Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 1 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

Environment turns war/economy............................................68 Environmental destruction turns agriculture..........................69 Freedom..................................................................................70 Genocide.................................................................................71 Heg..........................................................................................72 Homophobia  War...............................................................73 Human Rights: Credibility......................................................74 Human Rights Promo Good- Terrorism.................................75 Human Rights Promo Good- Iran Prolif ................................76 Human Rights Promo Good- Democracy...............................78 Human Rights Promo Good- Central Asia.............................79 Oceans.....................................................................................81 Ozone......................................................................................82 Patriarchy................................................................................83 Patriarchy  War...................................................................84 Patriarchy  War...................................................................85 Patriarchy  War...................................................................86 Patriarchy  War...................................................................87 Poverty....................................................................................88 Racism....................................................................................89 SARS......................................................................................90 Space Exploration bad............................................................91 Space Weaponization: NASA Key.........................................92 Space Weaponization Bad: Nuclear Annhilation...................93 SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA.........................94 SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA.........................96 US-CHINA CONFLICT IS A ZERO-SUM COMPETITION ................................................................................................96 WEAPONIZTION BAD: A2: PEACEFUL NUKES.............97 SPACE WEAPONIZATION IMPOSSIBLE: NASA............98 SPACE WEAPONIZATION ALREADY HAPPENED........99 TB (1/4)................................................................................100 TB (2/4)................................................................................101 TB (3/4)................................................................................101 TB (4/4)................................................................................103 TB.........................................................................................104 Terror....................................................................................105 Terrorism turns Econ............................................................106 Terrorism Defense................................................................107 Terrorism Defense................................................................108 Terrorism doesn’t hurt the economy.....................................109 Warming...............................................................................111 **HEG**..............................................................................112 Heg Declining and Unsustainable........................................113 Hard Power doesn’t solve Heg.............................................115 Heg collapse turns economy.................................................116 Kagan....................................................................................117 Decline Inev..........................................................................120 Econ T/..................................................................................121 **WAR IMPACTS**...........................................................122 War causes dehumanization ................................................123 War Turns Disease ...............................................................124 War turns Gender violence...................................................125 War turns Human Right Violations......................................126 War turns human rights/ disease...........................................127

So what’s the impact?

1

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 2 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

So what’s the impact?

2

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 3 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

So what’s the impact?

3

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

Impact Superfile 4 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

Int’l Law Bad........................................................................414

So what’s the impact?

4

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 5 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**TERMINAL IMPACTS**

5

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 6 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

6

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 7 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

7

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 8 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

life a healthy and productive life.

8

D. Here is a list of all of the recognized Biological Weapons. 9 . could kill up to 3 million people.lexisnexis. as well as the greatest downwind spread.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview. Anthrax and tularemia are predicted to cause the highest number of dead and incapacitated.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7030650745&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T703 0641352&cisb=22_T7030650748&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8363&docNo=4 . The World Health Organization in 1970 modeled the results of a hypothetical dissemination of 50 kg of agent along a 2-km line upwind of a large population center.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 9 /414 Nelson <tournament> Anthrax A small amount of anthrax could be effective in killing millions of people Wake.C.The potential impact on a city can be estimated by looking at the effectiveness of an aerosol in producing downwind casualties. 2001 Saturday Final EDITION http://www.. 01 Ben Wake The Ottawa Citizen October 13. A government study estimated that about 200 pounds of anthrax released upwind of Washington.

The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats. the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse. p. medicine. THE EXPENDABLE FUTURE. protecting watersheds. Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few generations.” Harvard biologist Edward O. and combating soil erosion. To Wilson. http://www. such as carbon. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution.php3?10) Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food. oxygen.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 10 /414 Nelson <tournament> Biodiversity Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction Madgoluis 96 (Richard Margoluis. When we overexploit living resources. As frightful as these events might be. it also affords us a "life support system. 1990. or even nuclear war. the depletion of energy supplies. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on our stewardship of the Earth. and nitrogen. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in weather and climate. we threaten our own survival. Biodiversity Support Program. 10 . and energy.org/publications/showhtml. 22 ) Norman Meyers observes." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements.bsponline. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become increasingly clear. it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. 1996. Biodiversity loss outweighs all impacts Tobin 90 (Richard Tobin. no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 11 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

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

2002 “Biological Weapons must be Abolished Immediately,” June 9,

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

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

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

11

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 12 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

12

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 13 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

13

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 14 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

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

14

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 15 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Democracy
Democracy preserves human life

Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict 95
(October, "Promoting Democracy in the 1990's," http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm) Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

15

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 16 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

16

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 17 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

17

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 18 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18

must take decisive actions to mitigate the potential devastation an influenza pandemic might have on operational readiness. With our current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although global pandemics are difficult to accurately predict. plus Asia). Disease turns military readiness Suburban Emergency Management Project. 6 (Gerald. and its combined GNP is larger than that of either the United States or Europe.php?BiotID=449) An infectious disease pandemic could impair the military’s readiness. http://www. U. “Global Public Health Trumps the Nation-State” Volume XXI. 19 .S. No 3. http://www. and India—and to thereby alter the global military balance. jeopardize ongoing military operations abroad. World Policy Journal. according to a recent GAO report (June 2007).worldpolicy. Fall 2004. (2) DOD military and civilian personnel and contractors would face a similar absentee rate. according to the GAO writers. is home to five-eighths of the world’s population.S. the need to care for family members who are sick. Since HIV has a relatively long incubation period. if it occurs.S. requested the GAO investigation. Perhaps more importantly. the United States military.member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the 21st Century Trust. (1) The 40% number (above) comes from the Homeland Security Council’s estimate that 40% of the U. Congressman Tom Davis. along with other smaller engagements world-wide. suffering and deaths of past pandemics. Aids kills military readiness Upton. and threaten the day-to-day functioning of the Department of Defense (DOD) because of up to 40% of personnel reporting sick or being absent during a pandemic. if an influenza pandemic were to strike the military. hardest-to-replace officers. ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the U. As a result of the pending threat of an influenza pandemic. has the potential to devastate and threaten our society. its effects on military readiness are unusually harsh. scientists theorize that another pandemic on a scale of the deadly 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic is imminent. Air Command And Staff College “Pandemic Influenza: Military Operational Readiness Implications” April 2006) There exists in the world today the possibility of a great influenza pandemic matching those of the past century with the potential to far exceed the pain.semp. 4 ( Maureen.html) The political economist Nicholas Eberstadt has demonstrated that the coming Eurasian AIDS pandemic has the potential to derail the economic prospects of billions of people—particularly in Russia. the number of Americans affected could easily overwhelm our medical capability resulting in untold suffering and deaths. an equally alarming consequence is the effects it could have on the operational readiness of the United States military establishment. workforce might not be at work due to illness. 2007.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/Upton.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 19 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease turns military readiness Pandemics kill military readiness Major Hesko. preparedness and ability to defend our vital national interests could be decreased or threaten. Although an influenza pandemic. House of Representatives. Officers who contract the disease early in their military careers do not typically die until they have amassed significant training and expertise. the region includes four of the world’s five militaries with over one million members and four declared nuclear states. China.5 Eurasia (defined as Russia. or fear of becoming infected. so armed forces are faced with the loss of their most senior. 7 (Disease Outbreak Readiness Update. If a pandemic influenza occurs.us/publications/biot_reader. our level of operational readiness. as predicted by many in the medical and scientific community. Department of Defense Biot Report #449: July 25.

pandemic infections have affected the ability of military forces to prosecute and win a war.S. “Epidemic Disease and National Security” http://people.All those military histories glorifying great generals oversimplify the ego-deflating truth: the winners of past wars were not always the armies with the best generals and weapons.142 During the European conquest of the Americas.wm. it can alter the evolution and outcome of military conflict by eroding military readiness and morale.146 Throughout history.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 20 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease turns military readiness Diseases kill military readiness. and on their next attempt the Spanish succeeded in conquering the Aztec nation.143 Spanish conquest of the Incan empire in South America followed a similar pattern: In 1532 Francisco Pizarro and his army of 168 Spaniards defeated the Incan army of 80. A devastating smallpox epidemic had killed the Incan emperor and his heir.associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary. 20 . 2 (winter 2002/3).pdf) Military readiness. As Jared Diamond notes. but divided enemy. When Hernando Cortez and his men first attacked the Aztecs in Mexico in 1520. who had few or no deadly diseases to pass on to their conquerors.. Surviving Aztecs were further demoralized by their vulnerability to a disease that appeared harmless to the Europeans. casualties in certain areas than did military action. Even when disease is not deliberately used. blamed Germany. the conquistadors shared numerous lethal microbes with their native American foes. . then.empirically proven Peterson. producing a civil war that split the empire and allowed a handful of Europeans to defeat a large. similarly. no. General Erick Von Ludendorf. too.144 In modern times. 145 In the Second World War.000. Security Studies 12. they left behind smallpox that wiped out half the Aztec population.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.s loss of that war at least partly on the negative effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic on the morale of German troops. 3 (Susan. malaria caused more U. IDs have had a significant potential to decimate armies and alter military history. but were often merely those bearing the nastiest germs to transmit to their enemies. The German Army chief of staff in the First World War.

converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts.attacks Taiwan. rich against poor.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 21 /414 Nelson <tournament> Economy Economic collapse causes a global nuclear exchange Mead 92 (Walter Russell. at least for many decades. the only chance a nation has to survive at all. 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. are almost certain to be released. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Or suppose a desperate China . once a few nukes are launched.com/group/Big-Medicine/message/642 Bluntly. escalating it significantly. Economic slowdown will cause WWIII Bearden 2k (Liutenant Colonel Bearden. 1992. we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North. 21 . Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations. Mead. The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It. is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders.S. http://groups. including U. Russia. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it.will open their eyes to their folly.whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States . Prior to the final economic collapse. or even shrinks? In that case. 2000. and perhaps most of the biosphere. As an example. forces there. adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. As the studies showed. Summer. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the Westbecause they believe that our system can work for them. As the collapse of the Western economies nears.yahoo. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates. In addition to immediate responses. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy.and others { } not covered . under such extreme stress conditions. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. 30) The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. we foresee these factors . NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY. with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. China. Without effective defense. p. in a spasmodic suicidal response.

Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 04 04.S.lexisnexis. as evidenced by the global route on stock markets from Paris to Tokyo last week – could yet plunge the world economy below the 2. countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. Of course. pressed too far. with experts predicting it will take a deeper financial toll.S. “U. debt becomes a strength. (Anthony Faiola.com/users/login. Without their best customer.” http://www. economic collapse leads to an economic depression globally. direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.foreignpolicy. unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. billions of dollars in losses from America’s subprime mortage morass are still being accounted for. (Walter Mead. staff writer of Washington Post.S. and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. a collapsing U.php?story_id=2504&page=2) Similarly. Foreign Policy.do?ipcounter=1&co okieState=0&rand=0. in the last 60 years. A collapse of the U. and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds. like Samson in the temple of the Philistines. Under those circumstances.2947196325707201&bhcp=1) Analysts caution that a sharper drop in the U. Downturn effects may ease worldwide.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser. And around the world. not a weakness.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 22 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ.php?story_ id=2504&URL=http://www. But. 01 30 08.S. Proquest.5 to 3 percent growth range that constitutes a global recession.” http://www.com/story/ cms. 22 . economy would inflict enormous. economy causes a global recession.foreignpolicy. “America’s Sticky Power. economy – something widely feared.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States.US Key U. a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse.S. A drop in the U.-led system.S.

(Luska Times. He pointed out that the global financial crisis may not be felt now.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 23 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ.com/?p=6713) Effects of the global economic crisis have already started showing a negative impact on growing economies. 23 . adding that most Zambians should consider saving their money and use it when there is real need. “Global Economic crisis shows effects on families. people said it is hard to do shopping because there are no funds to meet the needs of many families. 12 24 08. Alfonsaias Haamanjanti said people should not overspend unnecessarily but consider critical things such as school fees and uniforms for children when schools reopen. Most people expressed concern about lack of funds to do shopping because prices have been hiked so much. Mr Haamanjati said it is important to budget for the things that one needs by writing a list and follow it. saying there is need to save money and shop only when it is necessary. making it difficult for many people to buy gifts for their beloved ones. such as Zambia.” http://www. with only a few people managing to spend for Christmas. According to a survey carried out this morning by ZANIS.lusakatimes.developing countries A global economic crisis has a hard effect on growing economies and provides significantly reduced funds for families living in these countries. He said the global financial crisis may be felt so much next year.

S. and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar.S.S will cause a civil war and the breakup of the U.” http://online. called U.For a decade. Panarin predicts that economic. and appears in the media as an expert on U." says Prof. "It's a record. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic. "It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska. Mr. it's not the best scenario -.S. and foreign powers will move in.S.S.Russia relations.S. few took his argument -. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. he reiterated his theory. which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis.very seriously. In it. financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U. When the going gets tough.S." he says. -. 12 29 08. Mr. he says.for Russia.. Mr." and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator. dean of Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. Panarin.” http://online.S. Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia. economic decline. he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. (Andrew Osborn.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 24 /414 Nelson <tournament> Economy. poker-faced. But it's his bleak forecast for the U. former KGB analyst.. Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U. "One could rejoice in that process.wsj. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire. he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. D..S. will be a protectorate of Japan or China. he suggests.." Hawaii. "It's not there for no reason.S. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger. Economic and financial problems in the U. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. he says. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic. Panarin. former KGB analyst.S. expert on U. wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. he admits. A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut.html) MOSCOW -. “As if Things weren’t bad enough.U.com/article/SB123051100709638419.-Russia relations.html) He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts. in brief. or early July." and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. publishes books. 24 . 12 29 08." he adds. Washington. The U. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s. "There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur.com/article/SB123051100709638419. will break into six pieces -. one of Russia's biggest national dailies.that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U. into six pieces. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin. (Andrew Osborn. A former KGB analyst. For most of that time. when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.S. lectures students." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage. the U. In recent weeks. and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia. Panarin posits. he says.. “As if Things weren’t bad enough." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. he says.S." a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. expert on U. civil war and dissolution U. Around the end of June 2010." he says with a sly grin.S. and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme. it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time. will fall apart in 2010. He is invited to Kremlin receptions. dean of Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic.S.S.S.Russia relations.wsj. is not a fringe figure. 50 years old. its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U." Prof. Mr. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.with Alaska reverting to Russian control. Russian Professor Predicts End of U. that mass immigration.C. economic collapse will cause a civil war and the breakup of the U. "But if we're talking reasonably. Russian Professor Predicts End of U. will then split along ethnic lines.

India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power. Japan faces similar challenges. and the stability of our economy. sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern.com/article/SB122455074012352571. China is perhaps even more fragile.wsj. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. As for our democratic friends. inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths. For decades now. Afghanistan collapse. the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 25 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ Collapse Bad Global economic collapse results in nuclear war – causes North Korean aggression. the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate. Both will now be constricted. Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The Wall Street Journal. our continuing commitment to Europe. Despite its past dynamism.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. and Gabriel Schoenfeld-visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys. and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt. The worldwide use of the dollar. 25 . None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. p. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile. 10/21/2008. now driven down by the global slowdown. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. The Dangers of a Diminished America. and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage. just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. Russian adventurism. it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s. among other things. while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia. and American isolationism Friedberg and Schenfeld. 8 (Aaron Friedberg-professor of politics and international relations at the Woodrow Wilson School. http://online.

and human capital. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. say oil or timber or farm products. significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. a professor of political science at Columbia University. director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.000 in the 1990s. At the extremes. According to the Associated Press report. The death toll from war has also been falling. globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. including the freedom to trade. he found that. As economies develop." In 2006. and from a peak of 700.000 a year by one measure. among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. those nations have more to lose should war break out. Through econometric analysis. as I argued a moment ago. Since the early 1990s. Erik Gartzke." By the way. If people need resources outside their national borders." as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book.org/node/681) A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported. are growing in number. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy. it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. In short. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other. studies say. Peacemaking missions. service economy. there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. "War declining worldwide. In short. Dr. As national economies become more intertwined with each other." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 26 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ interdependence prevents war Economic interdependence prevents war Griswold. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17. a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. 4/20/2007. growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. In contrast. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. Thanks in part to globalization. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government. the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable. financial assets. they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Trade. "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period.000 to 100. wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property. http://www.000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Far from stoking a "World on Fire. almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Dr. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy. trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy. hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech. dipping below 20. but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. 7 (Daniel. First. 26 . meanwhile.freetrade. Democracy and Peace.

empirically proven Sean O’Donnell Staff Writer. B. Baltimore Examiner. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately.must avert it now. to war. http://www. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession.A. 27 . in History from the University of Maryland 2/26. will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East.com/x-3108-Baltimore-RepublicanExaminer~y2009m2d26-Will-this-recession-lead-to-World-War-III Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s. or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse.examiner. However sometimes history repeats itself. Asia. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. Will this recession lead to World War II.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 27 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Economic Decline  Nuclear War Prolonged Recession yields nuclear war.

pp. Editor-in-Chief of the SAIS Review of International Affairs and M. The process of reengagement is difficult and will undoubtedly prove frustrating for the next administration. As the chart below shows. SummerFall 2008. The next administration should develop clear and thoughtful goals for engagement with each global region. This will not be easy as Asian nations have a higher rate of savings. such as the continuing “War on Terror”. but with the memories of the economic turbulence of the 1980s and 90s still fresh in the mind. Government can no longer be printed on IMF letterhead and declared global consensus ipso facto.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 28 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – U.A. Key to Global Economy The US is key to global econ – rest of the world failing Kaczmarek. varying degrees of capital mobility.S. and build ties. and opportunities for multilateral engagement across a wide range of specific issues. and nurture mutually beneficial relationships with emerging regional leaders. The future prosperity of billions of low and middle income citizens around the world. Editor-in-Chief of the SAIS Review of International Affairs and M. “The US Consumer: Engine of the Global Economy Gears Down” Over the years. The rising real estate prices that had lasted for much of this decade allowed consumers to cash out some of the equity from their homes to continue the odyssey of lifestyle improvement. If there is a time for the United States to demonstrate sober global leadership while responsibly advancing its own interests and ideals. 08 (Matthew D. enjoys the luxury to choose whether or not to engage the rest of the world in a multilateral discussion and debate. and wildly inconsistent access within nations to the fruits of global development. But a funny thing has happened during the current economic slowdown. The world is awash in conflicting bilateral trade agreements. With the Doha round stagnating and the Bank and Fund deep into an identity crisis. an uncertain world continues to look toward the United States to show a willingness to step up to engage the recalcitrant global economy. 7-2-09. The negative case for this change is that it means that other countries will have to bolster their own consumption and investment as an offset. effectiveness. US consumers have retrenched from vigorous consumption in order to save more. in the global economy begs for its reengagement.A. the world the world has looked to the US consumer to lead the way out of economic downturns. and where ideological objectives are concerned. President and Chief Investment Officer at Pacific Partners – Capital Management. The G-8 is no longer a useful forum for building global economic consensus unless it moves more quickly to include emerging economic powers. Economists had long derided the “Spend! Spend! Spend!” ways of Americans. Candidate. Current statistics show that the savings rate in the US is on track to approach a level of about 7% later this year. On economic development. the US consumer accounts for almost 70% of the American economy and about 15 17% of the global economy. President and Chief Investment Officer at Pacific Partners-Capital Management. Currently. Kaczmarek. The IMF must continue in its reform mission as well as embrace the need to become the explicit lender of last resort to sovereign nations. Candidate of 2000. while the flood of economic support in exchange for political-security cooperation is showing no faster diminishing returns than in Pakistan and Iraq. American consumption key to global economic growth – other nations can’t replace the US’ spot Sull. it is now. 207-209) While the economic policy of the U. 7-2 Ajbinder Sull. The SAIS Review of International Affairs. This gave way to the notion that US consumers were using their homes as ATM machines. Where the United States continues to hold absolute supremacy. embrace. Volume 28. it is wrong to assume that the United States has somehow relinquished its mandate to lead. there is no such choice. Number 2. and the deferential respect afforded the U. The Financial Post.S.S. Credit was a means to an end. the U. savings rates in the US have gone from a negative rate (consumers adding debt to consume) to positive. such as military power. Europe’s economy will likely take much longer to get moving as is usually the case 28 .S. The days of proxy wars for spheres of influence are long gone. This change in behavior is both positive and negative. and the continued success of today’s leading economies depends on a sound and stable global economic architecture. The authors in the preceding pages of this volume have debated the costs.

These rising savings rates are ending up in the US banking system and will provide more fuel for the US banking system to lend a helping hand to the US economy.helpful to the US dollar. Not to mention . The positive side to this change is that it will mean less reliance by the US on foreign capital to help fund the budget deficit. The irony is that just as the world would welcome the US consumer going back to old habits of spending and consuming. The price of this change in behavior is that global economic growth will not rebound as fast and as much as the markets might be hoping for.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 29 /414 Nelson <tournament> after economic slowdowns. Americans have realized that a little savings can go a long way. 29 . For the financial markets this means that any excessive optimism should be tempered with this realization that the coming economic recovery will be different than any we have seen in quite some time.

face a choice between setting interest rates according to the needs of their domestic economies or tailoring rates to maintain stable exchange rates. thus curbing access to capital.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 30 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – U. That said. Graduate of Wesleyan University and M. senior economic adviser of UBS (UBS) in London. and a sharp fall in demand here for others' goods will reverberate . International Relations at Yale. which could ultimately damage growth in some emerging markets. shrug off slower U.A. three countries — China. Central banks in the USA. Canada and Mexico. "The U. The Fed's actions ricochet from Beijing to Dubai. On one hand. India and Russia — accounted for more than half of global economic growth over the past year. USA Today. Current monetary policies and exchange rates are "completely out of kilter with what these countries need and might actually encourage the bubble in emerging markets to get bigger. Economic weakness in the USA can hit other countries both by unsettling global financial markets. But the U. If something else comes along." says George Magnus. economic engine. … It is really only a question of time before we have this regime change in the global monetary system." says Harvard's Rogoff.S. growth remains to be demonstrated. which link their currencies to the level of the U. are the USA's top trading partners — and the countries most exposed to a serious U. So far. 12-10-07. That means keeping their exchange rates stable against the dollar and importing inflation or raising their interest rates to head off inflation at the cost of seeing their currencies appreciate. and by depressing trade.S. International Relations at Yale. is widely expected to cut rates again. downturn.S. for example. we don't have a lot of padding. “Slowing US Economy Inflicts Pain around the World” The extent to which other economies have "decoupled" from their traditional dependence upon the U. On Tuesday.S. remains a topic of debate. In Qatar. "We're very vulnerable. the quasi-dollar-linked countries are swallowing higher prices and the potential for overheating. So emerging markets are expected to shoulder principal responsibility for keeping the global economy moving forward in 2008.S. sending 81% of their exports to the USA. and Asian economies are not decoupled. president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Graduate of Wesleyan University and M. in fact. Key to Global Economy US economic decline hits other nations – unsettles global financial markets Lynch. Lynch. "We're in this window of vulnerability." says Janet Yellen.S.A. United Kingdom and Canada have cut interest rates in recent weeks. the Federal Reserve. But the remedies central banks are choosing to fight the credit crunch are putting strains on other parts of the global financial system. which already has trimmed the target for its benchmark rate by three-quarters of a percentage point since September. however." 30 . and a slowdown here is likely to produce ripple effects lowering growth there. Countries such as China and the oil producers of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council. economy remains the world's largest. 07 David J. dollar to varying degrees. Whether the rest of the world can. inflation runs at an annual rate of almost 13%. trying to counteract banks' reluctance to make new loans.S. according to the IMF. most economists expect the global economy to pull through — unless another unexpected shock hits.

S. Growth advanced briskly at 4. a significant portion of which is fed by imports.S. In dollar terms. Key to Global Economy The US is essential to the global economy – no other country is close to US production. and California produces roughly the same output as China. The American economy has been on an upswing for more than four years. the U. 06 Richard W. Unemployment stood at a four-year low of 4. So a US slowdown that hurts China will reverberate in Japan. chief economist at Morgan Stanley in New York.. Texas produces 20 percent more than India. The math tells us we would add $440 billion in incremental activity—in a single year.S. the United States is the growth engine for the world economy. Let me explain why.S. China's Reverberations The US accounts for 24% of Japan's total exports.S. which totaled $2 trillion last year. a growth rate of 3. The global economy is too dependent on exports to the US.'' As the US economy faltered in early 2001. measured on the basis of purchasing-power parity. which compares with the latest reading of 8. is equivalent to surges of 16 percent in Germany. Taiwan. ''Allowing for trade linkages. We have weathered hurricanes’ fury and record-high energy prices while continuing to grow and keep inflation under control. the world still needs the US consumer. Fisher. To understand what this kind of growth means. we need only follow Margaret Thatcher’s wise hectoring to “do the math. In dollar terms. And there may be more fallout from a US decline. we create the economic equivalent of a Sweden—or two Irelands or three Argentinas. Britain and France. it will eventually happen. up 2. Germany.'' he says. who had no idea that this event would follow so closely on the heels of the meager growth estimate reported for last year’s fourth quarter. European Vulnerability ''It didn't happen _ a lesson 31 . Canada and Brazil. the consensus of most economic forecasters is that growth in the first quarter will rebound to a rate well above 4 percent. The statement the Federal Open Market Committee released Tuesday quite summed up our current situation succinctly: “Although recent economic data have been uneven. It slowed to a still solid 3.5 percent in 2005.7 percent. South Korea and commodity producers such as Russia. our growth is driven by consumption. although I would not be surprised if GDP were revised upward when we take a more definitive look at the fourth quarter. whose trade deficit was $765. “Can world weather slow down in US?” p. 3-20-2007. New Zealand Herald 07 The New Zealand Herald. Again. I use “mega” and “uber” to describe the two largest states for a reason: to illustrate the depth and breadth of our economy. Fisher. economy. the total effects could be larger than 60%.6 trillion a year in goods and services. says Stephen Roach.4 percent for Europe and even higher rates for some of the continent’s major economies. Every year. From 2001 through 2006. 26 percent in China and 70 percent in India. 84% of Canada's.6 million people. runs down the southeastern seaboard through Georgia to Florida. Netting all this out. Just as China is dependent on the US. In January. 2/6/06. Be conservative—once again. That is a big number. yes. the US and China combined contributed an average of 43% to global growth. other countries rely on Asia's second-largest economy.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 31 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – U.2 percent in 2004. What we add in new economic activity in a given year exceeds the entire output of all but 15 other countries. Lexis The ability of other countries to emerge from the US economy's long shadow may reflect more wishful thinking than logic. No doubt. Lady Thatcher would like it—and assume that in 2006 we grow at last year’s preliminary rate of 3. President of the federal reserve bank. “The United States: Still the Growth Engine for the World Economy?” My kind hosts. economy employed 134.3 billion in 2006. according to Mr Roach. especially as some of the bigger emerging countries mature.5 percent.5 percent in the U.” This is especially true in what I call the “growth rim”—an arc of population centers with favorable demographics that begins in Virginia.K. ''Globalisation makes decoupling from such a concentrated growth dynamic especially difficult. President of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas. while Asia and Europe lack sufficient domestic demand to offset reduced US spending on overseas goods. it is in the Northeast and North Central states. Right now. To the extent there is weakness in the U. Australia. So. Of course. 86% of Mexico's and about 40% of China's. New Zealand.” The United States produces $12. many Wall Street gurus predicted that Europe would outpace the US. do the math: Our annual import volume—what we buy in a single year from abroad—exceeds the GDP of all but four other countries— Japan.2 million in a year. And it is important that it remain so because no other country appears poised to pick up the torch if the U. have asked me to address the question: Is the United States still the growth engine for the world? The answer is yes. economy stumbles or tires The US is key to the global economy. Mr Roach says. the expansion in economic activity appears solid. 20 percent in the U. then through the megastate of Texas and on to the uberstate of California and up to Seattle.

chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management in New York.9% in 2001. according to Mr Quinlan. Europe will sink or swim with the US in 2007. French and Dutch enterprises resulted in reduced orders. 0. Even though only about 8% of European exports go to the US. Europe is vulnerable to a US slowdown through its businesses abroad.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 32 /414 Nelson <tournament> investors should bear in mind today. lower profit. ''As the US economy decelerates and as the dollar continues its slide. After expanding 3.9% in 2000. slower job growth and weak business confidence.'' Mr Quinlan says 32 . The earnings of European companies' US units plunged 64% in 2001.'' says Joseph Quinlan. Those declines in the biggest and most-profitable market for many German. UK. euro-area growth shrank to 1.8% in 2003.9% in 2002 and 0.

http://www. Indeed.0. economic growth appear to influence growth in other countries to a significant degree. In 2004. According to Morgan Stanley. partly because of the strength of the euro. This could be explained by the role of the United States as a major global trading partner. as in the 1930s. The downside of this. the recent breakdown of the Doha round of global trade talks sent a worrying signal that commitment to free trade is weakening. growth on growth in other countries to be larger 33 . Admittedly the forecasts do not sound too alarming. strong global growth has been the main reason the US recession did not start sooner. “Economic Spillovers” Finance and Development. Vol 42.6 per cent next year could positively help damp inflationary pressures.com/site/FERG/Templates/ArticleItem.niallferguson.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 33 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – U. 2008.S. including common drivers of growth in both the United States and other countries. Sept. how many governments responded to the jump in rice prices by imposing export restrictions. Yet there are four reasons to be less cheerful.S.S. IMF Senior Resident Representatives. it is a synonym for deglobalisation. Small wonder only a handful of global equity markets are in positive territory relative to August 2007. The results are robust to changes in the sample. But. 50 of the 190 countries in the world currently have double-digit inflation. pointing out that nearly all China’s growth is accounted for by domestic demand. Second.htm) Economists usually see the United States as an engine of the world economy: U. suggest that U. It was troubling. And remember: the European Union’s economy is still more than five times larger than China’s. growth on growth in other countries during the past two decades. One year on. decoupling is not a cause for celebration if.S. http://www. on closer inspection. too. The impact of U. Key to Global Economy US depression causes Global collapse Niall Ferguson. Estimates of the overall impact of U. It also matters a great deal more to US exporters. At the same time. According to Joachim Fels of Morgan Stanley.1 per cent this year to 3. growth have moved closely together in recent decades. the global slowdown is about to kick away the last prop keeping the US recession at bay.S. Unfortunately. this coincidence of a US slowdown and soaring oil prices revived unhappy memories of 1970s stagflation. the Fed and the Treasury are seeing to that. the United States could be expected to have a significant influence on growth in other countries. 2004). given its size and close links with the rest of the world. and world output are closely correlated. No. U. not exports. Indeed. How a local squall might become a global tempest. however.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/arora. The United States accounted for nearly a quarter of the expansion in world real GDP during the 1990s. The World Bank has identified 33 countries where high food prices have already generated civil unrest. We also found the impact of U. Optimists such as Jim O’Neill at Goldman Sachs celebrate the “decoupling” of China from the US. The growth of the world economy since 1980 has owed much to lower trade barriers. But now a new and colder front is crossing the macroeconomic weather map: the prospect of a global slowdown. It is when the crisis goes global that the term “credit crunch” will no longer suffice. what began as a US crisis is fast becoming a world crisis. US key to global economy – no other country comes close Arora & Vamvakidis ’05 (Vivek & Athanasios. A reduction in global growth from 4.S. Up until now the global impact of the crisis has been limited. with an effect as large as one-for-one in some cases (Arora and Vamvakidis.imf. US exports have surged. Third. growth turns out to be higher than the impact of growth in the rest of the world. in the context of a standard growth model. Professor of Economic History at Harvard. GDP accounted for over one-fifth of world GDP on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis and for nearly 30 percent of world nominal GDP at market exchange rates.S. was a rise in commodity prices as strong Asian demand coincided with a depreciating dollar. Certainly. and movements in U. while more than half have declined by between 10 and 40 per cent.S. this is not the Great Depression 2. and the inclusion of other growth determinants. growth is a significant determinant of growth in a large panel of industrial and developing countries. Europe has clearly not decoupled from America. For a time.8 per cent growth in US output over the past year. World and U.aspx?pageid=184 The question is whether or not this American hurricane is about to run into two other macroeconomic weather systems. First. The US slowdown will also affect many emerging markets less reliant on exports than China. No 3.S. the eurozone is now growing more slowly than the US. with a correlation coefficient of over 80 percent. net exports accounted for all but 30 basis points of the 1. the critical phase is not the US phase. With the dollar weakened as an indirect consequence of the Fed’s open-handed lending policy. the commodity price rise has generated inflationary pressures in many emerging markets that will not recede overnight. Trade with the United States accounts for a substantial share of total trade in a large number of countries. the period considered.

and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. Biden's comment hints at where we may be headed: toward a major reduction in America's world role. Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s. there will be calls for various and expensive domestic relief programs. now driven down by the global slowdown. when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt. the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate. and perhaps even a new era of financiallyinduced isolationism. and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. In the face of this onrushing river of red ink. the impact of EU growth on the rest of the world is significant but smaller than the impact of U. As for our democratic friends. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage.S.foreign aid. as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. The worldwide use of the dollar. it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices. Estimates of this year's federal budget deficit already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year. are likely to mount. Japan faces similar challenges.wsj. The next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal position. This would be one of the few popular cuts. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth. The choice we have before us is between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American leadership. inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. Friedberg is an IR prof at Princeton and Schoenfeld is a scholar at the Witherspoon Institute. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. growth. while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. In a prolonged recession.html One immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread across the world is that the primary instruments of U.S. the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. and to dodge the cost of waging two wars. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power. Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. foreign policy will be crimped. gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia. Despite the success of the surge. 34 . our continuing commitment to Europe. For decades now. among other things. just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. For example. Both will now be constricted. Sen. 2008 http://online. already intense before this crisis. Even before our current woes. What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying.might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Precipitous withdrawal -.com/article/SB122455074012352571. to $407 billion.attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion -. Only Joe Biden has suggested a possible reduction -.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 34 /414 Nelson <tournament> than that of other major trading partners. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys. Pressures to cut defense spending. but in budgetary terms it is a mere grain of sand. Despite its past dynamism. sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. With families and businesses hurting. Impacts – Econ Turns Heg Econ Collapse ends US Heg Friedberg + Schoenfeld. both Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. and the stability of our economy. calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths. Still. China is perhaps even more fragile. made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits.

If America continues to fall behind. July 23. dollar could continue to decline. As the U.S.S. ln) Losing economic freedom has important implications for the pockets of U.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 35 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Heg Economy key to leadership Eiras ’04 (Isabel. the value of the U. families. Senior Policy Analyst for International Economics @ the Heritage Foundation. 35 . the United States' leadership and power in the world decline as well. economy weakens and other countries' economies strengthen. Americans will then have fewer opportunities to improve their lives and foreigners will find investing in the United States less and less attractive. the coffers of the U.S. and America's ability to remain a strong world leader.S. economy.

well-of. 491-2) Economics is in many respects proliferation’s catalyst. as well as such related issues as overpopulation. drive proliferation just as surely as do purely political motives. p. economic desperation drives Russia and some of the former Warsaw Pact nations to peddle weapons and technology. Brazil. Ultimately. As we have noted. relatively secure societies like today’s Japan are less likely to buy or sell superweapon technology than those that are insecure. is the surest way to defuse proliferation and enhance true national security. Critical Mass. especially as they are driven by population pressure. needy. and Israel to do the same. all things being equal. Economics. solving economic problems.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 36 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Prolif Economic growth is the surest way to stop prolif Burrows & Windram ’94 (William & Robert. or desperate. Unfortunately. 36 . The possibility of considerable profits or at least balanced international payments also prompts Third World countries like China. Suffice it to say that. that subject is beyond the scope of this book.

that led to the creation of the Global Fund in the first place. Tuberculosis and Malaria supplies one-quarter of all AIDS funding. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months. including the humanitarian and security aspects.voanews. he believes. And it's just bad economic policy. http://www. could save nearly two million additional lives in the coming years.reporter for the Voice of America. They were simply calling on donor nations to make good on their pledges. That continued support.com/english/archive/2009-02/200902-04-voa23. which currently contributes about one third of the Global Fund's resources. a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. TB and malaria must be sustained." Keeping up the fight against killer diseases like malaria." Global Fund Board Chairman Rajat Gupta agrees that the United States could do more to help the fund out of its financial crisis.cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6) As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis. malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years. He says the disease has cost industry on the continent about $12 billion in lost worker productivity. "That was at least one of the many aspects. [it] requires that these diseases be brought under control. the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases. "And [with] just a fraction of that investment. VOA “Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS. prevention and research programs in poor countries. Gupta says. could make a significant dent in the fund's $5 billon shortfall if it so chose. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans. TB and malaria. leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment." Gupta says the Global Fund's progress in the fight against AIDS. Malaria” 04 February 2009. He says he and other health and business leaders who attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. were to take on more of a leadership role. According to Jeffrey Sachs. to cut long-term investments in development for near-term savings." Sachs argues that the United States. Gupta says." Those monies could not "for one moment balance the lives that are at stake..S. TB and AIDS is essential to the economic development of poor nations. and now it is the United States' turn to step up and get that going. which has fallen behind on its pledged commitments. 37 . "For Africa to be a full trading partner. Every year since 2001. one that could be picking up the slack by buying our goods and being a full productive part of the world economy." he says. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. "One of the good things that has happened before is that each country or different countries have kind of egged each other on to do more. 9 (Rosanne. says Sachs. the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. which he says. For example. other nations would follow. Peter Chernin is one of a number of business leaders who've supported a $100 million campaign to fight the malaria pandemic in Africa. He believes that if the U. Switzerland were not asking for a bailout. two-thirds of tuberculosis funding and three-fourths of malaria funding. TB. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS. "There is no shortage of funds at the moment when in three months the rich world has found about $3 trillion of funding for bank bailouts and in which there have been $18 billion of Christmas bonuses for Wall Street supported by bailout legislation. the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS. the Global Fund has been forced by the recessionpinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. "puts at risk the malaria control effort." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life. to improve the world's prosperity and its health.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 37 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Disease Economic downturns divert funds from disease treatment Skirble. we can end malaria deaths and remove a major obstacle to economic development.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 38 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Warming/Environment Economic growth key to solve warming (Terry L. and wildlife habitat for economic growth. Academic Coordinator in Peace and Conflict. The tendency will be for states to withhold the resources and the legitimacy required for supranational structures to work. Ph. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations. But as their incomes rise above subsistence.thus. prices increase. 04. As a resource becomes more scarce.” http://www. or collective security regimes.perc. ln) As income levels rise. visiting scholar at Oxford." says economist Bruce Yandle. its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. due to suspicions that others may gain at one’s expense by ‘free riding’ on the ‘public goods’ provided by environmental protection. Anderson." Strong economy is the best way to preserve a healthy environment. As a society.php) Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note. “Why Economic Growth is Good for the Environment. policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment. professor of economics at Montana State University. in economics. avoiding command-and-control policies Shiller ’99 (Erin. if Americans want the improvement that has occurred over the past generation to continue. Multilateral cooperation will run up against simlar constraints." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. While such regulation has had its successes. the marginal cost of pollution reduction is continually rising. 397) In a period of economic stagnation and trade competition. Stated another way. leading resource economist. and Cornell University law School. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil. "If economic growth is good for the environment. April 20. Moreover. saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity. "economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years. but should embrace economic growth as the key to further environmental improvements. “Global Ecology and World Economy: Collision Course or Sustainable Future? Pg. Policy Fellow of Environmental Studies @ Pacific Research Institute. Until now. but provide the most promising future for tomorrow's environment as well. trade regulation. Put simply. Further. this effect is cumulative -. and the health benefits produced are less significant and felt by fewer people. And left to fend for themselves in a 38 . a declining hegemonic power will think less about maintaining world order than about shoring up its position relative to new challengers and upstarts. healthy forests. Ventura County Star. Market forces also cause economic growth. For this reason. they will look to innovative new policies that incorporate and even promote economic growth.org/articles/article446. we are not running out of natural resources. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Univ of Cal Berkley. people begin to demand higher environmental standards. poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air. which in turn leads to environmental improvements. it also hinders the very economic growth that has allowed for environmental improvements. university of Basel. a smaller aggregate amount of pollution means that each further reduction is more costly than the last. we expect even better environmental quality as our economy grows.D. Economic decline  no protection of the environment Sanders ’90 (Jerry. environmental policy has relied almost entirely on command-and-control regulation. environmentalists should not regard economic concerns as a hindrance to effective policy. Such policies not only best address today's environmental situation.

with one nation after another forced into escalating confrontation along several fronts. Thus the groundwork will be laid for a chain reaction of conflicts across a spectrum of relations. individual nations will be little able and even less inclined to end their destabilizing environmental practices. 39 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 39 /414 Nelson <tournament> climate of economic stagnation.

head of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation. Ukraine and Argentina.the world's biggest grain and rice producer and the biggest exporter of certain types of fertilizer -. and McCrummen. Diouf said. 08 Ariana Eunjung Cha and Stephanie McCrummen. While the world's attention has been focused on rescuing investment banks and stock markets from collapse. More People Go Hungry." Diouf said. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has criticized export restrictions because they "drive up world prices and cut off supplies of raw materials. Oxfam. the Britain-based aid group.N. “Washington Post. donors and agencies gathered in Rome to pledge $12. In June. 36 countries still need emergency assistance for food.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 40 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Famine Economic collapse exacerbates global food crisis Cha.S. E. He said he is also concerned by protectionist trade measures intended to counteract the financial turmoil.governments. That. But only $1 billion has been disbursed.to not do the right thing. Pakistan. Jacques Diouf. The U. It's planting season now. "The global financial crisis should not make us forget the food crisis . "invite a cycle of retaliation that is as economically counterproductive as it is politically hard to resist. which had been earmarked by the European Commission for helping African farmers. in Nairobi. Muchiri said nearly everyone he knows is cutting back on planting." said Oxfam spokeswoman Amy Barry. could eventually increase deflationary pressures -. a casualty of the growing financial tumult. Although the price of commodities has come down in the past few months. could exacerbate the global food shortage.U. " 40 . governments. is tied up in bureaucracy. he said. India. As Global Prices Soar. The precarious aid situation is compounded by export taxes and bans imposed this year by a number of grain. but he can afford to sow amaranthus and haricot beans on only half of the 10 acres he owns because the cost of the fertilizer he needs has shot up nearly $50 a bag in a matter of weeks. multilateral organizations. Graduate of Columbia and John Hopkin’s School of Advanced International Studies.and fertilizer-producing nations. Wheat futures for December delivery closed at $5.3 billion to address the world's worst food crisis in a generation. companies -.700 miles away. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 923 million people were seriously undernourished in 2007. in turn.1625 on Friday -. About 5.3 billion. China -. said in a recent speech that he worries about cuts in aid to agriculture in developing countries. including China. "The financial crisis is providing an excuse for people across the spectrum -.lower prices could mean less incentive for farmers to cultivate crops. Financial Meltdown Worsens Food Crisis. and Europe -. Commodity prices have plummeted in recent weeks as investors have shown increasing concern about a global recession and a drop in the demand for goods. "The amount of money used for the bailouts in the U." Mandelson said last month. the global food crisis has worsened. 10-26-08. The contrast between the rapid-fire reaction by Western authorities to the financial crisis and their comparatively modest response to soaring food prices earlier this year has triggered anger among aid and farming groups. Washington Post Writer. Richer countries from the United States to the Persian Gulf are busy helping themselves and have been slow to lend a hand. and soybean futures are 47 percent lower." said Muchiri. Corn futures are down 53 percent from their all-time high. while initially welcomed by consumers. and he warned of a looming disaster next year if countries do not make food security a top priority. Its director-general. with some governments now arguing that they can no longer afford to give up that money. China scrambled to protect itself." Such restrictions. Among the most extreme measures it took was to impose new export taxes to keep critical supplies such as grains and fertilizer from leaving the country.” Lexis As shock waves from the credit crisis began to spread around the world last month. An additional $1. which means even less food for a continent where the supply has already been weakened by drought. political unrest and rising prices.down 62 percent from a record set in February. farmer Stephen Muchiri is suffering the consequences.could see its moves having ripple effects on vulnerable countries. estimates that economic chaos this year has pulled the incomes of an additional 119 million people below the poverty line.people here are saying that money is enough to feed the poor in Africa for the next three years . Such declines.

