequal power and privilege: it is a particular way involving bureaucracies for administration and military forces for defending against external and internal enemies. http://www. Kuper documents the most horrific exterminations in this century. Rather. What is damning of the state system is the reluctance of governments (and of that assemblage of state actors. Political repression is its internal form. including suppression of dissent. 1990. Political freedoms are not only at a premium under military dictatorships and state socialism. War is the external manifestation of state violence. state support for corporate elites. so the destructiveness of war makes little difference. This should not be surprising. 94 . and this alone should be enough to justify questioning the state. including the killing of the Jews by the Nazis. These problems stem essentially from the system of unequal power and privilege which the state both is part of and sustains. sustained or aggravated by the state. there is no sign that any steps to re-examine or transform the state system are being taken by state elites.

this means South Korea. Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. for instance. than be accused [by our disgruntled compatriots and posterity] of not trying to stop Taiwan from going independent. for China puts sovereignty above everything else.S. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. There would be no victors in such a war. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. hostilities between India and Pakistan. As the late patriarch Deng Xiapoing put it. Singapore’s Senior Minister. precisely with the U. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. China and the United States. 2000.-CHINA WAR OVER TAIWAN GOES NUCLEAR James Hsiung. p. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. “We rather have it proven that we trade but failed [to stop it[ even by force. he figured.S. 359-60 But decision-makers cannot afford such luxury. commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War. $15 billion annually0. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war. the Philippines and.S. could enter a new and dangerous phase: Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway. once told a pen pal that he was fearful of the outcome of a conflict between the United States and China over the question of Taiwan. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal. many in Japan have apprehensions about the stability.-Japan alliance in view. there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later. But this is the wrong question to pose.” Earlier. professor of politics and international law at NYU. June. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability. then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. with its present military capability and modest defense expenditures (about U. issued a grave warning presumably directed at all government leaders. which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. 2001. president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. In south Asia.S. I raised the issue of stability within the U. can or cannot take Taiwan by forces. While the prospect of a nuclear Annaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. But. Kohaburo argued. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. 95 . The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. that the Taiwan power kege could ignite a conflagaration that would engulf the entire region. From the ashes of such a nuclear conflict. In his book The Korean War. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. Singapore. including the United States. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. No one gains in war over Taiwan] (PDNSS2115) THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO -THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities.-China-Japan triad. some form of life may still be found in the combatant nuclear giants. short of using nuclear weapons. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. we would see the destruction of civilization. Lee Kuan Yew. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. to a lesser extent. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. well-meaning analysts raise the question whether China. Kenzaburo.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Taiwan War Impacts – Hsuing & Straits Times U. Japanese Nobel laureate (for literature) Ohe Because of its alliance relationship. there would be absolutely nothing left in Japan or Taiwan or in the conflict’s wake. 25. If China were to retaliate. east Asia will be set on fire. Straits Times. 21ST CENTURY WORLD ORDER AND THE ASIA PACIFIC. Often-times. With the US distracted. It might even embroil the United States in a nuclear holocaust that nobody wants. Japan. Japan would be embroiled in a conflict that it did not choose that might escalate into a nuclear holocaust. In the region. Apparently. it cannot be ruled out entirely.

major gaps in policy remain. the U. In addition to the immediate horrific devastation. "Extinction!" 8/26.ahram. Societies would close in on themselves. it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. such an attack could cost trillions of dollars in damages. if I could leave you with one message. p. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. especially suicidal terrorists. Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst. This could lead to a third world war.S.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.eg/2004/705/op5.cfr. http://weekly. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet. a hundred million Muslims would die as U. 2004 [Al-Ahram Weekly.S. 705. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another. it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members. say.html. to people of the United States and Western Europe.htm] What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails. www. we will all be losers. Haas A NEW WMD TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE U. of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. PREVENTING CATASTROPHIC NUCLEAR TERRORISM.S. in the 24 hours that followed. Although. because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington. November 2001. President George W. President. potentially sparking a global economic depression. no. Bush and Democratic challenger Senator John F. police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries. 2001.pdf A nuclear attack by terrorists against the United States has the potential to make the terrorist attacks of September 11.org.cnn. in the current environment or anything like it. senior editor with THE NEW REPUBLIC. Despite several U. 96 . http://www. But I think. (UNDRG/C324) Terrorists may not be held by this.S.org/content/publications/attachments/NucTerrCSR.00. government has yet to elevate nuclear terrorism prevention to the highest priority.S. look like a historical footnote. WILL TRIGGER RETALIATION THAT WILL KILL 100 MILLION PEOPLE Greg Easterbrook. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. WILL TRIGGER A GLOBAL DEPRESSION Richard Haas. tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. A NUCLEAR TERROR ATTACK ON THE U.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Nuclear) – Easterbrook. Council on Foreign Relations. and international programs to secure nuclear weapons and the materials to make them. during the 2004 presidential campaign. Amhed. Kerry agreed that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons worried them more than any other national security threat. from which no one will emerge victorious. THIS WILL ESCALATE TO MASS EXTINCTION VIA GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Mohamed Sid-Ahmed. March 2006. this war will be without winners and losers.