Poor economic conditions  racism Progressive ’92 (January. Economic decline  hate crimes Kim ’93 (Marlene. and open up employment for poor and working-class Americans. viii) In addition. anti-immigration sentiment. black and white. When people are desperate. sanctions that were not lifted until the 1940s 41 . Robust growth raises income of both whites and blacks. What Washington policymakers have to consider is that no reform can work without strong economic growth. revitalize neighborhoods.000 Mexican Americans were forcibly bussed back across the border. Prof of Labor Studies @ Rutgers University. 7) That racist and anti-Semitic appeals are more popular during times of economic decline is nothing new. lynchings of African Americans increased and 300. economists are focusing on ways to improve public schools. it attacks the pinched economic conditions that allow racism to flourish. These days. 1993 p. ignites when economic times are tough . Over a hundred years ago. they will seek out any politician offering a scapegoat. Such demagoguery is an old and dishonorable tradition in Europe as well as in America. like hate crimes. During the Great Depression of 1930s. More important.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 41 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Racism Growth solves racism Business Week 11-06-1995 ln Everyone agrees that it would be a calamity if African Americans’ economic progress of the past halfcentury ground to a halt. the US prohibited Chinese and later all Asians from immigrating. p.

Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. and wages. Draftees serve closer to home. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all. it reached 9.does not suffer civil war quietly or alone . Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. From 1989 to the present. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). With the economy collapsing. ten years ago. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Should Russia succumb to internal war. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show. 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. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing. Russia's 89 republics. the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. of political science at Johns Hopkins. economic deterioration will be a prime cause. making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low.even though in decline -. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. food. A major power like Russia -.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Within Russia. and medical care. and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. civil war is likely. but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. it is not at all clear which side the military would support. a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far). the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. power devolves to the periphery.000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow. If war erupts. in scores of sites scattered throughout the country.personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 42 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Russia War Economic collapse causes Russian war – that leads to nuclear extinction Steven David. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Prof. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership. however. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions. lexis. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism. however. Russia retains some 20. Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. the consequences would be even worse. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay. what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -. unemployment scarcely existed. But with the Communist Party out of office. but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war. If internal war does strike Russia. If conditions get worse. republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. Foreign Affairs. Jan/Feb 1999. even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. So far. would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. particularly attacks on nuclear plants. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial. housing. the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. In a society where. krais. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Damage from the fighting. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war 42 . and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Meanwhile. the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared.

" By the way. Thanks in part to globalization. 4/20/2007. If people need resources outside their national borders. among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. In short. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other. As economies develop. studies say. wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property. growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies. 7 (Daniel. "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. Since the early 1990s.000 in the 1990s.freetrade. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. According to the Associated Press report. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 43 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Solves War Economic interdependence prevents war Griswold. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. Trade. Erik Gartzke. Far from stoking a "World on Fire. including the freedom to trade. as I argued a moment ago. are growing in number. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy. they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. service economy. "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period. dipping below 20. http://www. ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17. it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. Democracy and Peace." In 2006. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. In short. Dr. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. 43 . trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy. a professor of political science at Columbia University. but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. The death toll from war has also been falling. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom.org/node/681) A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported. the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free. significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Dr. a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40. First. and human capital.000 a year by one measure. those nations have more to lose should war break out. with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable. Peacemaking missions." as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book. In contrast.000 to 100. meanwhile. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. say oil or timber or farm products. Through econometric analysis. and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. As national economies become more intertwined with each other. At the extremes. he found that. hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy.000 in 1951 during the Korean War. and from a peak of 700. "War declining worldwide. financial assets. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another.

Income distributions do not generally change much over time. economic growth .in the sense of rising incomes . Poor people are capable of using economic growth . the average rate of growth in these 50 countries was even lower: a slightly negative -0. Present rates of economic growth in the developing world are simply too low to make a meaningful dent in poverty.especially laborintensive economic growth which provides more jobs -. In particular.12 in Ravallion and Chen (1997). these rates of economic growth need to be significantly increased. World Bank Policy Researcher. tends to be "shallow" in the sense that many people are clustered right below (and above) the poverty line.2 and 31. the average rate of growth for the 50 low income and lower middle income countries in this paper was 2. fall or remain steady with growth. Economic Growth. as measured by the $1 per person per day standard. 44 . including the poor.12 in Bruno. Economic growth reduces poverty because first and foremost growth has little impact on.to "work" themselves out of poverty. Richard H. on average.. even a modest rate of economic growth has the effect of "lifting" people out of poverty. As measured by per capita GDP. the point estimates of the elasticity of poverty with respect to growth are remarkably uniform: from a low of -2.has the general effect of raising incomes for all members of society.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 44 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Solves Poverty Economic growth solves worldwide poverty. Jr. a 10 -percentage point increase in economic growth (measured by the survey mean) can be expected to produce between a 21. to a mid-range of -2.g. Adams. and Sub-Saharan Africa.66 percent per year.59 in this study (excluding Eastern Europe and Central Asia). and applying the lessons of this work to the continuing growth and poverty needs in other areas. Thus. East Asia and South Asia). “February 2003. Ravallion 21 and Squire (1998). As noted above. more work needs to be done on identifying the elements used for achieving successful high rates of economic growth and poverty reduction in certain regions of the developing world (e. Since income distributions are relatively stable over time. In the future. Table 8 underscores these relationships by summarizing the results of recent empirical studies regarding the growth elasticity of poverty. in many developing countries poverty.0 percent per year. Economic growth reduces poverty in the developing countries of the world because average incomes of the poor tend to rise proportionately with those of the rest of the population. Moreover. In other words. such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia. econometric analysis shows that economic growth has no statistical effect on income distribution: inequality may rise.90 percent per year (Table 3). and Poverty” Why is economic growth so important in reducing poverty? The answer to this question has been broached at several points in this analysis. When growth is measured by survey mean income (consumption). Inequality. to a high of -3.2 percent decrease in the proportion of people living in poverty ($1 per person per day). Analysis of the 50 countries and the 101 intervals included in the data set shows that income inequality rises on average less than 1. As measured by mean survey income (consumption). income inequality. The fact that economic growth is so critical in reducing poverty highlights the need to accelerate economic growth throughout the developing world.

It really perpetuates a rape mentality.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 45 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – War Turns Gender Violence War  more violence against women Richards ’04 (Cindy. women were raped. 1 million died. but toward women. June 9. Saddam Hussein was as evil as they come. "Let's begin with war. ln) "I think the war. If this were a war about stopping human rights violations. The rate of violence toward women escalates in war. the jobs and the economy are all very connected to violence against women. I have been outspoken about the war from the very beginning. Under his regime. that was a war that should have been called 20 years ago. I see not only consequences of war toward human beings. Let's begin with rape. "War is really about taking what you want when you want it without consent. Afghanistan. “A new vision for V movement” Chicago Sun-Times. Pakistan." Ensler said." said the playwright and activist who has traveled to war-torn regions in Bosnia." 45 . Kosovo and the Middle East. Take Iraq as an example. people were tortured. That existed for 30 years and we never intervened on behalf of the people being tortured and raped.

“A Global Coalition against International Terrorism” p. “Defining the US Role in the Global Economy” Mandate for Leadership IV.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 46 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Terrorism Economic growth solves terrorism Wanandi ’02 (Jusuf. which often results in increased international terrorism. 46 . 184-9) A robust global economy is a condition sine qua non in the battle against terrorism. These restless poor. grinding poverty – a healthy economy denies terrorists a fresh source of recruits. Feb) Stagnant economics and declining living standards in many Muslim countries breed a popular discontent that fuels the growth of radical Islamic fundamentalism. Widespread unemployment in Muslim countries such as Algeria. and Iran has created a mass of disillusioned young men who form a reservoir of potential recruits for the radical Islamic groups. Economic decline  terrorism Johnson ’97 (Bryan T. This is causing an increase in radical Islamic fundamentalism. member of the board of trustees @ Center for Strategic and International Studies. By destroying a root cause of frustration – namely. Egypt. called the “dispossessed” by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. often join militant groups in search of hope and a sense of personal empowerment. fellow @ heritage foundation.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 47 /414 Nelson <tournament> Economic decline turns TB. 9 (Rosanne. malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years. could make a significant dent in the fund's $5 billon shortfall if it so chose. Switzerland were not asking for a bailout. the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. two-thirds of tuberculosis funding and three-fourths of malaria funding. Tuberculosis and Malaria supplies one-quarter of all AIDS funding. the Global Fund has been forced by the recession-pinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. They were simply calling on donor nations to make good on their pledges. to cut long-term investments in development for near-term savings.com/english/archive/2009-02/200902-04-voa23. we can end malaria deaths and remove a major obstacle to economic development. Gupta says. AIDS Economic downturns divert funds from disease treatment Skirble. the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission. one that could be picking up the slack by buying our goods and being a full productive part of the world economy.reporter for the Voice of America. TB and malaria must be sustained..voanews. Every year since 2001." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life. "puts at risk the malaria control effort. He believes that if the U. TB and AIDS is essential to the economic development of poor nations. a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. including the humanitarian and security aspects. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS. TB." Keeping up the fight against killer diseases like malaria. According to Jeffrey Sachs." he says. which has fallen behind on its pledged commitments. other nations would follow. He says the disease has cost industry on the continent about $12 billion in lost worker productivity. which currently contributes about one third of the Global Fund's resources." Sachs argues that the United States. which he says. [it] requires that these diseases be brought under control. TB and malaria. "One of the good things that has happened before is that each country or different countries have kind of egged each other on to do more." Gupta says the Global Fund's progress in the fight against AIDS." Those monies could not "for one moment balance the lives that are at stake. could save nearly two million additional lives in the coming years. to improve the world's prosperity and its health. Malaria” 04 February 2009." Global Fund Board Chairman Rajat Gupta agrees that the United States could do more to help the fund out of its financial crisis. leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment. says Sachs. And it's just bad economic policy.S. "And [with] just a fraction of that investment. "There is no shortage of funds at the moment when in three months the rich world has found about $3 trillion of funding for bank bailouts and in which there have been $18 billion of Christmas bonuses for Wall Street supported by bailout legislation. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. he believes. that led to the creation of the Global Fund in the first place. 47 .cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6) As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis. VOA “Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS. were to take on more of a leadership role. "That was at least one of the many aspects. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months. That continued support. and now it is the United States' turn to step up and get that going. "For Africa to be a full trading partner. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans. He says he and other health and business leaders who attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. http://www. Gupta says. Peter Chernin is one of a number of business leaders who've supported a $100 million campaign to fight the malaria pandemic in Africa. the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases. prevention and research programs in poor countries. Malaria. For example.

the home front can suffer both economically and socially. In The Rise and fall of the Great Powers. and military power is usually needed to acquire and protect wealth” Furthermore. As Kennedy points out in his book. http://books. Professor of Political Science.google. If a great power overreaches in its international commitments. 48 . The End of the American Century.” Thus. Paul Kennedy puts it bluntly this way: “wealth is usually needed to underpin military power.com/books? id=UCNeNPeRF3UC&dq=the+end+of+the+american+century&source=gbs_navlinks_s. 8 (David. economic wealth is an important dimension of “soft power” – the ability to influence other countries without the exercise of raw military force. economic decline can adversely affect a country’s international influence and standing. Butler University. the relationship between economic power and international power can also run the other direction. pg 13) The crux of the American problem is economic decline because much of America’s global power and influence has been a function of its great economic wealth. or “hard power. however.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 48 /414 Nelson <tournament> Economic Decline Turns Soft Power Economic decline undermines soft power Mason.

the relative power of China. for our purposes what matters is that they form a lower bound of America’s relative decline. China and other states in the world. To measure gross domestic product. Looks pretty good for America. At the same time. Productive capacity —defined by indicators such as wealth. But it is the economy as a whole that constrains the choice. domestic product in any year and divide it by the aggregate total of the gross domestic product of all states in the world. If we look out as far as the IMF can see (2013). Indeed. in 2006 the United States had 28 percent of world product while its nearest most likely competitor. technology and population size—is a prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. may choose to vary the degree to which its productive capacities are used to create military assets.S. http://www.2 By this metric.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 49 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ turns heg Hegemony depends on economic strength Pape. Despite all the pro-economy talk from the Bush 49 .S. single-year “snapshots” of America’s relative power are of limited value for assessing the sustainability of its grand strategy over many years. the United States is now a declining power.nationalinterest. The United States has been going through the first decade of the twenty-first century not stronger than before.3 Although each offers advantages and disadvantages.aspx?id=20484) Over time.S. How good are the numbers? Economists commonly use two other methods to calculate GDP. things get even worse—with the United States expected to continue declining and China to continue rising. had 6 percent. And regardless of the metric. According to GDP figures in current U. The erosion of the underpinnings of U.professor of political science at the University of Chicago. The National Interest. America’s power is fundamentally a result of its economic strength. China. “Empire Falls” 01. Again using IMF figures. dominance based on the current-year dollar figures. 9 (Robert. And the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics. has grown consistently.22. For the sake of argument. the unipolar-dominance school prefers to compare every country’s output in current-year U. The basic notion is simple: take U. but substantially weaker. with its relative power ultimately falling by nearly a quarter in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Table 2 shows the trajectory of the share of world product for the United States and China using both alternative measures. dollars from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The United States. and then began to steadily lose ground during the eight years of the Bush administration. like any state. share of world product. dollars.S. the trend is the same.2009. reached its apogee in 2000.S. This new reality has tremendous implications for the future of American grand strategy. Advocates of extending America’s unipolar dominance are well aware of the central importance of the economic foundations of American power and routinely present detailed statistics on the U. constantdollar calculations and purchasing power parity.org/Article. Major assessments of this relative position have long turned heavily on a single statistic: America’s share of world economic product. the United States increased its share of world production during the 1990s. For grand-strategic concerns—especially how well the United States can balance its resources and foreign-policy commitments—the trajectory of American power compared to other states is of seminal importance. the most recent call for America to exploit its hegemonic position (published in 2008) rests on the presumption of U. but look at the trajectory of the data over time. let us start with the unipolar-dominance school’s preferred measure of American hegemony. right? Alas. a method that tends to show America is much further ahead of other countries than alternative measures. Simply put. power is the result of uneven rates of economic growth between America.S. the state many consider America’s most likely future rival.

Russia has also turned its economic trajectory around. the average rate of U. over the past two decades. growth has fallen considerably. China has sustained a consistently high rate of growth of 10 percent per year—a truly stunning performance. power.S. 50 . the fact is that since 2000. At the same time.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 50 /414 Nelson <tournament> administration. China and Russia are expected to continue growing at a substantially greater rate than the United States. growth rates are down almost 50 percent from the Clinton years. from nearly 4 percent annually during the Clinton years to just over 2 percent per year under Bush. America’s decline was well under way before the economic downturn. This trajectory is almost sure to be revised further downward as the consequences of the financial crisis in fall 2008 become manifest.S. although all major countries are suffering economically. from year after year of losses in the 1990s to significant annual gains since 2000. U. As Table 3 shows.S. which is likely to only further weaken U. Worse. As the most recent growth estimates (November 2008) by the IMF make clear.

The most obvious is economic: as they point out. This point is developed by another of the book's contributors.S. enabled the United States to be "far less restrained .org/Article. etc. "extravagant privileges. Foreign Affairs. This deliberate process contrasts markedly with the willy-nilly way free trade spread in the nineteenth century.S. the U. As Robert Gilpin argues in his chapter. All of this has led to one of the most significant declines of any state since the mid-nineteenth century. such policies led to a "hegemony of the dollar" that gave the U.S. the authors point to the way the United States has very deliberately used its power to advance multilateral. it becomes clear both that the U.). which.that is.S.foreignaffairs. mutually balanced tariff reductions under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later the World Trade Organization). according to O'Brien.S. economy has outstripped almost all of its competitors for much of the past century. as described by O'Brien and Hobson. 3 (Niall. 9 (Robert. nothing achieved by the United Kingdom -. both by making the decline steeper and faster and crowding out productive investment that could have stimulated innovation to improve matters.not even in the first flush of the Industrial Revolution -." Such pressure was classically exerted through "conditionality" -. the U. the terms under which the Washington-based International Monetary Fund granted its loans. tax cuts.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 51 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ turns heg Economic decline undermines heg Pape.. According to these authors.com/articles/59200/niall-ferguson/hegemony-or-empire?page=4.professor of political science at the University of Chicago. than all other states by normal fiscal and foreign exchange constraints when it came to funding whatever foreign or strategic policies Washington decided to implement.22. current-account deficits. the costs could be far higher than a simple percentage drop in share of world product. In other words. self-inflicted wounds of the Bush years significantly exacerbated America’s decline. “Empire Falls” 01. Angus Maddison. Second. governments sought to take advantage of the dollar's role as a key currency before and after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods institutions. The National Interest." As Robert Gilpin notes.nationalinterest. If we end up believing in the wishful thinking of unipolar dominance forever. http://www. government had access to a "gold mine of paper" and could therefore collect a subsidy from foreigners in the form of seigniorage (the profits that flow to those who mint or print a depreciating currency). the tariff reductions achieved in the 1967 Kennedy Round negotiations (and subsequently) owed much to "American pressures. economic weaknesses (spending on the Iraq War.aspx?id=20484) These estimates suggest that roughly a quarter of America’s relative decline is due to U.S. 51 . a sixth to China’s superior performance and just over half to the spread of technology to the rest of the world." In David Calleo's words. fall is remarkable and that dangerous instability in the international system may lie ahead. “Hegemony or Empire?” http://www. The third pillar of American dominance can be found in the way successive U. September/October 2003 The authors' argument about the uniqueness of American hegemony rests on four main pillars. A strong economy is key to American hegemony Ferguson. quoting Charles de Gaulle.ever compared with the United States' recent economic predominance. And when one examines past declines and their consequences.2009.. and explored in almost encyclopedic depth in the chapter by Moses Abramovitz and Paul David.

unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. a collapsing U. 2004 America’s Sticky Power. direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.S.S. Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.S.-led system. not a weakness. debt becomes a strength. and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. 52 . Of course. Foreign Policy. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability. in the last 60 years. as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds. economic collapse leads to global economic depressionWalter Mead. like Samson in the temple of the Philistines. A collapse of the U. Without their best customer.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 52 /414 Nelson <tournament> US Econ Collapse  global A U. Under those circumstances. Proquest Similarly. March/April. pressed too far. countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. But. economy would inflict enormous.

leading resource economist. and Cornell University law School. Previous Gallup research has shown that concern about global warming has diminished this year. professor of economics at Montana State University. The Gallup Poll. “Why Economic Growth is Good for the Environment. Because of a combination of market forces and technological innovations. “Americans: Economy takes precedence over environment." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. Ph.org/articles/article446.just six points higher than the percentage of Democrats choosing economic growth. The partisan spread is somewhat larger for the trade-off question dealing with energy and the environment. There is little question that the current economic crisis poses a significant challenge for the environmental movement in this country.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 53 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. (Republicans and independents are more likely to choose economic growth. 04." says economist Bruce Yandle. opt for the environmental protection position -. Anderson. but who may back off in the face of the perceived need to restore economic growth. and wildlife habitat for economic growth.perc. "If economic growth is good for the environment.D. Republicans and Democrats are almost perfect mirror images of each other in response to this question. who typically have been the most environmentally oriented in their policy positions. Market forces also cause economic growth.” http://www.gallup. With the economy as bad as it has been in recent memory.aspx Only 50% of Democrats. while two-thirds of Democrats hold the opposite view." 53 . we are not running out of natural resources. policies that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment. prices increase. and author of Polling Matters. "economic growth helps to undo the damage done in earlier years. saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity. He saw the "ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. Ph. and the research reviewed here shows clearly that Americans are more willing than ever to forgo protection of the environment if needed in order to ensure economic growth or the production of energy.environment Economic growth is more important and valued by Democrats and Republicans over the environment. with twothirds of Republicans opting for energy over the protection of the environment.” http://www. poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air. D. in economics.php) Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note. As a resource becomes more scarce. But as their incomes rise above subsistence. its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. (Frank Newport.. university of Basel.com/poll/116962/americans-economy-takes-precedence-environment. Put simply. 03 19 09. Just as fossil fuel replaced scarce whale oil. (Terry L. healthy forests. Americans' preferences have swung even more strongly in the direction of the economy over the environment Growth in the economic is beneficial to the environment. Editor in Chief. visiting scholar at Oxford. thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations.) This finding suggests that the economic crisis may present a real philosophical dilemma to those who ordinarily are strongly supportive of environmental protection. which in turn leads to environmental improvements.

has been found for many other environmental indices such as water quality and waste disposal-. a pervasive form of air pollution. for instance. an economist at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman.000.org/articles/article175. Hong Kong." They found. Tung and all of Hong Kong is that the twin goals of environmental protection and increased prosperity are not as contradictory as many environmentalists would have the public believe." In his words this requires"a fundamental change of mindset. Montana. because it will lead to a better environmental quality. is encountering fears over air quality. Around the world policies of "sustainable development" rest on the assumption that current economic systems are bad for the environment and that only through more government control will environmental quality be improved. After that air pollution declines as countries become wealthier.php) As increasing pressure from visiting business leaders and local citizens attests. tend to increase until a country reaches per capita income levels of around $9. According to Grossman and Krueger "contrary to the alarmist cries of some environmental groups." This relationship between economic growth and environmental quality. 12 13 99. 54 .both important concerns for a city such as Hong Kong. like all wealthy countries. (Mathew Brown. Enacting this policy could prove costly not only for Hong Kong's environment but also for its celebrated economic success. and waste disposal. that light particulates.perc." in the way Hong Kong businesses and government operate. which resembles an inverted-U.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 54 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ Growth good. A recent study by Princeton University economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger found that "economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement. To meet these challenges Hong Kong Chief Executive CH Tung has embraced the idea of "sustainable development. “Apple Daily.environment A sustainable development is better achieved through economic growth. The good news for Mr. clean water. Hong Kong” http://www. we find no evidence that economic growth does unavoidable harm to the natural habitat.

php) In addition to asking Hong Kong to give up growth for the sake of future generations. it will help promote economic growth in the region and thus improved environmental quality for its neighbors and itself.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 55 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. 55 . a cornerstone of many "sustainable development" proposals. Hong Kong is a good example of how economic growth will lead to a higher quality of the environment.php) Perhaps more relevant to Hong Kong's future is a recent finding that government efforts to regulate environmental quality. with individual incomes as high as those in the United States and higher than in most parts of Europe. Montana. In that case Hong Kong. (Mathew Brown.8%. Montana. “Apple Daily. Hong Kong is much wealthier than mainland China and indeed most of the rest of Asia. (Mathew Brown. Imagine how different Hong Kong would look today if fifty years ago its imperial rulers had decreed that Hong Kong must not use natural resources so that they would be available for future generations.org/articles/article175. Forcing the current generation to conserve resources for the future is like taxing the poor to give money to the rich. Its economic freedom and consequent wealth will not only allow it to enjoy increased prosperity in the future but also increasing environmental quality. 12 13 99. Hong Kong” http://www. 12 13 99. “Apple Daily. would never have been able to achieve the remarkable economic growth that has made it one of the richest places on Earth.environment Countries that practiced “Sustainable development” actually created a negative impact on economic growth and environmental quality. A policy of sustainable development can also be harmful in its prescription to forgo economic growth in the name of preserving resources for the future. Even well intentioned regulations can have a negative impact on economic growth and thus unintentionally on desired improvements in environmental quality. an economist at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman. As Hong Kong moves into the new millennium it has many advantages over most of its neighbors. an economist at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman.perc. Another team of economists found that American air and water regulations had a total cost of about $320 billion and decreased American gross domestic product (GDP) by 5. Avoiding the temptation to impose new layers of government regulation on a system that has worked so well will be the main challenge standing in its way. and indeed the rest of the world.org/articles/article175. a policy of "sustainable development" involves reducing the environmental burden Hong Kong's economy places on its neighbors. Here Hong Kong's great success is truly in evidence. Hong Kong” http://www. As such it is in a position to worry more about the impact its neighbors have on Hong Kong's environment than vice versa. By continuing the liberal trade and economic policies that have made Hong Kong the envy and model for much of Asia.perc. then with per capita incomes lower than many Third World countries today. can have a substantial negative impact on economic growth.

” http://www. this was demonstrated to hold for Kazakhstan. which led to increased employment and higher real wages and contributed significantly to poverty reduction. However. This underlines the need for sustained. it did not translate into a corresponding improvement in expenditure on the education and health as a share of government revenue or GDP. RBI chair unit at the institute of economic growth. Both government revenue and expenditure increased with growth and increased oil and gas exports. Growth reduced poverty by leading to increased employment and higher real wages.org/documents/periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol24-2-Agrawal. RBI chair unit at the institute of economic growth. Using province-level panel data. expenditure on other social sectors like education and health has not increased much and needs more support. This provided assistance to many unemployed workers who could not adjust to the major and rapid changes from the Soviet era industrial structure. 56 .adb. This happened largely through growth. Delhi. “Economic growth and poverty reduction: evidence from Kazakhstan.pdf) This paper empirically examines the relation between economic growth and poverty alleviation in the case of Kazakhstan using province-level data. Delhi. This suggests that both rapid economic growth and enhanced government support for the social sectors are helpful in reducing poverty. Growth is considered pro-poor if the income share of the poor rises with growth or at least their incomes grow in absolute terms. 08. It is also shown empirically that increased government expenditure on social sectors did contribute significantly to poverty alleviation. which sharply increased in 2003. 08. increasing expenditure for the social sectors in Kazakhstan. university enclave. possibly through additional support from the national government.pdf) Countries with higher growth rates are likely to experience more rapid reduction in poverty. Rapidly increasing oil revenues since 1998 have helped significantly raise both gross domestic product growth and government revenue in Kazakhstan. university enclave. economic growth helps reduce poverty.” http://www. This evidence supports the view that the 1998–2003 high-growth period in Kazakhstan has been pro-poor. It shows that provinces with higher growth rates achieved faster decline in poverty. Part of the oil fund was used to fund a pension and social protection program that has helped reduce poverty.Poverty Countries with higher economic growth rates will face poverty alleviation. was used partly to reform and expand the pension system. Inequality has declined slightly over the recent high-growth period (1998–2003). (Pradeep Agrawal. real expenditure per person on social sectors still rose slightly in some periods over 1998–2003.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 56 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. professor of economics and head. accompanied by reduction in poverty gap and severity. (Pradeep Agrawal.org/documents/periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol24-2-Agrawal. Government revenue. professor of economics and head. Economic growth and poverty alleviation are directly connected. “Economic growth and poverty reduction: evidence from Kazakhstan. Nevertheless. However. more so in the poorer provinces. because of the high growth of government revenue and GDP.adb. The paper shows that provinces (regions) of Kazakhstan that received higher expenditure on social sectors experienced a larger decline in poverty. both in real terms and as percent of GDP.

poverty/environment Economic growth is key to reducing poverty and helping the environment. in particular the populous economies of east and south Asia. political and civil rights. 57 . GDP remains a useful proxy measure of human well-being. The world economy has grown approximately fivefold since 1950. Wellfunctioning civil institutions.5 trillion of the US$27. and some indicators of environmental quality.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 57 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. secure individual and property rights. adult literacy. However. an unprecedented rate of increase. “Economic growth and human development.org/publication/content/8372) Economic growth is an important factor in reducing poverty and generating the resources necessary for human development and environmental protection. though. accounting for US$22. economic growth alone does not guarantee human development. The industrialized economies still dominate economic activity. infant mortality.7 trillion global GDP in 1993 [1]. 97. There is a strong correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and indicators of development such as life expectancy. Despite its shortcomings.” http://www.wri. Yet a remarkable trend over the past 25 years has been the burgeoning role played by developing countries. and broad-based health and educational services are also vital to raising overall living standards. (World Resources institute.

“Economic growth and poverty reduction: evidence from Kazakhstan.pdf The growing literature on policies for poverty reduction has emphasized the importance of economic growth. (Pradeep Agrawal.org/documents/periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol24-2-Agrawal. which in turn grows with economic growth. and maintain government demand for goods that helped industrial recovery. 08.” http://www. the key role of economic growth has been emphasized in the literature.adb. which in turn decreases poverty through social programs.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 58 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. RBI chair unit at the institute of economic growth. 58 . A portion of these funds was used to improve the social security/pension system. as well as targeted provision of government aid in poverty alleviation and development. Since government aid to the poor is dependent on government revenue. professor of economics and head. Delhi. university enclave. This paper examined these issues empirically for Kazakhstan and showed that the rapid increase in oil and gas extraction and related activities very significantly contributed to economic growth as well as to increased government revenue.social services Economic growth helps increase government revenue. This played a key role in poverty reduction in Kazakhstan.

depending on the initial conditions in the country. Overall. the Network on Poverty Reduction (POVNET). contribute to and benefit from growth”. OECD development Cooperation.php/aid/2173/Economic_growth_versus_poverty_ reduction:_A__93hollow_debate_94_. "Economic growth versus poverty reduction: A "hollow debate"?. ownership. One study shows that a 1% increase in per capita incomes may reduce income poverty by as much as 4% or by less than 1%.poverty Economic growth is key to reduce poverty.org/news/fullstory. This means “a pace and pattern of growth that enhances the ability of poor women and men to participate in.oecdobserver. 59 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 59 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. and so on. What this means for policy is spelt out in a new book by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD. (Ebba Dohlman and Mikael Soderback. most of the evidence confirms that poverty reduction depends on the pace and pattern of economic growth. such as the distribution of assets. has helped to steer previously divided opinion into a new consensus that rapid and sustained poverty reduction requires pro-poor growth. But how to achieve the optimal pattern? The answer is a hybrid: pro-poor and pro-growth approaches are mutually reinforcing and should go hand in hand." http://www.html) A close look at what can be patchy data suggests that growth. poverty and inequality are linked. Its forum. 03 07. whose member countries handle some 90% of world bilateral ODA (see references).

We would never have innovation. 08. That explains why we want a continuous increase in GDP. Everyone is in debt through borrowing. Even people making near the Minimum Wage have access to products and information that wasn’t yet invented or available to that time period.com/search? q=people+will+always+want+economic+growth&hl=en&start=10&sa=N) We now know what Economic Growth is. and that would lead to a recession which we know ends in job losses.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 60 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Dedev-No mindshift People will always want an increase in economic growth. “Economic Growth. but why do we want to control its speed. What would happen to GDP? It would increase drastically for a short period of time.” http://www. 60 . Ex: Would you rather live during the time of the Biltmore Mansion. Without increased Economic Growth we would never improve our standard of living. but that can’t last. Everyone would become poor. (Richland college. why is too fast or too slow equally as bad as no growth? Think about everyone running out and borrowing money to start businesses or invent new products. It is the level of Real GDP increasing over time. or today at minimum wage? We are much better off today than we were 120 years ago (roughly the time when the Biltmore Estate was built). because it prevents everyone from becoming poor.google. The trick about Economic Growth is that we always want it increasing. but not too fast or too slow. there would be no consumers to buy all of these new products.

Simply put. rather than disrupting it or trying to bypass it. Today. (The Futurist.typepad. As the world economy accelerated from centuries of slow growth to a period of rapid growth starting from the middle of the 20th century." http://futurist.com/my_weblog/2006/04/the_psychology_. and also a decline in large-scale warfare in general. they are more interested in maintaining and strengthening it.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 61 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good-violence Economic growth leads to less violence and disorder. we have seen a general decline in violence and disorder in developed societies. 04 30 06.html) In centuries past. 61 . killing another person in order to take his belongings was common. when more people have a stake in the stability and health of the system. the downside risk to one's career of even petty theft or minor fraud is enough that most people in the US today don't consider it. and helps establish stability and the quality of health. "The Psychology of Economic Progress.

Whist some work has been undertaken for transitional economies." http://www. Economic growth helps increase social welfare. "Chairman of MIND (Munasinge Institute for development).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 62 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. including the combination of various frameworks for the effective use of agricultural infrastructure and ensuring sustainable results from it. and must be accelerated to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.go. leading to a decrease in poverty. Economic growth is desirable if it improves social welfare. JBIC offers a range of support tools. Within the literature and public policy. 62 . 11 06. (Mathew Clarke." http://books. Economic growth leads to higher incomes and improved access to basic needs.google.com/books? id=TK1YDJKJoC8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=economic+growth+leads+welfare&source=bl&ots=Z88sFL27JS&sig=sa Q7KNsHERU_k4x98hR3XxAKre4&hl=en&ei=JpYSpG1NaCytwftgfHdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3) An explanation of the relationships between economic growth and social welfare is an enduring question in contemporary development studies. welfare analysis has been generally limited to the suggestion of general frameworks. as welfare analysis of economic growth is limited within the literature.social services Economic growth helps increase social services. 09 03. As the development experience in Asia has shown. For rural areas where many of the poor live. However. economic growth boosts incomes and creates employment opportunities. and there is a growing awareness throughout the international community that agricultural development is extremely important in reducing poverty.html) It is estimated that 1.jp/en/report/jbic-today/2006/11/index_02.1 billion people in the world live on less than a dollar a day. which is the objective of governments.jbic. Reducing poverty in developing countries requires sustainable economic growth and the development of infrastructure to support that growth.1 billion live in rural areas in developing countries. leading to higher standards of living. the costs of achieving economic growth are often not fully considered. (JBIC. Japanese bank of international cooperation. the orthodox view is that achieving economic growth is the appropriate means to increase social welfare and enhancing social welfare is a rational objective of society and governments. "Infrastructure development to alleviate poverty. About three-quarters of these 1. the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) has provided Official Development Assistance (ODA) loans to support the development of infrastructure that will serve as a foundation for growth in the agricultural sector.

09. Thus Trainer's tendency to blame individual consumption levels for the ecological crisis stems from his equating affluence (a plentiful supply of products meeting rational needs) with consumerism and wasteful consumption created by capitalism 63 . "Environment. as the title indicates.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 63 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Trainer Ted Trainer’s ideas are flawed – overconsumption is unavoidable and necessary (Margo Condoleon. the permanent stimulation of new "needs" through advertising." http://books. It also fails to grasp that wasteful consumption is overwhelmingly created by the needs of capital for ever expanding markets: if profits need to be maintained planned obsolescence. Document of the DSP.google. Capitalism and Socialism. They contain very detailed presentation of trends in resource depletion and energy supply. multiple versions of the same product and unnecessary packaging are all unavoidable. However. Trainer argues strongly against those who believe that these problems can be addressed adequately through existing political and social institutions. the wastefulness of consumer societies. Abandon Affluence argues that all have to accept a lower level of consumption -the root cause of the ecological crisis is "overconsumption" by individual consumers in the industrially developed countries. national executive. This argument undervalues the great disparities in income that exist within the developed countries.com/books?id=kP4xrhGDoywC&pg=PA97&dq=ted+trainer&lr=&ei=LBYSsujHpbyzQTLzJw1) Ted Trainer's main ideas have been expressed in two books – Abandon Affluence and Developed to Death. population growth. and the exploitation of the Third World by wealthier nations.

In addition. Naysayers claimed America’s weakness would fell the emerging world. China is exhibit A of this new decoupling: its economy began to accelerate again in the first four months of this year. Leaders may choose to negotiate a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy. even the best performing countries will grow more slowly than they did between 2004 and 2007. Fixed investment is growing at its fastest pace since 2006 and consumption is holding up well. Yet perhaps the idea was dismissed too soon. In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs. 33-61. such as Mexico. brightened the outlook for Brazil and other commodity exporters. when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry. Decoupling 2. Such optimism has fuelled commodity prices which have. and rivals require even more attention.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm ?story_id=13697292) REMEMBER the debate about decoupling? A year ago. and they have proven more able and willing to respond to economic weakness than many feared. it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. The result was that domestic demand slumped even as exports fell. many commentators—including this newspaper—argued that emerging economies had become more resilient to an American recession. Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for ways to improve a worsening situation. http://www. vol. (Over half of China’s exports go to other emerging economies. 2k (D. in turn. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for a rivalry. Even if America’s output remains weak.44 no.1 p. and China recently overtook the United States as Brazil’s biggest export market. Us not key to world economy. emerging economies. Nor will the resilience be universal: eastern Europe’s indebted economies will suffer as global banks cut back. there are signs that some of the larger emerging economies could see a decent rebound. Over the past six months the global slump seemed to prove the sceptics right. or even mainly. So will smaller. Hypothesis 2: Poor economic conditions increase the probability of rivalry termination. jstor Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal problems . they demand are search design that can account for substitutability between them.0” May 21. Economies such as China or Brazil were walloped late last year not only. Scott and Timothy Nordstrom. more tradedependent countries. Journal of Conflict resolution. However. and least indebted.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 64 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ defense Economic problems don’t increase the likelihood of war Bennet and Nordstrom.economist.“Foreign Policy) Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring Rivalries”. most economists agree that output will grow faster than seemed plausible only a few months ago. and emerging economies intertwined with America. thanks to their strong domestic markets and prudent macroeconomic policies. dept of political science @ the University of Penn. such a gain is likely to bemost important and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate active problems. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. Growth this year could be close to 8%. many emerging countries had been aggressively tightening monetary policy to fight inflation just before these shocks hit. will continue to be hit hard. Despite debate over the accuracy of China’s GDP figures (see article). It is based on two under-appreciated facts: the biggest emerging economies are less dependent on American spending than commonly believed. Military competition between states requires large amounts of resources. Hypotheses 1 and 2 posit opposite behaviors in response to a single cause (internal economic problems). 5-21 (“Decoupling 2.emerging economies are more independent from the US The Economist. Among other things.) They were hit hard by the near-collapse of global credit markets and the dramatic destocking by shell-shocked firms.0 is a narrower phenomenon. Emerging economies reeled and decoupling was ridiculed. 64 . That said. As such. 2009. because American demand plunged. confined to a few of the biggest. 2000. this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could no longer compete economically with the United States.

it's adaptive. This is one area where the bears don't want to give too much credit. Fingold = portfolio manager of Dynamic Funds. Economy Huge Winner in Future” May 30. the numbers look very encouraging. its government goes to bat for its corporations around the world. and look at the valuations in equity markets.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm. it's improving pretty dramatically. has huge underlying strength: "America is one of the only free markets in the world. The retail data in the U. China and the U. in March were more than 12 million [at an annual pace] so they are already exceeding U.do) We follow two economies very closely.com/diane-francis/us-economy-hugewinner-in_b_104205.html) The current slowdown is temporary because the U." Fingold's global funds are under-weighted in Europe because the Euro has risen by 40% and has decimated corporate profits and exporters. It has tax advantages. The low dollar means that there is a huge wind at the back for companies who can serve the world with exports. you can make a case that maybe things are improving a bit. but not for long and then they will get worse. 8 (Dianne." 65 ." he said.huffingtonpost. 2009. economy is very resilient. for instance.lexisnexis. The Huffington Post. durables numbers are not as bad. 2008.S. You have to look very closely at housing because that's where the whole trouble started. That's a very rare occurrence. Multiple competitive advantages ensure the US economy will remain strong Francis. the numbers are beginning to improve. And if you look at inventories. In the U. car sales. “Optimism reigns. they're scraping the bottom right now so you could have a pretty fast recovery there. equity returns are zero.S. It will take time. In China. Look at the amount of stimulus. If you look at the last 10 years. we are still in a crisis mode. Said Fingold: "The United States still has huge competitive advantages to the rest of the world. Unlike Japan and Europe. its government protects intellectual property. and it's going to take a long time to clean it up. has competitive advantages compared to virtually all other countries.S. The Globe and Mail..S. They also have a fairly aggressive stimulus plan that seems to be sticking. He's also cautious about Asia. are not as bad.S. Not as bad to me is a good sign. http://www. where intellectual property and people can be developed. services and goods that help build their economies and enable infrastructure development. I think we have a problem that started in the housing sector with subprime. dollar which is why we are reluctant to invest in Asian exporters and multinationals.S. You're seeing mortgage applications. Car sales in China. Its industrial and technology companies are the hot houses of the world for producing innovation.chief investment strategist for Dynamic Funds. but they learn their lessons and they do adapt very well and it's still a very productive economy. “U. good laws. They go and blow their brains out once every five or six years because of excesses. I don't believe we are in a great depression. I think we will have setbacks. April 17. If you're looking at affordability. What do you say to that? But maybe it will not get worse again. The U.S.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 65 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ Defense The economy is resilient Sehgal. The bears say that things may get better. http://www. 4-17 (Rohit. "Asian currencies will be the next to rise against the U.S. even after the humble pie” Lexis-Nexis Academic. The U. It doesn't mean we won't have setbacks.S. because industrial production came to a screeching halt. certainly. When you look at all this anecdotal evidence. They're at historically low levels.

and governments." "Water pollution." The report notes that this global resurgence of infectious disease involves old. familiar diseases like tuberculosis and the plague as well as new ones like Ebola and Lyme disease.5 million people in 1993." says Platt. as well as economic development." the report says. shrinking forests. Infectious diseases take their greatest toll in developing countries. Governments focus narrowly on individual cures and not on mass prevention. malaria. dengue fever. communities. global trade. and severe environmental degradation. Poverty To Blame” http://www. says the new report. "Infectious diseases are a basic barometer of the environmental sustainability of human activity. tuberculosis. and population increases. Some 400 million people suffer from debilitating malaria. It is imperative that we bring health considerations into the equation when we plan for international development. 66 . infectious diseases killed 16. poverty. rodents. and the growth of mega-cities. Inadequate vaccinations have led to resurgences in measles and diphtheria. Yet all show the often tragic consequences of human actions: Population increases. in the wrong way. says. and we fail to understand that lifestyle can promote infectious disease just as it can contribute to heart disease." By the year 2000. Illness and death from tuberculosis.worldwatch. inadequate health care. and dysentery. Poorly planned development disrupts ecosystems and provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes. The resurgence of diseases once thought to have been conquered stems from a deadly mix of exploding populations." The author notes." "Beyond the number of people who die. "It can be a crushing burden for families.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 66 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environmental Destruction/opop turns disease Worldwatch Institute. typhoid. "The dramatic resurgence of infectious diseases is telling us that we are approaching disease and medicine. author of the report. about 200 million have schistosomiasis. and HIV/AIDS. "Such suffering and economic loss is doubly tragic. yet preventing them is not only simple. according to a new study released by the Worldwatch Institute. "because the cost of these diseases is astronomical. "Only by adopting a more sustainable path to economic development can we control them.org/node/1593) Rates of infectious disease have risen rapidly in many countries during the past decade. where cases of malaria and tuberculosis are soaring. misuse of antibiotics. leading to human crowding. infectious disease deaths rose 58 percent between 1980 and 1992. Infecting Ourselves: How Environmental and Social Disruptions Trigger Disease. and snails that spread debilitating diseases. the social and economic cost of infectious diseases is hard to overestimate." Platt says. one-third of all deaths worldwide. and slightly more than cancer and heart disease combined. Misuse of antibiotics has created drug-resistant strains of pneumonia and malaria. 96 (“Infectious Diseases Surge: Environmental Destruction. but inexpensive. to prevent disease from spreading and further undermining economic development. AIDS will cost Asian countries over $50 billion a year just in lost productivity. and nine million have tuberculosis. and AIDS are up sharply. Recent outbreaks result from a sharp imbalance between a human population growing by 88 million each year and a natural resource base that is under increasing stress. Lack of clean water is spreading diseases like cholera. Eighty percent of all disease in developing countries is related to unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation. Research Associate Anne Platt. rampant poverty. are prompting dramatic increases in dengue fever. and rising temperatures are driving the upward surge in infections in many countries. but even in the United States.

but the following mechanisms have been proposed: • altered habitat leading to changes in the number of vector breeding sites or reservoir host distribution. technologies used. lakes and coastal ecosystems. The needs of the human organism for food. ecosystems are the planet's life-support systems . technology and lifestyle.for the human species and all other forms of life (see Figure 1. For example. 5 (“Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis” http://www. In many industrialized countries. urban environments commonly take for granted ecosystem services to health.1). Historically.who. with access to good health care services. 5 (“Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis” http://www. for instance) and improved health services and education. ecosystems are essential to human well-being and especially to human health – defined by the World Health Organization as a state of complete physical. although in many cases more distant from the source of the ecosystem services on which they depend. The complex multifactorial causation of states of health and disease complicates the attribution of human health impacts to ecosystem changes. In turn. These include infrastructural assets. Industrial societies. damage and even destroy their natural environmental support base. Resource consumption in one location can lead to degradation of ecosystem services and associated health effects in other parts of the world (SG3). income and wealth distribution. clean air. and level of knowledge. There is an observable tendency for powerful and wealthy societies eventually to overexploit.who. The agricultural-based civilizations of Mesopotamia. Notwithstanding ecosystems' fundamental role as determinants of human health. Environmental destruction causes new diseases WHO. and • environmental contamination by infectious disease agents (such as faecal contamination of source waters). A precautionary approach to ecosystem management is appropriate. fertilizer use in agricultural production increasingly is dependent on resources extracted from other regions and has led to eutrophication of rivers. • human-induced genetic changes in disease vectors or pathogens (such as mosquito resistance to pesticides or the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria). the Mayans. sociocultural factors play a similarly important role. Those who live in materially comfortable.pdf) In a fundamental sense. • niche invasions or transfer of interspecies hosts. shelter and relative climatic constancy are basic and unalterable. contributing to increases in life expectancy.pdf) Disturbance or degradation of ecosystems can have biological effects that are highly relevant to infectious disease transmission (C14). the pressure on ecosystems can be conceptualized as a function of population. may reach similar limits.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1. economic activity. and (on a micro-scale) Easter Island all provide well documented examples. the Indus Valley. But this ignores the role of the natural environment: of the array of ecosystems that allow people to enjoy good health. social organization. 67 . They assume that good health derives from prudent consumer choices and behaviours. At its most fundamental level of analysis. water. mental and social well-being. overexploitation of ecosystem services has led to the collapse of some societies (SG3). changes in these social factors over the last few centuries have both enhanced some ecosystem services (through more productive agriculture. a built environment and life itself. • biodiversity change (including loss of predator species and changes in host population density).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 67 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environment Impact/ turns disease Environmental collapse threatens health and civilization collapse WHO. The reasons for the emergence or re-emergence of some diseases are unknown.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1. these factors depend on many social and cultural elements. That is.

Mr. "Joint projects to clean up sites." The study finds that a decrepit and declining environment can depress economic activity and diminish the authority of the state in the eyes of its citizens. 4 (United Nations News Center. http://www." he added.un. "These scars." said the UNEP chief. and strengthening cooperation between the different countries' ministries and institutions may hold the key to building trust. It also points out that the addressing environmental problems can foster trust among communities and neighbouring countries. 2004. “Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability” November 5.asp? NewsID=12460&Cr=conflict&Cr1=environment. threatening water supplies. Citing a new UNEP report produced in collaboration with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). agreements and treaties to better share resources such as rivers and forests. understanding and more stable relations.org/apps/news/story.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 68 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environment turns war/economy Environmental degradation increases war. instability. Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within and between societies. 68 . the fertility of the land and the cleanliness of the air are recipes for instability between communities and neighbouring countries. and hurts the economy UN.

acidification. the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36. he concludes.4 billion hectares. International Security“ On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict” 199. not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable. erosion. Currently.48 Moreover. More importantly. estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion.47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0. and compacting. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet. logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion.52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries. In addition. and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods.library. who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage.53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt. in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1. but nearly all the best land has already been exploited.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land.8-7. Since the Second World War. others are not yet visible anywhere. perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization. cropland grew at just 0. waterlogging. The geographer Vaclav Smil. the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000. http://www.000 hectares of irrigated farmland projected within the Plan for 2007 will actually be irrigable because of the hydrological effects of decreases in forest cover. experts expect that the world average of 0. infested with pests. 91 (Thomas. salinization. and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity. about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification. logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6. What is left is either less fertile. which includes both current and potential cropland. These factors may seriously affect crop production. nutrient depletion.49 Across the archipelago. which can be traced out in the figure. or harder to clear and work.9 percent a year.utoronto. range from 3. problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact. less than half the rate of the 1970s. given the current rate of world population growth.Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto.54 Taken together.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2. changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns. For example.17 hectares by the year 2025.2 to 3. no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 69 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environmental destruction turns agriculture Environmental degradation destroys cropland Homer-Dixon.55 69 .26 percent a year. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests.5 billion hectares. total global cropland amounts to about 1.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change.51 For developing countries during the 1980s.6 million hectares. when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan.

but the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Philosopher. 145) A society that robs and individual of the product of his effort. “The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. 70 . Life on desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable than existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. and represents. or compels him to act against his own rational judgment. a society. or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind. July 1989. but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. has no possible justification. not a source of benefits.” p. strictly speaking. or enslaves him. Such a society destroys all values of human coexistence. a society that sets up a conflict between it’s ethics and the requirements of man’s nature – is not.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 70 /414 Nelson <tournament> Freedom Violation of freedom negates the value of human existence and represents the greatest threat to human survival Rand 89 (Ayn Rand.

2005. Yet genocide is such a painful subject that either we’d rather not think about it at all. those were not even the largest-scale genocide of this century.org/views/articles/rice/20050807. Genocide makes a claim on the entire world and it should be a call to action whatever diplomatic feathers it ruffles.brookings. Genocide should always be weighed before other impacts Rice 05 (Susan Rice. jails dissidents. http://www. Together with our destruction of our own environmental resources. THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE. as dreadful as such policies may be. squanders economic resources or suppresses free speech. But our refusal to think about it has consequences we’ve done little to halt the numerous episodes of genocide since World War II. say. The Tasmanians and hundreds of other peoples were modern targets of successful smaller extermination campaigns.htm) Never is the international responsibility to protect more compelling than in cases of genocide. our genocidal tendencies coupled to nuclear weapons now constitute the two most likely means by which the human species may reverse all its progress virtually overnight. and we’re not alert to where it may happen next. Brookings Institute. August 7. p. Numerous peoples scattered throughout the world are potential targets in the near future. 1992. A government that commits or condones it is not on a par with one that. Genocide is not a regional issue.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 71 /414 Nelson <tournament> Genocide Genocide threatens extinction Diamond 92 (Diamond. 277) While our first association to the world “genocide” is likely to be the killings in Nazi concentration camps. WHY DARFUR CAN’T BE LEFT TO AFRICA. or else we’d like to believe that nice people don’t commit genocide only Nazis do. 71 .

Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined. Iran and Iraq have.S. 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). U.in the region. with the domination of Europe or East Asia. it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. investments in these regions. Finally. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil. Such a development would threaten U. 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. With and potential new regional powers such as India. Korea. European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany. Rand Corporation. First.S.especially since unification -. protection. In Western and Central Europe. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.<continued…> Under the third option. nation in the world. Britain and France fear such a development. the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. On balance. and world economies.S. their own nuclear weapons.S. Higher oil prices would reduce the U. Germany -. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. standard of living. Given Japanese technological prowess. it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. the Saudis might seek to acquire. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. To preclude this development. 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. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. Russia. <continued…> The extension of instability. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. U. would be harmed. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States. Indonesia. If this happened. But it would be a mistake to assume that U. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. gross domestic product. Without U. Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -. interests.S. perhaps by purchase. withdrawal could not. rather than cooperating with each other. withdrawal from the world. conflict. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia. and a united Korea proeruptive States stayed out of such a war -. Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. in the long run. both sought regional hegemony. Besides. such as nuclear proliferation. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.S.Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. including the United States. European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia.an unlikely prospect the shifting balance of power among Japan.would be the natural leading power.S. the security of every be high. could come significant risks of preventive or war. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. 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. increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. free markets. protection.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 72 /414 Nelson <tournament> Heg Heg prevents global nuclear wars Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay Khalilzad. the cost of necessary adjustments might The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Without U. In the Persian Gulf. Given a U. and low-level conflicts. and precluding its domination by rival powers. the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities. if it should so decide. U. Second.S. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oilimporting nations.S.S. Europe. and the rule of law.to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces.democracy. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. in the past. China. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -. stabilizing the region.S. result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. 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. 72 . Similarly. China. The same is also true of Japan. to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry. If the United -. the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. This could result in arms races.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U. and hostile hegemony in East Asia. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. perhaps reducing U. including a global nuclear exchange.

(25) Second. 73 . deviance. that ultimately justifies state sanction of anti-gay hate propaganda. the absence of protection from hate propaganda-particularly in jurisdictions such as Canada. stigmatization. and genocide. sexual orientation hate propaganda reinforces (and is reinforced by) the other tools of homophobia. seen contextually. which include harassment. and supremacy--form the context of homophobia against which hate propaganda works its harms. all of which exacerbate existing feelings of vulnerability and isolation. causing particular detriment to freedom of expression. (24) First among them is a range of physiological and psychological traumas experienced by members of the targeted group.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 73 /414 Nelson <tournament> Homophobia  War Heterosexual dominance justifies genocide – homophobia isolates homosexuals as citizens undeserving of equal protection of law Cohen. where other target groups receive protection--signals to members of sexual minorities that they are second class citizens not entitled to equal protection of the law. the implements of heterosexual domination. sexism. murder. (27) Finally. they are. freedom of association. (28) It is the individual and combined effect of these interconnected tools of homophobia.” McGill law review] The above phenomena--closetry. and democracy. and not the mere pluralization of individual defamation or libel. gay bashing. (26) Third. overt and covert discrimination. 2K [“More censorship or less discrimination? Sexual orientation hate propaganda in multiple perspectives. These harms are not just those of individual libel writ large. these effects extend beyond the targeted group. extortion.

NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW. globalization of the market economy . 1999. violence by official and private actors. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights. law professor. p.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 74 /414 Nelson <tournament> Human Rights: Credibility Human Right Credibility solves extinction Copelan 99 (Rhonda Copelan. encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability. it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy. 74 . machinations to truncate it in the international arena. environmental protection. particularly affecting Northern countries. 71-2) The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U. particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development. peace.S. and military and environmental depredation. Indeed. Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world. NYU. and security. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world. the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty. who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment.

when people are free to think. Second. and deny their people fair justice. 7-7. But as for terrorists.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/usint9009_txt. speaking out for economic progress and better schools and against corruption and arbitrary rule. The terrorists’ primary aim.Terrorism Human Rights credibility gives us the influence to start modern movements and ensure necessary cooperation to stop terrorist attacks Tom Malinowski. Egypt. http://hrw. Al Qaeda’s aim of painting the United States as the enemy is also advanced. its credibility and influence are diminished. lock up non-violent dissidents. American power in the world is more likely to be respected when it is harnessed to goals that are universally shared. which stretches from Africa to the Middle East to Central. speak.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 75 /414 Nelson <tournament> Human Rights Promo Good. South and Southeast Asia. thus playing right into the hands of terrorist movements. Indeed. they are contributing to the radicalization of their people. But such movements can only exist under democratic conditions. p. First. promoting human rights and democracy is important because America’s moral authority partly depends on it. abuse the rule of law. write and worship without fear. and to seize upon that anger to transform the region politically. People around the world are more likely to aid the United States in the fight against terrorism and other important goals if they believe the United States is also interested in defending their rights and aspirations. When governments in countries like Pakistan. Washington Advocacy Director. Without a doubt. when they can form political organizations. they do not need human rights to do what they do.htm Having an effective and principled American strategy to promote democratic freedoms around the world has never been more important to America’s national security. Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan shut down political dissent. non-violent political movements that represent their peoples’ aspirations. They have thrived in the most repressive societies in the world. When America is seen to be compromising the values it has long preached. and they will be part of the political landscape as societies in the Middle East become more open. extremist movements in this region is the development of moderate. 75 . torture opponents. Human Rights Watch. It is the people who don’t use violence who need democratic freedoms to survive. the aims of Al Qaeda and its allies are advanced by the actions of repressive regimes in the Muslim world. we should remember. in the long run. the only viable alternative to the rise of violent. 2004. Promoting Human Rights and Democracy. for three reasons. I strongly believe that promoting human rights is central to America’s central national security imperative of defeating terror. Third. And when ordinary people in the region associate the United States with their repressive governments. is to turn the hearts and minds of the people of this region against their governments and against the West. more radical organizations can also exploit democratic freedoms to express their views. and when their rights are protected by independent courts.

it would support elements within Iran that seek liberalization. More Terror We’re familiar with the horror scenario of a Muslim state passing a nuclear bomb to terrorists for use against an American city. and nuclear war Kurtz. and so as not to allow Iran to take de facto cultural-political control of the Muslim world. The danger of WMD in Iranian hands. Saudi Arabia and Iran are already lobbing conventional missiles at one another? Would we know who had attacked us? Could we actually drop a retaliatory nuclear bomb on someone without being absolutely certain? And as Rosen asks.com/? q=OWU4MDMwNmU5MTI5NGYzN2FmODg5NmYyMWQ4YjM3OTU=) Proliferation optimists. to keep the peace. 2004. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are likely to develop their own nuclear weapons. Rosen assumes (rightly I believe) that proliferation is unlikely to stop with Iran. In fact. and the Sunni Saudis and Egyptians (not to mention Israel) is likely to fuel a dangerous multi-pronged nuclear arms race. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. precisely because of the danger. and with the big opponents training satellites and specialized advance-guard radar emplacements on each other. J. then. Deep mutual suspicion between an expansionist. this very difficulty would encourage states (or ill-controlled elements within nuclear states — like Pakistan’s intelligence services or Iran’s Revolutionary Guards) to pass nukes to terrorists. should be active advocacy of human rights improvement in Iran. 17 Harv.nationalreview. and human freedom. A dramatic improvement in Iran’s human rights record would thus decrease the danger of the state’s potential WMD acquisition. deterrence-based understanding. Current policy emphasizes preventing Iran from acquiring WMD. Hum. Such a policy would differentiate reformist groups in government and civil society from conservative religious leaders. say. But what if a nuclear missile is launched at the United States from somewhere in a fully nuclearized Middle East. and have also eschewed a potentially destabilizing nuclear arms race. Such a policy would encourage non-governmental efforts to engage with and assist Iran’s NGO and academic communities. Spring. 8/28. apocalyptic. non-proliferation goals. the two countries seem to have established a clear. It might involve changing rhetoric and granting minor concessions that strengthen Khatami’s hand vis-à-vis the clerical leadership.) With three. four. Shiite Iran. Right now.[133] which is admittedly important. while the current stability encourages proliferation optimists. http://article. Finally. Larger arsenals mean more chance of a 76 .Iran Prolif Human rights promotion is critical to stem Iran prolif William W. the Indians and Pakistanis “enjoy” an apparently stable nuclear stand-off. Burke-White. 249. or more nuclear states in the Muslim Middle East. Likewise. for self-protection. on the other hand.S. 6 (Stanley. such a policy would require Iran’s full participation in the war on terror and an end to its support for the Hezbollah. channels of communication. terrorism.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 76 /414 Nelson <tournament> Human Rights Promo Good. The 2001 crisis gives fuel to proliferation pessimists. however. But imagine the same scenario in a multi-polar Muslim nuclear world. Part and parcel of U.S. National Review Online. stems in part from the aggressive tendencies associated with Iran’s human rights abuses. Without choosing between hawkish proliferation pessimists and dovish proliferation optimists. see reasons for hope in the record of nuclear peace during the Cold War. Senior Special Assistant to the Dean. It would single out repressive elements within Iran—those particular clerics who seek to push Iran back toward totalitarian theocracy. With a small number of geographically separated nuclear states. Once Iran gets the bomb. (I think you’ve got to at least add Egypt to this list. in practice. Rts. Iran proliferation causes arms race. “Our Fallout-Shelter Future”. what becomes of deterrence? A key to deterrence during the Cold War was our ability to know who had hit whom. that a multi-polar nuclear Middle East is unlikely to follow the South Asian model. What if the nuclear blow was delivered against us by an airplane or a cruise missile? It might be almost impossible to trace the attack back to its source with certainty. policy toward Iran. With several Muslim countries in possession of the bomb. The tougher it is to trace the source of a weapon. in the middle of a war in which. proliferation optimists point out that the very horror of the nuclear option tends. nuclear proliferation to multiple Muslim states greatly increases the chances of a nuclear terror strike. Lexis The human rights-aggression link suggests alterations in U. secular Turkey. democracy. the easier it is to give the weapon away. it was relatively easy to know where a missile had come from. Attacks by Kashmiri militants in 2001 may have pushed India and Pakistan close to the nuclear brink. it would be extremely difficult to trace the state source of a nuclear terror strike. Both countries have established basic deterrence. especially in the midst of an ongoing conventional conflict. In short. That might involve beginning a conversation with President Mohammed Khatami and members of parliament through our European partners. Rosen points out. While granting the risks. senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Yet since then. Rosen simply asks how we ought to act in a post-proliferation world. however.

If the proliferation optimists are right. On the other hand.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 77 /414 Nelson <tournament> weapon being slipped to terrorists. Iran may be tempted to take control of Kuwait’s oil wealth. And of course. Iran would be far less likely to make a move on nearby Kuwait. especially in the transitional period before the Saudis develop weapons of their own. The collapse of the world’s non-proliferation regime also raises the chances that nuclearization will spread to Asian powers like Taiwan and Japan. on the assumption that the United States will not dare risk a nuclear confrontation by escalating the conflict. but there were also many “hot” proxy wars. possession of nuclear weapons is likely to embolden Iran. If conventional wars break out in a nuclearized Middle East. There may have been nuclear peace during the Cold War. 77 . to the extent that we do see conventional war in a nuclearized Middle East. then once the Saudis get nukes. Like Saddam. the losers will be sorely tempted to cancel out their defeat with a nuclear strike. it may be very difficult to stop them from escalating into nuclear confrontations.

Promoting Democracy in the 1990's. with its provisions for legality. p 6- 7) This hardly exhausts the list of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. popular sovereignty. Washington Advocacy Director. But the United States needs to project more than moral clarity—it must maintain moral authority to promote a more humane and democratic world. As we make decisions on these complex matters. accountability. Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. Nuclear. we have to take into account the impact those decisions will have on America's ability to champion democratic values around the world. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. appears increasingly endangered. democratic ones.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 78 /414 Nelson <tournament> Human Rights Promo Good. 3-10. research fellow @ Hoover Institute.Democracy A. 78 . Mr. 2004. Lexis Whether we agree with the President's policies or not. The fundamental point is that we need the moral clarity that is provided by these State Department human rights reports and by the efforts of the President and the State Department to condemn human rights abuses throughout the year. B. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. That requires consistent leadership abroad and a sterling example at home. Chairman. (Larry. the global ecosystem. we have to take that warning seriously when it is coming from those on the front lines of the struggle for human rights and democracy in the Middle East. Snr. chemical. Human rights promotion is critical to democracy Tom Malinowski. and openness. Extinction Diamond 95. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous. The very source of life on Earth.

American priorities were not communicated clearly to local leaders. untenable debt burdens. Regional countries need American moral and material support to maintain independence in the face of increasing pressures. Widespread corruption and the entrenchment of aging leaders and their families have eroded support for central governments and constrained the development of a new generation of leaders. Because regional governments cannot pay their energy bills. capabilities and resources. an intensification of the war in Chechnya is likely this summer. A major HIV/AIDS crisis would be the final straw for states like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. in turn. and Russia. Russia imposed new.S. 2001. In winter 2000. Even with limited political and financial resources. In crafting policy. the 79 .  Governments in Central Asia are violating human rights as they clamp down on Islamic groups in response to acts of terrorism and militant activities. increasing pressure on the beleaguered country. Where American policymakers speak of intervention in a positive sense to promote regional cooperation and stability. As a result. Responding to that crisis requires the United States to build a long-term strategy based on a frank assessment of regional needs and of U. political.Central Asia Human rights cred is critical to prevent war in Central Asia Fiona Hill. political succession has become a critical issue. leadership can do a great deal to defuse regional tensions and mitigate problems. Russia is the only source of reliable employment. combined with brutal regional wars. and the withdrawal of foreign investment. have raised expectations for a peace settlement.S. The new administration must get ahead of this negative trend in setting policy and priorities. the principal energy supplier. leading to the devaluation of currencies. However. Policy Brief #80. and while its direct influence over their affairs has declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union. the closing of mosques. activity. government deficiencies directly. Eighty percent of heroin sold in Europe originates in Afghanistan and Pakistan and about half of this production flows through Central Asia. could result in military intervention by any of the major powers.  Other Caucasus civil wars are in a state of "no peace. makes them extremely vulnerable to outside pressure—especially from Russia. As in Afghanistan. and Kazakhstan will soon face the same crisis. But. clashes over energy with Russia will continue. increasing tensions and instability. It tackled a laundry list of initiatives in response to crises and shifting policy priorities. and human rights were targeted at different junctures. American engagement remains crucial given its weight on the international stage. Already. outposts. negative intervention—to constrain Russia. Unfortunately. high unemployment fosters the smuggling of raw materials and consumer goods. and the fact that it has leverage in the regions. This. Turkmenistan. Kyrgyzstan.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 79 /414 Nelson <tournament> Human Rights Promo Good. resulting in frequent misinterpretations of intentions. and. several developments need to be considered:  The civil war in Afghanistan will likely regain momentum this summer. the Caucasus and Central Asian states have been receptive to the United States and are among its few potential allies in a zone where other states are not so amenable to U.  In both Georgia and Azerbaijan. overwhelmed by internal difficulties and burdened by the inability to combat corruption and tackle economic reform. Economic collapse has produced social dislocation and extreme poverty.  In Chechnya. The internal weakness of the Caucasus and Central Asian states. U. the potential threats to its own security. Because approximately 50 percent of Russia's foreign currency revenues are generated by oil and gas sales. and military force. France. Deep-rooted corruption feeds into the economic crisis and hinders the emergence of small and medium-sized businesses that could spur market development and economic growth. All of these issues are exacerbated by the continued downturn of regional economies. led by the United States. The United States and Russia are at odds politically and semantically in the Caspian. if there is a particular focus on partnership with European allies in addressing regional challenges. In Moscow. the incursion of refugees and fighters from Afghanistan into Central Asia and the activities of Central Asian militant groups have strained fragile political situations in Tajikistan. The dual secessions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have split the country and spillover from Chechnya has soured relations with Russia.S. while tackling U.S. The heroin trade in Central Asia has created a burgeoning intravenous drug problem and an HIV/AIDS outbreak that mimics the early epidemic in Africa. opposition figures openly discuss the resumption of war if leaders are perceived to have sold out. and its guidance in dealing with presidential transition crises and addressing human rights abuses. In Uzbekistan. involvement in Caspian energy development and engagement in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Clinton administration's approach to the regions was ad hoc.S. Health workers fear an escalation in a matter of months that will overwhelm local medical systems and the region's miniscule international programs. this risk should be taken seriously. might lead to the "Balkanization" of the regions. and if Russia is encouraged to become a force for stability rather than a factor for instability in the regions. Economic and political crises. the Caucasus and Central Asian states lack the capacity to tackle crises without outside help. a significant market for local products. in both Armenia and Azerbaijan.S. The Caucasus and Central Asia at a Crossroads This is a critical time for the Caucasus and Central Asian states because a number of negative trends could converge to bring about a crisis. while congressional mandates limited areas in which scarce funds could be applied and thus reduced flexibility. In Central Asia.-Russian Tensions in the Caspian Basin Converging with this regional crisis is a sharp difference of opinion between the United States and Russia over U. This influx of economic migrants has exacerbated ethnic tensions within Russia. fellow – Brookings Institution. The West will have to assist the states in bolstering their institutional capacity and in promoting cooperation among them. U. The Caucus and Central Asia: How the United States and Its Allies Can Stave Off a Crisis. p.S. stringent visa requirements on Georgia and temporarily suspended energy supplies over payments and a contract dispute. Incompatible government structures and conflicting legislation fostered competition among agencies and encouraged a proliferation of parallel initiatives. or the intensification of war in Chechnya or Afghanistan. approximately 10 percent of the population currently works in Russia and sends home an amount equivalent to nearly a quarter of Georgia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Domestic constituencies in the United States undermined leverage in regional conflicts. it remains the dominant economic. online In the next two years." Recent international efforts to resolve the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. In Georgia alone. the Caucasus and Central Asian states could become zones of interstate competition similar to the Middle East and Northeast Asia. a ban on political opposition movements. the United States is portrayed as purposefully weakening Russia's strategic position and bent on establishing Central Asia and the Caucasus as U. it is far stronger than all the states combined. Russian political commentators speak of American "vmeshatel'stvo"—literally. No provisions have been made for a presidential transition. conflict resolution. In spite of a few glitches. Uzbekistan. and Uzbekistan. this will only be possible if a policy is defined early and communicated clearly. and emerging leaders have often been suppressed or forced into exile. The Asian and Russian financial crises of 1998 were a major setback. but an overall strategy—which was essential given limited government resources for the regions—was never fully articulated. and arrests of practicing Muslims have forced groups underground and increased support for insurgencies and extremists. Given the fact that both Turkey and Iran threatened intervention in the Caucasus at the peak of the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 1992-1993. the war shows little sign of resolution through political negotiation. no war.  Georgia is teetering on the verge of collapse. Although Russia itself is weak. and trafficking in arms and drugs. Issues such as oil and gas pipelines. Refugees and fighters have been pushed across borders into the South Caucasus by Russian troops. as well as into neighboring Russian regions. in the short-term. For both regions.

but is barely present in Tajikistan.S. and opportunities for citizen participation in political and economic decisionmaking. Beyond energy issues. In Uzbekistan.S. It should emphasize regional stability. Russia's southern tier is now its most sensitive frontier and the Caucasus and Central Asia are its number one security priority. and the formation of a regional alliance among states that have opted out of the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States security structures (the socalled GUUAM group of Georgia. the administration should engage Central Asia without reinforcing authoritarian regimes.S. The primary goal should be to encourage Russia to adopt a positive approach to relations with its neighbors that eschews commercial and political bullying. The United States should encourage high-level discussions between Uzbekistan and its neighbors that would address border access and gas deliveries as well as militant incursions across the Tajik and Kyrgyz borders into Uzbekistan. Caspian energy resources play a major role in Russian calculations.-Russian relationship—and staying focused—would be a departure. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have significant Uzbek diasporas and are dependent on Uzbekistan for cross-border communications and energy supplies. Uzbekistan has frequently used this leverage to negative effect with these vulnerable neighbors. representation has been withdrawn because of fears for the safety of Embassy personnel. serving as a potential model for dealing with Islamic and political opposition. The United States has bilateral military relations with Uzbekistan.S. the Bush administration should emphasize mutually-reinforcing security and human rights objectives throughout Central Asia and should encourage cooperation among the Pentagon.S. actions in both regions with deepening suspicion. Over the last five years. Explicit statements of intent to join NATO by Georgia and Azerbaijan have angered Russian policymakers. The fact that an energetic Pentagon moved faster than the State Department to engage Central Asian counterparts has led Moscow to view U. State Department. anti-corruption efforts. Even if responsibility for the Caucasus and Central Asian states is divided within government departments. some policy innovations should be considered to address regional problems: Rethink the U. cooperative relations. Having recognized this fact. Uzbekistan. while militant groups are real threats to the state. and by increasing its focus on Tajikistan. through the prism of NATO. the administration needs to bring its bureaucratic mechanisms in line to focus on key issues and countries. U.S." The pivotal states for regional security are Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Turkmenistan.S. Azerbaijan. the notion of explicitly recognizing the importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian regions in the bilateral U. where permanent U.S. In 2000.-Russian bilateral relations. border security. If the administration has appropriate mechanisms in place. Productive relations between Uzbekistan and its neighbors are key to regional stability. and the Pentagon placed greater emphasis on human rights in its special forces training curriculum. To this end. which both border Afghanistan. support for regional non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that seek to increase both citizen participation in government and access to objective sources of information.S. policy in the Caspian Basin has promoted multiple gas and oil pipelines to world markets to increase export options for regional states. and prevent the various agencies from acting in conflict with each other. U. the Bush administration will first have to recognize that the Caucasus and Central Asia are a major factor in U.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 80 /414 Nelson <tournament> Putin administration has made increasing Russian energy exports to Europe a priority. embassy—with appropriate security precautions—and a modest increase in aid programs related to job creation and health would be a major boost. effective structures will have to be created to preserve links between the regions. The United States has considerable leverage with Uzbekistan through its military engagement activities. The Tajik government engaged its opposition in a dialogue that resulted in power-sharing arrangements and an end to a five-year civil war. missile defense. political solutions to conflicts. human rights abuses are an equal threat and increase sympathy for the militants. The Bush administration must change the American approach to both countries by emphasizing human rights and cooperative regional relations in Uzbekistan (rather than simply security). human rights. and international human rights groups on security-human rights linkages. Crafting U.S. interests through public hearings and testimony. With its message clear. where it supplies the Russian domestic market and supplements Russia's European exports. Gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan flows into the Russian pipeline system.S. To address these issues. orderly successions of political power.S. the Bush administration must present a unified front when dealing with Moscow and the region. Policy. along with the active involvement of regional states in NATO's Partnership for Peace Program. Uzbekistan came close to losing congressional certification for these programs. But gas flowing to Turkey from Kazakhstan. Russia is the largest supplier of gas to Turkey. 80 . Russia does not only view its dealings with the U. bilateral military relations with regional states still alarm Moscow. policy. even the reestablishment of a permanent U. the administration will have to maintain a direct dialogue with its Russian counterparts in working out a practical approach for the Caucasus and Central Asia. The administration should also emphasize U. given NATO expansion east and the alliance's willingness to use force in the extended European arena. Of all the regional states. Link Human Rights and Security As a general rule. and has begun constructing a new Black Sea pipeline ("Blue Stream") to increase supplies. and the U. Ukraine. Tajikistan is the most receptive to outside assistance. This will require the executive branch to work closely with Congress to reconcile appropriations with a comprehensive program for the regions and to articulate U. and conflicting legislation will have to be streamlined to resolve interagency conflicts over responsibilities. Given the precipitous decline of the Tajik economy. and non-proliferation issues. Approach to Central Asia The Central Asian states require the most serious reassessment in U. Central Asia is rapidly becoming a base for extremism and terrorism. needs to look ahead to avert its "Afghanicization.S. and Moldova). and Azerbaijan—and bypassing Russia—could pose direct competition. Although this framework would not be considerably different from the general themes of the Clinton administration. Moscow perceives this loss as significant. although these are currently the United States' top security priorities in the relationship.S. The administration needs to articulate a message that is positive and inclusive for Russia as well as regional states and stick to it.-Russian collaboration on UN sanctions against the Taliban in December 2000. persuading Moscow that the United States seeks to squeeze Russia out of regional energy development. institutional development. Although Central Asia is less a zone of competition because of shared concern about Afghanistan. Russia sees itself caught between NATO to the west and chaos to the south. Russia has lost its strategic defensive structures against NATO's southern flank in Turkey. which resulted in unprecedented U.S. Taking this as a cue. In the Caucasus.

marketable goods such as shells. for millions of people worldwide. nutrient cycling. Indiana University School of Law – McGeorge Law Rev – Winter – elipses in original) The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere. both aesthetic and economic.Associate Professor of Law. the locus of planetary biodiversity. and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. and quality of life. aquarium fish. and it remains the axis of existence. 18 Indeed. many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures. including carbon sequestration. and weather mechanics. it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet." 19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year. 81 . 20 In addition. life support processes. worldwide." 17 oceans provide food. and pharmaceuticals.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 81 /414 Nelson <tournament> Oceans Oceans key to survival Craig '03 (Robin Kundis Craig -.

The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.” http://archive. and researchers want a theory that is scientifically rigorous.This was the biggest extinction event in the last 500 million years.priweb. A supernova occurring 30 light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone layer for several years. no date.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp.the Supernova explosion. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured.” With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer.html.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 82 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ozone Ozone depletion causes extinction Greenpeace.greenpeace. Ozone destruction causes mass extinction Palenotological Research Insitute. 82 . Without the ozone layer. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destructionlarge amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus “global and atmospheric cooling. life on earth would not exist. No Date (Paleontological Research Institute. a new theory has been proposed. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis.htm) EXTINCTION.org/ozone/holes/holebg.the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth. 1995 (“Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer. these problems could cause widespread destruction of life. Lastly. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously. 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. and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. the news was greeted with scepticism. skin cancer. PERMIAN http://www.) When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species. so quickly . Therefore. but taken seriously nonetheless.

all the air. If we believe that war is a “necessary evil.” then we are locked into a lie. . to all living things.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 83 /414 Nelson <tournament> Patriarchy Patriarchy is the root cause of wars Reardon 93 (Betty A. 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. Director of the Peace Education Program at Teacher’s College Columbia University. to survive the toughest violent initiation. to distance one’s character from that of women. I often tell audiences that if we were to go door-todoor asking if we should end male violence against women. especially the insistence on violence as a means of social control . . Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. so deeply embedded in our collective unconscious are the rules of patriarchy . To prove dominance and control. But there is no longer any battlefield. to shed the sacred blood of the hero.” that patriarchal assumptions are simply “human nature. not parity. instantly or eventually. The Will to Change: Men. She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies. more tolerance for the relinquishing of rigid gender roles. (Spretnak 1983) Patriarchy is the root of all violence and war Hooks 04 (hooks. Masculinity and Love. This belief seems ironic. all the soil. large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend. by eradicating patriarchy. 2004 (bell.patriarchy as a system remains intact. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial. 1993. all the water. p. which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used. and many people continue to believe that it is needed if humans are to survive as a species. they would begin to hesitate. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking. has actually led to the slaughter of millions of people on the planet. A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance. 83 . 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 . Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. Despite the many gains of contemporary feminist movement-greater equality for women in the workforce. paralyzed. 30-2 (PDNSS6401)) In an article entitled “Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War” (1983). Reardon. Since a major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions. which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to “strut their stuff” as we watch with increasing horror. professor of English at City College. to change their position. P 26-27)) Citizens in this nation fear challenging patriarchy even as they lack overt awareness that they are fearful. most people would give their unequivocal support. Then if you told them we can only stop male violence against women by ending male domination. Neither are they solely economic. given that patriarchal methods of organizing nations.

’” Thus.’ between ‘women’ and ‘women’ and between ‘men’ and ‘men. pg. in turn. “competitive social order. patriarchy “is a set of beliefs and values supported by institutions and backed up by the threat of violence. and peace and world order with feminism. “Criticizing the Gender of International Relations. it is controlled by a few elites in industrialized countries. 84 .” International Relations: Critical concepts in Political Science. implemented by subelites throughout the world. which is based in authoritarian principles.” In addition. Similarly. and is held in place by coercion. the war system is a pervasive. and directed against nonelites to ensure their submission. According to Reardon. patriarchal relations constitute the paradigm on which the war system is based. Department of PoliSci at Potsdam College of State U of NY. 1693-1724) Betty Reardon takes this thesis even further by equating war with patriarchy.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 84 /414 Nelson <tournament> Patriarchy  War Patriarchy is the root cause of war – The unequal value of women and threat of violence mirror the coercive order of the war system Runyan 92 (Anne. assumes unequal value among and between human beings. and the war system. military with sexism. It lays down the supposedly ‘proper’ relations between ‘men and women. consolidates patriarchal relations.

and that both sides often see themselves as heroic and self-sacrificing for a worthy cause. For all the wartime propaganda.Discourse of male dominance for survival affirms the same type of coercion and violence it defends against Johnson ’97 The Gender Knot To support male aggression and therefore male dominance as society's only defense against evil. we have to assume that the bad guys actually see themselves as evil and not as heroes defending loved ones and principles against bad guys like us. governments. The alternative to this kind of thinking is to realize that the same patriarchal ethos that creates our masculine heroes also creates the violent villains they battle and prove themselves against. manage human relations. good and bad guys play similar games and salute a core of common values.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 85 /414 Nelson <tournament> Patriarchy  War Manifestation of Evil . In this. in villains. The evil is the patriarchal religion of control and domination that encourages men to use coercion and violence to settle disputes. and affirm masculine identity. war and many other forms of male aggression are manifestations of the same evil they supposedly defend against. we have to believe that evil forces exist out there. and armies. At a deep level. 85 . not to mention one another on occasion.

and the war system. which is based in authoritarian principles. pg.” In addition. 1693-1724) Betty Reardon takes this thesis even further by equating war with patriarchy. 86 . Department of PoliSci at Potsdam College of State U of NY. and peace and world order with feminism. and directed against nonelites to ensure their submission. patriarchal relations constitute the paradigm on which the war system is based.” International Relations: Critical concepts in Political Science.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 86 /414 Nelson <tournament> Patriarchy  War Patriarchy is the root cause of war – The unequal value of women and threat of violence mirror the coercive order of the war system Runyan 92 (Anne. It lays down the supposedly ‘proper’ relations between ‘men and women. Similarly.’ between ‘women’ and ‘women’ and between ‘men’ and ‘men. “Criticizing the Gender of International Relations. assumes unequal value among and between human beings.’” Thus. consolidates patriarchal relations. implemented by subelites throughout the world. patriarchy “is a set of beliefs and values supported by institutions and backed up by the threat of violence. military with sexism. the war system is a pervasive. in turn. it is controlled by a few elites in industrialized countries. “competitive social order. According to Reardon. and is held in place by coercion.

good and bad guys play similar games and salute a core of common values. For all the wartime propaganda. The alternative to this kind of thinking is to realize that the same patriarchal ethos that creates our masculine heroes also creates the violent villains they battle and prove themselves against. not to mention one another on occasion. and affirm masculine identity. and armies. At a deep level.Discourse of male dominance for survival affirms the same type of coercion and violence it defends against Johnson ’97 The Gender Knot To support male aggression and therefore male dominance as society's only defense against evil. 87 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 87 /414 Nelson <tournament> Patriarchy  War Manifestation of Evil . The evil is the patriarchal religion of control and domination that encourages men to use coercion and violence to settle disputes. In this. and that both sides often see themselves as heroic and self-sacrificing for a worthy cause. we have to assume that the bad guys actually see themselves as evil and not as heroes defending loved ones and principles against bad guys like us. manage human relations. governments. we have to believe that evil forces exist out there. in villains. war and many other forms of male aggression are manifestations of the same evil they supposedly defend against.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 88 /414 Nelson <tournament> Poverty Ongoing global poverty outweighs nuclear war. 18 million deaths a year are caused by structural violence. thermonuclear war or genocide. to see the children stricken with preventable diseases in the midst of the world's best-equipped hospitals. like the majority of the world's peoples. or in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. perpetuated on the weak and the poor every year of every decade. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. liberty.kept discretely hidden away from the eyes. In a land whose founding documents proclaim life. health care. compared to 100. When exposed. With this campaign. including the United States. billions are spent waging wars and occupying countries that our school children can't even find on a map. fair-minded people . in fact accelerating. we must hold this nation to its promises. to see the worried faces of homeless mothers waiting to be added to the waiting list for non-existent public housing. to find the unemployment lines filled with parents who aren't eligible to see a doctor and who can't afford to get sick.peaceworkmagazine. candidate in social/personality psychology at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. and justice for all. ears. an International Treaty signed in 1948 by all UN member nations.which disregards the basic human needs of its own despairing people in favor of misguided military adventures that protect no one. In addition to all the indignities suffered by poor people in America.org/pwork/0407/040704. Among the rights outlined in the Declaration are the rights to food. Yet even as you look you still might not see the millions of poor people in America.a terror boldly and callously proliferated by our own government. Co-coordinates POWER--Portland Organizing to Win Economic Rights. Ph. as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths. My face is only one of 80 million Americans who never get asked for in-depth television interviews or for our expert commentary regarding the state of the economy or the impact of our nation's policies. all nations have a moral and legal obligation to ensure the basic needs and well-being of all their citizens. we are reaching out to the international community as well as the rest of US society to help us secure what are our most basic human rights. 88 ." http://www. That is. we must suffer the further indignation of being disappeared . as outlined in International Law. and every single year. p.D. the moral hypocrisy of poverty in America cannot withstand the light of day any more than the moral hypocrisy of slavery or race or sex discrimination could. the United States has sorely neglected its promise. in effect. our terror is the terror of poverty . and conscience of the rest of society and the world. To see these things one needs neither a high-powered satellite nor a specialized degree. The existence of poverty in the richest country on earth cannot remain a secret for long. Americans. and education. to hear the rumble in the bellies of millions of hungry Americans whose only security is a bread line once a week. jobs at living wages. Over half a century after signing this document. Smoke and Mirrors: The Hidden Context of Violence in Schools and Society. throughout the world. "Abolishing Poverty: A Declaration of Economic Human Rights. Meanwhile. are compassionate. approximately every five years.000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect the moral bankruptcy of a nation . or to detect the crumbling of our nation's under-funded. That's where the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign comes in. One needs only to open one's eyes and dare to see the reality before them.only our ev is comparative Spina 2k (Stephanie Urso. housing. This is. Surely one doesn't need the surveillance powers of high-definition weapons-grade satellites to see the faces of the some 80 million poor people struggling just to survive in America.by far the world's richest and most powerful . 201) This sad fact is not limited to the United States. Globally. 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. despite huge economic gains and a vast productive capacity. whether in nations half-way across the globe.htm) Locked in the cross-hairs of domestic and foreign policies which intentionally put our bodies in harm's way. unending. Poverty poses the greatest threat to the world—we have a moral obligation to eradicate it Vear 04 (Jesse Leah. the equivalent of an ongoing. under-staffed schools.

Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France." I obviously do not mean simply murder as such. conversely. I think that we are now in a position to understand a number of things. It is the relationship of war: "In order to live. When I say "killing. Whenever. at least superficially. it too must become racist. So you can understand the importance-I almost said the vital importance-of racism to the exercise of such a power: it is the precondition for exercising the right to kill. to create caesuras within the biological continuum addressed by biopower. the death of the other. the link that was quickly-I almost said immediately-established between nineteenth-century biological theory and the discourse of power. expulsion. p. how can you justify the need to kill people. The appearance within the biological continuum of the human race of races. It is a way of separating out the groups that exist within a population.function in a way that is completely new and that is quite compatible with the exercise of biopower. We can understand. you have a power which is. into the subspecies known. of the inferior race (or the degenerate. or since the second half of the nineteenth century). or the abnormal) is something that will make life in general healthier: healthier and purer. a way of establishing a biological type caesura within a population that appears to be a biological domain. to treat the species. and to kill civilizations? By using the themes of evolutionism. the nineteenth century was quite literally obliged to think about them in the form of evolutionism. wishes to work with the instruments. racism alone can justify the murderous function of the State. It is. as races. or in other words. How can one not only wage war on one's adversaries but also expose one's own citizens to war. and technology of normalization. you must be able to kill") was not invented by either racism or the modern State. the struggle for existence among species. the history of societies with their different classes. In the biopower system. a killing or the risk of death. On the one hand. and so on. and let them be killed by the million (and this is precisely what has been going on since the nineteenth century. but a real way of thinking about the relations between colonization. the stronger I will be. This is not. in contrast. a power that has the right of life and death. and racism is the indispensable precondition that allows someone to be killed. either external or internal. Racism also has a second function. racism makes it possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike relationship of confrontation. then. killing or the imperative to kill is acceptable only if it results not in a victory over political adversaries. understood in the broad sense-or in other words. that allows others to be killed. the fact that certain races are described as good and that others. in other words. the hierarchy of races. but a biological relationship. criminality. in other words. David Macey] What in fact is racism? It is primarily a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is under power's control: the break between what must live and what must die. or political relationship. If you are functioning in the biopower mode." The fact that the other dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death guarantees my safety. There is a direct connection between the two. are described as inferior: all this is a way of fragmenting the field of the biological that power controls. the more abnormal individuals are eliminated. not so much Darwin's theory itself as a set. 1975-1976. 254-257 Trans. except by activating the theme of racism they were precisely the moments when the right to take life was imperative. 89 . the more vigorous I will be. quite simply. That is the first function of racism: to fragment. the more deaths you will cause" or "The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live more. with colonizing genocide. and why Racism first develops with colonization. of notions (such as: the hierarchy of species that grow from a common evolutionary tree. And if. Its role is. evolutionism. but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out. political death. or in the first line a biopower. or. warlike. When you have a normalizing society. there was a confrontation. the death of the bad race." But racism does make the relationship of war-"If you want to live. you must destroy your enemies. the distinction among races. the phenomena of madness and mental illness. if you like. precisely.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 89 /414 Nelson <tournament> Racism Racism is the root cause of violence Foucault '76 [Michel. War.privileged moments. mechanisms. in the first instance. And the reason this mechanism can come into play is that the enemies who have to be done away with are not adversaries in the political sense of the term. to the population and for the population. they are threats. to kill populations. we can understand why racism broke out at a number of . If the power of normalization wished to exercise the old sovereign right to kill. Once the State functions in the biopower mode. I will be able to proliferate. race or racism is the precondition that makes killing acceptable. the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole. a military. to subdivide the species it controls. And we can also understand why racism should have developed in modern societies that function in the biopower mode. you must take lives. rejection. This will allow power to treat that population as a mixture of races. it must become racist. or in other words. the other must die" . or to be more accurate. and the more Ias species rather than individual-can live. In a normalizing society . increasing the risk of death for some people. the selection that eliminates the less fit) naturally became within a few years during the nineteenth century not simply a way of transcribing a political discourse into biological terms. a power of sovereignty. Basically." I would say that this relation ("If you want to live. first of all. a bundle. and not simply a way of dressing up a political discourse in scientific clothing. but in the elimination of the biological threat to and the improvement of the species or race. the necessity for wars. but also every form of indirect murder: the fact of exposing someone to death. to allow the establishment of a positive relation of this type: "The more you kill. in short. and so on. by appealing to a racism.

angelfire.angelfire.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 90 /414 Nelson <tournament> SARS A SARS bioweapon would kill at least 50 million people Conant.com/ult/znewz1/bioterror. said witnesses. House Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack. it lives forever. said Brent.com/ult/znewz1/bioterror. asked whether someone with a "modicum of talent in this business" might genetically alter the SARS virus and "make it more virulent. experts have said.July 2006 http://www. is the more serious threat. subcommittee Chairman John Linder. though not contagious in humans. R-Ga.bird flu -. he said.html Concerned about this point.Anthrax. 06 Paul. Callahan put avian influenza -. If a mutated bird flu pathogen becomes contagious among humans and remains extremely deadly. and you don't have to feed it. it could kill some 50 million people worldwide.." replied Brent.However." The pathogen is also easy to obtain because the disease afflicts animals in many places. Callahan noting that "you don't have to store it. though the recombinant virus might actually be weaker than the original Still.html 90 . resynthesized SARS spread by suicidal coughers is a real concern. spread faster and make it more difficult to treat? The "short answer is yes.as a top concern because of its extreme mortality in humans. http://www.

according to Dr Ben-Abraham.space4peace. Reminding us of the Spanish exploration of the Americas. could create new epidemics for us. expected around 2007-2009. has written that "…any Martian samples returned to Earth must be treated as biohazardous material until proven otherwise. 1/4. it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about medical crisis at hand . "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly." he said. and the smallpox virus they carried that killed thousands of indigenous people. DiGregorio warns that the Mars samples could "contain pathogenic viruses or bacteria. then he makes no apology for it. deadlier than HIV. author and founder of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return. Having shown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth. "Nature isn't benign. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. arms races. Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare. Imagine. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. South China Morning Post. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus . The mining colonies. but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. NASA announced plans for manned mining colonies on Mars. 96 (Kavita. New York or Hong Kong.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 91 /414 Nelson <tournament> Space Exploration bad 1. lexis) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell.” http://www. few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. nuclear annihilation. In June of 1997. it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. without any real plans for containment and monitoring. It is a tragedy waiting to happen. Barry DiGregorio. for the first time. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London.. he says. said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York. the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year. Extinction Daswani. the "tip of the iceberg". will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. humanity could face extinction because of a single virus. NASA says. at a recent conference. “Space Exploration and Exploitation. On March 6." There are vast deposits of mineral resources like magnesium and cobalt believed to be on Mars. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent". He added that the problem was "very serious ." At the present time NASA has taken no action to create a special facility to handle space sample returns." he said. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed. There is a much more pressing the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. it could happen tomorrow. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations A. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system. Dr Ben-Abraham said: 91 . infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race. B. AIDS.one he believes the world must be alerted to: If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom.htm) We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed.theoretically. using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad. 1999 (Bruce K.” http://www. “Space Exploration and Exploitation.space4peace. 1999 (Bruce K. and epidemics Gagnon. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal.they are all. would be powered by nuclear reactors launched from Cape Canaveral. If there is no cure.000 in the former Soviet Union .org/articles/scandm..org/articles/scandm. environmental exploitation and war into space.which turns internal organs into liquid . mysterious viruses would. Space exploration will cause environmental exploitation. Fifteen years ago. Space exploration will lead to the spread of pathogenic viruses through biohazardous land samples Gagnon. Countless launches of nuclear materials. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well.could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. 1997 a report issued by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that such a facility should be operational at least two years prior to launch of a Mars Sample Return mission.htm) Potential dangers do exist though. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. the flu epidemic that has now affected 200. "An airborne virus is a lively. complex and dangerous organism. Florida. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years ." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film. and is getting worse".

nuclear-powered bases on the moon and Mars would give the United States a leg up in the race for control of those planetary bodies. NASA's job is to do the research and development. The military would ride the NASA Trojan horse and accelerate space weapons development without the public's knowledge.org/fpiftxt/5971 6/27/09 RFF NASA was created as a civilian agency with a mission to do peaceful space exploration.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 92 /414 Nelson <tournament> Space Weaponization: NASA Key NASA KEY TO SPACE WEAPONIZATION [Bruce K.fpif. The international competition for resource extraction in space (helium-3 on the moon) is now full on. and then be ready to turn everything over to private corporate interests once the technology has been sorted out. NASA would expand space nuclear power systems to help create new designs for weapons propulsion. Originally slated to cost the taxpayers $10 billion. The aerospace industry is already making record profits from the ever-escalating cost of space technology systems. the project has now grown to $100 billion and is not yet finished. The military will create the space weapons systems to ensure free corporate access to the space highways of the future. March 19. When George W. the new space agency director announced that all NASA missions in the future would be "dual use. 2009 http://www. Bush appointed former Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe to head NASA in late 2001. Just one illustration is NASA's International Space Station." This meant that every NASA space launch would be both military and civilian at the same time. 92 . But the growing influence of the military industrial complex has rubbed out the line between civilian and military programs. The taxpayers will fund the technology investment program. Gagnon (Coordinator of the Global Network Against Nuclear Power and Weapons in Space)] “Arms Race in Space” Foreign Policy in Focus: International Relations Think Tank. Virtually every system now under development is well over budget. Permanent.

and land-based early warning networks and the latter via submarine-launched ballistic missiles. and there does seem to be some international support for the idea of coalescing a strategy supporting space sanctuary and deterring third world space upstarts. There is no single threat to focus diplomatic efforts aimed at building trust. credible second strike. but the potential for instantaneous. Principal powers will simply not allow a space hegemon to emerge. there exists no obvious strategy for employing space weapons that will enhance global stability. 2. however. hence. Should space be weaponized and two space-capable foes emerge. conflict protraction. nuclear deterrence was born.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 93 /414 Nelson <tournament> Space Weaponization Bad: Nuclear Annhilation SPACE WEAPONIZATION LEADS TO NUCLEAR ANNIHLATION [Lt Col Bruce M. in spite of the immediate tactical benefits it offered to outnumbered NATO forces in Europe. while asymmetric responses (guerrilla and terrorist tactics. aligning with nuclear-capable parties. Deterrence in the form of MAD had to overcome the notion of “winning”—one that could come in several forms: 1. we’ll be compelled to use them. If the precedent of evading destabilizing situations is to continue—and that is compatible with a long history of US foreign policy—one ought to avoid space-based weapons. it was a very costly means of overcoming the lack of trust between superpowers. The term theater nuclear weapons was an oxymoron—every nuclear weapon was strategic because it posed the threat of escalation. both give way to strategies that recognize an international context of reactive nations. one can draw and apply lessons as the possibility of space weapons emerges. Stabilizing approaches that reduced the viability of surprise via first strike were pursued. Any point on earth could have a weapon pointed at it with clear line of sight . A nation could use nuclear weapons on a small scale and prevail in a predominantly conventional conflict. these weapons offer the potential for instantaneous and indefensible attack. though. A nation could launch a successful first strike. any conflict could automatically escalate to a higher level . one had to avoid any such strategy. space basing is equivalent to exposure—no strike capability can be reliably hidden or protected in space in order to allow a surviving. the threat of annihilation would still exist—it is difficult to distinguish space-based WMD from space-based non-WMD. of a nuclear weapons–space weapons analogy can only be that while the threats from each type of weapon are similar. it had to be paired either with a reliable early warning capability allowing a reactive nuclear response or with a survivable second-strike capability. Initial thoughts that such a threat relegated warfare to the shelves of history due to the prospects of massive nuclear retaliation proved naïve— subsequent lower-order conflict did not force nuclear escalation. and defense of every national asset from such an attack would prove next to impossible. As a common MAD logic developed across the globe (but primarily between the two players in the game—the United States and Soviet Union). Thus. Furthermore. Once they were used. was a direct result of this logic. The same argument against the logic of “tactical” nuclear weapons would also apply to the “tactical” use of spacebased weapons. 93 . etc. nontraditional foreign-policy traits became apparent. Unlike the strategy for nuclear weapons. coercive power advantage they provide will likely prove as bankrupt a notion as that of massive nuclear retaliation. then. indefensible. Division Chief of Strategic Studies and Assessments at the National Reconnaissance Office) 1998] “Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy” Demonstrations of atomic weapons at the close of World War II and the prospect of nuclear weapons married to emerging ballistic missile technology ushered in a new era of international relations. A nation could survive nuclear attacks and prevail. DeBlois (PhD. Further. hence. 3. there will be no 30-minute early warning window from which one actor could launch a counterattack prior to the impact of the preemptive first strike. and on at least the first two counts. one could do so: 1. the most successful strategy (MAD) for dealing with the former cannot work for the latter. Limited use of nuclear weapons was destabilizing. and lesser powers may concede hegemony but will continue to seek asymmetric counters. More than its name implies. Examples include Vietnam and Afghanistan. space weaponization could bring a new round of MAD. Obviously. Threatening to use military force had always been an instrument of diplomacy. Aside from these differences. One had to avoid an odd array of destabilizing practices and systems. This creates an incredibly unstable situation in which the viability of “winning” a space war exists and is predicated upon striking first (with plausible deniability exacerbating the problem). including missile-defense systems and civil-defense programs. Although MAD successfully deterred a nuclear exchange over the past 40 years. eliminating the “mutual” from MAD and only assuring the destruction of the less aggressive state. In their logical evolution. Again.) still allowed lesser powers to test the resolve of the principals—particularly over issues of peripheral interest to those nuclear powers. and because they’re there. the nuclear-MAD approach teaches that this is an intensely expensive means of dealing with mutual distrust between nations.4 The result will be a space strategy that better aligns with what evolved out of the nuclear dilemma: mutual assured destruction (MAD). one would have to eliminate the notion of “winning” a space-weapons exchange. It is logical to concede the offensive dominance of space-based weapons in low-earth orbit (LEO). Putting weapons in space could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy: we put them there because we anticipate we’ll need them. we needed them. Conceding offensive dominance was critical if MAD were to deter nuclear holocaust. Comparing the emergence of nuclear-tipped ICBMs with the accession of space weapons does yield some stark differences. In simple terms. Symmetric nuclear capabilities among the principal powers weakened the credibility of their use. and complete annihilation posed a new rubric in the games nations play. The dissolution of that distrust and the corresponding reduction of nuclear arms lie at the very heart of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START). 3. Clearly. 2. The United States pursued both: the former via space. Visions of massive space superiority and the touted huge. From this experience. even if one could construct a workable space-MAD strategy. Although the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (outlawing weapons of mass destruction [WMD] in space) prohibits complete annihilation. Oxford University. the potential of directed-energy weapons takes the notion of instantaneous to the extreme. if MAD were to prohibit a nuclear exchange. this is not a good situation. The conclusion. The failing of a space-MAD strategy comes on the third count: early warning or survivable second-strike capability. Any move toward developing weapons or practices that increased the viability of the idea that one could “win” a nuclear exchange was perceived as destabilizing. Space-MAD weapons without early warning or reliable survivability logically instigate a first strike. one could assume the existence of proliferated space weapons and proceed with the thought experiment that a space-MAD strategy would emerge among the principal powers. Prohibiting the development of the neutron bomb.

[End Page 21] As a result of these economic imperatives. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara. 9 China has consistently warned that any testing.S. Chinese launch vehicles. and scientific research—into earth orbit. 8 The rapid growth of China's economy in the past two decades has fueled investments in civilian space capabilities for several reasons. but there are fears that states might someday attack U." 11 Diplomatically. Such information could be used to harm U.S. space assets are limited in their effects. the PRC views the exploitation of space as an integral part of its modernization drive. China has urged the use of multilateral and bilateral legal instruments to regulate space activities. even though the United States already possessed the sole strategic advantage over the entire planet. Second. China's objectives in space reflect broad commercial and military interests. a correspondent for a major daily newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party. most nations cannot challenge the United States directly. As the Rumsfeld Commission report warned ominously.html 7/7/09 RFF [End Page 20] Government agencies often pay private firms to collect and process vital satellite imagery. Furthermore. a top priority on Beijing's national agenda.4martel.S. stated that. “Averting a Sino-U.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26. efforts to develop a missile defense system. Chinese Interests in Space As with the United States. the explosive growth of the Chinese telecommunications market has spurred China to put both indigenous and foreign-made networks of communications satellites into orbit to keep pace with demand. Ye Zhenzhen. space systems. meteorology. "[a]fter the Cold War. military effectiveness and commercial competitiveness depend so overwhelmingly on space. Policymakers in the United States are increasingly concerned that this is precisely China's strategy. remote sensing. photo reconnaissance. From an economic perspective. in 2001.jhu. "If the [United States] is to avoid a 'space Pearl Harbor.9 million per month for images of Afghanistan collected by its Ikonos imaging satellite. China's space program is shrouded in extreme secrecy. In the case of national security.S. interests in various ways. they still want to bring outer space totally under their own armed control to facilitate their smooth ascension as the world hegemon of the 21st century. Some Chinese observers point to U. since 1999. The PRC's official policy is to support the exploitation of space for economic.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 94 /414 Nelson <tournament> SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA SPACE WEAPONIZATION WILL CAUSE A WAR WITH CHINA William C." 7 At present. the Department of Defense paid the Space Imaging Corporation $1. Arms Race” The Washington Quarterly http://muse. including attacking military bases and disrupting military operations. deployment. especially after President George W. China recognizes that space research at the frontier of scientific knowledge promises innovative breakthroughs that are likely to strengthen its economic power and technological capabilities in the long term. and Beijing and Moscow jointly oppose the development of space weapons or the militarization 94 . This new commercial satellite market also creates vulnerabilities because of the ability of hostile governments or terrorist organizations to gain access to readily available satellite imagery. the country is increasingly vulnerable to an adversary's malicious use of space or attacks against space systems. can place a variety of satellites—including those used for communications. The nation's leaders must assure that the vulnerability of the United States is reduced and that the consequences of a surprise attack on U. which have become increasingly reliable and competitive in the international market.S. and cultural benefits while firmly opposing any militarization of space. ambition to establish unilateral hegemony. efforts to militarize space as evidence of the U. In sum.S. Third. effectively shielding Chinese intentions and capabilities from outside observers. Bush declared in December 2001 that the United States was officially withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treatyand accelerating U.S. The PRC has developed a comprehensive scientific and industrial base capable of producing commercial space launchers and satellites. scientific.S. 2003. the Chinese government has invested substantial resources in a robust space program. because U.S. China's relatively inexpensive and increasingly reliable launchers have enabled Beijing to provide satellite-launching services to major international customers. For the first five months of the Afghan campaign. satellites to cripple its military capabilities. 10 These public pronouncements have been primarily directed at the United States. and use of space-based weapons will undermine global security and lead to a destabilizing arms race in space. For example.' it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U. and held most advanced space technology and the most satellites. China's involvement in preparations for manned space flight has attracted substantial international attention. First.

space power began with the 1991 Gulf War.S. Iraq further highlighted for Chinese officials the value of information superiority and space dominance in modern warfare. 12 File Name 95 /414 Nelson <tournament> The Chinese leadership's opposition to weaponizing space provides evidence of China's growing concern that the United States will dominate space.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 of space. victory was based on superior command and control. 95 . and communications systems. when the PRC leadership watched with awe [End Page 22] and dismay as the United States defeated Iraq with astonishing speed. The United States' avowed intention to ensure unrivaled superiority in space. Kosovo. Beijing recognized that the lopsided U. which relied heavily on satellite networks. Demonstrations of the United States' undisputed conventional military power in Bosnia. increasingly defines China's interests in space. and. intelligence. most recently.S. Chinese anxieties about U. Afghanistan. as exemplified by the Rumsfeld Commission report.

Foreign Policy. Beijing perceives the proposed U. China evidently views U.S. “The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain. the others are capable of constructing them. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase. 2003.S. perhaps. which will be supported by an array of space systems and sensors. the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945. director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.” Lexis] The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia. forces in the areas of space-based intelligence and communications. “Averting a Sino-U. which the PRC sees as a potential partnership for blocking Chinese regional aspirations or.S. in which one side perceives any loss as a gain for the other. These views inevitably breed a zero-sum competition.S. and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. 16 Beijing remains wary of the joint research program on missile defense by the U. relations. and could ultimately prove destabilizing for Sino-U. then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. bringing regional and global economic and political instability and.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs. one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region.S. in broader terms. Like neutrons firing from a split atom. the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. US-CHINA CONFLICT IS A ZERO-SUM COMPETITION William C. 2000 <Joseph. which in turn. space dominance as a major threat to its geostrategic interests. Of particular concern for Beijing is the possibility that Tokyo's decision formally to join U. for containing China. 15 Many China watchers contend that this perception stems from anxietiesthat any conceivable system of missile defenses being developed by the Bush administration will undermine China's small nuclear deterrent.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 96 /414 Nelson <tournament> SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD: CHINA WAR IN ASIA LEADS TO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND EXTINCTION CIRINICONE 00[ Cirincione.-Japanese alliance. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia.S. missile defense system. Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons. Arms Race” The Washington Quarterly http://muse. 96 .S.html 7/7/09 RFF Sources of Competition At the same time that the United States views space dominance as a fundamental tenet of its national security. plans for deploying missile defense in Northeast Asia will significantly increase Japan's military capabilities by providing an opportunity for Japanese forces to enjoy unprecedented military integration with U. India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race. critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation. Five of these states have nuclear weapons. as a strategic menace to China and to international security.4martel. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara. stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's. First.jhu. China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States. Moreover.

Division Chief of Strategic Studies and Assessments at the National Reconnaissance Office) 1998] “Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy” In total. Furthermore. this article suggests a replacement—an assumption that is both more optimistic about the nature of people and one that resonates with the American spirit: “The United States will lead the world into space.” 97 . This assumption is ultimately founded on a belief that the nature of people—their historical tendency to wage war—cannot change. Oxford University. political. the issues raised here indicate that long-term military costs and the broader social. Doing so assumes determinism—that the future will happen and that we have to optimize our position in it. THIS ACTION CONDEMNS US TO GLOBAL WAREFARE [Lt Col Bruce M. If we continue to assume that major global warfare between nations is inevitable and prepare for it accordingly. the social nature of people can change. That assumption is not necessarily true and runs counter to the American spirit. DeBlois (PhD. The future is what we make it.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 97 /414 Nelson <tournament> WEAPONIZTION BAD: A2: PEACEFUL NUKES WEAPONIZATION BAD – EVEN IF WEAPONS ARE CREATED AS A “DETERRANCE”. and economic costs associated with the United States leading the world in the weaponization of space outweigh the prospect of a short-term military advantage. Contrarily. pursuing a national space strategy on the assumption made at the outset—that “space will be weaponized. we condemn ourselves to that future. we only need to decide if the US will take the lead”—can be challenged on a more fundamental level. we only need to decide where and how to go. One has only to compare today’s global attitudes toward slavery with those of 150 years ago. More than challenging a flawed assumption. Perhaps we need to spend a little less time creating weapons to protect ourselves in a future that we are destined to stumble into and a little more time building the future we would want to live in.

if at least to insure the survival of our species in the heavens. April 1998 (Lt Col. NASA ceased official discussion of a manned mission and was rumored to feel betrayed by the administration. or at a minimum allowed." "There is no other technology in the near term that can be manipulated to service human beings in outer space other than nuclear energy. president of Nuclear Space Technology Institute. John F. Kennedy. Just prior to the current Space Policy release.S. USAF) “Can the U. NASA's newest nuclear initiative offers the promise of an untethered exploration of the Solar System. he stresses that chemically propelled rockets can lift less than five percent of their takeoff weight into orbit. He also acknowledged there will likely be a long-term need to send astronauts to Mars to conduct site research. providing some hope for those wanting specifics enough to actually proceed down a particular path." Similar in view is James Dewar.S. without the authority to programmatically accomplish the task.”8 President Clinton even made the press announcement on 7 Aug 96 about the findings of the NASA-Stanford University team – there may be past or present life on Mars!9 NASA officials were very vocal about the need for the U. NASA felt it was being encouraged. He maintains that only by reestablishing a nuclear rocket project can the nation have a space program worthy of the 21st century. reliable and affordable nuclear power space systems are essential if humanity is to break the stranglehold of Earth's gravity and travel deep into the Solar System and well beyond into the surrounding cosmos. after the Space Policy was released with no mention of manned missions to Mars. it does little good for those charged with mission accomplishment. To date. including Space Policy.” 10 However. a group of NASA officials is devising scenarios for human missions to the red planet as early as 2011.html 7/7/09 RFF Now More Than Ever.com website. NASA's latest nuclear power play will be as challenging as the technology it hopes to harness. Air Force Weaponize Space?” http://www. As stated in Space News. as seen in the NASA and space control issues above. 2003]. Or Never?” Having a far different outlook is Bruce Behrhorst. Dewar sees nuclear-powered rockets. high density energy systems to realistically transport humans and robotica in a safe and efficient mode. He runs the NuclearSpace. the nuclear rocket story has been scarred by political battles over the space program's future. thus "providing insight into the micro universe for the practicality of bridging much of the ultimate macro universe. a former nuclear affairs expert in the Department of Energy. The bottom line from this discussion is the realization that official policy. one that makes reality of the hopes and dreams of science fiction. to pursue manned mission to Mars. Inc. NASA finds itself in a similar position. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 98 /414 Nelson <tournament> SPACE WEAPONIZATION IMPOSSIBLE: NASA NASA DOESN’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WEAPONIZE SPACE David W. Just like those projects of the past. as offering far superior thrusting power and speed. 2005. Risk management. NASA ACTIVITIES IN SPACE ARE NOT FOR WEAPONIZATION – THEY ARE KEY TO EXPLORATION National Space Society. or in other words left holding the bag by current space policy. “Nuclear Power: http://www. If past is prologue. involving U.af. presidents Dwight Eisenhower. In his book.S. as well as public and political support tied to the building of safe. However. That fact is a prescription for a stay-at-home.nss. McFaddin. “The human can do a lot of intelligent integrating of the area…a synthesis job that we still don’t yet know how to do in a robotic brain." Behrhost sees space nuclear power as opening the window to other realistic methods to affect the space and time frame metric. "Our technological prowess and space exploration requires the use of dynamic. Before the current Space Policy was issued. if the policy is so generic as to not have the teeth required to proceed down a controversial path. NASA associate administrator for space science. must on the one hand be generic enough to sound acceptable to everyone inside the Beltway while on the other hand. Its short and sweet mission: "To promote the use of nuclear power in space to further enhance the manned exploration of our Solar System. Space News reported that “Spurred by public excitement about possible life on Mars.org/adastra/volume17/david. To the End of the Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket [University Press of Kentucky. said that robots can do a reasonable job at selecting samples on Mars’ surface for return." Behrhorst believes.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/98-173.” Huntress also said.au. to pursue manned flight to Mars. highly limited space program . however.pdf 7/7/09 RFF Just as the Air Force finds itself in a dilemma when it comes to achieving the goals set out in National Space Policy . “Wesley Huntress. 98 .

he said the commission didn't intend to "challenge the aerospace integration [concept]. The fact that space weaponization is technically feasible is indisputable. or to badly reasoned deductions. Weapons have occasionally been deployed in space for decades. Apollo and space shuttle vehicles.S. Fogleman said. The issue is. but Fogleman said that many of those barriers already "have been knocked down" and had to do with security classification and "nothing to do with organizational structure. “Weapons in Space: The http://www. "Space weaponization can work. He added that weapons applicable to space are further along than most suspect and predicted that directed energy weapons will be a "centerpiece" of the US military's arsenal within 20 years. in effect. And these systems were all Russian ones.S. historians have revealed that Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev bankrupted his country's space program by demanding that his engineers build a copy of NASA's space shuttle because his advisers persuaded him that the United States wanted to use it for bombing Moscow.S. there is "no prohibition against weapons in space today" under any existing treaty.com. the status quo . It is likely that most states--recognizing the vast expense and effort needed to hone their space skills to where America is today--would opt not to bother competing. For those that think space weaponization is impossible. armaments that appeared only on the pages of Aviation Week. by the way. I don't think aerospace integration and a restructured space segment of the US Air Force are mutually exclusive. but otherwise." He noted that there is a ban on nuclear weapons tests in space. building such hardware created new hazards to everyone involved. In recent years. he said.S. SPACE HAS ALREADY BEEN MILITARIZED John A." Dolman suggested. nations reacting not to threats but to illusory phantoms. 2005. These are systems that put the weapons into stable orbits. based in space. Take the opening paragraph of a recent Christian Science Monitor editorial that denounced what it portrayed as "the possible first-ever overt deployment of weapons where heretofore only satellites and astronauts have gone. http://www." While the Air Force has not suffered much until now by putting nonspace experts in command of space organizations. is the world's most powerful state. Air Force Magazine Online.trigger tensions. to scary space hardware it actually built to combat what it saw as "soldier-astronauts" aboard militarized Gemini. If the U.S. In later discussion with reporters.asp “The Space Commission Reports”. U. CAN WEAPONIZE – OTHER STATES WON’T CHALLENGE U." But history reveals an entirely different reality .. Senior Editor. well then. were to weaponize space. But the rewards for the state that weaponizes first--and establishes itself at the top of the Earth's gravity well.afa. circling Earth." Fogleman asserted. "This argument comes from the mirror-image analogy that if another state were to weaponize space. from the major defensive weapons systems it fielded to counter U. without sparking mass arms races or hair." Dolman responded. These are not just systems that send warheads through space. Tirpak. it would be perceived as an attempt to maintain or extend its position. Dolman said such belief falls into the same camp that "man will never fly". "The U." The point of aerospace integration is to merge space capabilities into all facets of warfare and bring down barriers between space power and field commanders who need it. Moreover. March 01. Fact of Life "Militarization of space is a fact of life. whether you weaponize space. Russia is particularly vulnerable to such manipulation. Of course it would! But this is an entirely different situation." he said. The argument about the militarization of space is "moot. would have to react. such as intercontinental missiles or the proposed global bomber. . Dolman said he takes issues with that notion. The international system looks to it for order.com/news/050617_space_warfare. and nowhere challenged by a credible authority. "It will be very expensive.space. most of them predating President Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" to develop an anti-missile system." What if America weaponizes space? One would think such an action would kick-start a procession of other nations to follow suit.. the U. he said. DOMINANCE Leonard David.org/magazine/march2001/0301space.html 7/7/09 RFF Dawn of a New Era” Space. Now come the newest stories that echo down the interconnected corridors of the American mainstream media. he noted that a handful of nations already have the "crude" means to do great damage to a satellite constellation.S. garnering all the many advantages that the high ground has always provided in war--will find the benefits worth the costs. about "killer satellites" and "death stars" and "Rods from God" bombardment systems — as if the Hollywoodized terminology wasn't a clue that most of the subject matter was equally imaginary. Aside from the waste. this needs to change.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 99 /414 Nelson <tournament> SPACE WEAPONIZATION ALREADY HAPPENED SPACE WEAPONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEPLOYED–ALL OF THEIR ARMS RACE ARGUMENTS ARE FALSE USA TODAY 6-13-05 We've seen it before. "because space has been militarized." Dolman said. 99 .

Unfortunately. the once first-line drugs against malaria are now almost useless. famines or earthquakes. When humans live in close contact with animals. Many cities and townships in the developing world expands at the expense of pristine land. "From the evolutionary perspective. The new host—in this case. Wars. In the developing world in particular. S13–S17 (2008). hospitals and homes for the elderly— provide an ideal environment for the transmission of infectious diseases because they bring susceptible individuals into close contact with one another. EMBO reports 9. pathogens are sometimes able to change hosts and infect humans (Parish et al. this was the case when West Nile virus arrived in New York City. institutional settings—such as child-care centres. The reasons for their persistence are manifold and include biological. this was successfully done with smallpox. most notably to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Pathogens constantly change their genetic make-up. Moreover. S1. the misuse and overuse of antibiotics is eroding our ability to control even common infections. crucial sectors for sustained development such as health and education. in the late 1990s. economies and political systems. 2008 (Peter Ndeboc. for example. it is not easy to predict where and when most infectious agents will strike or which new diseases will emerge. but which subsequently found a new.nature. which challenges the development of vaccines against infectious diseases. In the present-day global village. International Consultant on Public Health. 2005). for example. sexual transmission of these diseases is accelerated. severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). one could simply think the solution would be . wars. which contributes further to the emergence. a human—is often not as adapted to these zoonotic diseases as the original host. Nipah virus and the HIV epidemic were all due to pathogens that were normally found in animals. It is therefore a matter not only of public health. but also of economic interest. re-adapt. Mass migrations. economic collapse and other catastrophes. commercial sex workers and long-distance truck drivers have contributed greatly to the spread of such infectious diseases from one community to another. hantavirus. tuberculosis (TB) and malaria. given the increased resort to the sex trade for survival. to invest in and organize an internationally coordinated strategy to fight the major infectious diseases.com/embor/journal/v9/n1s/full/embor2008110. 2003). 100 . Promiscuous sexual behaviour and substance abuse remain the main means of transmission of blood-borne infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. for example. survive and challenge human ingenuity (Table 1). susceptible host in humans. and can create precarious conditions—such as poor hygiene and nutrition or risky sexual behaviours—which hasten the spread of infectious diseases. Many bacteria have become resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics. http://www. In addition. similarly. often cause a breakdown in healthcare systems. natural disasters. In many developing countries. they [viruses and bacteria] are 'the fittest' and the chances are slim that human ingenuity will ever get the better of them" (Stefansson. International Consultant on Public Health. microbes have shown a tenacious ability to adapt. trade and travel are notoriously effective at spreading infectious diseases to even the most remote parts of the globe (Table 2). where the diseases find a more vulnerable population and can develop into epidemics. provide fertile ground for infections. have seen a marked loss of qualified personnel. Cholera and malaria were similarly brought under control in the USA and southern Europe. Mass migrations are often the result of emergency situations such as floods. although its real origin has not yet been identified.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 100 /414 Nelson <tournament> TB (1/4) TB collapses the economy Fonkwo. These and other infectious agents not only take an enormous physical toll on humanity. Increasing urbanization and the growth of urban slums that lack sanitation and clean water. or at least to bring them under control Of course. In areas of extreme poverty. constantly mutate and recombine to find their way through the host defence mechanisms. from where it quickly spread throughout North America. This genetic flexibility allows many infectious agents to mutate or evolve into more deadly strains against which humans have little or no resistance: the HIV and influenza viruses. Global trade and travel introduce new pathogens into previously virgin regions . Ebola epidemic could occur anywhere in the world. After all. The past outbreaks of avian influenza. either individually or in combination. In addition to affecting the health of individuals directly. The impact of these diseases is immense and is felt across the world. Yet these diseases do not necessarily require an emergency situation to be able to thrive. to try to eliminate the pathogens and/or their vectors from their natural reservoirs or hosts. however. the next rabies or . but also cause significant economic losses both directly in the developing world and less directly in the developed world. infectious diseases are also having an impact on whole societies. thereby disturbing natural habitats and bringing humans into more intimate contact with unknown and possibly dangerous microorganisms. Human forays into virgin areas of the African equatorial forests have brought us into contact with the Ebola virus.html) During the past couple of decades. social and political causes. re-emergence and persistence of otherwise easily controllable diseases.

3–0.4% per year. The difference in annual growth owing to LEB between a typical high-income country with a LEB of 77 years and a typical less-developed country with a LEB of 49 years is roughly 1. The global burden . TB affects working hours in formal and informal economies.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 101 /414 Nelson <tournament> TB (2/4) Complacency within the population or health-service providers could be equally dangerous under otherwise normal conditions. AIDS. but the lack of an appropriate healthcare infrastructure and personnel that handicaps the response to infectious diseases. Families of people who die from the disease lose approximately 15 years of income. countries. the developed world is not spared either. These diseases account for 90% of the health problems worldwide and kill about 14 million people annually. According to the WHO. They have killed more people than famine. Health must therefore be regarded as a major economic factor and investments in health as a profitable business. even in countries that have already achieved a measure of democracy (Van Helden. The WHO estimates that 33. The economic costs of infectious diseases especially HIV/AIDS and malaria— are significant. HIV and pneumonia/influenza are among the 10 leading causes of death in the USA. AIDS is now the leading cause of death among young adults (Fauci et al. Cutbacks in prevention programmes and a lack of early-detection systems allow infectious diseases to gain a foothold in otherwise healthy populations. A wide-ranging study on the causes of instability indicates that TB prevalence—a good indicator of overall quality of life—correlates strongly with political instability. TB and malaria are increasingly being acknowledged as important factors in the political and economic destabilization of the developing world. as well as within households (WHO. Programmes to prevent and treat infectious diseases in developing countries depend largely on indigenous health workers. as their migratory patterns and normal habitats are likely to change. there is not yet enough commitment to control infectious diseases at the political . In the USA and many other countries. TB (3/4) 101 . 1996). At present. especially in the developing world and former communist countries. public-health experts also worry that global climate change could contribute further to the spread of both pathogens and their vectors such as mosquitoes or birds. 2006). According to the WHO. infectious diseases caused 32% of deaths worldwide. Countries with a per capita income of less than US$500 per year spend. only a strong political will can improve the situation. war. the number of annual deaths owing to infectious diseases was estimated at roughly 170. and 19 of the hardest-hit countries will be in sub-Saharan Africa (WHO. The absence of a direct and obvious link between disease control and the benefits for public health makes it difficult to sustain public-health policies. and political destabilization. Given the multiplicity and complexity of the reasons behind this general demotivation. Finally. and is cumulative over time The relationship between disease and political instability is indirect but real.000 in the USA (Gordon. The burden of infectious disease is therefore likely to aggravate. Nearly 42 million children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2010. A 10% increase in life expectancy at birth (LEB) is associated with a rise in economic growth of 0. As of the year 2000. accidents and crimes together. approximately one million Americans are infected with HIV. The severe social and economic impact of infectious diseases is likely to intensify the struggle for the political power to control scarce resources. and lost earnings amount to 20–30% of household income. These demographic changes also affect economic growth. as endemic diseases deplete a country of its work force.6% per year. one billion people lived on less than US$1 per day.4 million people have contracted HIV worldwide since the beginning of the epidemic in 1983 and about 2. 1999). 90% of whom are from the developing world.3 million of these died in the year 1998 alone. US$12 per person per year on health. The United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS. and in some cases even provoke economic decay. 2000). most of whom are unfortunately not motivated enough to deliver the goods. Country studies document that each TB patient loses. reduced profitability and decreased foreign investment has had a serious effect on the economic growth of some poor . a lack of trained staff level. 3–4 months of work time annually due to the disease. However. the economic value of the loss-of-life owing to HIV/AIDS in 1999 was estimated at about 12% of the gross national product (GNP) in sub-Saharan African countries. 68% of deaths in Africa and 37% of deaths in Southeast Asia (WHO. on average. further social fragmentation . Some of the hardest hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa—and possibly in South and Southeast Asia—will face severe demographic changes as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases reduce human lifeexpectancy by as much as 30 years and kill as many as 23% of their populations. on average. More generally. thereby creating a huge orphan cohort. Geneva Switzerland) estimates that another 115 million people will die by 2015 in the 60 countries most affected by AIDS (UNAIDS. 2003). and the virus could reduce the gross domestic product of some by 20% or more by 2010. It is often not the lack of tools. As of the year 2001. According to the World Health Organization (WHO). — Their increasing toll on productivity owing to deaths and chronic debilitating illnesses. 2008). 2003). .

and hinder global commerce to the greater detriment of poor countries. trade embargoes or restrictions on travel and immigration owing to i . will cause such massive socio-economic and cultural upheaval that it will eventually affect a critical mass of humanity This will create the necessary pressure for a movement towards better prevention and control efforts. which represented more than 15% of the GDP. and assuming a 30% decline in average productivity. 2008). TB or malaria. The effects of infectious diseases over the next decades depend on three variables: the relationship between increasing microbial resistance and scientific efforts to develop new antibiotics and vaccines. with an average loss of 15 years of income per death. 36. Children suffer cognitive damage and anaemia. The threat.1 million people were living with AIDS (25 million of whom were in sub-Saharan Africa). many of which are likely to appear in poorer countries first. According to this scenario. there is an additional deficit of US$11 billion. The burden of infectious disease already weakens the military capabilities of various countries and international peace-keeping efforts. In the year 2000.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 102 /414 Nelson <tournament> of TB in economic terms can therefore be easily calculated: given 8. more than 75% of which are among African children. outbreaks of infectious disease will cause more friction between developing and developed countries. the future of developing and transitional economies. and families spend up to 25% of their income on treatment. and the success of global and national efforts to create effective systems of surveillance and response. 2003). The optimistic scenario foresees steady improvement whereby ageing populations and declining fertility. This will only later result in demographic changes such as reduced fertility and ageing populations.6 DALYs lost. In slowing down social and economic development. Major diseases such as HIV/AIDS— will reach — catastrophic proportions as the viruses spread throughout populations as a result of increased resistance to multi-drug treatments and the unavailability of expensive treatments in developing countries. 5. the economic burden of AIDS on sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 72 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY). and less than 20% of these malaria cases ever see a doctor for treatment. According to the WHO Macroeconomics Report. infectious diseases n general. This has a heavy economic impact on society.7 million deaths). Pregnant women have a higher risk of dying from the infection or of having children with low birth weight. and contribute to civil conflicts. Microbial resistance will continue to increase faster than the pace of drug and vaccine development.7% of the GNP. especially with regard to improving the basic quality of life for the poorest people. The social cost of the lost productivity further increases the burden on society.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa) and three million people died (2. Depending on these variables. Assuming that each DALY is valued at the per capita income. which face the majority of the problem. with new and effective drugs and vaccines made affordable.7–2. the economic value of lost life years in 1999 caused by AIDS represents 11. AIDS/HIV also creates an enormous burden for the global economy. . Persistent poverty in the least-developed countries will create conditions that sustain reservoirs of infectious diseases. Every 12 months TB therefore causes roughly US$12 billion to disappear from the global economy. on average. Countries with a severe malaria burden grew 1. and improvements in health care and medical research will lead to a 'health transition' in which infectious diseases will be replaced by non-infectious diseases such as diabetes. In addition. diseases challenge democratic developments and transitions. compared with those without. the toll amounts to approximately US$1 billion each year. a 50% reduction in TB-related deaths would cost US$900 million per year. Annual deaths are estimated at two million and. a vicious spiral will develop between infectious diseases and poverty. and their impact on the human race. A study by Gallup & Sachs (2000) showed that countries with endemic malaria had income levels in 1995 that were only 33% of those in countries that do not suffer from malaria. could take one of the following pathways.4 million patients yearly according to the most recent WHO estimates (Kim et al. The third and most likely scenario foresees an initial deterioration followed by limited improvement. and AIDS has caused 21. can easily spread to richer parts of the world. in particular from HIV/AIDS. By contrast. the majority of whom are potential wage-earners. Finally.3 million people were infected (3. This will contribute further to political destabilization in the hardest-hit parts of the world. Gallup & Sachs estimated the aggregate loss owing to the disease in some 25 countries at approximately US$73 billion in 1987. 102 .4 million in sub-Saharan Africa). and a gradual socioeconomic improvement in most countries. 16 million deaths averted and US$6 billion saved. Emerging and re-emerging diseases. Each year there are between 400 and 900 million febrile infections owing to malaria (0. in 1999 (WHO. the pessimist scenario of steady deterioration foresees little or no progress in countering infectious diseases in the future.8 million deaths to date. and each AIDS death is estimated to have resulted in 34.3% less per year. as major health challenges. the losses represent 35. especially those that can cause an epidemic continue to make costly disruptions to trade and commerce in every region of the world (Table 3). but the return on investment by 2010 would be 22 million people cured. socioeconomic advances.1% of the GNP. If each DALY is valued at three times the per capita income. The good news is that infectious . By contrast. heart disease and cancer. the relationship between humans and infectious diseases.

country-by-country. Increasing globalization means that the big questions in relation to epidemics will be those of where and when—and not whether—the next epidemic emerges. financial and non-financial resources with a view to mobilizing support internationally. as historical examples have shown. especially given the potentially far-reaching and devastating effects that they could have on the human race at large. No country can afford to remain aloof in the battle against these diseases. politicians. TB and malaria—in order to have the greatest impact. 2006). Medical treatment. however. 2001. In addition. joint efforts will have to focus on the main killer diseases—including HIV/AIDS. but even more so for the developing world. all stakeholders—researchers. and to estimate their social and economic impact. and to analyse. We already know a lot of what we must do. the investment in the fight against infectious diseases is evidently good business: the world economy—and. Even from the purely economic point of view. 103 . infectious diseases constitute a major problem for the world. we just need to do it. This will require analytical and advisory services in order to help countries generate and act on information about the status and dynamics of most infectious diseases. Last.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 103 /414 Nelson <tournament> TB (4/4) diseases can be easily prevented through simple and inexpensive methods (Sidebar A). This will require special efforts to identify and overcome legal barriers. psychosocial support—including palliative care for debilitating diseases—and highly active anti-microbial therapy will be essential. In conclusion. best practices will have to be identified and scaled up. The future of the human race depends on our actions today. the financial sector and the community at large—must take the necessary bold steps forward . the prevailing problem of the physical and financial inaccessibility of most of these drugs will have to be addressed. Therefore. This requires correct education and the spread of knowledge. In the face of limited resources. even these simple measures will not be enough to bring infectious diseases under control if there is no political and international commitment. individual family economies— stands to benefit from such investments. We need a global commitment to address the most prominent infectious diseases and to complement local initiatives with special attention to the least-developed countries (Alilio. Such information is essential for advocacy. health professionals. subsequently. Governments must be made to understand the stakes involved in fighting infectious diseases—this is the only way to guarantee that the necessary resources will be allocated in sufficient quantities and on time. and for making appropriate and timely decisions. Stop TB Partnership.

4/8/05 (Chris. Writer for the World Health Organization (WHO). "Any way you look at it. People with HIV. the agency says.cfm?id=drug-resistant-tuberculosis-a-time-2009-04-01 ) The growing prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis is a "potentially explosive situation.000 MDR-TB cases occur annually—only 3 percent of them treated according to WHO standards—and XDR-TB exists in more than 50 countries. On average. USAID has been a key player in the Stop TB Partnership. "Call it what you may—a time bomb or a powder keg. a system of observing people while they take the full course of medicine to prevent drug-resistant strains from developing. 4/1/09 (Jordan Lite. are at increased risk of TB. and helps health ministries draw up comprehensive TB strategies.scientificamerican. Aside from funding. It disrupts the social fabric of society and slows or undermines gains in economic development.com/blog/60-secondscience/post. Margaret Chan. TB causes three to four months of lost work time and lost earnings for a household. the Agency invests in the Stop TB Partnership and GDF by providing technical support. More than 500. This helps poor countries improve their drug management systems. The timeframe for TB is immediate Lite. Scientific American http://www." Chan said today.Representatives from 27 countries affected by multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) are gathering in Beijing to discuss how to address the trend . Writer for the WHO. 4/8/05 http://www. whose immune systems are already weakened by the AIDScausing virus.gov/press/frontlines/fl_apr05/pillars.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 104 /414 Nelson <tournament> TB TB collapses the economy Thomas. MDR-TB is resistant to first-line drugs.usaid.htm ) TB tends to threaten the poorest and most marginalized groups of people. this is a potentially explosive situation. said today at the opening of a three-day meeting on the problem. XDR-TB doesn’t respond to those meds or second-line therapies. An overwhelming 98 percent of the 2 million annual TB deaths—and some 95 percent of all new cases—occur in developing countries. according to the Associated Press. an effort of more than 350 partner governments and organizations. trains local TB experts. 4/1/09." the World Health Organization's director general. USAID has been particularly involved in administering DOTS." 104 .

S. 49 Moreover. 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 44 Moreover. 53 A nuclear terrorist attack will trigger every single impact scenario Zedillo 06 (Ernesto Zedillo. the erosion of authority and government unstoppable and the disruption of global trade and finance unprecedented. Rev. In short. you still could be upset about what's not happening: doing the utmost to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack. there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons.. 25) Even if you agree with what's being done in the war on terror. 42 Moreover.. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states. we could practically count on the beginning of another dark age. leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 43 Accordingly. 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge.000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons. is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Speice. the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built.. “NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U. or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 105 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terror A terrorist attack escalates to a global nuclear exchange Speice 06 )Speice 06 – 06 JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary [Patrick F. FORBES. 105 . or .000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 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." 40 Equally threatening. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. 2006.” William & Mary Law Review. p. however. the destruction of property in the trillions of dollars. supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 1427]) Accordingly. or steal nuclear material to sell. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. Jr. 47 Wm and Mary L. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. Depending on the potency of the device the loss of life could be in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions). 45 This resulted in at least 35. [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country. the escalation in conflicts and violence uncontrollable. January 9. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods. February 2006. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists. there [*1439] are still at least 20. the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia. Former President of Mexico Director. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex. and the nuclear cities were closed.

empirical estimates of the consequences of terrorism typically suggest large effects on economic outcomes (see. First. The main theme of this article is that mobility of productive capital in an open economy may account for much of the difference between the direct and the equilibrium impact of terrorism. in addition to increasing uncertainty. terrorism has been described to have four main effects (see. we find that. US Congress. terrorism is known to affect negatively specific industries such as tourism. http://ksghome. terrorism promotes increases in counter-terrorism expenditures.g.professor of public policy @ Harvard. in accordance with the predictions of the model.pdf) It has been argued that terrorism should not have a large effect on economic activity. Second. higher levels of terrorist risks are associated with lower levels of net foreign direct investment positions. Joint Economic Committee. In this article. we use a stylized macroeconomic model of the world economy and international data on terrorism and the stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) assets and liabilities to study the economic effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy 106 . August 2007. 2001). We use a simple economic model to show that terrorism may have a large impact on the allocation of productive capital across countries.. Using a unique dataset on terrorism and other country risks. Becker and Murphy. This paper analyzes the effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy. The model emphasizes that. As a result. which suggests that the “open-economy channel" impact of terrorism may be substantial. “Terrorism and the World Economy”.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 106 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terrorism turns Econ Academic studies prove terrorism hurts the economy Abadie and Gardeazabal. Abadie and Gardeazabal. 2002). this classification does not include the potential effects of increased terrorist threats in an open economy. the terrorist threat induces higher levels of uncertainty.edu/~aabadie/twe.professor of economics @ the University of Baque Country.. Fourth.harvard. The magnitude of the estimated effect is large. From an economic standpoint. On average.g.g. terrorism reduces the expected return to investment. and Javier Gareazabal. a standard deviation increase in the terrorist risk is associated with a fall in the net foreign direct investment position of about 5 percent of GDP. so international investors are able to diversify other types of country risks. changes in the intensity of terrorism may cause large movements of capital across countries if the world economy is sufficiently open. the capital stock (human and physical) of a country is reduced as a result of terrorist attacks. drawing resources from productive sectors for use in security. e. 2003). even if it represents a small fraction of the overall economic risk.1 However. Third. e.. because terrorist attacks destroy only a small fraction of the stock of capital of a country (see. even after controlling for other types of country risks. In contrast. 7 (Alberto Abadie. e.

Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration) The capacity for small bands of terrorists to do harm is far less than was the case for the great countries behind international Communism who possessed a very impressive military (and nuclear) capacity and had. In almost all years. the number of people worldwide who die as a result of international terrorism is generally only a few hundred a year. tiny compared with the numbers who die in most civil wars or from automobile accidents. Professor of Political Science at OhioState. 05 (John. the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began its accounting) is about the same as the number killed over the same period by lightning—or by accident-causing deer or by severe allergic reaction to peanuts. for all the attention it evokes. of course. even using an expansive definition of terrorism and including domestic terrorism in the mix. and during the entire twentieth century fewer than 20 terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people. however. this could change if international terrorists are able to assemble sufficient weaponry or devise new tactics to kill masses of people and if they come to do so routinely —and this. Aum Shinrikyo tried without success to hire Russian nuclear experts. The economic destruction on September 11 was also unprecedented. no more than 329 had ever been killed in a single terrorist attack (in a 1985 Air India explosion). it is likely that far fewer people were killed by terrorists in the entire world over the last hundred years than died in any number of unnoticed civil wars during that century. to mine uranium. actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic.org/pubs/research_briefs/ RB165/index1. of course. al Qaeda has been exposed to numerous scams involving the sale of radiological waste and other non-weapons-grade material. in addition. By contrast. to purchase Russian nuclear technology and data. Obviously. But people are mainly concerned about random terror. it should be kept in mind that 9/11 was an extreme event: until then.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 107 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terrorism Defense Nuclear weapons are too expensive RAND. Those adept at hyperbole like to proclaim that we live in "the age of terror" (Hoagland. . but it does suggest that extreme events do not necessarily assure repetition—any more than Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 has. “Combating http://www. Since that time. 2004). the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States. International Studies Perspectives. 5 (RAND research brief. shown great skill at political subversion. hundreds of billions of pieces of luggage have been transported on American carriers and none has exploded to down an aircraft. Similarly. Nonetheless. In fact. May 2005. When terrorism becomes really extensive. These efforts were thwarted by Russian officials’ refusal to cooperate and by the lack of technical expertise within the group. fewer people have died in America from international terrorism than have drowned in toilets. rather than harbingers 107 . These difficulties may lead terrorists to conclude that nuclear acquisition is too difficult and too expensive to pursue. However. extreme events often remain exactly that—aberrations. we generally no longer call it terrorism.html) Nuclear Terrorism” Nuclear Acquisition Remains Relatively Difficult for Terrorist Groups Acquiring a nuclear weapon requires access to specialized material and a high level of technical expertise that has historically been beyond the reach of terrorist groups. This does not mean that one should cease worrying about luggage on airlines. And except for 2001. but war. outside of 2001. in reasonable context. A bomb planted in a piece of checked luggage was responsible for the explosion that caused a PanAm jet to crash into Lockerbie Scotland in 1988. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count. Moreover. not sustained warfare.rand. until 2001 far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning. virtually none of these terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. However. The threat of terrorism has been greatly exaggerated – empirically proven Mueller. is the central fear. Throughout the 1990s. Indeed. terrorism. Some of this is definitional. and to steal sensitive nuclear power plant information. Volume 6 Issue 2 Page 208-234.

Another participant agreed that the fears about terrorism are exaggerated and differentiated between the actual campaign against al-Qaeda and its supporters and the idea of a general “war on terrorism.html) But terrorism is not likely to pose the kind of sustained existential threat that strong states. Meanwhile. It will also produce a self-fulfilling sense of fear and terror that will accomplish the goals of our terrorist adversaries at little risk to themselves. 2008. 108 . and key facilities remain unprotected. ever larger budget expenditures that weaken our overall economy. The riposte is that this is due to strong countermeasures. Discounting war zones.allacademic. Additionally. studies show that there have been very few people killed by “Muslim extremists” each year—in fact. November 2008) The Crisis in the Middle East Task Force addressed the topic of “Have We Exaggerated the Threat of Terrorism?” in its sixth session on February 21. Treating terrorism as such in an endless “war” is likely to lead to endless fear and the slighting of other. hosted by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. highly lethal. especially nuclear-armed ones. and both law enforcement officials and publics are "terrorized" by a pervasive uneasiness about impending terrrorist attacks. group think is rarely correct and this is evident from the facts.edu/events/2008/0221_terrorism.allacademic. the balance between liberty and security is tilting toward security.” No Impact to terrorism Fidas.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 108 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terrorism Defense The costs of fighting terrorism outweigh the small risk of another attack Fidas.brookings.html) The overwhelmingly dominant-indeed only-paradigm concerning terrorism is that it is pervasive. especially in the U. 2007 http://www. “Have We Exaggerated the Threat of Terrorism?” http://www. This participant questioned both the intentions and capability of al-Qaeda. and poses a clear and present danger to the United States. "Terrorism: Existensial Threat or Exaggerated Threat: Challenging the Dominant Paradigm" Feb 28. There has been no terrorist act in the United States since 9/11 and less than 10 major terrorist attacks around the world resulting in fewer than 1000 casualties. 8 (The Brookings Institution. and growing restrictions on civil liberties and freedom of movement at home and loss of soft power abroad. 7 (George. One participant argued that terrorism presents minimal cause for concern. Terrorist threats are exaggerated Brookings Institue. many counterterrorism measures have failed official and unofficial tests. "Terrorism: Existensial Threat or Exaggerated Threat: Challenging the Dominant Paradigm" Feb 28. despite fears to the contrary. 2007 http://www. this participant thought it unlikely that that al-Qaeda would obtain nuclear weapons. but this is belied by the fact that borders remain porous and thousands of people cross them illegally on a daily basis. and thereby may be skewing our perceptions about the continued seriousness of the terrorist threat.aspx?p=1. can be self-defeating: many attacks by al-Qaeda have caused the group to lose popularity.Professor of Practice of International Affair @ Elliot school of international affairs..com/meta/p181269_index. but they have become an anchoring event in a psychological sense through which all subsequent events and perceptions are being filtered. more people drown in bathtubs each year in the United States. in particular. posed against other strong states in the 20th century.S.Professor of Practice of International Affair @ Elliot school of international affairs. terrorism. There is no doubt that the 9/11 attacks were horrific. and tothe world in general. The FBI reported in 2005 that it had not found an al-Qaeda presence in the United States.com/meta/p181269_index. assessed the risks of and appropriate responses to terrorism. 7 (George. In specific. It is time to at least question the dominant paradigm and that is the topic of this paper. Osama bin Laden has threatened many attacks that he has not been able to execute. huge funds are being allocated to conduct the socalled war on terror. Yet. by its very nature. perhaps more salient new and existing security threats. This session.

com/id/2079298/) While everyone else is buying duct tape and making evacuation plans. especially nuclear weapons. http://www. that killed 17. Turkey. what could terrorism do to an economy like ours? There is an economics of everything else. The World Trade Center attack did not move the U.S. any ambition to derail a large. 3 (Robert. we cold-blooded economists ask.000—without derailing. or Palestinian suicide bombers)—the direct economic impact is negligible. Slate. In the few places where terrorist activity has been pervasive and protracted—Colombia.com. advanced economy like ours will fail. 109 . Former U. So long as al-Qaida or its counterparts are unable (or unwilling) to use weapons much more powerful than airliners. Modern economies regularly absorb greater losses from bad weather and natural disasters—for example. For small operations—a political murder or bombing that kills a few people (think Colombian narco-terrorists. the 1988 heat wave that took the lives of more than 5.S. IRA operatives. the Basque region of Spain.empirically proven Shapiro. 2/28/03. resembling ordinary crime. Where terrorism has been more occasional and local.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 109 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terrorism doesn’t hurt the economy Terrorism has no economic impact. Even a huge terror strike is a blip in a vast economy like the United States'. The immediate costs of terrorism are rarely very high for an economy. as consumer spending and GDP accelerated strongly in the quarter immediately following the attack. Northern Ireland. the economic impact is modest. and Israel—it depresses growth and sometimes stunts development. so why not an economics of terrorism? Terrorists have inflicted enough damage in enough places during the past 30 years for economists to credibly evaluate how terrorism affects economic activity. Undersecretary of Commerce “Al-Qaida and the GDP”. The lesson for the United States: The economic cost of terrorism here is likely to be less than you'd expect. economy.000 Americans or the 1999 earthquake in Izmit.slate.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 Terrorism deters foreign investment

File Name 110 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

110

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 111 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

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

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

111

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 112 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**HEG**

112

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 113 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

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

military efforts to contain the rising power are most likely doomed to failure. China’s growth turns mainly on domestic issues—such as shifting the workforce from rural to urban areas—that are beyond the ability

113

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 114 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

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

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

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

114

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 115 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Hard power doesn’t maintain heg and ultimately causes counterbalancing Pape, 9 (Robert- professor of political science at the University of Chicago, The National Interest, “Empire Falls” 01.22.2009, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20484) It would be easy to think that greater American military efforts could offset the consequences of China’s increasing power and possibly even lead to the formation of a multilateral strategy to contain China in the future. Indeed, when China’s economic star began to rise in the 1990s, numerous voices called for precisely this, noting that on current trajectories China would overtake the United States as the world’s leading economic power by 2050.8 Now, as that date draws nearer—indeed, currentdollar calculations put the crossover point closer to 2040—and with Beijing evermore dependent on imported oil for continued economic growth, one might think the case for actively containing China is all the stronger. Absent provocative military adventures by Beijing, however, U.S. military efforts to contain the rising power are most likely doomed to failure. China’s growth turns mainly on domestic issues—such as shifting the workforce from rural to urban areas—that are beyond the ability of outside powers to significantly influence. Although China’s growth also depends on external sources of oil, there is no way to exploit this vulnerability short of obviously hostile alliances (with India, Indonesia, Taiwan and Japan) and clearly aggressive military measures (controlling the sea-lanes from the Persian Gulf to Asia) that together could deny oil to China. Any efforts along these lines would likely backfire—and only exacerbate America’s problems, increasing the risk of counterbalancing.
As China rises, America must avoid this great-power trap.

Hard Power doesn’t solve Heg

115

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 116 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

116

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 117 /414

Nelson <tournament>

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

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

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

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

117

if only to secure their interests. obviate the need to come to Israel’s aid if its security became threatened. the United States. It is further competition. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe. It is shaped by configurations of power. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. India. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region. would produce its own kind of order. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. stability. and Europe. forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors. The world hasn’t changed that much. China. These. independent. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. of course. which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. to expand and fill the vacuum. It will produce a new instability. The alternative to American regional predominance in 118 . Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible. or Iran. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive. too. is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. That commitment. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia. This is especially true in East Asia. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia. could draw in other great powers. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. and comity in the Middle East. “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 118 /414 Nelson <tournament> that’s not the way it works. The current order. one likely to draw the United States back in again. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity. China. faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious. In the Middle East. and especially since the end of the Cold War. too. practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region. both on the seas and on the ground. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia. regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. nationalist Japan. with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world. In Europe. particularly Iran. where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region. including the United States. which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace. A different configuration of power. But even China.

no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path. the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 119 /414 Nelson <tournament> the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future. In an era of burgeoning nationalism. 119 .

America Strategy Program sr. insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. Russia and the Caspian Sea. That new global order has arrived. 1/27. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa. p. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces. they were signs of imperial overstretch. and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks. and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20. diplomatic countermovements. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and. and should. Afghanistan is stable. Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can. in fact.” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) It is 2016. they mean little. but either way.nytimes. energy. http://www. lead it to collective security and prosperity ? Indeed. on the Arabian Sea. improvements to America’s image may or may not occur. from the Pakistani port of Gwadar. as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t. 1. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies. 120 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 120 /414 Nelson <tournament> Decline Inev Rising asymmetric balancing. fellow. and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth. and overstretch coupled with massive expenditure has rendered the decline of hegemony imminent Khanna ’08 (Parag.000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan. Iran is nuclear. as well as substantial nuclear America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline.

now human societies depend not merely on fresh water and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century.html) So what is left? Waning empires. globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities. Technology has transformed production. and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world. beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir. With ease. targeting oil tankers.U. would become irreversible.S. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. For the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times more—meaning that friction between the world’s disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. religious orders.hooverdigest. less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. it would inevitably become a less open society. Religious revivals. Meanwhile. and cruise liners. http://www. unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. labor. For more than two decades. In Africa. visit. The wealthiest ports of the global economy—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. of course. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates. limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions. Prof of history @ Harvard. Meanwhile. “A World without Power” July/August 4. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents. Technology has upgraded destruction. perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? 121 . as Europe’s Muslim enclaves grew. too. or do business. In Latin America.org/044/ferguson. A coming retreat into fortified cities. the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home were preferable to the risks of default abroad. Hoover Digest. Houston or Chicago. Incipient anarchy. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis. terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas. say. aircraft carriers. wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in evangelical Christianity imported by U. Islamist extremists’ infiltration of the E.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 121 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ T/ US withdrawal would result in a new dark age and collapse the global economy Ferguson. 4 (Niall. The trouble is.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 122 /414 Nelson <tournament> **WAR IMPACTS** 122 .

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 123 /414 Nelson <tournament> War causes dehumanization Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars Vinulan-Arellano 03.com/main/articles/nomorewars. worldwide. Slaves. Muslims. Throughout history.yonip. dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and brainwashing. and now. successful dehumanization of women. 123 . Negroes. groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized. The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the prevailing. treated as secondclass human beings.com “Stop Dehumanization of People to Stop Wars” http://www. Up to now. Ethnic cleansing or genocide would always be perceived as a crime against humanity if human beings belonging to another race or religion are not dehumanized. torture or kill.html] In war time. [Katharine. mass rape of women is common. women are dehumanized in many societies -. Jews. it is much easier to motivate your troops to rape. By portraying the enemy as less than human.they are made sexual objects. March 22 yonip. During wars.

military officials said. which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly. Among those diseases appearing more frequently in the United States are three transmitted by mosquitoes: malaria. Boston Globe 07. arms. the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil.boston. combat deployments” http://www. In some US hospitals in Iraq. the appearance of it among civilian contractors who went to Iraq or among tourists who were infected in other parts of the world has caused great fear because family doctors have had difficulty figuring out the cause. usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face. hands. The spread of leishmaniasis (pronounced LEASH-ma-NYE-a-sis) is part of a trend of emerging infectious diseases in the United States in recent years as a result of military deployments. as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the developing world. dengue fever. [05-07.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/07/spread_of_disease_tied_to_us_combat_deployme nts/] A parasitic disease rarely seen in United States but common in the Middle East has infected an estimated 2. which was contracted by 122 troops last year in Afghanistan." But in the United States.S. “Spread of disease tied to U.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 124 /414 Nelson <tournament> War Turns Disease War increases the spread of fatal disease. Leishmaniasis .500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. health officials say. 124 . or legs. and chikungunya fever. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated.

Bangladesh. India. it is only in recent years that it has been taken seriously as a violation of humanitarian law. 873 Summer lexis] While sexual violence against women has always been considered a negative side effect of war.in Korea. ensuring that if she did return home that she would be rejected. women themselves have become a battlefield on which conflicts are fought. Int'l L. Edition 2. Victor Sidel. Uganda. Algeria. particularly women. where offspring would have different ethnicities than their mothers. Indonesia. Raping a woman stigmatized her. 125 . For example. In the "evolution" of war. In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda. to the use of sexual violence to prevent women from wanting to have sex again (thus limiting their likelihood of bearing children in the future). The conflicts in both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia put women's rights directly in the spotlight. and in many cases.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. played out against a backdrop of genocide.000 women were raped by military personnel during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. War and Public Health. and masculinity over the other side. It took the extremely brutal victimization of vast numbers of women. destroy communities. Raping women helped to achieve this aim in a number of ways. Eaton 04. from forced impregnation. at least 10. Rwanda. War conditions cause sexual violence Levy and Sidel. ethnic cleansing was central to the conflict. putting the human rights of these women at the heart of the conflict. Civilians. Liberia. 2007) Women are especially vulnerable during war (see Chapter 12). rape was used as a means of destroying families and communities. [Shana JD Georgetown University Law Center 35 Geo. the former Yugslavia. came to be used as tools to achieve military ends. to prove that rape is not simply a natural side effect of war to be lightly brushed aside. As acts of humiliation and revenge. and demoralize opponents-decimating a woman's will to survive is often only a secondary side effect.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. making it unlikely that she would ever want to return home. aggressors have used shocking sexual violence against women as a tool of conflict.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 125 /414 Nelson <tournament> War turns Gender violence War causes sexual violence and reifies the subjugation of women. soldiers have raped the female family members of their enemies. Realizing that rape is often more effective at achieving their aims than plain killing. and elsewhere. and the international community could no longer avoid the glare. allowing battling forces to flaunt their power. Sexual violence against women during wartime had to reach horrifying levels before the international community was shocked enough to finally take these atrocities seriously. The stigma of rape is used to effectuate genocide. dominance. Rape has been used as a weapon in many wars. Additionally. 7 (Barry Levy. J. The social chaos brought about by war also creates situations and conditions conductive to sexual violence.

and that to end the abuses one needs to target rebel group financing. [Arvind. rather than grievance alone. 126 . Business and Human Rights Program Director @ HRW Alex. and civil war is critically important. the use of child soldiers. The focus is on rebel groups. sexual abuse. Head of Africa Programme Chatham House. revenues. pervasive rights abuse is all but inevitable. Senior Researcher @ HRW. high-value resources is an important reason that rebel groups form and civil wars break out. as in Liberia prior to enforcement of sanctions. and that is why the role of IFIs is so important. corrupt governments to be more open and transparent.org/wr2k4/download/14. and extreme deprivation of civilians all too commonly are the result. it should insist on greater transparency in government revenues and expenditures and more rigorous enforcement of punitive measures against governments that seek to profit from conflict. can further destabilize conditions. the picture as presented in the just-described “greed vs. But it is an economic problem that also has political dimensions and requires political solutions. Political will and pressure. proper management of revenues is an economic problem. resource-rich governments go to war with rebels who often seek control over the same resources. Such abuse. “Engine of War: Resources. in turn. In this context. the financing of conflict through natural resource exploitation has received increased scrutiny over the last few years. Although examination of the nexus between resources. Royal Institue of Int’l Affairs. maiming. Fundamentally. sanctions where appropriate. impels peoples toward internal armed conflict. When unaccountable. The level of violence has prompted increased scrutiny of the causes of such wars. Civil wars and conflict have taken a horrific toll on civilians throughout the world. continued conflict. but it does highlight the need to ensure that governments too are transparent and accountable. Greed. grievance” theory is distorted by an overemphasis on the impact of resources on rebel group behavior and insufficient attention to how government mismanagement of resources and revenues fuels conflict and human rights abuses.N. and other atrocities characterize numerous past and ongoing conflicts.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 126 /414 Nelson <tournament> War turns Human Right Violations Wars undermine human rights Ganesan and Vines 04. fueling continued conflict.” Human Rights Watch World Report 2004 http://hrw. and the Predatory State. rights abuse. including targeted U. and the thesis is that greed. forced conscription. Where such pressure is lacking. As argued here. Killings.pdf] Internal armed conflict in resource-rich countries is a major cause of human rights violations around the world. can motivate opaque. Factoring the greed of governments and systemic rights abuse into the “greed vs. grievance” equation does not minimize the need to hold rebel groups accountable. if the international community is serious about curbing conflict and related rights abuses in resource-rich countries. An influential World Bank thesis states that the availability of portable.

these deaths have been the consequence of and explicit military policy. War and Public Health." U. computers. 7 (Barry Levy. with clearly foreseeable consequences to human rights of civilians.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. especially the use of high-precision bombs. especially infants and children. The technique has been termed "bomb now”. military action against Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in the Iraq War has included the specific and selective destruction of key aspects of the infrastructure necessary to maintain ci vi li an life and health (see Chapter 15). water purification and pumping ceased immediately in all major urban areas. 127 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 127 /414 Nelson <tournament> War turns human rights/ disease Modern warfare involves crippling civilian infrastructure and violating human rights Levy and Sidel. Operating rooms.S. were rapid. At the same lime. or any electricity beyond what could he supplied by emergency generators designed to operate only a few hours per day. Without electrical power. They mock the concept of “life integrity rights. Vaccines and medications requiring refrigeration were destroyed. rockets. bridges. Edition 2. Many reports provide clear and quantitative evidence of violations of the requirements of immunity for civilian populations. and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. die later. In combination with the prolonged application of economic sanctions and the disruption of highways. and other essential medications were rapidly depleted. military personnel operate. Fuel shortages and the disruption of transportation limited civilian access to medical care. these actions had severely damaging effects on the health and survival of the civilian population.” In contrast to the chaos and social disruption that routinely accompany armed conflicts. such as typhoid fever and cholera. x-ray equipment. During the bombing phase of the Persian Gulf War this deliberate effort almost totally destroyed Iraq's electricalpower generation and transmission capacity and its civilian communications networks. sewage disposal. has now made it possible to attack civilian populations in industrialized societies indirectly—but with devastating results—by targeting the facilities on which life depends. and missile warheads. Yet the ongoing development of military technology suggests that—absent the use of weapons of mass destruction— violations of civilians’ human rights will be the preferred method of warfare in the future.S. Victor Sidel. the Ministry of Health was effectively immobilized. The U. military has never conceded that its policies violated human rights under the Geneva Conventions or the guidelines under which U. and facilities for refining and distributing fuel by conventional bombing. The appearance and epidemic spread of infectious diarrheal disease in infants and of waterborne diseases. and all immunization programs increased. medical care and public health measures were totally disrupted. or transmission lines were operable. antibiotics. while avoiding the stigma of direct attack on the bodies and habitats of noncombatants. and other vital facilities were crippled.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College.S. proportionality. Modern multistory hospitals were left without clean water. Because almost no civilian telephones. 2007) Modern military technology. Supplies of anesthetics. as did sewage pumping and treatment.

This is because the maintenance of racial domination and exploitation comes to depend partly on the use of state power. including bureaucracy and patriarchy.uow. which is therefore supported and expanded by the dominant group. .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 128 /414 Nelson <tournament> War Turns Racism War props up systems of racism and domination. and Society at the University of Wollongong. and as a basis for economic exploitation. it is necessary both to promote grassroots mobilisation and to undermine the key structures from which the state draws its power and from which it mobilises support. this is readily used to keep other groups in subordinate positions. Uprooting War. structured patterns of dominance and submission are mobilised to support the state. When one ethnic group controls all the key positions in the state.edu. [http://www. But at the same time. From this perspective. This was clearly a key process in apartheid in South Africa. the dominant ethnic group uses state power to maintain its ascendancy. From this perspective it can be said that the state mobilises racism to help maintain itself. Associate Professor of Science. Martin 90. [Brian. but is also at work in many other countries in which minority groups are oppressed. Freedom Press. Technology. 128 . In each case. Several of these will be treated in the following chapters.html] Antagonism between ethnic groups can be used and reinforced by the state to sustain its own power. and state in turn helps to sustain the social structure in question. To counter the state. There are several other avenues used by the state to mobilise support.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/index. such as bureaucracy or patriarchy. the use of political and economic power for racial oppression helps to sustain and legitimate state power itself.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 129 /414 Nelson <tournament> War Turns Everything War causes destroys health. 129 . It destroys the infrastructure that supports health. 2007) War accounts for more death and disability than many major diseases combined. It limits human rights and contributes to social injustice. and other kinds of violence. street crime. war threatens much of the fabric of our civilization. Edition 2. And it contributes to the destruction of the environment and overuse of nonrenewable resources. and sometimes whole cultures. Victor Sidel. 7 (Barry Levy.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. War and Public Health. and causes domestic violence Levy and Sidel. It directs scarce resources away from protection and promotion of health. the environment. communities. It destroys families. medical care. In sum.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. human rights. and other human services. It leads many people to think that violence is the only way to resolve conflicts—a mindset that contributes to domestic violence.

such as aggression toward family members and others. many people survive wars only to be physically or mentally scarred for life (see Box 1-1). Approximately one-third of Ihe soldiers who survived ihe civil war in Ethiopia. suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). have witnessed the death of family members.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. on returning from military action. 7 (Barry Levy. were injured or disabled. or have experienced the destruction of their communities or entire nations (sec Chapter4).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 130 /414 Nelson <tournament> War Turns Mental Health War creates many mental health issues Levy and Sidel.000 individuals lost one or more limbs during the war. 2007) Given the brutality of war. Psychological trauma may be demonstrated in disturbed and antisocial behaviors. have been forced to serve as soldiers against their will. 130 .Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. Victor Sidel. have been tortured or have participated in the torture of others. For example. in Cambodia. for example. Edition 2.'0 Millions more people are psychologically impaired from wars. Many soldiers. which also affects many civilian survivors of war. Millions of survivors are chroni cally disabled from injuries sustained during war or the immediate aftermath of war. during which they have been physically or sexually assaulted or have physically or sexually assaulted others.' Antipersonnel landmines represent a serious threat to many people'' (see Chapter 7). and at least 40. War and Public Health. I in 236 people is an amputee as a result of a landmine explosion.

131 . but 38th among nations in infant mortality rate and 45th in life expectancy at birth. the United States ranks first among nations in military expenditures and arms exports.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. War and the preparation for war divert huge amounts of resources from health and human services and other productive societal endeavors. national governments spend S10 to $20 per capita on military expenditures but only SI per capita on all health-related expenditures.S. 2007) Many countries spend large amounts of money per capita for military purposes. the U. The countries with the highest military expenditures are shown in Table I -1. Victor Sidel. state. Edition 2. and is spending (in 2007) more than $2 billion a week on the war. and local governments in the United States have been experiencing budgetary shortfalls and finding it difficult to maintain adequate health and human services. during a period when federal. In some less developed countries. This diversion of resources occurs in many countries. Since 2003.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 131 /414 Nelson <tournament> War turns Health Funds are prioritized for war over health services Levy and Sidel.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. The same type of distorted priorities also exist in more developed countries. government has spent almost $500 bi l l i o n for the Iraq War. 7 (Barry Levy. For example. War and Public Health.

there have been instances of men murdering their wives on return from battlefield. Victor Sidel. commit acts of violence against women.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. Teenage gangs may mirror the activity of military forces Men.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 132 /414 Nelson <tournament> War turns domestic violence War creates a cycle of violence that spills over to domestic violence Levy and Sidel. sometimes former military servicemen who have been trained to use violence. War teaches people that violence is an acceptable method for settling conflicts. Edition 2. 2007) War often creates a cycle of violence. War and Public Health. 132 .Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. increasing domestic and community violence in the countries engaged in war. 7 (Barry Levy. Children growing up in environments in which violence is an established way of settling conflicts may choose violence to settle conflicts in their own lives.

and the more than 600 oil-well fires in Kuwait that were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops in 1991. 7 (Barry Levy. Victor Sidel. 2007) Finally. and both surface water and groundwater. war and the preparation for war have profound impacts on the physical environment (see Chapter 5).Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. much of the area in and around Chelyabinsk.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 133 /414 Nelson <tournament> War turns the environment War destroys the environment. such as the huge amounts of nonrenewable fossil fuels used by the military before (and during and after) wars and the environmental hazards of toxic and radioactive wastes.both during and preparing for war Levy and Sidel. 133 . leading to evacuation of local residents (see chapter 10). which can contaminate air. The disastrous consequences of war for the environment are often clear.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. which had a devastating effect on the ecology of the affected areas and caused acute respiratory symptoms among those exposed. soil. has been determined to be highly radioactive. Russia. destruction of urban environments by aerial carpet bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan during World War II. site of a major nuclear weapons production facility. Examples include bomb craters in Vietnam that have filled with water and provide breeding sites for mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases. For example. War and Public Health. Edition 2. Less obvious are the environmental impacts of the preparation for war.

people lived in egalitarian groups in which generosity was highly valued and war was rare. Even at present. Preventing war and its consequences should be part of the curricula of schools of public health. Edition 2. War and Public Health. 134 . the governing body of the World Health Organization: "The role of physicians and other health workers in the preservation and promotion of peace is the most significant factor for the attainment of health for all. we may be able to move beyond war and create a culture of peace. If we can learn from history. especially the development of nation-states. The greatest threat to the health of people worldwide lies not in specific forms of acute or chronic diseases—and not even in poverty. or homelessness. For perhaps 99 percent of human history.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 134 /414 Nelson <tournament> War outweighs disease Solving health problems eliminates a root cause of war Levy and Sidel. most people live peaceful. As stated in a resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly. nonviolent lives. 7 (Barry Levy. Activities by public health professionals to prevent war and its health consequences are an essential part of our professional obligations. Victor Sidel. Public health professionals can do much to prevent war and its health consequences. Rather. when war seems ever-present. hunger. and the practice of public health professionals.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. 2007) War is the one of the most serious threats lo public health.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. it lies in the consequences of war. the agendas of public health organizations." War is not inevitable. War first occurred relatively recently in human history along with changes in social organization.

2007) War accounts for more death and disability than many major diseases combined. 135 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 Turns Everything File Name 135 /414 Nelson <tournament> War causes destroys health. and other human services. It limits human rights and contributes to social injustice. and other kinds of violence.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. medical care. It destroys the infrastructure that supports health. It destroys families.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. 7 (Barry Levy. and sometimes whole cultures. Edition 2. the environment. War and Public Health. Victor Sidel. And it contributes to the destruction of the environment and overuse of nonrenewable resources. war threatens much of the fabric of our civilization. communities. human rights. and causes domestic violence Levy and Sidel. In sum. street crime. It directs scarce resources away from protection and promotion of health. It leads many people to think that violence is the only way to resolve conflicts—a mindset that contributes to domestic violence.

Myanmar and Somalia. husbands. sometimes with the complicity of governments and military authorities.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 136 /414 Nelson <tournament> AIDS War helps transmit HIV/AIDS Unicef 96 (Unicef. the very young and the elderly to fend for themselves. Nearly 80 per cent of the 53 million people uprooted by wars today are women and children. women were abducted. fence camps with thorn bushes and relocate the most vulnerable women to safer areas. The incidence of rape was reported to be alarmingly high at camps for Somali refugees in Kenya in 1993. according to the report. In Bosnia and Herzegovina. who themselves had been traumatized by violence. Sexual assault presents a major problem in camps for refugees and the displaced. The trend continues in today's conflicts. The movement of refugees and marauding military units and the breakdown of health services and public education worsens the impact of diseases and chances for treatment. The State of the World's Children 1996 report notes that the disintegration of families in times of war leaves women and girls especially vulnerable to violence. 136 . During World War II. one study has suggested that the exchange of sex for protection during the civil war in Uganda in the 1980s was a contributing factor to the country's high rate of AIDS. UNHCR (the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) has had to organize security patrols. During Mozambique's conflict.htm) In addition to rape. 1996. they leave women. For example.org/sowc96pk/sexviol. and hundreds of women were raped in night raids or while foraging for firewood. Some rape victims who were ostracized were moved to other camps or given priority for resettlement abroad. “Sexual violence as a weapon of war” http://www. imprisoned and forced to satisfy the sexual needs of occupying forces. The high risk of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).unicef. brothers and sons are drawn away to fight. young boys. and many Asian women were also involved in prostitution during the Viet Nam war. girls and women are also subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war. When fathers. including HIV/AIDS. and it trains field workers to be more sensitive to victims' needs. accompanies all sexual violence against women and girls. were reported to threaten to kill or starve girls if they resisted the boys' sexual advances. Refugee women are encouraged to form committees and become involved in camp administration to make them less vulnerable to men who would steal their supplies or force them to provide sex in return for provisions. UNHCR has formal guidelines for preventing and responding to sexual violence in the camps. The camps were located in isolated areas. refugee families frequently cite rape or the fear of rape as a key factor in their decisions to seek refuge.

elephants.change.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 137 /414 Nelson <tournament> Animal Rights T/ War hurts animal rights Ernst 09 (Stephanie Ernst. including 32 pigeons. But they didn't give their lives.the animals' equivalent of the Victoria Cross . They didn't choose to enlist. " eight million horses and countless mules and donkeys died in the First World War.org/blog/view/animals_in_war_you_dont_have_to_be_human_to_die_by_the_millions) The Animals in War Memorial in London. which flew back with her neck and right breast ripped open. For that reason. donkeys." and "Mary of Exeter. and kills animals on our soil regularly. as part of training. unveiled in 2004. And before anyone is inclined to say or think "just pigeons" or "just messages. and camels among them. “Animals in War: You Don't Have to Be Human to Die by the Millions” http://animalrights. injures. a pigeon that flew 129 miles with her wings clogged with oil to save a downed bomber crew. Their fate was decided for them. "The monument pays special tribute to the 60 animals awarded the PDSA Dickin Medal . glow worms. military shoots. 137 ." "They" refers to the literally millions of animals killed in twentieth-century wars--horses. 5-29-09.since 1943. They were used to transport ammunition and supplies to the front and many died. Indeed. mules. another pigeon. not only from the horrors of shellfire but also in terrible weather and appalling conditions" (emphasis mine)." (Note the BBC's irritating use of "which" and "that" here instead of "who. savaged by hawks kept by the Germans at Calais. Examples: " Winkie. It was the ultimate. bears the following as part of its inscription: "They had no choice.") Sometimes people make remarks about such animals "giving" their lives.S. A BBC article further explains. a brief history on the monument's Web site explains--and that was only one war and only one set of animals among many different animals. The U. I am glad for that so-true inscription: "They had no choice." And animals certainly don't have to be dragged to active battlefields to suffer and die because of humans' wars. pigeons." consider what the birds were forced to endure to get the messages back and forth. norecourse draft. were used in World War II." Fifty-four of the 60.

html) One of the most striking examples of military disregard for environmental and human health is the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare. water quality. chloracne. including erosion control. The spraying destroyed 14% of South Vietnam’s forests. a staple of the Vietnamese diet. lower IQ and emotional problems for children (Forgotten Victims).ca/national/postings/war-and-environment. conservation attempts were impeded. As a result of this human crisis. Agent Orange is a herbicide that was sprayed in millions of liters over approximately 10% of Vietnam between 1962 and 1971. The risk to the already endangered population of mountain gorillas from the violence was of minimal concern to combatants and victims during the 90-day massacre.[13] These environmental catastrophes are aggravated by the fact that ecological protection and restoration become a low priority during and after war.[20] Similar to toxic chemical spills. they had little option but to inhabit the forest reserves. war has invariably resulted in environmental destruction. Studies attribute such high levels to food chain contamination: Soil contaminated with dioxin becomes river sediment. It was used to defoliate tropical forests to expose combatants. references 2003 in the past tense. disease. the most potent carcinogen ever tested. This is well illustrated by the devastation to forests and biodiversity caused by modern warfare. including security. A telling example is the destruction of 35% of Cambodia’s intact forests due to two decades of civil conflict. including 50% of the mangrove forests. Agent Orange continues to threaten the health of Vietnamese.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment.[19] It is therefore not surprising that Agent Orange has been linked to an array of health problems in Vietnam including birth defects.html) Throughout history. This has resulted in a serious disruption of ecosystem services.sierraclub. skin and lung cancers. if any. Faced with no space to live.sierraclub. references 2003 in the past tense. scientists documented extremely high levels of dioxin in blood samples taken from residents born years after the end of the Vietnam War. home to the gorilla population. and famine. http://www. [18] A key ingredient of Agent Orange is dioxin. and food production. spontaneous abortions. 2003 (No publish date. http://www. and destroy crops to deprive peasants of their food supply. In 2001. The American military’s use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War is one of the most widely known examples of using environmental destruction as a military tactic.[21] This is a clear reminder that poisoning our environments is akin to poisoning 138 . epidemics. Few. However. bombs alone destroyed over 2 million acres of land. In Vietnam. Currently. given the complexities Rwandan leaders face. 2003 (No publish date. Military machinery and explosives have caused unprecedented levels of deforestation and habitat destruction. have recovered to their natural state.[14] The threat to the gorillas increased after the war as thousands of refugees.[16] [17] The environmental and health effects were devastating.[15] Chemical and Biological Warfare would destroy the environment-Vietnam proves Sierra Club. education. This has proven to be a challenging task. which is then passed to fish. the International Gorilla Programme Group is working with authorities to protect the gorillas and their habitats. advancements in military technology used by combatants have resulted in increasingly severe environmental impacts. returned to the already overpopulated country. some displaced for decades. The threat to biodiversity from combat can also be illustrated by the Rwanda genocide of 1994.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 138 /414 Nelson <tournament> Biodiversity War destroys Forests and Biodiversity Sierra Club.

139 .3%. and billions of dollars have literally “gone missing”. Over this same period. What was once a relatively minor expense to taxpayers in the form of Army pay for soldiers performing kitchen duties. workers can be hired in low wage nations such and put to work doing menial labor for the troops. All of this is symptomatic of deeper problems. With contracting. PhD Economist . Conscription can more easily be avoided along.publicintegrity. professional military. Spending on private contractors has risen from $174.org/wow/bio. an increase of 86%. With privatization. laundry and logistics provided. Wartime allows emergency measures and expenditures which can proceed without customary bidding or oversight.gov/story. This is not to say these services come cheap.chicagotribune.com/articles/opedne_francis__080320_the_privatization_of. KBR and it's subsidiaries have been discovered charging premium prices for meals they never served and with supplying contaminated drinking water to the troops.1. is profit. of course. In addition to new opportunities for profit in a war theater. Many of the contracts are awarded without competitive bidding. private contractors' collections for the Department of Defense increased from $133 billion to $279 billion annually.story. The result is a river of profit with little economic gain for the nation. Spending on contractor services can expand massively within the context of war.house. Government investigators report literally billions of dollars have gone missing with no accounting for who received them or what was done with the money. The difference.com/news/nationworld/chi-kbr-war-profiteers-feb21.aspx?act=pro&fil=IQ) has a listing of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and the value of the contracts they hold. because much of what it being purchased are services which would previously have been done by military personnel.asp?ID=1071) With these tasks shifting to private contractors.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 139 /414 Nelson <tournament> Cap War has become privatized. These expenditures represent a unique new source of revenue and profit for American business. Third World contract workers have reported their employers withholding their passports. “The Privatization of War” http://www. fueling a stronger capitalism Ferguson 08 Francis Ferguson. now becomes a major source of bottom line revenue for private companies who previously got nothing from these services. www. we have reduced the populace's natural resistance to war and increased its profitability. a greater portion of military spending flows as profit to American businesses. there has been a huge increase in private contracts let by the US government.htm Since 2000. We have privatized war. as can the political backlash from potential draftees and their relatives. This means the conflicts can be more easily handled with a voluntary.opednews. The Center for Public Integrity (www. our military can be smaller.5231766. there are new opportunities for corruption. They do not. They just don't pay the workers who perform these tasks much. effectively making them indentured servants. Contractors such as Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) charge handsomely for the meals.5 billion. The Chicago Tribune reports ongoing investigations of Kellogg Brown and Root and various of their sub-contractors for gross violations and fraud. an increase of 102. (source http://oversight.4 billion to $377. an in so doing. 3-22-08.

which is in line with general practice" (p. for example. Peacetime civil liberties are a luxury that nations engaged in wars of survival do not believe they can afford. x.than the United States. Press. So far as I can judge. which was far less endangered. 422) and should not be refusing access. If there are lessons here that might enable Britain or the United States to deal more effectively with the problem of internal security in wartime the next time the problem arises. $62. seems not to have contributed materially to Britain's survival or to have shortened the war. L. W. but it makes for rather a tepid ending to the book. 140 . 1679 1993-1994. I am sure this observation is right. half a century later. Pp. Brian Simpson. The absence of a comparative dimension is a closely related source of Simpson's disparagement of his country's response to national emergency. Rev. to most of the rest. 1992. but whether it reacted more or less temperately than other nations in comparable circumstances would do or have done. The administration of Regulation 18B caused hardships and. the ending reads as if the British government's greatest sin with respect to the wartime detention program was to make it difficult for academics to write the program's history. Oxford: Clarendon. But the only lesson Simpson draws is that Britain should not have destroyed "about 99 per cent of public records dealing with detention. IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE ODIOUS: DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN WARTIME BRITAIN. EXECUTIVE DETENTION IN TIME OF WAR .8 Of course there are perils in using a purely relative standard. in hindsight at least. they ought to be drawn. the answer to this question is more temperately .92 Mich. The question for the realistic civil libertarian is not whether Britain curtailed civil liberties more than either seemed at the time or was in retrospect necessary. By A. 453.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 140 /414 Nelson <tournament> Civil Liberties T/ In times of war nations ignore civil liberties to deal with threats – Britain proves Posner 92 HeinOnline -.

The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the prevailing.yonip. torture or kill. During wars. Up to now.com “Stop Dehumanization of People to Stop Wars” http://www. Throughout history. Negroes. Ethnic cleansing or genocide would always be perceived as a crime against humanity if human beings belonging to another race or religion are not dehumanized. By portraying the enemy as less than human. it is much easier to motivate your troops to rape. treated as secondclass human beings. 141 . groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized. Jews.they are made sexual objects. dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and brainwashing.html] In war time. March 22 yonip. successful dehumanization of women. worldwide. mass rape of women is common. Slaves.com/main/articles/nomorewars.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 141 /414 Nelson <tournament> Dehumanization T/ Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars Vinulan-Arellano 03. women are dehumanized in many societies -. and now. [Katharine. Muslims.

New York. April 11). the Senate does.L.that the war could last. In fact. "Even if an interrogation method arguably were to violate a criminal statute." wrote the memo's author. Iss. And who decides what constitutes "wartime"? According to the Constitution. Nowadays.in force. it is for the President alone to decide what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy. we ought to find out how the contenders define the job. 2008. Unfortunately. It was meant to advise the military on how far it may lawfully go in roughing up captured terrorism suspects during interrogation. 1 pgs The Bush administration recently declassified a secret Justice Department memo from 2003 that shows just how serious a threat our democracy faces in the current war on terrorism. But that's old stuff. 12. we face an enemy so shadowy and ubiquitous . Vol. the president may do whatever he thinks necessary to protect us.or threatened with attack . remains. for example. we're told. the law would conflict with the Constitution's designation of the president as commander in chief. 142 . charged with doing whatever necessary to protect the nation during wartime. Congress passed a law overriding it a few years ago. but from us.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 142 /414 Nelson <tournament> Democracy T/ Administrations use wartime to consolidate power and destroy democratic institutions Forward Newspaper. 2009. And when does the war end? When the president says so. It was the considered legal opinion of the chief legal office of the United States. the Department of Justice. 111. But a similar Yoo memo. then a Justice Department lawyer.C. Until then. (2008. above the law. The Yoo memo was withdrawn a year after its drafting. (Document ID: 1478699201). we're at war whenever the president says we are. for a generation. anything he wants. It's hard to imagine what terrorists could do that would threaten our democracy more than this president's notion of his power. N.Y. according to the Bush Justice Department. pretty far indeed. pg.and order our troops to open fire. 31700. but the president vetoed the bill. the threat revealed in the memo is not from Al Qaeda. All he has to do is decide we're under attack . "In wartime.well. Right now. John Yoo.: Apr 11. 2008. issued to the CIA. Retrieved July 23." That is. following a revolt by government lawyers. There's "original intent" for you. The answer was. from Ethnic NewsWatch (ENW). that the president of the United States is . The President in Wartime. Apr 11. Next time we choose a president. The memo was addressed to the legal department of the Pentagon. Yoo wrote. In other words. the Justice Department could not bring a prosecution because the statute would be unconstitutional as applied in this context.terrorism . 2008 L.

making them more vulnerable to disease. weakened by low temperatures and low light levels. animals and unprotected humans in densely populated regions of northern mid-latitudes.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 143 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease T/ War increases the spread of fatal disease. or legs. these radiation assaults are likely to suppress the immune systems of humans and other species. Carried by vectors with high radiation tolerance. there can. health officials say. Extremely worrisome is the possibility of poorly underatood or as yet entirely uncontemplated synergisms (where the net consequences of two or more assaults on the environment are much more than the sum of the component parts). more than 100 rads (and possibly more than 200 rads) of external and ingested ionizing radiation is likely to be delivered in a very large nuclear war to all plants. For example. for such wars. Among those diseases appearing more frequently in the United States are three transmitted by mosquitoes: malaria.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/07/spread_of_disease_tied_to_us_combat_deployme nts/] A parasitic disease rarely seen in United States but common in the Middle East has infected an estimated 2. through mutation. it seems possible that epidemics and global pandemics would propagate with no hope of effective mitigation by medical care. In some US hospitals in Iraq.500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Together. which was contracted by 122 troops last year in Afghanistan. which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly. [05-07. Foreign Affairs. The spread of leishmaniasis (pronounced LEASH-ma-NYE-a-sis) is part of a trend of emerging infectious diseases in the United States in recent years as a result of military deployments. the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil. some of which might become pathogenic. Plants. new varieties of microorganisms. taken separately. Boston Globe 07." But in the United States. Leishmaniasis . be a 200 to 400 percent increment in the solar ultraviolet flux that reaches the ground. as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the developing world. After the soot and dust clear.S. The preferential radiation sensitivity of birds and other insect predators would enhance the proliferation of herbivorous and pathogen-carrying insects. hands. military officials said. Lexis) Each of these factors. 84 (Carl Sagan. War would increase immune system deficiency and create dangers of new and deadly diseases Sagan. “Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe” p. Pulitzer prize winning author. former professor at Stanford and Harvard. arms. the high ambient-radiation fluxes are likely to produce. former professor at Stanford and Harvard. and chikungunya fever. 1984. combat deployments” http://www. 143 . the appearance of it among civilian contractors who went to Iraq or among tourists who were infected in other parts of the world has caused great fear because family doctors have had difficulty figuring out the cause. At the same time. usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face. with an increase of many orders of magnitude in the more dangerous shorter-wavelength radiation. “Spread of disease tied to U. may carry serious consequences for the global ecosystem: their interactions may be much more dire still. and other animals would likewise be vulnerable to preexisting and newly arisen pathogens. even with reduced population sizes and greatly restricted human mobility.boston. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated. dengue fever.

“Spread of disease tied to U. or legs. “And they're moving from one town to another. Navy's program to track emerging global infections. arms. military officials said. or one country to another (and) they may bring with them some prevalence of disease that may not be a disease that is present in that other country.voanews.S. as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the developing world. the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil. and the troop movements back and forth created a great vector for infection. combat deployments” http://www. “Basic services such as clean water.boston. 8-31-05.” Military conflicts spread fatal diseases globally Boston Globe 07 [Boston Globe 05-07. are threatened when there's substantial conflict and generally the health care infrastructure and availability of medicines is generally reduced whenever there's conflict and even any supplies that might be available can be diverted to nonhelpful uses.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/07/spread_of_disease_tied_to_us_combat_deployme nts/] A parasitic disease rarely seen in United States but common in the Middle East has infected an estimated 2. usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face.500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. the appearance of it among civilian contractors who went to Iraq or among tourists who were infected in other parts of the world has caused great fear because family doctors have had difficulty figuring out the cause.” Mr. Garcia U. In some US hospitals in Iraq. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated.S. Joseph Malone. involvement in the war.” The epidemic itself killed more people than died in the entire war -.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-31-voa23. “Poverty and Conflict Contribute the Spread of Infectious Diseases”.S. availability of food. 05 (Voice of America News. “It's also probably no coincidence that the great Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 was associated with troop movements in Europe and especially afflicted the United States because that was the time of the Dr. say public health officials. http://www. Where there are soldiers and conflict.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 144 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease T/ War helps the spread of disease VOA News. too. Leishmaniasis . which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly . hands.cfm) says war also spreads disease because it often creates large populations of refugees. 144 . The spread of leishmaniasis (pronounced LEASH-ma-NYE-a-sis) is part of a trend of emerging infectious diseases in the United States in recent years as a result of military deployments.an estimated 20 to 40 million people died from the epidemic. Parkinson adds. Conflict impacts disease in other ways. there are also prostitutes and rape. health officials say. This has led to a rapid spread of AIDS in many war-torn African countries." But in the United States. director of the U. said Dr.

sometimes former military servicemen who have been trained to use violence. war threatens much of the fabric of our civilization. increasing domestic and community violence in the countries engaged in war. Edition 2.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. War teaches people that violence is an acceptable method for settling conflicts. 2007) War accounts for more death and disability than many major diseases combined. street crime. 2007) War often creates a cycle of violence. War causes domestic violence and crime Levy and Sidel.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. Edition 2. 7 (Barry Levy. and other kinds of violence.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. And it contributes to the destruction of the environment and overuse of nonrenewable resources. It limits human rights and contributes to social injustice. War and Public Health. communities. It directs scarce resources away from protection and promotion of health. commit acts of violence against women. 7 (Barry Levy. It leads many people to think that violence is the only way to resolve conflicts—a mindset that contributes to domestic violence. Victor Sidel. medical care. War and Public Health. Children growing up in environments in which violence is an established way of settling conflicts may choose violence to settle conflicts in their own lives. It destroys families. It destroys the infrastructure that supports health.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 145 /414 Nelson <tournament> Domestic Violence T/ War creates a cycle of violence that spills over to domestic violence Levy and Sidel. Victor Sidel. 145 . and sometimes whole cultures.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. there have been instances of men murdering their wives on return from battlefield. In sum. and other human services. Teenage gangs may mirror the activity of military forces Men.

). which has reduced people's sense of their wealth.. money down a rat hole. There are two main factors as I see it in regards to the slow down: the [crisis in the] housing sector.. Barbara Lee (D-Calif. assistant editor. Stiglitz's contention that the war is causing the nation's economic woes has become an increasingly popular meme in Democratic circles. he told a London think tank that the war caused the credit crunch and the housing crisis that are propelling the current economic downturn.huffingtonpost. The war and the economy are undoubtedly linked. "The war is the primary reason for this recession and we have to drum that home.com/politics/2008/02/economy-casualty-war) Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has blamed the Iraq war for sending the United States into a recession.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 146 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ T/ War leads to economic recession Baumann.e. Iraq)..S. in effect.html) I think there is a sound case that the war policy has produced conditions that contribute in a fairly modest way to the slow down. war costs are..org and Americans United for Change—announced a $20 million campaign to convince voters that the war is related to the nation's ongoing economic troubles. LLC. War costs are spending. he said our involvement in Iraq has long been "weakening the American economy" and "a day of reckoning" has finally arrived.motherjones. either from foreigners or future generations. an effort that is headlined by former Senator John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth. Not the most important factor but a significant factor. For American consumers whose consumption is being squeezed. Before Stiglitz's testimony. economy. So money spent on an unnecessary war requires borrowing which drives down the value of the dollar and hurts our economy.com/2008/01/30/the-iraq-recession-debate_n_84060. 08 (Robert Shapiro is formerly the undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and currently the head of Sonecon. http://www. relatively more of their income has to go to energy. Having said that. “Is the Economy a Casualty of War?” http://www.. 146 . The war is [also] a part of America' current account deficit. Meanwhile. so pitching these two issues as interconnected could make political sense. and that expense is just getting exported. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. It contributes to that and [that] is what's driving down the dollar." she told me.. which is reducing business investment and is doing so by screwing up the balance sheets of financial institutions. is among leading Democrats who echo Stiglitz's view. Testifying before the Senate's Joint Economic Committee the following day. 08 (Nick Baumann. Senator from Colorado and currently a professor at the University of Colorado. It's not stimulating the U.. War creates economic slowdowns and hurts the dollar Hart and Shapiro.1-30-08. Polls show that voters trust the Democrats over the Republicans to manage both the Iraq War and the economy.") Rep. a leading anti-war voice and cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. When spent unnecessarily. that is without contributing to national security (i. "People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. All spending over and above revenues creates deficits that must be financed with borrowing. an economic consulting firm. but there's a potential problem for anyone who claims the war led to a recession: Many economists say this isn't so.S. there is no doubt that the Iraq war is a significant factor in the current level of oil prices . Media and politicians rarely distinguish between government spending and government investments . and the subprime mess. On Wednesday. Gary Hart is a former U. 2-29-08. a coalition of progressive and anti-war groups—including MoveOn. (And a source of indignation in Republican ones.

Jan.aspx?id=24328”) The president credited the men and women in uniform for helping extend that same power to more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past four years. making the queer expendable to protect conceptions of family norms Donna Miles.net/interna.mil/news/newsarticle. "Your sacrifice has made it possible for our children and grandchildren to grow up in a safer world. a situation exacerbated by impeded access of civilians to much-needed humanitarian assistance in times of conflict. Must Protect Children in War – NGOs’. the president noted." he said. @ Ipsnews. was released ahead of a Security Council meeting on child soldiers scheduled for Jan.000-year history and the upcoming elections in Iraq "landmark events in the history of liberty. 20. But this success has come at a great cost and through tremendous sacrifice.asp?idnews=21855) A coalition of groups is urging U." "And none of it would have been possible without the courage and the determination of the United States armed forces. 147 . the wounds many service members will carry with them for the rest of their lives. Bush told the troops their service and sacrifice in the war on terror is making America safer for today and the future.N. 18.000 children under the age of UNITED NATIONS. As a result." he said. Myanmar and Colombia. “Bush Begins Inaugural Celebration With Military 'Salute'”. diarrhoea and other preventable diseases in conflict situations than die as a direct result of fighting.defenselink. to include nations that do not adequately protect children. Writer." In times of war the life of the child is elevated above sacrificial adults.N. it says.'' It wants Annan to expand existing lists of violators beyond those countries and groups that use child soldiers. the heroes who gave their lives. ''more children die from malnutrition. girls and boys are subject to appalling violence and deprivation of their fundamental rights. Such a regular list.net.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 147 /414 Nelson <tournament> Edelman Wars sacrifice soldiers to protect future generations.'' said the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict in a 43-page report released Friday. http://ipsnews. which estimates 300. He acknowledged the long separations families must endure. would keep such violators of international obligations constantly ''named and shamed''. Jan 9 2004 (‘POLITICS: U. sacrificing the queer Deen." Bush said. "We hold them in our hearts. The study. “http://www. It says many countries do not adequately protect children. Jan 9 (IPS) 18 are still directly involved in armed conflicts worldwide. He called the first free elections in Afghanistan's 5. says the study. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to prepare an annual list of governments and groups that recruit or use child soldiers or fail to protect children during military conflicts. and the families who grieve them. "We lift them up in our prayers. ''From Congo and Liberia to Iraq. 2005 (Staff Writer for American Forces Press Service.

Approximately 720.” is exemplified by the U. and one study suggests that desert crusts might take thousands of years to fully recover from the movement of heavy vehicles. half of the mangroves and 14 percent of hardwood forests in southern Vietnam were destroyed during Operation Trail Dust.” writes DeWeerdt. and the current war in Iraq. Countries’ water supply systems. according to Sarah DeWeerdt. http://www. as seen in the American war in Vietnam.[8] The consequence was an overall decline in safe drinking water throughout the country. The refugees stripped an estimated 35 square kilometers of forest for firewood and shelter-building materials. the Rwandan and Congolese civil wars. Water shortages can also lead to inadequate irrigation of cropland. for example.[9] The presence of landmines can also render vast areas of productive land unusable.” featured in the January/February 2008 issue of World Watch.it destroys ecosystems Worldwatch Institute.S. longest-lasting effects on protected areas that harbor endangered species. Wartime destruction of the natural landscape is nothing new.[10] Additional war-related problems which compound degradation of the natural and human environment include shortages in cooking fuel and waste mismanagement during and after military conflicts. Nearly 2 million Hutus fled Rwanda over the course of just a few weeks to refugee camps in Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2003 (No publish date. individuals were forced to cut down city trees to use as cooking fuel. especially its shock-and-awe deployment by modern superpowers. destruction to water infrastructure combined with weakened public service during the war resulted in bacterial contamination.S. Looking to the effects of the recent Gulf War as a guide. author of “War and the Environment. Analysis of the area affected by the Gulf War has already shown an increase in sandstorms and dune formation in the region. “Warfare is likely to have the most severe. particularly the millimeter-thin layer of microorganisms that forms a crust on the topsoil.— Modern warfare tactics. can be contaminated or shut down by bomb blasts or bullet damage to pipes.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 148 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environment Modern warfare devastates the environment. making it the most massive population movement in history.worldwatch. By some estimates. but the scope of destruction seen in more recent conflicts is unprecedented.C. http://www. leaky landfill sites resulted in contaminated rivers and groundwater. D. threatening biodiversity and severely altering vegetation.sierraclub. “Modern Warfare Causes Unprecedented Environmental Damage”. were the environmental effects that stemmed from the mass migration of refugees during the Rwandan genocide in 1994.[7] In Afghanistan. “For one thing. The deliberate destruction of the environment as a military strategy. In an effort to deprive the communist Viet Cong guerrillas of the dense cover they found in the hardwood forests and mangroves that fringed the Mekong Delta. Agricultural production may also be impaired by intensive bombing and heavy military vehicles traveling over farm soil.000 of these refugees settled in refugee camps on the fringes of Virunga National Park. the first United Nations World Heritage site declared endangered due to an armed conflict. the creation of poorly located. but still devastating. protecting it from erosion. there is the sheer firepower of current weapons technology. sometimes nature—and people—can surprise us.” writes DeWeerdt. water loss through leaks and illegal use.org/node/5544) Washington. Less deliberate. scientists point to the physical damage of the desert. Even in the most fragile environments. military sprayed 79 million liters of herbicides and defoliants (including Agent Orange) over about one-seventh of the land area of southern Vietnam.html) The degradation of infrastructure and basic services brought on by war can wreak havoc on the local environment and public health. response to guerrilla warfare in Vietnam.” War destroys infrastructure harming the environment Sierra Club. have greatly increased our capacity to destroy the natural landscape and produce devastating environmental effects on the planet. references 2003 in the past tense.[11] In Afghanistan. “But turn and look in another direction and you are likely to see warfare’s enduring scars. the U. and slow-to-recover ecosystems such as deserts. The involvement of guerrilla groups in many recent wars draws that firepower toward the natural ecosystems—often circumscribed and endangered ones —where those groups take cover. The longterm ecological effects of the current war in Iraq remain to be seen.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment. known as “ecocide. During the most recent warfare in Iraq.[12] 148 . 2008 (January/February issue. The dense forests also suffered as a result of the wide paths clear-cut by the Rwandan and Congolese armies traveling through the park to reduce the threat of ambush by rebel groups.

destruction of urban environments by aerial carpet bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan during World War II. Edition 2. For example. Less obvious are the environmental impacts of the preparation for war. such as the huge amounts of nonrenewable fossil fuels used by the military before (and during and after) wars and the environmental hazards of toxic and radioactive wastes. and both surface water and groundwater. War and Public Health. war and the preparation for war have profound impacts on the physical environment (see Chapter 5).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 149 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environment War destroys the environment. 7 (Barry Levy. Examples include bomb craters in Vietnam that have filled with water and provide breeding sites for mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases. which had a devastating effect on the ecology of the affected areas and caused acute respiratory symptoms among those exposed. Victor Sidel.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. leading to evacuation of local residents (see chapter 10). Russia. has been determined to be highly radioactive. 2007) Finally. and the more than 600 oil-well fires in Kuwait that were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops in 1991. 149 .Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. soil. site of a major nuclear weapons production facility.both during and preparing for war Levy and Sidel. which can contaminate air. The disastrous consequences of war for the environment are often clear. much of the area in and around Chelyabinsk.

First.org/stable/487877 Accessed: 22/07/2009 12:32) XII. in so far as fascism accepted an institutional. DOI: 10. heterogeneous processes as a whole can only enter into play once the fundamental homogeneity of society (the apparatus of production) has become dissociated because of its internal contradictions. Second. Further. 1979). it can be stated that. even though it generally occurs in the blindest fashion. The result was a tension inside the regimes with at least a fascist variant between fascism and authoritarianism — a tension that was never fully resolved. Compared to this (more conventional) type of rule. 9 European History Quarterly Aristotle A.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 150 /414 Nelson <tournament> Fascism War desensitizes culture and politics to fascist authoritarian structures Kallis. it completed the ideological–political expropriation of fascism by the Right. the coopting of the fascist leaderships by powerful traditional élite groups sealed the fate of fascism’s relations to the mainstream Right by forcing the former to operate in a system which perpetuated central elements of the conventional Rightist authoritarian tradition. in spite of its oppositional convergence with radical forms of conservatism. 34. in contrast to its initially mixed (or at least not exclusively right-wing) intellectual roots and active revolutionary anti-system spirit.jstor. 79 (The Psychological Structure of Fascism Author(s): Georges Bataille and Carl R. Lovitt Source: New German Critique. this means that a categorical distinction between the regime-variant of fascism and conservative authoritarianism is meaningless. Political Experience and the Quest for Studying Inter-War Fascism in Epochal and Diachronic Terms) A further revision of the early spirit of fascism came in the form of its idiosyncratic coexistence with traditional right-wing authoritarian structures. namely. Once in power. In analytical terms.67It advocated instead a more direct. but which affected the evolution of inter-war fascism in two ways. fascism had very little to do with conservative notions of authoritarianism. with the interests of the capitalists. As has already been indicated.68 By the time that even the most ‘advanced’ fascist systems of Germany and Italy had accelerated their rhythm of consolidation with their newfound self-confidence. But it goes without saying that. 150 . approach to its own political emancipation from the mainstream Right — and thus could never fully eliminate continuities between ‘new’ and ‘old’ Right. as well as a collective representation and negotiation of sectional interests within the framework of the party and its various societal extensions. The Fundamental Conditions of Fascism. the thrust of these resolutions will have been consistent with the general direction of the existing homogeneity. Kallis. No. they had absorbed already crucial features of conventional authoritarianism (not least the leader’s monopoly of power) into their general worldview. 16 (Winter. developed heterogeneous forces dispose of the means of coercion necessary to resolve the differences that had arisen between previously irreconcilable elements. the development of heterogeneous forces necessarily comes to signify a solution to the problem posed by the contradictions of homogeneity. at the end of a movement that excludes all subversion. Yet. not violently revolutionary. 04 (Aristotle. In intellectual terms. However. fascism offered a populist solution to the problem of generating social support and ensuring active societal unity through the ritualization of controlled mass participation. transcendental type of communication between nation and charismatic leader. this combination of novelty with an essentially traditional framework of politics was hardly conducive to the pursuit of the mythical core of fascist nationalist utopianism. Kallis ‘Consensus’ Ideological Production.1177/0265691404040007 2004. Studying Inter-war Fascism 31 Fascism requires social homogenization Bataille et al. 64-87 Published by: New German Critique Stable URL: http://www. pp. it compelled fascism to wage a constant struggle to defend its own political contours from the restrictive grip of its conservative sponsors/partners and the authoritarian legacies of its political framework.

and demoralize opponents-decimating a woman's will to survive is often only a secondary side effect. destroy communities. played out against a backdrop of genocide. where offspring would have different ethnicities than their mothers. allowing battling forces to flaunt their power. 7 (Barry Levy. Uganda. and masculinity over the other side. The conflicts in both Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia put women's rights directly in the spotlight. dominance. soldiers have raped the female family members of their enemies.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. came to be used as tools to achieve military ends. and the international community could no longer avoid the glare. Bangladesh. it is only in recent years that it has been taken seriously as a violation of humanitarian law. Eaton 04. to the use of sexual violence to prevent women from wanting to have sex again (thus limiting their likelihood of bearing children in the future). Civilians. ethnic cleansing was central to the conflict. It took the extremely brutal victimization of vast numbers of women. Rape has been used as a weapon in many wars. Indonesia. Rwanda. In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Liberia.000 women were raped by military personnel during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. India. [Shana JD Georgetown University Law Center 35 Geo. The social chaos brought about by war also creates situations and conditions conductive to sexual violence. the former Yugslavia.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 151 /414 Nelson <tournament> Gendered Violence T/ War causes sexual violence and reifies the subjugation of women. 151 . ensuring that if she did return home that she would be rejected. Edition 2. Victor Sidel. aggressors have used shocking sexual violence against women as a tool of conflict. putting the human rights of these women at the heart of the conflict. Raping women helped to achieve this aim in a number of ways. and in many cases. women themselves have become a battlefield on which conflicts are fought. at least 10. For example. Raping a woman stigmatized her. and elsewhere. particularly women. Int'l L.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. Algeria. making it unlikely that she would ever want to return home. 2007) Women are especially vulnerable during war (see Chapter 12). War conditions cause sexual violence Levy and Sidel. The stigma of rape is used to effectuate genocide. In the "evolution" of war.in Korea. As acts of humiliation and revenge. 873 Summer lexis] While sexual violence against women has always been considered a negative side effect of war. J. Additionally. from forced impregnation. Realizing that rape is often more effective at achieving their aims than plain killing. to prove that rape is not simply a natural side effect of war to be lightly brushed aside. rape was used as a means of destroying families and communities. War and Public Health. Sexual violence against women during wartime had to reach horrifying levels before the international community was shocked enough to finally take these atrocities seriously.

the United States ranks first among nations in military expenditures and arms exports.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. government has spent almost $500 bi l l i o n for the Iraq War.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. War and Public Health. The countries with the highest military expenditures are shown in Table I -1. and local governments in the United States have been experiencing budgetary shortfalls and finding it difficult to maintain adequate health and human services. War and the preparation for war divert huge amounts of resources from health and human services and other productive societal endeavors. Edition 2. Since 2003.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 152 /414 Nelson <tournament> Health T/ Funds are prioritized for war over health services Levy and Sidel. state. This diversion of resources occurs in many countries. 152 . 2007) Many countries spend large amounts of money per capita for military purposes. the U. but 38th among nations in infant mortality rate and 45th in life expectancy at birth. In some less developed countries. and is spending (in 2007) more than $2 billion a week on the war. For example. during a period when federal.S. national governments spend S10 to $20 per capita on military expenditures but only SI per capita on all health-related expenditures. The same type of distorted priorities also exist in more developed countries. Victor Sidel. 7 (Barry Levy.

the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies. This idea.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk”. its only option would be to deploy units at readiness levels far below what operational plans would require – increasing the risk to the men and women being sent into harm’s way and to the success of the mission. If the Army were ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today. Today. and Joseph Nye. Foreign Affairs) Yet another. in his introduction to a useful and original chapter in Two Hegemonies on agricultural trade liberalization in the 1990s.S. somewhat inelegantly. War causes overstretch reducing hegemony. as "hegemonic stability theory. the United States must be able to deal with challenges to its interests in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. which became known. a core element of U. and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression. the visible overextension of our ground forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to some contingencies. naval. As stated rather blandly in one DoD presentation. Pigman traces this now widely used definition of the word back to the economic historian Charles Kindleberger's seminal work on the interwar economy. paradoxically. the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operations.began to catch up with it. however. In this literature. As a global power with global interests. Would Americans revert to protectionist or mercantilist policies in an effort to perpetuate their hegemony. Paul Kennedy drew a similar parallel in his influential The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Kindleberger suggested." After 1918. or stick with free trade at the risk of experiencing relative decline? This is what Stein called "the hegemon's dilemma. but the United States was still too inhibited by protectionism and isolationism to take over the role. Susan Strange." was later applied to the post-1945 period by authors such as Arthur Stein.UK proves Ferguson. which describes a kind of "hegemonic interregnum. the Army “continues to accept risk” in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. January 2006. Perry. hegemony -. 03 (Niall. defeating aggression in more than one theater at a time. September/October 2003. the fundamental question was how far and for how long the United States would remain committed to free trade once other economies -. strategy has been maintaining a military capable of deterring and. The absence of a credible strategic reserve in our ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States Since the end of World War II. even more beneficial to its potential rivals." and it appeared to him to be essentially the same problem faced by the United Kingdom before 1914. Pigman describes a hegemon's principal function as underwriting a liberal international trading system that is beneficial to the hegemon but.S. Chair) In the meantime. The National Security Advisory Group.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 153 /414 Nelson <tournament> Heg T/ One more military engagement would deplete US ground forces and utterly destroy US hegemony Perry 06 (“The U. 153 . narrower definition is offered by Geoffrey Pigman.benefiting from precisely the liberal economic order made possible by U. the United Kingdom was too weakened by war to remain an effective hegemon. “Hegemony or Empire?”. William J. Henry Nau. if necessary. Although the United States can still deploy air.

homelessness re-emerged as a significant problem in many cities.I. In New York City. in Latin America and elsewhere .pdf) It is axiomatic that wars create homelessness in the territories where combat occurs. In contrast. unable to find work after being discharged.6 Homelessness would have continued to affect many thousands of World War II veterans were it not for the national economic upturn and the benefits provided by the G. With the advent of the Vietnam War. the war on Iraq will create a new generation of homeless veterans. so most Americans have no first-hand contact with the immediate impact of homelessness resulting from war. 100 Bowery residents joined the armed forces. Many of the new nomads riding the rails and congregating in cities were Civil War veterans. mostly in their 20s and 30s and disproportionately black or Hispanic. 3-27-03 http://www.3 One reason was the enormous economic dislocation generated by the war and the succeeding economic recession. and physical disabilities caused by their experiences in combat. which affected many World War I veterans. a significant portion of the homeless men seen sleeping outdoors in vast numbers in New York City and other large cities were armed forces veterans. asKusmer notes. As the early 1870s recession deepened. “Only a few years after the end of the war…anew wave of homeless persons. “even the words ‘tramp’ and ‘bum. In New York City. Many were Vietnam veterans. Patrick. however. Many veterans suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). our armed forces veterans do have first-hand experience with homelessness that is a direct consequence of American military and domestic policies. can be traced to the Civil War era.org/FileLib/PDFs/war_and_homelessness.Senior Policy Analyst for Coalition for the Homeless.pdf) The post-Civil War era witnessed a much more significant growth in homelessness nationwide. and many had suffered physical injuries and trauma during the war. restaurants. A 1997 154 . with as many as 900 men bedding down in the Lodging House Annex (later the Municipal Shelter) on East 3rd Street in the 1948-49 winter. “In one two-month period in 1943. As Kusmer writes. Every war that the United States has been involved in.Senior Policy Analyst for Coalition for the Homeless. has at least temporarily displaced populations and destroyed the homes of civilians. absent a dramatic change in Federal policies. however. while another 200 acquired jobs in hospitals.”5 With the end of World War II. the link between homelessness and military veterans finally came to the attention of the general public. began to appear on city street corners. according to Kusmer. and by the 1870s “vagrancy” was recognized as a national issue. produced hundreds of thousands of refugees and uprooted rural and urban populations. when modern homelessness fully emerged.coalitionforthehomeless. since the Civil War there have been no sustained military battles fought on United States territory. 3-27-03 http://www. substance abuse disorders. from the Revolutionary War to Desert Storm.”7 By the late 1970s. Patrick.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 154 /414 Nelson <tournament> Homelessness Wars create homelessness Markee 03 (Markee. However.org/FileLib/PDFs/war_and_homelessness. From 1874 to 1878 the number of vagrancy arrests in New York City rose by half. Indeed. In 1874 the number of reported vagrants in Boston was 98. Throughout American history there has been high incidence of homelessness among veterans.263. Bill. The 1991 Gulf War. both historically and currently. The paper concludes that. Even the “undeclared” wars that the United States has sponsored and supported.4 The homelessness crisis of the Great Depression. demand for emergency shelter rose in the late 1940s. primarily as a result of combat related disabilities and trauma and the failure of government benefits to provide adequate housing assistance for low-income and disabled veterans. or on the railroads. also left many veterans recovering from physical and mental disabilities and confronting homelessness. This briefing paper provides an overview of the impact of homelessness on armed forces veterans. War leaves veterans unemployed and homeless Markee 03 (Markee.coalitionforthehomeless. was dramatically abated in the early 1940s by the enlistment of tens of thousands of Americans in the armed forces and by the wartime economic upswing. many cities responded by creating new antivagrancy legislation. the last major conventional war involving the United States military.’ as applied to the homeless. more than three times the number just two years earlier.

homeless service providers also reported assisting significant numbers of Desert Storm veterans. 155 .200 homeless veterans nationwide who resided at mission shelters found that 10 percent of them were Gulf War veterans.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 155 /414 Nelson <tournament> survey of 1. 8 In New York City.

a little queer baiting has been one way of proving their own masculinity. officers would say. But they insist "the lads won't have it". one of the most effective taunts within the group is that of being "queer". Pg. are keen to distance themselves from this way of thinking or behaving. They make and enjoy the jokes just as much as the men. Such attitudes are. is there an unspoken reason? A homophobia that dare not speak its name? Certainly there is a profoundly ingrained distaste for homosexuals prevalent among private soldiers and NCOs. Whereas officers did not. But in the case of homosexual servicemen. This. 17. they say. there is a complicating factor.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 156 /414 Nelson <tournament> Homophobia Wartime consensus favors inherently homophobic military culture Dennis Sewell. on the whole. they are often complicit in fostering homophobic attitudes. of course they accepted black officers. They will find it hard now to tell the lads that they were wrong all along. part of ordinary working-class culture and not specific to the military. Working-class culture was inherently racist. Also there is a knee-jerk association of the homosexual with the effeminate or effete. seen homosexual behaviour at their public schools. we have heard before. lexis) If the public reasons why the armed forces are so set against admitting homosexuals bear such little scrutiny. doubtless. affect a personal insoucience about the whole issue. The slow progress made by blacks in becoming senior NCOs or officers in the British Army owed much to the same kind of argument. for the more insecure. being middle class and having. Once the lads were told they were jolly well going to have to lump it. of course. They themselves. 1993 (January 27. This stems partly from a fear of becoming the object of unwanted homosexual attentions. Indeed. condone racist attitudes. too. 156 . OFFICERS. THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE. To men brought up in an exaggeratedly macho culture.

with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households. or desperate recruits of the US Government's 'poverty draft'. and worst-trained troops. 12 had higher poverty rates. This recruitment campaign is driven by an executive order signed in July 2002 by President Bush. and 16 were non-metropolitan. According to the Pew Hispanic Center.000 US deaths in Iraq.000 troops out of a total of about 130. They are the huge contingent of Hispanic personnel who--for personal and economic reasons--have been recruited into the ranks of the US military. such troops die or are injured in disproportionate numbers. 'green card troops'. Significantly. most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent). Vietnam and the first Gulf War.. US Department of Defense figures suggest a casualty rate for Latino military members of about 13 per cent--almost two-and-a-half times the rate of other serving members and many times more than in previous conflicts in Korea. Pentagon figures show. according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. army and air force. 2005. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes. the Bush Administration has tightened immigration procedures and cut public spending in a number of areas such as housing and education. they are prime candidates for US Military Occupational Specialists hungry for recruits. Page A01) As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force. Regionally. by February 2005 there were 110. Marine Corps. which effectively allows recruits in active duty during the 'war on terror' to apply for citizenship once they join up rather than having to wait years for the granting of a green card. Many were in the marine units from Camp Pendleton in San Diego that participated in the initial stages of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and later fought 'insurgents' in Falluja. Washington Post Staff Writer. that supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. The US Government's interest in recruiting Latinos is hardly surprising since they make up about 12. the call to arms clearly holds some attraction. Yet as the advocacy organization Latinos against the Iraq War has pointed out. 157 . a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code.000--were non-US citizens serving in the navy. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army. noncitizens are over-represented in some of the most dangerous field operations. The USFG recruits Hispanics to high fatality posts in the military Hil. poorest-paid. Va. Over 120 were Latinos--about 70 of them Mexican. With few prospects of gaining US citizenship through the usual channels.000 of them. Since 11 September 2001. 'non-citizen' armies. As a consequence. Recruits' Job Worries Outweigh War Fears. Ann Scott Tyson. post-service employment. 05 (Ann Scott Youths in Rural U. the overwhelming majority was among the lowest-ranked. Hispanic troops make up about 17.S.S. Dominicans. the various promises made by the Government frequently fail to materialize when Latino service personnel return home. 2005 (Richard May “Life lottery: US military targets poor Hispanics for frontline service in Iraq”. military recruits come from rural areas. Wash Post.000 and 37. Since the start of the war about a third of the US forces stationed in Iraq--between 31. Many of today's recruits are financially strapped. Many of these troops--especially those who are injured--find they are in worse circumstances than when they left for Iraq. This has meant that many young Latinos feel they have little choice but to pursue the inducements offered by the US military. themselves victims of the very 'war on terror' they were recruited to vanquish. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U. 14 percent come from major cities. Friday. median.S. scholarships. In contrast.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 157 /414 Nelson <tournament> Inequality Wars are fought by the poor who are sacrificed for the upper classes turning case Tyson.5 per cent of front-line forces. rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war. Are Drawn To Military. Following the widespread insurgency in early 2004 the US Government has gone on a nationwide recruitment drive that has targeted young Hispanics with promises of green cards. The biggest single contingent of such troops is made up of Mexicans and Mexican descendants. Not surprisingly. More than 44 percent of U. Such patterns are pronounced in such counties as Martinsville. of the first 1. with an opposite trend in cities.5 per cent of the US population: one in seven 18-year-olds are of Hispanic origin. November 4. Central Americans and Ecuadorians are also well represented. according to the National Priorities Project. Invariably poor and jobless. New Internationalist) They have been variously described as 'working class mercenaries'. According to US journalist Jim Ross. decent housing and education. and with little hope of employment. and various medical and pension benefits. These non-citizen members of the military have a limited number of Military Occupational Specialties to choose from when enlisting. Puerto Ricans. newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 158 /414 Nelson <tournament> 158 .

have witnessed the death of family members. many people survive wars only to be physically or mentally scarred for life (see Box 1-1). War and Public Health. were injured or disabled. have been tortured or have participated in the torture of others. Millions of survivors are chroni cally disabled from injuries sustained during war or the immediate aftermath of war. 7 (Barry Levy. I in 236 people is an amputee as a result of a landmine explosion. Psychological trauma may be demonstrated in disturbed and antisocial behaviors.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. Approximately one-third of Ihe soldiers who survived ihe civil war in Ethiopia. Edition 2. suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).'0 Millions more people are psychologically impaired from wars. and at least 40. during which they have been physically or sexually assaulted or have physically or sexually assaulted others. 2007) Given the brutality of war. which also affects many civilian survivors of war. such as aggression toward family members and others. Victor Sidel.' Antipersonnel landmines represent a serious threat to many people'' (see Chapter 7). 159 . have been forced to serve as soldiers against their will.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College.000 individuals lost one or more limbs during the war. Many soldiers. for example. For example. on returning from military action.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 159 /414 Nelson <tournament> Mental Health T/ War creates many mental health issues Levy and Sidel. or have experienced the destruction of their communities or entire nations (sec Chapter4). in Cambodia.

more than likely through its impact on increasing inequality and unemployment. while wartime spending has the reverse effect. procurement. The relationship is complicated by macroeconomic factors such as economic growth and unemployment. 503-520. http://www. With the declining significance of macroeconomic forces. 98 (Errol Anthony Henderson. such as California. In addition. 98 (Errol Anthony Henderson. New York. military personnel spending is inversely correlated with poverty while Operations and Maintenance (O&M). 503-520. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida. While these findings suggest that reduced aggregate defense spending is associated with decreased poverty. Defense cutbacks will probably have more deleterious impacts on states that are heavily reliant upon direct and indirect military spending.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 160 /414 Nelson <tournament> Poverty Wartime spending causes poverty Henderson. In addition. and ethnic groups. pp. 2 (May. Increased military spending is associated with increasing poverty. Peacetime military spending increases poverty. pp. Partial support was found for the view that increased military spending. and metalworking decline. 60. While increased aggregate military spending fails as an antipoverty policy. however. which is usually only accompanied by war mobilization.org/stable/2647920) This analysis attempted to ascertain to what extent a relationship obtained between military spending and poverty in the United States. Texas. Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association. is associated with increased poverty though these effects are different for peacetime and wartime. industrial and mechanical engineering.jstor. 1998). or increased spending on military personnel. defense reductions will have different impacts across regions.org/stable/2647920) This article examines the extent to which military spending is associated with poverty in the United States for the period 1959-92. Vol. 60. the inflationary impact also disproportionately harms the poor. occupations. No. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida. skilled workers in affected regions will face difficulties as occupations such as aeronautics. Vol. The last option is untenable as social policy and the first 160 . Empirically war spending has disproportionately hurt the poor Henderson. types of government spending have become salient in influencing poverty rate changes. Pennsylvania. Virginia. Neither condition obtains in the post-Cold War climate. Florida. The Journal of Politics. Also. However. low-skilled laborers are more likely candidates for poverty. however. These findings suggest the antipoverty policy alternatives of increased social welfare spending. military personnel spending is shown to decrease poverty while other components are associated with increasing poverty. When disaggregated. economic conversion initiatives are dominated by concerns for relief for defense contractors and their usually high-skilled workforce. The findings comport with the present discourse on military spending dominated by discussions of the "peace dividend" resulting from decreased defense budgets (Chan 1995). To be sure. No. focused spending on military personnel may decrease poverty. there is an inverse relationship between wartime military spending and poverty and a direct relationship between peacetime military spending and poverty. The Journal of Politics. and Research and Development (R&D) spending are directly correlated with poverty.jstor. arguments in favor of such military spending increases are most persuasively put forth on the basis of national security concerns within a hostile international environment or in the presence of an arms race with a major power rival. Although military personnel spending reduces poverty. defense conversion that is poverty sensitive. to the extent that increased defense spending is financed through deficit spending. http://www. in the aggregate. 2 (May. military buildups since the Korean War have increased the share of procurement spending at the expense of personnel expenditures (Chan 1995). suggesting its potential as a countercyclical instrument. and Ohio. 1998). Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 161 /414 Nelson <tournament> op.tion is unlikely in the present political climate. therefore. 161 . the poor must rely on more "efficiently targeted" conversion initiatives.

13). duration and phase of the conflict.de/research/research-domains/transdisciplinary-concepts-and-methods/favaia/workspace/documents/worlddevelopment-volume-31-issue-3-special-issue-on-chronic-poverty-and-development-policy/pages629-646. the destruction of rural life and transport and collapse of the state. women and disabled in the population. 2001. Many more people die from wars as a result of lack of basic medical services. In such conflicts the deliberate impoverishment of the population may be used as a weapon of war. than from direct battlefield deaths.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 162 /414 Nelson <tournament> Poverty Conflict causes chronic poverty Goodhand 03 (Johnathan Goodhand. This particularly applies to collapsed state. Chronic poverty is likely to increase due to higher dependency ratios caused by an increased proportion of the old. The direct impacts including battlefield deaths. the background economic and social conditions and the level of compensatory action by national governments or the international community––protracted conflicts are likely to produce chronic poverty. humanitarian crises. But the indirect costs are likely to have a more significant impact on IGT poverty. 10 162 . 2003 http://www. University of London. 9 Violent conflict is therefore likely to be both a ‘‘driver’’ and ‘‘maintainer’’ of intergenerationally transmitted (IGT) poverty: ‘‘Poor societies are at risk of falling into no-exit cycles of conflict in which ineffective governance. societal warfare.pdf) Research studies on the costs of conflict show that although the effects of war vary––according to the nature. School of Oriental and African Studies. and the lack of development perpetually chase one another’’ (Gurr et al.. warlord type conflicts characterized by the systematic and deliberate violation of individual and group rights.pikpotsdam. disablement and displacement have long-term costs for societies. (b) Macro effects of conflict Conflict has direct and indirect costs. p.

the old and the infirm.commondreams. Feminist Writer and Activist. in particular in the role of head of household. Today there are 300. most critically." according to Irene Khan of Amnesty International. impregnated and infected with HIV/AIDS. Much of this trafficking is to service western troops in brothels near military bases.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 163 /414 Nelson <tournament> Woman Rights T/ War destroys women’s rights Marshall. including many girls who are forced to 'service' the troops. wars and conflicts have led to a host of negative consequences for unarmed women civilians and dependent family members. demean and 'defeat' entire communities. Most conflicts and wars emerge out of processes of identity formation in which competing identity groups and communities resort to violence to affirm their equal status in society. confines them to the domestic sphere.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/A-Women-s-Human-Rights-Perspective-on-War-and-Conflict) At the same time.org/views04/1219-26. Even women serving in the military are subjected to sexual violence. two million of our children have been killed in wars and conflicts. Figures worldwide point to the fact that the majority of refugees and internally displaced persons are female. sexually attacked. their deaths are considered collateral damage and their bodies are frequently used as battlegrounds and as commodities that can be traded. brutalized. 12-18-04 “Unacceptable: The Impact of War on Women and Children” http://www. brings them under the rigid control of male members of the family and the community and. Sexual violence as a tool of war has left hundreds of thousands of women raped. imposes dress codes. are reluctant or unable to come forward in defense of human rights and democratic principles. a Sri Lankan human rights organization 02-03 http://www. Thus. the rape and violation of the women of the 'enemy' community becomes a critical military strategy in all identity-based wars and conflict. as well as to punish. It restricts their mobility and freedom.000 child soldiers. It is one of the unspoken facts of militarism that women often become the spoils of war. ultranationalism and ethnic and linguistic chauvinism. The hardening of identity-based roles ascribed to men and women within the community that happen as a part of this process often has disastrous consequences for women. founder of the feminist peace network. U. 4. War and conflict also push women into decision-making positions in their families and communities. "Women and girls are not just killed. intimidate and humiliate women . places them in the role of 'bearers of the community's honour' and traditions. groups of women have had the courage to stand up to the armed might of both state and non-state actors.htm) Women and children account for almost 80% of the casualties of conflict and war as well as 80% of the 40 million people in world who are now refugees from their homes. In the last decade. culture and religion have built an image of women as bearing the 'honour' of their communities. servicewomen have reported hundreds of assaults in military academies and while serving on active duty. Custom. 163 . The impact of war on children is also profound. War restricts women’s freedom and suppresses their basic human rights Abeyesekera. Given this dynamic. children. conflict and war situations result in the heightening of all forms of conservatism and extremism including religious fundamentalism. The perpetrators of these assaults have rarely been prosecuted or punished.awid. In moments when men and maledominated traditional political and social formations.5 million children have been disabled and 12 million have been left homeless. And hundreds of thousands of women are trafficked annually for forced labor and sexual slavery. The erosion of democratic space that often accompanies conflict and war also propel women into a more active role in political and social life. mutilated and humiliated. they are raped. director of a humans rights organization. 03 (Sunila Abeyesekera. Disparaging a woman's sexuality and destroying her physical integrity have become a means by which to terrorize. such as political parties and trade unions. 04 (Lucinda Marshall Founder of the Feminist Peace Network. director of Inform.S.

In fact. Freedom Press. When one ethnic group controls all the key positions in the state. To counter the state. the dominant ethnic group uses state power to maintain its ascendancy. xenophobia”. Michael Wimmer. such as bureaucracy or patriarchy. “Violence--racism. [http://www.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/index. nationalism. facilitated by the seizure of control. including bureaucracy and patriarchy. and state in turn helps to sustain the social structure in question. This is because the maintenance of racial domination and exploitation comes to depend partly on the use of state power. states such as Britain and Brazil experienced some of their worst twentieth century outbreaks of violence during the First World War. it is necessary both to promote grassroots mobilisation and to undermine the key structures from which the state draws its power and from which it mobilises support. There are several other avenues used by the state to mobilise support.edu. directly or indirectly. this is readily used to keep other groups in subordinate positions. Uprooting War. illustrated by the Annenian genocide in World War I and the Nazi Holocaust in World War Two. but is also at work in many other countries in which minority groups are oppressed. 134 War is as important as any other medium-term socio-economic or political factor in leading to a rise in racism. . The explanations as to why war leads to an increase in intolerance are many. Martin 90. [Brian. But at the same time. From this perspective. Several of these will be treated in the following chapters. 164 . In each case. and Society at the University of Wollongong. Technology.html] Antagonism between ethnic groups can be used and reinforced by the state to sustain its own power. but revolve around the increase in ostracisation of outgroups. which is therefore supported and expanded by the dominant group. structured patterns of dominance and submission are mobilised to support the state. 97 (Bernhard Dieckmann.uow. by the military. This was clearly a key process in apartheid in South Africa. From this perspective it can be said that the state mobilises racism to help maintain itself. Associate Professor of Science. anyone studying the history of race during the twentieth century cannot avoid the conclusiuon that the worst persecution of minorities has occurred during wartime.. Christoph Wulf. Apart from genocide.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 164 /414 Nelson <tournament> Racism Wartime culture results in racism Dieckmann et al. as members of the dominant society fell closer together to fight the external enemy. War props up systems of racism and domination. the use of political and economic power for racial oppression helps to sustain and legitimate state power itself. and as a basis for economic exploitation.

an inevitable feature of military conflict like pillage and looting. If they refuse. 06-93 http://www. these witnesses tell of the organized and systematic rape of at least 20. Often brothers or fathers of these women are forced to rape them as well. Muslim and Croatian – as well as some Serbian – women are being raped in their homes. Though all figures must be treated with caution in a war so plagued by propaganda. But Herak’s accounts of his forced participation in rapes of Bosnian Muslim women – his commander had told him it was ‘good for morale’ – accord with evidence recounted to human-rights observers and journalists throughout the region.org/issue244/rape. they are killed. 165 . and on the whole community’.000 women and girls by the Serbian military and the murder of many of the victims. has a Master's degree in African Literature and is an award winning writer. The sexual abuse of women in war is nothing new. rapes are being committed in ‘particularly sadistic ways to inflict maximum humiliation on victims. police stations and camps all over the country. Rape has long been tolerated as one of the spoils of war. in schools. Women and girls aged anything between 6 and 70 are being held in camps throughout the country and raped repeatedly by gangs of soldiers. What is new about the situation in Bosnia is the attention it is receiving – and the recognition that it is being used as a deliberate military tactic to speed up the process of ‘ethnic cleansing’. According to a recent report by European Community investigators. 1 In many cases the intention is ‘deliberately to make women pregnant and to detain them until pregnancy is far enough advanced to make termination impossible’.newint. their families.htm) No-one will ever know the exact number of women and girls raped during the conflict in former Yugoslavia.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 165 /414 Nelson <tournament> Rape War facilitates the rape of women to force unwanted pregnancies and to further “ethnic cleansing” Robson 93 (Robson.

and that is why the role of IFIs is so important. proper management of revenues is an economic problem.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 166 /414 Nelson <tournament> Rights T/ Wars undermine human rights Ganesan and Vines 04. Civil wars and conflict have taken a horrific toll on civilians throughout the world. fueling continued conflict. as in Liberia prior to enforcement of sanctions. An influential World Bank thesis states that the availability of portable.pdf] Internal armed conflict in resource-rich countries is a major cause of human rights violations around the world. rights abuse.org/wr2k4/download/14. Greed. and other atrocities characterize numerous past and ongoing conflicts. grievance” equation does not minimize the need to hold rebel groups accountable. can further destabilize conditions. The level of violence has prompted increased scrutiny of the causes of such wars. As argued here. Business and Human Rights Program Director @ HRW Alex. continued conflict. and the thesis is that greed. forced conscription. 166 . Head of Africa Programme Chatham House. maiming. if the international community is serious about curbing conflict and related rights abuses in resource-rich countries. sexual abuse. the picture as presented in the just-described “greed vs. and that to end the abuses one needs to target rebel group financing. When unaccountable. Senior Researcher @ HRW. it should insist on greater transparency in government revenues and expenditures and more rigorous enforcement of punitive measures against governments that seek to profit from conflict. [Arvind.” Human Rights Watch World Report 2004 http://hrw. and extreme deprivation of civilians all too commonly are the result. Royal Institue of Int’l Affairs. grievance” theory is distorted by an overemphasis on the impact of resources on rebel group behavior and insufficient attention to how government mismanagement of resources and revenues fuels conflict and human rights abuses. But it is an economic problem that also has political dimensions and requires political solutions. revenues. rather than grievance alone. the use of child soldiers. The focus is on rebel groups. the financing of conflict through natural resource exploitation has received increased scrutiny over the last few years. Where such pressure is lacking. Political will and pressure. can motivate opaque. Although examination of the nexus between resources. In this context.N. high-value resources is an important reason that rebel groups form and civil wars break out. corrupt governments to be more open and transparent. Killings. resource-rich governments go to war with rebels who often seek control over the same resources. Factoring the greed of governments and systemic rights abuse into the “greed vs. including targeted U. Fundamentally. in turn. pervasive rights abuse is all but inevitable. Such abuse. and the Predatory State. “Engine of War: Resources. impels peoples toward internal armed conflict. and civil war is critically important. sanctions where appropriate. but it does highlight the need to ensure that governments too are transparent and accountable.

computers. Modern multistory hospitals were left without clean water. military action against Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and in the Iraq War has included the specific and selective destruction of key aspects of the infrastructure necessary to maintain ci vi li an life and health (see Chapter 15). these actions had severely damaging effects on the health and survival of the civilian population.S.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. these deaths have been the consequence of and explicit military policy. At the same lime. Yet the ongoing development of military technology suggests that—absent the use of weapons of mass destruction— violations of civilians’ human rights will be the preferred method of warfare in the future. or any electricity beyond what could he supplied by emergency generators designed to operate only a few hours per day. and facilities for refining and distributing fuel by conventional bombing. The technique has been termed "bomb now”.S.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. rockets. the Ministry of Health was effectively immobilized. and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. They mock the concept of “life integrity rights. has now made it possible to attack civilian populations in industrialized societies indirectly—but with devastating results—by targeting the facilities on which life depends." U. bridges. 167 . such as typhoid fever and cholera. proportionality. sewage disposal. especially the use of high-precision bombs. Because almost no civilian telephones.” In contrast to the chaos and social disruption that routinely accompany armed conflicts. especially infants and children. water purification and pumping ceased immediately in all major urban areas. Many reports provide clear and quantitative evidence of violations of the requirements of immunity for civilian populations. The U. were rapid. while avoiding the stigma of direct attack on the bodies and habitats of noncombatants. Without electrical power. and other essential medications were rapidly depleted. 7 (Barry Levy. x-ray equipment. The appearance and epidemic spread of infectious diarrheal disease in infants and of waterborne diseases. 2007) Modern military technology. Vaccines and medications requiring refrigeration were destroyed. with clearly foreseeable consequences to human rights of civilians. and missile warheads. Edition 2. die later. as did sewage pumping and treatment.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 167 /414 Nelson <tournament> Rights T/ Modern warfare involves crippling civilian infrastructure and violating human rights Levy and Sidel. Supplies of anesthetics. Victor Sidel. Fuel shortages and the disruption of transportation limited civilian access to medical care. medical care and public health measures were totally disrupted. military has never conceded that its policies violated human rights under the Geneva Conventions or the guidelines under which U.S. military personnel operate. In combination with the prolonged application of economic sanctions and the disruption of highways. and other vital facilities were crippled. Operating rooms. antibiotics. War and Public Health. or transmission lines were operable. and all immunization programs increased. During the bombing phase of the Persian Gulf War this deliberate effort almost totally destroyed Iraq's electricalpower generation and transmission capacity and its civilian communications networks.

To perhaps explain the obvious. @Lexis) President Bush sent Congress a $2.Our Real Economic our_b_60150.57 trillion budget Monday that would drastically cut or shut down 150 government programs and slash spending on Medicaid. http://www. non-defense spending would be cut by nearly 1 percent . which could cost Minnesota as much as $712 million over the next decade. in my opinion. domestic needs. discretionary spending would grow by 2. we all know that those tradeoffs exist but. February 8. What made me think of this is a set of revealing numbers that jumped out at me the other day -.html) Challenge” . buying a gun (or missile defense or a sophisticated bomber) means you don't have those dollars for butter (or a national health care plan or free college education).the first such proposed cut since the Reagan administration .com/jonathan-tasini/guns-versus-butter- Guns versus butter. numbers bring home the meaning of this equation in stunning fashion. War spending trades off with Medicaid – Bush and the Iraq war proves Star Tribune 5 ("Social programs would bear brunt of deficit reduction". 168 . while boosting money for defense and homeland security. 8-13-‘7 (Jonathan .less than the projected rate of inflation. sometimes. farming and low-income housing. It's the classic debate that really tells us a lot about our priorities that we set for the kind of society we can expect to live in -. Hardest hit is Medicaid. In what Bush described as the most austere budget of his presidency. “Guns Versus Butter -. At some basic level.1 percent .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 168 /414 Nelson <tournament> Social Service T/ Increased military spending from war would tradeoff with health care and other social services Tasini .how much money a country spends on the military versus how much money is expended on non-military. Meanwhile.numbers that underscore why there is.huffingtonpost. something lacking in the message of most of the Democratic presidential candidates and our party's leadership. executive director of labor research association ran for senate in NY.

University of Michigan. with no other schooling. social. destruction of kinship units was a deliberate military strategy to remove intergenerational ties and community bonds and create new loyalties to the military. Individuals. Production and markets must be re-established. They require agricultural.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 169 /414 Nelson <tournament> Starvation War causes starvation Messer 96 (Ellen Messer. Ph. and communities must regain access to land. whole generations may be conscripted into the military. transport and communication lines. and Sierra Leone.unu.htm) After the wars. Communities in many cases must be re-formed. http://www. and health professionals to speed recovery.. as well as physical infrastructure such as agricultural works. These grown youths now need sustenance. and economic services to rebuild societies. and human resources and social infrastructure must somehow recover. these countries also lack skilled agricultural. and market-places destroyed in the wars.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we0j. educational. 169 . health. and to general food security. households. and other sources of livelihood. if they are to contribute to a peacetime economy and society. In the African conflicts of Mozambique. so that goods can flow and livelihoods rebound. water. During prolonged warfare. and basic and specialty education. 1996. especially where areas have experienced complete or selective depopulation.D. they must later be socialized into peacetime occupations if they are not to revert to violence and brigandage as a source of entitlements. After decades of civil war. communities decimated and depopulated by physical and human losses can remain underproductive and hungry for years. as food wars and the conditions leading up to them remain a legacy of armed conflict that is not easily remedied without outside assistance. Liberia.

a plurality (45%) now says that the war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attacks at home . up from 39% in February. 7-21-05. (22% now and 32% in October). while fewer say that the war in Iraq has lessened the chances of terrorist attacks in the U. Another three-in-ten believe that the war in Iraq has no effect on the chances of a terrorist attack in the U. Those younger than age 50 are divided on this issue. with 45% saying the war in Iraq has helped and 41% saying it hurt the war on terrorism. http://people-press.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 170 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terror Wars. A plurality (47%) believes that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism.S. up from 41% in February of this year. 170 . up from 36% in October 2004. Older Americans are more skeptical than younger people that the war in Iraq is helping the effort to fight terrorism.org/report/251/more-say-iraq-warhurts-fight-against-terrorism) The public is growing more skeptical that the war in Iraq is helping in the effort to fight terrorism. A 56% majority of those age 50 and over say the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrori sm. have increased a chance of a terror attack People Press 05 (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.S. like the Iraq war. that pattern has remained stable since February. Further.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 171 /414 Nelson <tournament> **X TURNS CASE** 171 .

making it unlikely that it will produce significant casualties on the front lines of a war. AIDS significantly erodes military readiness.it decreases troops and erodes gov’t control Peterson. it may be as high as 80 percent. particularly in sub. and.s power relative to its neighbors.148 Armed forces in severely affected states will be unable to recruit and train soldiers quickly enough to replace their sick and dying colleagues. Security Studies 12. education. India. Tropical diseases erected a formidable. and HIV transmission by these forces to the general population. in many countries AIDS already strains military medical systems and their budgets. with sex and transport workers. 150 AIDS poses obvious threats to the military forces of many countries.S. 149 For this reason. Despite the disease. because] participation in peace-support operations outside the country is voluntary. actions where American interests are at stake. Second. AIDS in the military is more likely to have longer term implications for national security. Terminally ill soldiers may have little incentive to defend their government.. Finally. AIDS may increase that nation. AIDS presents other challenges. such as diarrhoea and the common cold. HIV-infected armed forces also threaten civilians at home and abroad. including prevention education and measures to limit infection of U. high military HIV/AIDS rates could alter regional balances of power. the military is considered one of the three core transmission groups in Africa. Even the use of members for internal crime prevention and border control. can be serious enough to require the hospitalization of an immune-compromised person. IDs. AIDS has an incubation period of ten years or more. 2 (winter 2002/3). It will still. Price-Smith notes. Third. in some cases. The authors of a Reagan-era report on the effects of economic and demographic trends on security worried about the effects of the costs of AIDS research. military blood supplies tainted. or even half of their troops. mosquito control efforts effectively checked yellow fever and malaria. no. the S[outh] A[frican] N[ational] D[efence] F[orce] is grappling with the problem of how to ensure the availability of sufficiently suitable candidates for deployment at short notice. and their government may be in more need of defending as AIDS siphons funds from housing. however.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.S.40 percent of armed forces in sub-Saharan countries are HIV-positive.s soldiers are HIV-infected. conflict-ridden states may become reluctant to accept peacekeepers from countries with high HIV rates. soldiers and peacekeepers stationed abroad. police. Ordinary ailments. AIDS patients occupy 75% of military hospital beds and the disease is responsible for more admissions than battlefield injuries. and officers corps will be decimated. with potentially important regional consequences.s control over its armed forces and further destabilizing the state. particularly in high risk settings. [In South Africa.associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary. Rather than contributing directly to military defeat in many countries. In badly infected countries. similarly. Unlike other diseases. French and later American efforts to open the Panama Canal. 3 (Susan. and in a few countries the rate is 60 percent or more. and it only promises to divert further spending away from defense toward both military and civilian health. but it does not present the same immediate security problems for the United States.wm. the potential recruitment pool itself will dwindle. and Southeast Asia. at short notice. Military budgets will be sapped.147 In high incidence countries.pdf) Still. Increased levels of sexual activity among military forces in wartime means that the military risk of becoming infected with HIV is as much as 100 times that of the civilian risk. accounting for more than 50% of inservice and post-service mortalities. It also means that members of the armed forces comprise a key means of transmitting the virus to the general population.Saharan Africa. can prove fatal if they are not treated immediately. and administration. First. Zimbabwe and Botswana.50 percent of South Africa. The high rate of HIV infection has meant that some African armies have been unable to deploy a full contingent. impact in the contemporary international system may be somewhat different. obstacle to colonization in Africa.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 172 /414 Nelson <tournament> AIDS T/ Readiness AIDS kills readiness.151 but a decade of relative prosperity generated budget surpluses instead. Lyndy Heinecken chillingly describes the problem in sub-Saharan Africa: AIDS-related illnesses are now the leading cause of death in the army and police forces of these countries. 20. “Epidemic Disease and National Security” http://people. IDs theoretically could deter military action and impede access to strategic resources or areas.S. education. On average.152 172 . however. which subjects them to adverse conditions or stationing in areas where local infrastructure is limited. directly threatening national security. Perhaps 40. and organizational structures strained to accommodate unproductive soldiers. These concerns could limit U. deplete force strength in many states. AIDS in the military promises to have its greatest impact by eroding a government. and funding on the defense budget. although obviously not insurmountable. were stymied until U.s negative impact on South Africa. In Zimbabwe.s absolute power. but concerns about AIDS spending have not reappeared and are unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future. given the relatively low levels of HIV-infection in the United States. presents certain problems. These surpluses have evaporated.

“Global Public Health Trumps the Nation-State” Volume XXI.html) The political economist Nicholas Eberstadt has demonstrated that the coming Eurasian AIDS pandemic has the potential to derail the economic prospects of billions of people—particularly in Russia.member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the 21st Century Trust. and India—and to thereby alter the global military balance.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/Upton. World Policy Journal. plus Asia). is home to five-eighths of the world’s population. 173 .worldpolicy. Perhaps more importantly.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 173 /414 Nelson <tournament> AIDS T/ Readiness Aids kills military readiness Upton.5 Eurasia (defined as Russia. the region includes four of the world’s five militaries with over one million members and four declared nuclear states. and its combined GNP is larger than that of either the United States or Europe. Since HIV has a relatively long incubation period. http://www. so armed forces are faced with the loss of their most senior. its effects on military readiness are unusually harsh. Officers who contract the disease early in their military careers do not typically die until they have amassed significant training and expertise. No 3. 4 ( Maureen. Fall 2004. China. hardest-to-replace officers.

When Hernando Cortez and his men first attacked the Aztecs in Mexico in 1520. Pandemics kill military readiness Major Hesko. scientists theorize that another pandemic on a scale of the deadly 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic is imminent.All those military histories glorifying great generals oversimplify the ego-deflating truth: the winners of past wars were not always the armies with the best generals and weapons. as predicted by many in the medical and scientific community. General Erick Von Ludendorf. casualties in certain areas than did military action. 174 . but were often merely those bearing the nastiest germs to transmit to their enemies.S. IDs have had a significant potential to decimate armies and alter military history. 2 (winter 2002/3). As Jared Diamond notes. if an influenza pandemic were to strike the military. Although an influenza pandemic. producing a civil war that split the empire and allowed a handful of Europeans to defeat a large. then. blamed Germany.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.pdf) Military readiness. and on their next attempt the Spanish succeeded in conquering the Aztec nation. must take decisive actions to mitigate the potential devastation an influenza pandemic might have on operational readiness.s loss of that war at least partly on the negative effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic on the morale of German troops.wm.142 During the European conquest of the Americas. has the potential to devastate and threaten our society. With our current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. . too.. who had few or no deadly diseases to pass on to their conquerors. an equally alarming consequence is the effects it could have on the operational readiness of the United States military establishment.144 In modern times. The German Army chief of staff in the First World War. 143 Spanish conquest of the Incan empire in South America followed a similar pattern: In 1532 Francisco Pizarro and his army of 168 Spaniards defeated the Incan army of 80. but divided enemy. they left behind smallpox that wiped out half the Aztec population. the conquistadors shared numerous lethal microbes with their native American foes. it can alter the evolution and outcome of military conflict by eroding military readiness and morale. 3 (Susan. “Epidemic Disease and National Security” http://people.000. If a pandemic influenza occurs. similarly. suffering and deaths of past pandemics. no.146 Throughout history. the number of Americans affected could easily overwhelm our medical capability resulting in untold suffering and deaths. if it occurs. Even when disease is not deliberately used. Security Studies 12.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 174 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disesase T/ Readiness Diseases kill military readiness. 6 (Gerald. As a result of the pending threat of an influenza pandemic. Air Command And Staff College “Pandemic Influenza: Military Operational Readiness Implications” April 2006) There exists in the world today the possibility of a great influenza pandemic matching those of the past century with the potential to far exceed the pain. along with other smaller engagements world-wide. preparedness and ability to defend our vital national interests could be decreased or threaten.145 In the Second World War. malaria caused more U. pandemic infections have affected the ability of military forces to prosecute and win a war. A devastating smallpox epidemic had killed the Incan emperor and his heir.empirically proven Peterson. the United States military. Surviving Aztecs were further demoralized by their vulnerability to a disease that appeared harmless to the Europeans. our level of operational readiness. Although global pandemics are difficult to accurately predict.associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary.

ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the U. Congressman Tom Davis. according to the GAO writers. 175 . or fear of becoming infected.S. and threaten the day-to-day functioning of the Department of Defense (DOD) because of up to 40% of personnel reporting sick or being absent during a pandemic. requested the GAO investigation. U. jeopardize ongoing military operations abroad. (1) The 40% number (above) comes from the Homeland Security Council’s estimate that 40% of the U. 7 (Disease Outbreak Readiness Update. the need to care for family members who are sick.us/publications/biot_reader. workforce might not be at work due to illness.php?BiotID=449) An infectious disease pandemic could impair the military’s readiness.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 175 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease T/ Readiness Disease turns military readiness Suburban Emergency Management Project. (2) DOD military and civilian personnel and contractors would face a similar absentee rate. according to a recent GAO report (June 2007).S. Department of Defense Biot Report #449: July 25.semp.S. http://www. 2007. House of Representatives.

the collapse of governance. If these trends persist in states where tribes or ethnic groups are heavily concentrated in particular regions or in rural rather than urban areas. Price-Smith argues.84 176 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 176 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease T/ War Disease increases the likelihood of war and genocide Peterson. or geographic group. ethnic.. 2 (winter 2002/3).wm. “Epidemic Disease and National Security” http://people. the potential for conflict escalates.. 3 (Susan. AIDS almost certainly will interact with tribal.associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary.the potential for intra-elite violence is also increasingly probable and may carry grave political consequences. and in extreme cases it may accelerate the processes that lead to state failure. moreover. that . In many parts of Africa today. infectious disease may in fact contribute to societal destabilization and to chronic lowintensity intrastate violence. or national differences and make political and military conflict more likely. racial.pdf) How might these political and economic effects produce violent conflict? Price-Smith offers two possible answers: Disease . no. or it hits certain provinces harder than others.83 Disease heightens competition among social groups and elites for scarce resources.both relative and absolute deprivation and.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic. AIDS strikes rural areas at higher rates than urban areas. When the debilitating and deadly effects of IDs like AIDS are concentrated among a particular socio-economic. Security Studies 12. ethnic. Thus. such as coups.magnif[ies]. and planned genocides.hasten[s] the erosion of state capacity in seriously affected societies.

misuse of antibiotics." the report says. "The dramatic resurgence of infectious diseases is telling us that we are approaching disease and medicine. AIDS will cost Asian countries over $50 billion a year just in lost productivity. and HIV/AIDS. Eighty percent of all disease in developing countries is related to unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation.5 million people in 1993. are prompting dramatic increases in dengue fever. 177 . about 200 million have schistosomiasis. author of the report. familiar diseases like tuberculosis and the plague as well as new ones like Ebola and Lyme disease. and we fail to understand that lifestyle can promote infectious disease just as it can contribute to heart disease. typhoid. and snails that spread debilitating diseases. malaria. It is imperative that we bring health considerations into the equation when we plan for international development. in the wrong way. leading to human crowding. but even in the United States. Research Associate Anne Platt. "It can be a crushing burden for families. Infectious diseases take their greatest toll in developing countries. Lack of clean water is spreading diseases like cholera. "Only by adopting a more sustainable path to economic development can we control them. the social and economic cost of infectious diseases is hard to overestimate. one-third of all deaths worldwide. but inexpensive. rampant poverty. according to a new study released by the Worldwatch Institute. where cases of malaria and tuberculosis are soaring. Poorly planned development disrupts ecosystems and provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Some 400 million people suffer from debilitating malaria. dengue fever. poverty. inadequate health care. says." says Platt. Inadequate vaccinations have led to resurgences in measles and diphtheria. and nine million have tuberculosis. "because the cost of these diseases is astronomical.worldwatch.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 177 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ecodestruction T/ Disease Worldwatch Institute. and AIDS are up sharply. and dysentery.org/node/1593) Rates of infectious disease have risen rapidly in many countries during the past decade." The report notes that this global resurgence of infectious disease involves old. yet preventing them is not only simple. and governments. and population increases." "Water pollution. tuberculosis. "Such suffering and economic loss is doubly tragic. rodents." By the year 2000. Governments focus narrowly on individual cures and not on mass prevention. says the new report. and severe environmental degradation. shrinking forests. global trade. 96 (“Infectious Diseases Surge: Environmental Destruction. to prevent disease from spreading and further undermining economic development. infectious disease deaths rose 58 percent between 1980 and 1992. Illness and death from tuberculosis. Yet all show the often tragic consequences of human actions: Population increases. Recent outbreaks result from a sharp imbalance between a human population growing by 88 million each year and a natural resource base that is under increasing stress. as well as economic development." The author notes. Infecting Ourselves: How Environmental and Social Disruptions Trigger Disease. Misuse of antibiotics has created drug-resistant strains of pneumonia and malaria. infectious diseases killed 16. The resurgence of diseases once thought to have been conquered stems from a deadly mix of exploding populations. and slightly more than cancer and heart disease combined. Poverty To Blame” http://www. and rising temperatures are driving the upward surge in infections in many countries. and the growth of mega-cities." "Beyond the number of people who die. communities." Platt says. "Infectious diseases are a basic barometer of the environmental sustainability of human activity.

for the human species and all other forms of life (see Figure 1. lakes and coastal ecosystems. the Mayans. For example. and • environmental contamination by infectious disease agents (such as faecal contamination of source waters). Historically. • human-induced genetic changes in disease vectors or pathogens (such as mosquito resistance to pesticides or the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria). contributing to increases in life expectancy. Those who live in materially comfortable. There is an observable tendency for powerful and wealthy societies eventually to overexploit. ecosystems are essential to human well-being and especially to human health – defined by the World Health Organization as a state of complete physical. mental and social well-being. They assume that good health derives from prudent consumer choices and behaviours. may reach similar limits. The agricultural-based civilizations of Mesopotamia. for instance) and improved health services and education. overexploitation of ecosystem services has led to the collapse of some societies (SG3).1). The reasons for the emergence or re-emergence of some diseases are unknown. In many industrialized countries. the Indus Valley. The complex multifactorial causation of states of health and disease complicates the attribution of human health impacts to ecosystem changes. but the following mechanisms have been proposed: • altered habitat leading to changes in the number of vector breeding sites or reservoir host distribution. although in many cases more distant from the source of the ecosystem services on which they depend. and level of knowledge. urban environments commonly take for granted ecosystem services to health. sociocultural factors play a similarly important role. 178 . these factors depend on many social and cultural elements. shelter and relative climatic constancy are basic and unalterable. • niche invasions or transfer of interspecies hosts.who. the pressure on ecosystems can be conceptualized as a function of population. Industrial societies. technology and lifestyle.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1. Environmental destruction causes new diseases WHO. A precautionary approach to ecosystem management is appropriate. damage and even destroy their natural environmental support base. and (on a micro-scale) Easter Island all provide well documented examples. • biodiversity change (including loss of predator species and changes in host population density). At its most fundamental level of analysis.who. But this ignores the role of the natural environment: of the array of ecosystems that allow people to enjoy good health. technologies used.pdf) Disturbance or degradation of ecosystems can have biological effects that are highly relevant to infectious disease transmission (C14). 5 (“Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis” http://www. Resource consumption in one location can lead to degradation of ecosystem services and associated health effects in other parts of the world (SG3). economic activity. changes in these social factors over the last few centuries have both enhanced some ecosystem services (through more productive agriculture. fertilizer use in agricultural production increasingly is dependent on resources extracted from other regions and has led to eutrophication of rivers. water.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1. That is. Notwithstanding ecosystems' fundamental role as determinants of human health. income and wealth distribution. 5 (“Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis” http://www.pdf) In a fundamental sense. social organization.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 178 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ecodestruction T/ Disease Environmental collapse threatens health and civilization collapse WHO. ecosystems are the planet's life-support systems . with access to good health care services. In turn. These include infrastructural assets. The needs of the human organism for food. a built environment and life itself. clean air.

4 (United Nations News Center. instability. http://www. Citing a new UNEP report produced in collaboration with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). "These scars.org/apps/news/story.un.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 179 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ecodestruction T/ War Environmental degradation increases war. Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within and between societies. 2004." The study finds that a decrepit and declining environment can depress economic activity and diminish the authority of the state in the eyes of its citizens.asp? NewsID=12460&Cr=conflict&Cr1=environment. the fertility of the land and the cleanliness of the air are recipes for instability between communities and neighbouring countries. threatening water supplies. and hurts the economy UN. 179 . “Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability” November 5. Mr. It also points out that the addressing environmental problems can foster trust among communities and neighbouring countries." he added.

and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods. 52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries. perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization. total global cropland amounts to about 1. Since the Second World War. erosion.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land. and compacting.9 percent a year.utoronto. Currently. or harder to clear and work.47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers.Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto. The geographer Vaclav Smil. infested with pests. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests. For example. range from 3. These factors may seriously affect crop production. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt.library. who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage. the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36. but nearly all the best land has already been exploited.55 180 . International Security“ On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict” 199. he concludes. In addition. logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6. experts expect that the world average of 0. What is left is either less fertile. 91 (Thomas.000 hectares of irrigated farmland projected within the Plan for 2007 will actually be irrigable because of the hydrological effects of decreases in forest cover. and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity.26 percent a year. logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion. More importantly.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2.17 hectares by the year 2025. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact. problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet. http://www. less than half the rate of the 1970s. which includes both current and potential cropland. waterlogging.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 180 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ecodestruction T/ Agriculture Environmental degradation destroys cropland Homer-Dixon. given the current rate of world population growth.4 billion hectares.51 For developing countries during the 1980s.48 Moreover. others are not yet visible anywhere.49 Across the archipelago. 53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment. not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable. which can be traced out in the figure. in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change. when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan. the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000. cropland grew at just 0.5 billion hectares. acidification. changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns.8-7. no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas.6 million hectares. estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion. salinization.2 to 3. 54 Taken together. nutrient depletion. about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 181 /414 Nelson <tournament> **NUCLEAR WAR SCENARIOS** 181 .

in 1993 Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case. 1999 Central Asian Survey (18. or Russia. This episode tends to confirm the notion that `future wars involving Europe and America as allies Thus will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia’ . China.milnet. In such a case we would also quite likely be opposed by one or more of the key neighboring states. 182 . 2000 (Dr.pdf) Central Asia’s physical infrastructure might charitably be called “Third World” and the region is highly diverse ethnically and politically. One or another big power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. 95 Sadly. Director of Strategic Studies Institute at US Army War College. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their proxies and protégés . And similarly many conditions exist for internal domestic strife if the leadership of any of these governments changes or if one of the many disaffected minority groups revolts. Precisely because Turkey is a Nato members but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia or if it could.com/pentagon/Russia-2000-assessment-SSI. Policies and Tactics in the Transcaspian Energy Wars”] many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus. Thus we might quickly end up on the wrong side of a Central Asian ethnic conflict. Stephen J Blank. pg. would conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’ s declared nuclear strategies). For instance. many such causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian. Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. [“Every Shark East of Suez: Great Power Interests. Research Professional of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College June. http://www.. Central Asia is the most likely scenario for a global nuclear war Stephen Blank.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 182 /414 Nelson <tournament> Central Asian Conflict Central Asia is the most likely scenario for global nuclear war Blank. Research Professional of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. 2). all of whom might find it easier to project and sustain power into the area (or use proxies for that purpose) than we could. the danger of major war is higher here than almost every-where else in the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China. Hence commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe. Iran.

it is the Cold War with the Soviet Union that is apparently seen as the model for the future Sino. the contest between America and China will remain "cold" and not escalate into a "hot" war. he assumes that.American relationship." writes Kristof. recalling that Germany's jockeying for a place in the front rank of nations resulted in World War I.cato. 1/23/96. However. "Such a ruler unfortunately may be tempted to promote Chinese nationalism as a unifying force and ideology." warns Kristof. like the confrontation with the Soviet Union but unlike the British-German rivalry. Kristof. contending that China is "like late 19th-century Germany. Strategist Graham Fuller predicts."(67) Since Krauthammer and other analysts use the term "containment" to describe the policy they urge Washington to adopt toward China. 183 . a country growing too big and too strong for the continent it finds itself on. adjunct scholar at Cato. They suggest that. http://www. China could emerge as a leading anti-status quo player. which like Great Britain in the 19th century occupies the leading economic and military position in the world. have drawn a historical parallel between the rise of Germany as a world economic and military power at the end of the 19th century and China's rise in the last decade of the 20th century. "the latter's experience should remind us of the difficulty that the world has had accommodating newly powerful nations. The Sweet and Sour Sino-American Relationship. Advocates of containment may be able to persuade a large number of Americans to adopt an anti-China strategy if the model is the tense but manageable Soviet-American rivalry.(68) Although Krauthammer admits that China lacks the ideological appeal that the Soviet Union possessed (at least in the early stages of the Cold War). challenging the dominant position of the United States. former Beijing chief of the New York Times." For all the differences between China and Wilhelmine Germany. ‘96 (Louis Hadar . including Nicholas D.org/pubs/pas/pa-248. to replace the carcass of communism. given the similar authoritarian and insecure nature of the regimes in post-Bismarck Germany the post-Deng China. That optimism is crucial.(66) Charles Krauthammer echoes that point.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 183 /414 Nelson <tournament> China-US US China war goes nuclear Hadar.html) Some analysts. that China is "predisposed to a role as leader of the dispossessed states" in a new cold war that would pit an American-led West against an anti-status quo Third World bloc. for example. "The risk is that Deng's successor will be less talented and more aggressive--a Chinese version of Wilhelm II. not many Americans are likely to embrace containment if the probable outcome is a bloody rerun of World War I--only this time possibly with nuclear weapons.

php?context=va&aid=5964 Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. decides once and for all to haul off and let China. former analyst for the US Treasury Department. We’re halfway there anyway.S. combined with some kind of military or forced-labor dictatorship. have it in the chops. and Retired Federal Analyst – U. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more. They wouldn’t want to make anyone mad at them for being too radical.globalresearch. We could have a really big war if the U. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II.S. 184 . 6/14/2k7 "It's Official: The Crash of the U. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then." Global Research. Writer.S. etc. suspension of the Bill of Rights. 2007 Richard Cook. Economy has begun. Treasury Department. Forget about a revolution from the left..Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 184 /414 Nelson <tournament> Economic Collapse Economic decline leads to global nuclear war and totalitarian regimes Cook. http://www.ca/index. or whomever. Consultant. how about a few nukes? Maybe we’ll finally have a revolution either from the right or the center involving martial law.

000 villagers were evacuated from their homes overnight for the operation. intelligence officials are divided over the ultimate meaning of the indicators of an impending conflict.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 185 /414 Nelson <tournament> India/Pakistan War India Pakistan War leads to extinction Gertz.S.S. troops for war. the dispersal of fighter aircraft and preparations for the transportation of nuclear weapons from storage sites. The Washington Times has learned. known as J-2. Islamabad.near the northern part of its border with India. efforts to find terrorists in Afghanistan. Pakistan is moving the equivalent of two armored brigades . regional commanders could order the use of the weapons. 185 . The missiles are within range of the Pakistani capital. U. Staff Writer at the Washington Times. military forces are heavily reliant on Pakistani government permission to conduct overflights for bombing and other aircraft operations into Afghanistan. U.for war. Pakistan could launch its forces before those dates in a pre-emptive strike. Pakistan. With tensions growing between the states." Intelligence officials are especially worried about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal because control over the weapons is decentralized. primarily from aircraft carriers located in the Arabian Sea. say officials familiar with intelligence reports of the war moves. intelligence officials say Pakistani military moves include large-scale troop movements. U. Pakistan prepare nukes.including their ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons . Staff writer at the Washington Times 12/31/2001. The administration also fears that a conflict between India and Pakistan would undermine U. 2001 (Bill Gertz. a sign of administration concern over the military moves in the region. urging them to calm tensions. according to the report. Lexis) Pakistan and India are readying their military forces . The Pentagon's Joint Staff intelligence division. a senior Indian army official said. Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged heavy mortar fire over their border in southern Kashmir today. Pakistan is mobilizing its Chinesemade mobile M-11 missiles. Even before the latest moves. India. including those supporting the U. which have been readied for movement from a base near Sargodha. Five Indian soldiers were seriously injured in the heaviest shelling in four months. Officials say the most alarming signs are preparations in both states for the use of nuclear-tipped missiles. Agence France-Presse reported. with Thursday or Friday as possible dates. Intelligence agencies have learned of indications that India is getting its short-range Prithvi ballistic missiles ready for use. late last week had assessed the danger of conflict at "critical" levels. which are based on missiles or fighter-bombers. Disclosure of the war preparations comes as President Bush on Saturday telephoned leaders of both nations. assess the danger of an India-Pakistan war as less than critical but still "serious. India also is moving thousands of its troops near the border with Pakistan and has dispersed some aircraft to safer sites away from border airfields.S. Other joint intelligence centers outside the Pentagon. Intelligence reports indicate that India will have all its forces ready to launch an attack as early as this week.S.S. Meanwhile. also known as the Shaheen.several thousand troops and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles . military forces responsible for the Asia-Pacific region and for Southwest Asia. More than 1.