that on September 11. the erosion of authority and government unstoppable and the disruption of global trade and finance unprecedented. 2001. Former President of Mexico Director. 2006. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. thus far at least. Why are the United States and Israel. Alexander THIRD. the escalation in conflicts and violence uncontrollable. biological. Unlike their historical counterparts.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo. Likewise. January 9. Israel and its citizens. p. radiological. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. In short. therefore. weak punishment of terrorists. Depending on the potency of the device the loss of life could be in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions). double standards of morality. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago. Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. We all should have a pretty clear idea of what would follow a nuclear weapon's detonation in any of the world's major cities. TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION Yonah Alexander. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism. Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. 25 Even if you agree with what's being done in the war on terror. chemical. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. you still could be upset about what's not happening: doing the utmost to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack. "Terrorism myths and realities. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons." 8/28] Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. 2003 [The Washington Times. are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. regional and global security concerns. FORBES. the destruction of property in the trillions of dollars. we could practically count on the beginning of another dark age. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. 97 . It is not surprising. A NUCLEAR TERRORIST ATTACK WILL TRIGGER EVERY IMPACT SCENARIO Ernesto Zedillo.g. the religionization of politics. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national.

htm) Russia created around 250 suitcase bombs . 2004 [Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism.each of which could kill more than 100. indeed. Alexander TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION & OUTWEIGHS WAR Sean Hannity.tripod. Armageddononline. as surely as we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 98 . Though it manifests itself differently. and Liberalism. According to a Soviet defector called Aleksander Lebed it has lost track of more than 100 . A NUCLEAR TERRORIST EVENT WOULD CATALYZE AN ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WARKILLING BILLIONS. the evildoers are plotting the disruption of our lives. If America thought Russia had used nuclear weapons against it. There is no appeasing this enemy. Today or tomorrow. Possibly the worst effect of a terrorist nuclear device would be that it could trigger a nuclear war. Many of these bombs were distributed and hidden in hostile countries. pg.com/nuclear. and they will lay waste to every human life they can in the process. the destruction of our property. with recent advances in technology and the ongoing instability in the Middle East and around the world. We face the possibility of our civilization being destroyed. fanatical extremists could come in possession of suitcase nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. so one small nuclear device could kill billions. the murder of our families. Fox News Political Analyst. As you read these words. they will stop at nothing in their quest to destroy the United States. the danger may be worse than ever.nuclear weapons the size of suitcases. the threat they represent is every bit as grave as the one we experienced during World War II or the Cold War.000 people. whether through rogue nations or via black-market thugs from the former Soviet Union. Webmaster for Armageddon Online. Despotism. it would not hesitate to retaliate.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo. 6] But the terrorists are no mere political sideshow. Lewis 02 (Michael.

Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because.ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use . Like the Holocaust. The aftereffects. Biological weapons. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine." Winter.” June 9. are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth.freefromterror. pathogens do both of these things.html] Of all the weapons of mass destruction. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated. InfoTrac] Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction. the killing will probably never end. http://www. Nobody really knows how serious a possibility this might be.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Bioterrorism) – Steinbrenner & Ochs BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION John D. With nuclear and biological weapons. on the other hand. "Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses. for instance. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen. weapons are not. it is over. once a localized chemical extermination is over. While a "nuclear winter. whatever they may be. bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE.net/other_articles/abolish. decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. there is an obvious. the genetically engineered biological weapons. 99 . by contrast. Hence. could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. Chemical Weapons Working Group Member. BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM CAUSES EXTINCTION Richard Ochs. many without a known cure or vaccine. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior. their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. 2002 [“Biological Weapons must be Abolished Immediately. fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive.the risk runs in the other direction. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. Most of the damage occurs immediately. Potentially worse than that. they are easier to control. the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens . while they can also kill millions of people outright. chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Brookings Senior Fellow." resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons. it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. can get out of control very easily. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. Steinbrenner. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually forever. since there is no way to measure it reliably. 1997 [Foreign Policy. For most potential biological agents. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled.

firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year. Any sign that these two powers are at odds during a crisis might tempt the provocative state to escalate tensions.2 p. globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its massive markets. much less abrogate the alliance.-Japan Alliance Good – General War THE ALLIANCE IS KEY TO SOLVE CONFLICT Yukio Okamoto.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers. economy. alliance is realistic. September.S. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Japan Quarterly p.S. including the region's existing and incipient nuclear forces. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan. how closely Japan is in step with the United States will be an important factor in the calculations of potential aggressors. and loyal friend. In other words. is for Japan's security to be the responsibility of a permanent UN military force.S. Nevertheless. The third option. Such a force. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. p. or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. March 10.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                U. In the absence of a robust. “We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. 1996 [Brookings. relations between the giant countries of Asia would become uncertain and competitive--too precarious a situation for the United States and the world. Neither of these conditions is likely to be met for decades. 2002 [Washington Quarterly 25. 2000 [“Top Administration Officials Warn Stakes for U.S. Neither Japan nor the United States has a desire to alter the treaty obligations. This option would require that the major powers in Asia accept a reduction of their troop strengths down to Japanese levels and accept a common political culture--democracy. a Washington think tank.” said Bates Gill.S. There are 100. THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE PREVENTS EAST ASIAN CONFLICT Michael Mochizuki.S. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile. Numerous U. a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. the stakes could hardly be higher. the odds of a peaceful resolution of crises will be greater when the United States and Japan stand together. An overview of aftereffects on the United States of an abrogation of the alliance runs along similar lines. For Japan. jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. not decrease it-the only reason that Japan would want to leave the U. Are High in Asian Conflicts”.-Japan Security Treaty. 100 . 21] In the context of East Asia. exports and resources _ indispensable to the U.-Japan alliance. The United States would lose access to the facilities on which it relies for power projection in the region. Lexis] Few if any experts think China and Taiwan. too. In addition. President Clinton. if only to illuminate why it is likely to survive. 71-2] Fifty years have passed since Japan and the United States signed the original security treaty and more than 40 years have passed since the current 1960 treaty came into force. according to the Commerce Department. treaty abrogation would result in a security vacuum that could be filled in only one of three ways. and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea.000 U. Foreign Policy Studies. Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. Much more importantly. The second is to establish a regional collective security arrangement. This will increase the possibility of miscalculation and war. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations.S. CONFLICT IN EAST ASIA GOES NUCLEAR Jonathan S. director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution.S. cheap labor. ready to deploy at a moment's notice to preserve peace and stability in the region. which would mean the development of a Japan ready to repel any threat. exploring potential alternatives to the alliance is worthwhile. None of the three possible replacements for the JapanU. of course. Senior Fellow. it would also lose a friend--a wealthy. There are elements for potential disaster. mature. does not yet exist. the one outlined in the U. National Security and Intelligence Correspondent. Landay. North Korea and South Korea. negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. and North Korea may have a few. Defense Secretary William S. UN-based security system. For America. The first is armed neutrality. The alternatives also seem certain to increase the likelihood of war in the region. Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons. Security Adviser to Japanese Cabinet. India. Japan and South Korea. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan.

was another sharp warning of our species' growing vulnerability to infectious disease." The planet. but are built into the ecological relations between viruses. the final death toll might have been millions. Suppose that the headliner germ had been a new strain of Ebola that dissolves internal organs into a bloody tar or the mysterious "X" virus that killed thousands in the Sudan last year. Viruses – Franz VIRUSES ARE THE NUMBER ON THREAT TO HUMAN SURVIVAL David Franz. 2005. might be an entirely different and emptier place altogether. if Surat had aroused a different airborne microbe." beyond the waning reach of antibiotics. 101 . “Pandemics are not acts of God.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Viruses – Toronto Star EMERGING VIRUSES THREATEN PLANETARY EXTINCTION The Toronto Sun. 1994. M6 (MHHARV4837) Nor did the media go beyond Surat and explain how this largely inconsequential epidemic. in fact. and the world might now be mourning a "new Black Death. Midwest Research Institute. a kind of false alarm in a much larger microbial saga. x As Nobel laureate Josh Lederberg stated. There will be more surprises. The single biggest threat to [hu]man’s continued dominance is the virus. Chief Biological Scientist. October 16. animal species and human species. for a moment. a so-called "emerging virus. p. The survival of humanity is not preordained. Had such a microbe been unleashed. Pg. MICROBE. because our fertile imagination does not begin to match all the tricks that nature can play. Imagine.