Jordan. Does anyone want to take bets that the monarchy can survive the implantation of an army of militant. If the Americans stabilize Arab Iraq. That would not be just a radical Shiite view. “The Consequences of Failure http://www. driven from Iraq. the clerical regime. and quite possibly Kurdistan. Once the Shia become both badly bloodied and victorious. aggressive American military presence in Iraq can probably halt the radicalization of the Shiite community. The Egyptians or the Saudis or both will go for their own nukes.asp) in Iraq”. it was the learned estimation of Osama bin Laden and his kind before 9/11 . These forces need increasing strife to prosper. hit them. A horrific fight with the Sunni Arabs will inevitably draw in support from the ferociously anti-Shiite Sunni religious establishments in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They've escaped extinction several times. angry Iraqi Sunni Arabs? For those who believe that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the epicenter of the Middle East. could well revert to the mentality and tactics that produced the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996. The worst elements in the Iranian regime are heavily concentrated in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 186 /414 Nelson <tournament> Iraq Pullout Iraq pullout causes Middle-Eastern nuclear war Gerecht. for a conflict with the Kurds. this won't happen. Sunni Arabs in Egypt. What little chance remains for the Americans and the Europeans to corral peacefully the clerical regime's nuclear-weapons aspirations will end with a Shiite-Sunni death struggle in Mesopotamia. Imagine an Iraq modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. raw nationalist and religious passions will grow. The Hashemites have been lucky and clever since World War II. 2007 (Reuel. There should be no question. battle-hardened in a vicious war with Iraq's Arab Sunnis.all/pub_detail. It will probably destroy most of central Iraq and whet the appetite of Shiite Arab warlords. the two organizations most active inside Iraq. Al Qaeda and its militant Iraqi allies could dominate western Iraq for years--it could take awhile for the Shiites to drive them out. The repercussions throughout the Middle East of the Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq are potentially so large it's difficult to digest. A strong. which the Shia will inevitably win. The Israelis. and on the Shiite side from Iran. will feel even more threatened. overflowing with viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli Iraqis. If we leave Iraq any time soon. Imagine the Iraqi Sunni Islamic militants. Jan 15. the mass migration of Iraq's Sunni Arabs into Jordan will bury what small chances remain that the Israelis and Palestinians will find an accommodation. that an American defeat in Mesopotamia would be the greatest psychological triumph ever for anti-American jihadists. living to die killing Americans. the battle for Baghdad will probably lead to a conflagration that consumes all of Arab Iraq. 186 .org/publications/pubID. and Saudi Arabia will certainly view a hard-won and bloody Shiite triumph in Iraq as an enormous Iranian victory. however. With America in full retreat from Iraq.filter. peaceful Palestinian evolution on the West Bank of the Jordan river is about as likely as the discovery of the Holy Grail.aei.25407. who are increasingly likely to strike preemptively the major Iranian nuclear sites before the end of George Bush's presidency. If the Americans are retreating. The Lebanese Hezbollah is also present giving tutorials. who will by then dominate their community. spiritually and operationally linking up with a revitalized and aggressive clerical dictatorship in Iran. resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Imagine the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunni Arab refugees. too. which means occupying the Sunni triangle. Imagine Iraqi Shiites. joining up with groups like al Qaeda. especially when the Iranian regime underscores its struggle against the Zionist enemy as a means of compensating for its support to the bloody Shiite conquest in Iraq. With Jordan in trouble. It's questionable to argue that the war in Iraq has advanced the radical Sunni holy war against the United States. which has often viewed terrorism as a tool of statecraft.

the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist. Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. Iranian military forces and militias are likely to storm into southern Iraq and the US may be forced to use nuclear weapons against them.ca/index. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons. It will not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country. In the past. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 187 /414 Nelson <tournament> Iran Iran attack will cause a global nuclear war that leads to human extinction Hirch Professor at the University og Califorina at San Diego 2008 (Seymour Hirsch. And terrorist's attempts to get hold of "loose nukes" and use them against Americans will be enormously incentivized after the US used nuclear weapons against Iran. and the US will become a pariah state. global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. causing large scale casualties and inflaming the Muslim world. Third.globalresearch. 4/10/2k8 http://www. and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. First. Israel may attempt to stay out of the conflict. . and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons.php?context=viewArticle&code=HIR20060422&articleId=2317) Iran is likely to respond to any US attack using its considerable missile arsenal against US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. rather than deterring Iran it will cause a much more violent response. and many of its 182 non-nuclear-weapon-country signatories will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an attack by a nuclear nation. it is not clear whether Iran would target Israel in a retaliatory strike but it is certainly possible. Professor of physics @ the University of California @ San Diego. the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. and of course a Shiite uprising in Iraq against American occupiers. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. If the US attack includes nuclear weapons use against Iranian facilities. as I believe is very likely. 187 . There could be popular uprisings in other countries in the region like Pakistan. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed. it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world.

But in order to join the EAEC. Vol. Mahathir has gone to some lengths to bring Japan on board.S. Spratly Conflict goes nuclear Nikkei 1995 [The Nikkei weekly. but they are trying to solve them through continued dialogue. China might then declare war on the U. aimed at promoting economic cooperation in the region. Some have suggested also sending out invitations to Australia and New Zealand.twq. alliance also probably serves as a deterrent against any one nation seizing control of the Spratly Islands and. he says. under the same conditions. which the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) defines as a part of APEC. says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance. 2 economy. The EAEC is just a conference. 188 . group policy is decided by a handful of leading nations. the area is outside the Far East region that the United States and Japan agree is covered by Article 6 of the security treaty. They should also share values and culture with their Asian partners. by extension. the EAEC will not be taken seriously by the international community. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum originated as a loose discussion platform. the outspoken champion of Asian interests insists. those two nations should not only just call themselves Asian countries. Without the world's No. He is also resentful of some countries' opposition to the Malaysian-proposed East-Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC). 2. But it has become an institution.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 188 /414 Nelson <tournament> Japanese Relations (Spratly Islands) US-Japan alliance is key to prevent war over the Spratly Islands. including Malaysia. "The EAEC and APEC can coexist. even nuclear. have problems with their neighbors. Three scenarios Mahathir sees Asia developing in three possible ways in future. because the caucus is a group of Asian countries. http://www. lexis] Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to allow their economies to grow before being subjected to trade liberalization demands. he adds.” spring 2002. Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002 [Yukio. however. Brunei. leading to full-scale. the sea lanes and resources of the South China Sea .S.pdf] The Japan-U.com/02spring/okamoto. possibly over disputes such as their conflicting claims on the Spratly Islands. because. 25. It is not fair when small developing countries are obliged to compete with Japan and the U. Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to allow their economies to grow before being subjected to trade liberalization demands. he says. Formally. the proximity of two of the world’s great maritime forces must at least urge them to use caution as they pursue their competition. No. Asian countries would go to war against each other. and agendas are prepared ahead of meetings. In his worst- case scenario. war. However. He dismisses an argument put forward by some industrialized countries that fair trade can be realized when trading conditions are the same for all countries. doesn't stand in opposition to APEC. says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. July 3. Mahathir strongly opposes the use of weapons to settle international disputes. Many members of the forum. he says. Mahathir is dissatisfied with its management. The prime minister hails the ASEAN Regional Forum as a means for civilized nations of achieving negotiated settlement of disputes." he says. he adds. he stresses. he says. The EAEC.S. 1995. not a trade bloc like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAF-TA). For the countries vying for control of the sea. the Philippines and Thailand..

” spring 2002. goal of stemming the rise of terrorism in the Islamic world. http://www.S. The United States also needs to explain its reluctance to confront the regimes of its friends in the Middle East with the same human rights standards as those applied to Myanmar. which. China. or Indonesia.com/02spring/okamoto. 189 . Muslim oil-producing states.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 189 /414 Nelson <tournament> Japanese Relations (Middle Eastern Conflict) US-Japan alliance is key to preventing war in the Middle East Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002 [Yukio. are strained. “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance.S. No. and the absence of a strong tie to Israel. its relatively more flexible stance on human rights policies.-Islamic dialogue by asserting its view that vast disparities in income and an inconsistent U.pdf] Recent events have focused international attention on relations between the United States and Islamic countries. 2. Japan can contribute to a U. Vol. In recent years.twq. Some have suggested that Japan can become a potential intermediary between the United States and the Muslim world because of Japan’s close relations with Arab governments. the United States has drifted away from the consensus prevalent in most of the industrialized world that extreme poverty is a primary driver of terrorism and political violence. 25.S. and the nations of Central Asia. commitment to human rights are impediments to the U. with a few exceptions.

Chinese citizens from all walks of life have an attachment to the reunification of Taiwan and the mainland that transcends reason. action. “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance. http://www. reason for concern exists on one issue: the resolution of the status of Taiwan. however. 25. 2. When China conducted provocative missile tests in the waters around Taiwan in 1996.” spring 2002. 190 .S. Both Japan and the United States have clearly stated that they oppose reunification by force.pdf] Regardless of whether China’s development takes the bright path or the fearful one.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 190 /414 Nelson <tournament> Japanese Relations (China/Taiwan Conflict) US-Japan alliance is key to preventing China Taiwan war Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002 [Yukio. raising in Chinese minds the possibility that Japan might offer logistical and other support to its ally in the event of hostilities . Vol. a strong and close tie between Japanese and U. security interests guarantees that the Chinese leadership cannot afford to miscalculate the consequences of an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. The U. Japan seconded the U.S.com/02spring/okamoto.S.-Japan alliance represents a significant hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem. The alliance backs up Japan’s basic stance that the two sides need to come to a negotiated solution. Even though intervention is only a possibility. the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups into nearby waters as a sign of its disapproval of China’s belligerent act. No.twq.

” spring 2002.-Japan alliance the Damoclean sword hanging over the DPRK. Army troops are stationed near Seoul . DPRK government still refuses to retreat to its place on the ash heap of history. Most military experts admit that the army troops serve a largely symbolic function. a massive North Korean artillery bombardment could pin down both the U.pdf] the the people. its evaporating industrial and energy infrastructure. The firepower the USFJ can bring to bear upon the Korean Peninsula within a matter of hours makes the U.twq. No. 191 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 191 /414 Nelson <tournament> Japanese Relations (Korea) US-Japan alliance is key to preventing North Korean War Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002 [Yukio. the North Korean military maintains an arsenal of thousands of rocket launchers and pieces of artillery—some of which are possibly loaded with chemical and biological warheads—awaiting the signal to wipe Seoul off the map. 25. but they know that launching a military strike against the ROK will expose them to a strong and final counterstrike from U.S. “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance.com/02spring/okamoto. The DPRK leaders are masters of deception and manipulation. 2. http://www.S. The DPRK’s immense stock of weapons includes large numbers of Nodong missiles capable Despite its years of famine. some 30.000 U. The United States has two combat aircraft wings in the ROK. Eighth Army and the ROK armed forces at the incipient stage. In addition. and its choking. if an actual war were to erupt.S. Vol. in Osan and Kunsan. Despite the poverty of of striking Japan’s western coastal regions and probably longer-range missiles capable of hitting every major Japanese city. inhumane society.S. forces in Japan.

friends and allies in Asia. Moscow is Beijing's largest arms supplier. Strengthening the US-Japan alliance is critical to loosen Sino-Russian ties and checking agression Brookes. If America doesn't take strategic steps to counter these efforts.org/Press/Commentary/ed081505a. despite the base's continued use in Afghanistan operations. 8/15/05 “An Alarming Alliance: Sino Russian ties tightening” The Heritage Foundation. But the Chinese defense minister was more frank in comments earlier this year.000 troops on China and Russia's eastern coasts and in adjacent seas. Unimaginable just a few years ago. it shouldn't be overlooked that the "Shanghai Six" have invited Iran. Rose (Georgia) and Tulip (Kyrgyzstan) revolutions — all of which fell in what Moscow or Beijing deems its sphere of influence. the Pentagon must make sure the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review balances U. For instance. 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. What to do? First. http://www. cruise-missile-capable bombers such as the long-range TU-95 and supersonic TU-22 to Beijing — strengthening China's military hand against America and U. With issues from Islamic terrorism to North Korean nukes to a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. Both are upset by U.S.S. 192 . at a recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (i. the weeklong military exercises — dubbed "Peace Mission 2005" — will involve 10. expanding China and Russia's influence into South Asia and parts of the Middle East. The exercise's putative purpose is to "strengthen the capability of the two armed forces in jointly striking international terrorism. the stakes in Asia are huge. Russia. missiles and fighters. Uzbekistan gave America 180 days to get out. forces to address both the unconventional terrorist threat and the big-power challenge represented by a Russia-China strategic partnership.cfm The first. Tokyo) about its support for Taipei. They indicate a further warming of the "strategic partnership" that Moscow and Beijing struck back in 1996. strategic TU-95 and TU-22 bombers. power across Asia. India and Pakistan to join the group as observers. Cao Gangchuan said: "The exercise will exert both immediate and far-reaching impacts. perhaps.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 192 /414 Nelson <tournament> Japanese Relations (Sino-Russian Ties) A.S. Russia and China are working together to oppose American influence all around their periphery. Beijing and Moscow are committed to building a political order in Asia that doesn't include America atop the power pyramid. The exercises are small in scale — but huge in implication. And China's growing political/economic clout mated with Russia's military would make for a potentially potent anti-American bloc. These unprecedented military exercises don't make a formal Beijing-Moscow alliance inevitable.. Taiwan and Japan. Russia has historically been wary of China.S. 5 (Peter Brooks.heritage. China and the four 'Stans'). ultimately." This raised lots of eyebrows — especially in the United States. The exercise also gives Russia an opportunity to strut its military wares before its best customers — Chinese generals. more intimate phase in the Sino-Russian relationship. This unmistakable example of Sino-Russian military muscle-flexing will also include Russia's advanced SU-27 fighters. it will lose influence to Russia and China in an increasingly important part of the world. Washington must persevere in advancing its new relationship with (New) Delhi in order to balance Beijing's growing power in Asia and take advantage of India's longstanding. and hint at the possibility that if there were a Taiwan Strait dust-up. Gen. airbases. support for freedom in the region — notably in the recent Orange (Ukraine). amphibious and anti-submarine ships. And be ready to deal.e. Russia might stand with China. For the moment. Washington and its friends must not waste any time in addressing the burgeoning Sino-Russian entente. the Chinese demanded the exercises be held 500 miles to the south — a move plainly aimed at intimidating Taiwan. In fact. More importantly. As a result. although Russia nixed the idea. Senior Fellow at the heritage foundation. to the tune of more than $2 billion a year for purchases that include subs. Third. Beijing clearly wanted to send a warning to Washington (and. favorable relationship with Russia — despite the challenges posed by Russian President Vladimir Putin's heavy-handed rule.ever joint Chinese-Russian military exercises kick off Thursday in Northeast Asia. extremism and separatism. (Quick diplomacy by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld saved the Kyrgyz base. by Russia and China to balance — and. Moscow and Beijing conspired to get Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to close U. Rumors abound that Moscow may finally be ready to sell strategic. submarines. Second. But they represent a new. diminish — U. positive relationship with Russia.) Moreover. but it remains on the ropes. beyond inflammatory rhetoric. they signal the first real post-Cold War steps." says China's Defense Ministry. America must not ignore the possibilities of developing a longterm. Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.S. ships.

China -.html] Pyongyang cites upcoming U.-South Korean joint military exercises scheduled to begin on March 4. On Monday.S.S. (MiG incursion) The North has also threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the fighting of the Korean War. and anti-war struggle to frustrate the U. U. 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. While Japan and South Korea indicated they might support a regional initiative to sway Pyongyang. political pressure still has a role to play. Warns of nuclear conflict. consistently saying it is seeking a diplomatic and political solution to the increasing tensions sparked by Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear program. "We believe diplomatic. had "no intention of invading" North Korea. it changes the entire political landscape. "We also made it clear that if they begin reprocessing (nuclear material).S. Powell repeated the U.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 193 /414 Nelson <tournament> North Korea North Korean War goes nuclear CNN 2003 [CNN. "The situation of the Korean Peninsula is reaching the brink of a nuclear war." the statement. And we're making sure that is communicated to them in a number of channels.S. “N K.” 2/26/2003 . position that it had no intention of invading North Korea and had no plans to impose fresh economic sanctions on the impoverished communist nation." Powell would not be drawn on how would Washington react if Pyongyang did begin reprocessing but did say that the U. Tensions on the peninsula have been ratcheting up over the past few weeks with North Korea becoming increasingly provocative. moves for a nuclear war. issued by the official Korean Central News Agency. as "reckless war moves" designed to "unleash a total war on the Korean peninsula with a pre-emptive nuclear strike". 193 ." Powell said Tuesday. a North Korean MiG-19 fighter briefly flew into South Korean air space.missile/index.a key ally and aid donor to the North -appeared to remain unconvinced. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday wrapped up a four-day tour of Japan. The North also called on South Koreans to "wage a nationwide anti-U. And there are countries who have considerable influence with the North Koreans who will continue to apply pressure. China says the United States must deal with Pyongyang equally on a one-to-one basis. (Roh sworn in) Last week.cnn.S.S. http://www." The United States denies it has any plans to attack North Korea.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/25/nkorea. or East Sea. says. the North fired a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan. an act many believe was designed to upstage the inauguration of new South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun.

S.a nuclear war with India over Kashmir. “BARACK'S BLUNDER INVADE A NUCLEAR POWER?” http://www.com/seven/08022007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/baracks_blunder_opedcolumnists_peter_brookes. say. The last thing we need is for Islamabad to fall to the extremists.htm? page=2) The fall of Musharraf's government might well lead to a takeover by pro-U. elements of the Pakistani military but other possible outcomes are extremely unpleasant. 7/2/2007 (Peter. That could lead to a number of nightmarish scenarios . 194 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 194 /414 Nelson <tournament> Pakistan Collapse Pakistan Collapse leads to nuclear war and nuclear terrorism Brooks. or the use of nuclear weapons by a terrorist group against any number of targets. including the United States. That would exacerbate the problem of those terrorist safe havens that Obama apparently thinks he could invade. And it would also put Pakistan's nuclear arsenal into the wrong hands. Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.nypost. 2007 Peter Brookes. Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. including the ascendance of Islamist factions.

which. up to the last tank or a plane.html) Russia may face the "wonderful" prospect of combating the Chinese army. 10/1/2001 The Third Threat http://www.org/russia/johnson/5470. what would exhaust Russia's armament completely. We have not got another set of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based missiles. if full mobilization is called. universal mobilization and complete accumulation of the army military hardware. Massive nuclear strikes on basic military forces and cities of China would finally be the only way out. in a single direction (we would have to forget such "trifles" like Talebs and Basaev. our country would be absolutely unprotected against the "Chechen" and the "Balkan" variants both. (Alexander Sharavin. and even against the first frost of a possible nuclear winter. In the long run. Such a war would be more horrible than the World War II.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 195 /414 Nelson <tournament> Sino-Russian Conflict Sino Russian War leads to Extinction Sharavin Head of the Institute for Political and military analysis 2001. even if the aggression would be stopped after the majority of the Chinese are killed. whereas the general forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. 195 . which also has nuclear weapons (even tactical weapons become strategic if states have common borders) and would be absolutely insensitive to losses (even a loss of a few million of the servicemen would be acceptable for China). head of the institute for political and military analysis. It would require from our state maximal tension. is comparable in size with Russia's entire population. but this does not guarantee success either).cdi.

Perhaps no one let the Washington Post in on the badly kept secret that Iran has been sending weapons. it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America. for instance. only that they share a similar end game: total domination over the Middle East in the near term and the world in the long term. Under Bush's rubric.S. Even the USA was still trading with the Confederacy after the Civil War had already begun. manpower. 196 . Unfortunately. The Post's simple-minded efforts to make Bush himself look simple minded only makes the Post out to be practicing partisan political demagogy. Here is what Bush actually said: In recent times. Further Bush did not "lump together" al-Qaeda and Iran as if they were indistinguishable. 2001. He did not. as the Post seems to be claiming. advisors and thousands of IEDs into Iraq to attack us since the first day Saddam's hold over the country ended. and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. referring to the different branches of the Muslim religion. recently appeared 1/24/2007. a country such as Iran — which enjoys diplomatic representation and billions of dollars in trade wit major European countries — is lumped together with al-Qaeda. after all.renewamerica. Just as both Shia and Sunni extremism today threatens our interests and our way of life. Bush's saying that Shia and Sunni extremism are only "different faces of the same totalitarian threat" is not to say they are wholly the same. say they were one and the same. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah — a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.us/columns/huston/070124) Once again. a National U. Trade is one of the last things that is affected by war. however. Trade? How is trade an assurance of the benevolence of any nation? Nations didn't stop trading with Nazi Germany even as Hitler was Blitzkrieging through Europe. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 196 /414 Nelson <tournament> Sunni/Shiite Conflict A war between Sunnis and Shiites would spill over resulting in extinction Hutson Correspondent for Renew America 2007 (Warner Todd Huston. 11. Correspondent for Renew America. The president said that the Shia extremists in Iran are "second only to al Qaeda" among the enemies we face. Yet both threatened our extinction. the Post seems to see no threat from Iran in particular and Shia extremism in general. Using WWII as an example again. it would like saying that the Nazis and the Japanese were indistinguishable merely because they both wanted to rule the world. The fact that Europe is still trading with Iran as if everything is hunkeydorie does NOT say one word as to the Iranian regime's status as a bunch of nice guys. paper "arguably" chooses sides with Europe's interests over that of America. Business is business. Not to mention the constant threat and rhetoric against us emanating from the president of Iran. “Media: Bush’s ‘flawed’ portrayal of ‘the enemy’ in the State of the Union” http://www. attacks. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." Bush said. the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. No one would make such an absurd claim.

www. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. either accidentally or deliberately.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation. 2002 (Nick.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 197 /414 Nelson <tournament> Russia-US Russia-US conflict guarantees nuclear Armageddon – nuclear stockpiles Bostrom Professor of philosophy at Yale.transhumanist. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. is not an existential risk. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization. “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards.com/volume9/risks.html) A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange. since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently.” 2002. 197 . between India and Pakistan for instance . Professor of Philosophy at Yale.

which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war. If China were to retaliate. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal. There would be no victors in such a war. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. 198 . to a lesser extent. In the region. Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. In his book The Korean War. hostilities between India and Pakistan. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. Lexis] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. it cannot be ruled out entirely. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle. Singapore . president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. east Asia will be set on fire. there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later. 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. this means South Korea. for China puts sovereignty above everything else. could enter a new and dangerous phase. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. “No One Gains in War over Taiwan. we would see the destruction of civilisation. 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.” 6/25/00. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. In south Asia. With the US distracted. the Philippines and. short of using nuclear weapons. Japan.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 198 /414 Nelson <tournament> Taiwan/China War China Taiwan War would draw in the US and lead to extinction Straits Times 2000 [The Straits Times. then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability.

The Nation. But the coastal surveillance flights by our twelve (now eleven) EP-3E Aries II spy planes. President of the Japan Policy Research Institute. More seriously. a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. America's provocative military posture in East Asia makes war with China more likely because it legitimizes military strategies in both Beijing and Taipei as well as in Washington and Tokyo. 5/14/2k1 http://www. it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 199 /414 Nelson <tournament> Taiwan Taiwan is the most probable scenario for nuclear war Johnson President of the Japan Policy Research Institute. like the one that was forced down off Hainan Island. remains the most dangerous place on earth.com/doc. given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. They are inherently provocative and inappropriate when used to monitor a country with which we are at peace. The United States uses satellites to observe changes in China's basic military capabilities.thenation. and all serious US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7. 2001 (Chalmers Johnson. forwarddeployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect. The United States itself maintains a 200-mile area off its coasts in which it intercepts any aircraft attempting similar reconnaissance.mhtml?i=20010514&c=1&s=Johnson) China is another matter. whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war.000 US warheads). Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted. deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory. Taiwan. Such a war would bankrupt the United States. Since any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally would be viewed as a challenge to China's sovereignty. 199 . No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China. seek information that is useful only in an imminent battle.

Their target could be anything: a U. or an empty stretch of desert highway. city.htm) A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki.S. In one fell swoop. Therefore. 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.http://weekly. 2004. with no knowledge of nuclear technology. Egyptian political analyst for the Al-Ahram newspaper. even if -. Al-Ahram online. military base in a foreign land. however. August 26. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights. 1997 (Robert. This could lead to a third world war. Although this threat includes chemical and biological weapons. including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. a crowded U. Today.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 200 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terrorism → Nuclear Escalation Nuclear Terrorism leads to global nuclear war Chesney. conventional weapons can exploit those fault lines to achieve significant gains. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures. and in the aftermath.ahram. they might not. nuclear terrorists could decapitate the U. except for the two bombs dropped on Japan. we will all be losers. So far. conventional weapon attacks do not pose a top priority threat to national security. Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Journal.eg/2004/705/op5. nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. the vast majority of people will continue to support the Constitution despite the mass murder of innocent persons. Nuclear terrorism will cause global nuclear war. Japan. n1 In societies that lack such pre-existing fundamental divisions. as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD. from which no one will emerge victorious. even though the pain and suffering inflicted can be substantial. n2 Nuclear terrorism thus poses a unique danger to the United States: through its sheer power to slay. such as in Northern Ireland or Israel. Constitutional liberties and values might never recover. November) The horrible truth is that the threat of nuclear terrorism is real. it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. As it turned out. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails. the remains of the nation would demand both revenge and protection. Egyptian political analyst for the Al-Ahram newspaper. however. at the time. destroy. government or destroy its financial system. The bedrock institutions of the United States will survive despite the destruction of federal offices. This completely changes the rules of the game. Societies would close in on themselves. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. but then again. When terrorists strike against societies already separated by fundamental social fault lines.and this is far from certain -. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another. the technology is a secret for nobody. and terrorize. in light of the potential existence of a black market in fissile material. a nuclear weapon's devastating [*32] potential is in a class by itself. these allegations. leading to extinction Sid-Ahmed. would be several orders of magnitude worse than a conventional weapons attack. had no choice but to capitulate. JD candidate at Harvard Law. The consequences of terrorists employing weapons of mass destruction.org. The human suffering resulting from a detonation would be beyond calculation.S. a nuclear weapon would give terrorists the otherwise-unavailable ability to bring the United States to its knees.S. Nuclear terrorists might issue demands. this war will be without winners and losers. 200 . preventing terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons should be considered an unparalleled national security priority dominating other policy considerations. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet. proved to be unfounded. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds.the weapons used are less harmful than those used then. 2004: (Mohamed Sid-Ahmed. tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate.

Why are the United States and Israel. double standards of morality. Israel and its citizens. therefore. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism. Terrorism Myths and Realities. chemical. It is not surprising. Prof and Director of Inter-University For Terrorism Studies) Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. nuclear and cyber) with its serious implications concerning national. biological. 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). 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. Unlike their historical counterparts. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. regional and global security concerns.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 201 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terror = Extinction Terrorist attack risks extinction. Washington Times. Alexander Prof and Director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies 3 (Yonah. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism (e. the religionization of politics. weak punishment of terrorists. radiological. 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. thus far at least. Likewise. 2001. 201 .g. that on September 11. 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.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 202 /414 Nelson <tournament> **NUKE WAR IMPACTS** 202 .

1985. and that about 50 percent of northern midlatitudes could receive a dose greater than 100 rads. calculations were made for the prompt fallout -. Any but the most elaborate shelters would be useless. Medical facilities. “The Nuclear Winter. After the dust and soot settled out. Synthetics burned in the destruction of the cities would produce a wide variety of toxic gases. Many previous calculations simply ignored the intermediate time-scale fallout. more likely than not. drugs. the radioactivity carried into the upper atmosphere (but not as high as the stratosphere) seems to have been largely forgotten. especially after the billion or so unburied bodies began to thaw. We found for the baseline case that roughly 30 percent of the land at northern midlatitudes could receive a radioactive dose greater than 250 rads. dioxins and furans. including carbon monoxide. Civil and sanitary services would be wiped out. However. the amount of radioactive fallout is much more than expected.” http://www. would be unavailable. the combined influence of these severe and simultaneous stresses on life are likely to produce even more adverse consequences -. (Carl.cooperativeindividualism. the fine radioactive particles lofted into the stratosphere that would descend about a year later. together lasting for months. the most rudimentary means for relieving the vast human suffering. 203 .the plumes of radioactive debris blown downwind from each target-and for the long-term fallout. represent a severe assault on our civilization and our species. Immunity to disease would decline.that we are not yet wise enough to foresee. The cold. after most of the radioactivity had decayed. A 100-rad dose is the equivalent of about 1000 medical X-rays.biologists call them synergisms -. Former Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 203 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War  Disease Nuclear war collapses global infrastructure and causes mass disease pandemics Sagan. cyanides. Epidemics and pandemics would be rampant.html) In addition. That is.org/sagan_nuclear_winter. kill you. the solar ultraviolet flux would be much larger than its present value. quite apart from the question of what good it might be to emerge a few months later. A 400-rad dose will. Moreover. the dark and the intense radioactivity.

” p. or a so-called limited use." or to Schell's "republic of insects and grass.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 204 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War  Extinction Nuke war is the highest risk for human extinction Kateb 1992 (George. but no one has yet credibly denied that by some sequence or other a particular use of nuclear weapons may lead to human and natural extinction. The important point. can be counted on to seek expression later. By containing the possibility of extinction. thus increasing the possibility of use by increasing the number of nuclear powers. Transgressors convert an otherwise tolerable condition into a state of nature which is a state of war in which all are threatened. no matter how limited or how seemingly rational or seemingly morally justified. and the unleashed emotions of indignation. is to see that those who use nuclear weapons are qualitatively worse than criminals. And people. A so-called tactical or "theater" use. by a chain of events in nature. not as citizen of this or that country. where possible. how utterly distinct the nuclear world is. If it is not impossible it must be treated as certain: the loss signified by extinction nullifies all calculations of probability as it nullifies all calculations of costs and benefits. It is not merely a war crime or a single crime against humanity. Abstractly put. Other than full strategic uses are not confined. the accumulation of individuals. to try to punish those responsible for the use. retribution. 111112) Schell's work attempts to force on us an acknowledgment that sounds far-fetched and even ludicrous. in the "matter" of extinction. Of course the chaos ensuing from a sizable exchange could make punishment irrelevant. No-use is the imperative derived from the possibility of extinction. John Locke. The form of the punishment cannot be specified. “Thinking About Human Extinction (1): Nuclear Weapons and Individual Rights. Add other consequences: the contagious effect on nonnuclear powers who may feel compelled by a mixture of fear and vanity to try to acquire their own weapons. But in a matter that is more than a matter. and revenge which. It cannot rest with the imperative that a sizable exchange must not take place. It is of no moral account that extinction may be only a slight possibility. by containing in an immediate or delayed manner the possibility of extinction. be allowed. Most obviously. and at the least forfeit their offices. to "nuclear winter. Nuclear discourse must vividly register that distinctiveness. more than one practical matter in a vast series of practical matters. the connections between any use of nuclear weapons and human and natural extinction are several. The aim of the punishment is to deter later uses and thus to try to reduce the possibility of extinction. an acknowledgment hat the possibility of extinction is carried by any use of nuclear weapons. It is true by definition. if we can. if not acted on immediately in the form of escalation. All nuclear roads lead to the possibility of extinction." But the consideration of extinction cannot rest with the possibility of a sizable exchange of strategic weapons. Such a war is waged by the user of nuclear weapons against every human individual as individual (present and future). must be understood as of course 204 . the use of nuclear weapons. whether sizable or not. only increases the chances of extinction and can never. The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture. no matter how small the explosive power: each would be a cancerous transformation of the world. He takes us away from the arid stretches of strategy and asks us to feel continuously. is in Locke's phrase "a trespass against the whole species" and places the users in a state of war with all people. Schell's perspective transforms the subject. we are obliged to treat a possibility-a genuine possibility-as a certainty. whether or not one is a direct victim. is also prohibited absolutely. by chance. but let us make it explicit: the doctrine of no-use excludes any first or retaliatory or later use. a principal individualist political theorist. lead to the earth's uninhabitability. Humanity is not to take any step that contains even the slightest risk of extinction . He himself acknowledges that there is a difference between possibility and certainty. therefore. Analogously. To respond with nuclear weapons. the particular use in question did not directly lead to extinction. The use of nuclear weapons establishes the right of any person or group. It is not only a war against the country that is the target. because of the possibility of immediate escalation into a sizable exchange or because. says that in a state of nature every individual retains the right to punish transgressors or assist in the effort to punish them. No one can say how great the possibility is. acting officially or not. even if there were not an immediate escalation. a sizable exchange of strategic nuclear weapons can. violently or not. if. The doctrine of no-use is based on the possibility of extinction. the possibility of extinction would reside in the precedent for future use set by any use whatever in a world in which more than one power possesses nuclear weapons. any use is tantamount to a declaration of war against humanity. however. and feel keenly if only for an instant now and then.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 the appropriate preserving steps. perhaps enjoined. File Name 205 /414 Nelson <tournament> always indefeasibly retaining the right of selfpreservation. to take 205 . and hence as morally allowed.

[24] Given the right mix of technology and materials. and taint water and food supplies. a key ingredient in a nuclear bomb. It is worth noting that uranium oxide can be refined with the proper machinery and expertise in order to produce enriched uranium. Iraq’s national nuclear inspector has forecasted that over a thousand people could die of leukemia. disperse through the air (spreading wide-scale pollution). which occurred after U. poverty-stricken residents used the containers for storing basic amenities like water. thus making the critical problem increasingly widespread. After dumping the radioactive contents and rinsing out the barrels in the rivers.[22] The mishandling of the radioactive material has profound effects on the environment and on the people and animals that depend on it.[23] In addition to stolen radiological materials.sierraclub.[25] There is concern that such materials could end up in the hands of the very terrorist groups the US and UK military are trying to disable. located 48 kilometres south of Baghdad.S.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 206 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War  Pollution Nuclear arms race would cause pollution and destroy the environment Sierra Club. where an estimated two hundred blue plastic barrels containing uranium oxide were stolen. Extra barrels were sold to other villages or used to transport milk to distanced regions. http://www. has offered another blow to social and environmental security in the region. radiological weapons such as “dirty bombs” and possibly even weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could be produced. [26] Unfortunately the coalition forces inability to effectively secure nuclear sites in Iraq may well have exacerbated the situation the war was supposed to avoid: the unlawful proliferation and use of WMD weapons. cooking oil and tomatoes. 2003 (No publish date.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment. The most troubling of cases concerns the Tuwaitha nuclear plant. 206 . led forces entered the country.html) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in 2003. computers and important documents have also gone missing. references 2003 in the past tense. Toxic substances seep into the ground (rendering the soil unsafe).

which would be quite possible in the event of an all-out nuclear war. B. “The beauty in small things revealed”. All life on Earth equally depends on the photosynthesis that occurs in Earth's oceans. it is relatively easy to appreciate the importance of photosynthesis on land when one views the lush green diversity of grasslands or forests. The byproduct of this process.g. NASA sea-wide field sensor) has allowed more reliable determinations of oceanic photosynthetic productivity to be made (refs.) Phytoplankton depletion collapses the global carbon cycle causing extinction Bryant ‘03 (Donald. most of the phytoplankton and herbivorous zooplankton in more than half of the Northern Hemisphere oceans would die (36). found in the upper 100 m of oceans.84) If the production of aerosol by fires is large enough to cause reductions in the penetration of sunlight to ground level by a factor of a hundred. the importance of these organisms in the biological pump.pnas. Volume 100. and John. but this virtually invisible forest accounts for nearly 50% of the net primary productivity of the biosphere (1). but the contribution of marine photosynthesis to the global carbon cycle was grossly underestimated until recently. ed.) Nuclear war produces aerosol spikes killing phytoplankton Crutzen and Birks ‘83 (Paul. oxygen.. Peterson. see Fig. Earth is the "blue planet. This effect is due to the fast consumption rate of phytoplankton by zooplankton in the oceans. 1). Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Penn State. http://www. However. This event is believed by many to have caused the widespread and massive extinctions which took place at the Cretacious-Tertiary boundary about 65 million years ago. p. It seems obvious that it is as important to understand marine photosynthesis as terrestrial photosynthesis. Number 17. Satellite-based remote sensing (e. 1 and 2. August 19. Associate Professor of Chemistry and Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. facilitated the evolution of complex eukaryotes and supports their/our continuing existence.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 207 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War  Phytoplankton Scenario A. accounts only for 1% of the total photosynthetic biomass. 207 .org/cgi/content/full/100/17/9647) Oxygenic photosynthesis accounts for nearly all the primary biochemical production of organic matter on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. which traps CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in the deep sea. is increasingly recognized as a major component of the global geochemical carbon cycle (2)." and oceans cover nearly 75% of its surface. Director of the Air Chemistry Division of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. Because macroscopic plants are responsible for most terrestrial photosynthesis. Moreover. A rich diversity of marine phytoplankton. in “The Aftermath: The Human and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear War”. The effects of a darkening of such a magnitude have been discussed recently in connection with the probable occurrence of such an event as a result of the impact of a large extraterrestrial body with the earth (37).

“A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race”. heating of the ozone layer caused by intermingling of hot smoky air (as air is heated. As time progressed. Without the ozone layer. The severely disturbed wind currents caused by solar heating of smoke would. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at UCLA. and decomposition of ozone directly on smoke particles (carbon particles are sometimes used down here near the ground to cleanse air of ozone). so quickly . B). 208 . and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. The reduction in the ozone layer content in the North could reach a devastating 50% or more during this phase.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 208 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War  Ozone Scenario A). 57) But in a nuclear war. but the high ozone layer as well. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis.html) When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974. the atmosphere would be so perturbed that our normal way of thinking about the ozone layer needs to be modified. the ozone depletion would be made still worse by several effects: injection of large quantities of nitrogen oxides and chlorine-bearing molecules along with the smoke clouds. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts.9). and Richard. Both find that there is an additional mechanism by which nuclear war threatens the ozone layer. To help refocus our understanding. several research groups have constructed models that describe the ozone layer following nuclear war. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. With massive quantities of smoke injected into the lower atmosphere by the fires of nuclear war.the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth. life on earth would not exist. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously. the news was greeted with scepticism. in a matter of weeks. Nuclear war causes massive ozone depletion Sagan and Turco ‘90 (Carl. David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell. but taken seriously nonetheless. nuclear winter would grip not only the Earth's surface. skin cancer. http://archive. the amount of ozone declines). The principal work has been carried out by research teams at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (ref.org/ozone/holes/holebg. Ozone depletion causes extinction Greenpeace ‘95 (“Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer. sweep most of the ozone layer from the northern midlatitudes deep into the Southern Hemisphere.greenpeace. 4. p.

man. For counties along the Northern Hemisphere this is enough produce an Arctic winter. This would be the case in the Artic regions were species are used to long dark periods but for those in tropical waters most would die from lack of nutrients and light. professor in the effects of nuclear war. The lack of light would disrupt the food chain of microscopic creatures dependent of photoplankton (algae). the population decline for many species would be irreversible. Within a few months all the fish would die off . During this period the temperature will fall dramatically.html ) Assuming that you have been lucky enough to survive the initial hazards of a nuclear explosion what would happen next? Above ground zero the huge clouds of dust and debris will rise to 10 miles into the atmosphere. When merged together these clouds will effectively block out all sunlight plunging the sky into darkness for at least several weeks after. Surely most of the plants and animals in the deep oceans would have a better chance? The average drop in the world's oceans would be only about 1 °C3 and as most species are acclimatised to the cold conditions anyway.uk/~samp/nuclearage/lonterm. Looking at some past examples of volcanic eruptions can give us some idea of biological effects. “Climate Conditions” http://www. rivers would freeze over and many animals would die of cold and hunger. The effect on tropical plants and creatures would be even more profound and biologists have concluded that many species will become extinct. the severe cold would destroy most crops.ac.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 209 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War  Oceans Nuclear war would result in the death of the entire ocean ecosystem Perkins. 209 . Fortunately for us small islands like the UK will have a less dramatic temperature decrease due tot he warming effect of the oceans. 01 (Simon Perkins. professor of effects of nuclear war. Along the continent this could be as much as a 40°c drop.compsoc. 2001. May 22.

whole ecosystems would be imperiled.htm) Obviously. Science. it causes a massive amount of devastation.org. because of UV-B. http://www. Stanford University. over day and night. Massachusetts. Newsletter. 1983 (Paul R. “A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race. Cornell University.temperatures would drop by something in the region of 10-20ºC . Ehrlich. the normal functioning of the ecosystems themselves would be severely curtailed by the effects of nuclear war.. 1990 (Carl and Richard. already suffering from the direct effects of the war. New Series. fire. Harwell. 25 and 26 April 1983). As a consequence of a nuclear war. and. Anne H. 22. 23. over coastline and continental interior. a large nuclear bomb bursting at ground level would throw up about a million tonnes of dust. then. Gould. if you don't live near the ocean. jstor) The 2 billion to 3 billion survivors of the immediate effects of the war would be forced to turn to natural ecosystems as organized agriculture failed.) It's harder to change the temperature of the oceans than of the continents. which is why ocean temperatures are much more steadfast over the diurnal and seasonal cycles than are the temperatures in the middle of large continents. radiation.uk/climate/NuclearWinter_NL27. biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War (Cambridge. pg 1293-1300. the dust and the smoke produced would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. A prolonged global temperature drop of a few degrees C would be a disaster for agriculture. with the heat. even after light and temperature values had recovered. insects. The margin of safety is thin. over the seasons. astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell University. when a nuclear bomb hits a target. over latitude. Just at the time when these natural ecosystems would be asked to support a human population well beyond their carrying capacities. 4630. by 10°C. No. Vol. that is. and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment. The average surface temperature of the Earth— averaged.” pg 22) Life on Earth is exquisitely dependent on the climate (see Appendix A). At the same time that their plant foods were being limited severely. But in addition to this. over land and ocean. Stephen J. most. “Does anybody remember the Nuclear Winter?” July 27. a nuclear explosion throws up massive amounts of dust and smoke. radiation. almost all life on Earth would be at risk. Many of the survivors would be widely scattered and often sick. and other damage to plants. For example. C) Nuclear war collapses ecosystems and kills all biodiversity Ehrlich et al. The drop in light and temperature would quickly kill crops and other plant and animal life while humans. Primary productivity would be dramatically reduced at the prevailing low light levels. B). Harvard University. of the vertebrates not killed outright by blast and ionizing radiation would either freeze or face a dark world where they would starve or die of thirst because surface waters would be frozen and thus unavailable. Any global temperature change implies much larger local temperature changes. and other physical stresses (many occurring simultaneously) would result in their increased vulnerability to disease and pest outbreaks. Nuclear winter following exchange kills all plant and animal life SGR ‘03 (Scientists for Global Responsibility. 1983. Ehrlich. and by 20°C. which might be prolonged.many places would feel like they were in an arctic winter. blast and radiation killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people instantly and causing huge damage to infrastructure. Mark A.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 210 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War  Biodiversity Scenario (1/2) A). 210 . smog. 13 Centigrade degrees above the temperature at which fresh water freezes. Dec. so it would quickly become be dark and cold . Stanford University. Carl Sagan. (The corresponding temperature on the Fahrenheit scale is 55°F.sgr. would be vulnerable to malnutrition and disease on a massive scale. leading to the slightly delayed extinction of many additional species. over mountain range and desert—is about 13°C. it is unlikely that it would recover quickly to normal levels. Subjecting these ecosystems to low temperature. Cornell University. storm. We have high probability – degree changes devastate entire ecosystems risking extinction Sagan and Turco. if not all.

especially in vegetation types not adapted to periodic fires. which might heat the lower levels of the soil enough to damage or destroy seed banks. Soil losses from erosion would be serious in areas experiencing widespread fires. so does the risk of ecosystem failure. leading to catastrophic flooding and erosion during the next rainy season. n80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. D). and toxic rains. the rivets from an aircraft's wings. fugitive dust. especially over continental regions. however. 211 . The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa. leading to accelerated erosion and. Multiple airbursts over seasonally dry areas such as California in the late summer or early fall could burn off much of the state's forest and brush areas. lexis] By causing widespread extinctions. and (iii) great disturbance of the soil surface. and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. smog. and concentrated radioactivity levels in surviving filter-feeding shellfish populations could make them dangerous to consume for long periods of time. degradation of wastes. their scale and distribution depending on such factors as the nuclear war scenario and the season. however. and microorganisms would become extinct. each new animal or plant extinction. Much would depend on the wind and precipitation patterns that would develop during the first postwar year (4. regulation of the Nuclear War  Biodiversity Scenario (2/2) hydrologic cycle. with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects. among the most important roles of ecosystems are their