from the Greek lyssa. can be interrupted by appropriate recognition and introduced measures of hygiene. occasional reports of survivors are now appearing. the worry of a species threat is far greater than with rabies. an expert at the Pasteur Institute. 1998.000 liters of air each day. Could such lethal agents every take the second step. Has any virus. which has long proved its capability to cause pandemics. it infected. This was the case. including those with such huge lethality. I have called it Virus X. VIRUS X: TRACKING THE NEW KILLER PLAGUES OUT OF THE PRESENT AND INTO THE FUTURE. replicating as the perfect nanomachine. ever caused such lethality? The answer. Could anybody conceive a more sinister expression of aggressive symbiosis? The virus is programmed to infect the centers in the animal brain that induce uncontrollable rage. In the opinion of Herve Bourhy. while also replicating in the salivary glands to best spread the contagion through the provoked frenzy of biting. Each adult inhales bout 10. and rodents. HIV-1 still appears almost uniformly lethal. fish. which means “frenzy” rabies is one of over one hundred members of the family of Rhabdoviridae. This was seen most tragically and historically in the switch from bubonic to pneumonic plague during the Black Death. The potential for respiratory spread of a plague microbe is unique. and mammals. Virus X would need to take two steps. with X the logical derivative of extinction.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Viruses – Ryan VIRAL SPREADS RISK EXTINCTION Frank Ryan. jackals. and blood-borne infections by control of contaminated supply. and become sufficiently contagious to infect all or virtually all of the human species? The reassuring fact is that the vast majority of emerging viruses. the infected individual will. Food. As far as we are aware – and one always has to quality extrapolation based on past experience with caution – the only route of contagion likely to prove universally threatening to humanity would be person-to-person spread by the respiratory route. The qualifier is needed because the end of human civilization might not require the death of all its members. or any other infectious agent. for example. unfortunately. though. We should be very thankful that the manner of spread precludes the virus from ever causing a human pandemic. RNA. But to threaten our species. fail in practice to become pandemic. and the Zairian Ebola virus was a close rival. a virus would need to combine the infectivity of influenza with the lethality of HIV-1 or Ebola Zaire. it would have to kill everybody. from which it is capable of infecting a wide variety of mammals. What would be the likely properties of such a virus? To cause our extinction. with 90 percent fatality to the people it infected. 102 . The Andromeda strain was not a virus at all. such as AIDS. crustaceans. or almost everybody. it is more likely to be a virus.or water-borne epidemics. with the Sin nombre hantavirus. though they might infect large numbers of people. For this reason. Given a few minutes in a crowded room. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. It was devoid of DNA. However. but a crystalline entity that came to earth on a meteorite from outer space.” after the bestselling thriller by Michael Crichton. We know some of the explanations. Rabies was uniformly lethal in humans for at least four thousand years of history until Louis Pasteur discovered the first vaccine treatment. from plants to reptiles. and it will emerge from the diversity of life on earth. Notable among present-day viruses that spread with high levels of contagion by the aerosol route are the rhinoviruses and corona viruses that cause common colds. and imbibed carbon and oxygen from its environment. p. can be controlled by mechanical prophylaxis and a reduction in promiscuity. by coughing or sneezing. We are all familiar with the rapid spread of the influenza virus. First. is yes – though the emergence of such catastrophic lethality is rare. MD. coyotes. or even protein. A member of the genus Lyssa viruses. transmit the microbe to many of the others present. 367 In virological circles such a doomsday virus is often referred to as “the Andromeda strain. and we cannot avoid inhaling one another’s expired discharges. If ever an extinction strain does threaten the human species. which infect an incredible range of life. the human rabies virus lives in a symbiotic cycle with bats. syringes and needles. Even sexually transmitted disease. particularly foxes. An infection directly contracted from an animal or biting insect will never pose such a problem because the numbers infected will be limited by the extent of the contact. or to provoke a near enough catastrophe to destroy human civilization. But this is a misnomer. with HIV-1 and Ebola.

Princeton.270 If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. Already in the Middle East. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some at the 60. ‘90 The Next 100 Years p. 103 .Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Water Wars – Nuclear War WATER WARS GO NUCLEAR Weiner. And in a world as interlinked as ours. one explosion may lead to the other. Prof. tram North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. the Change Bomb.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful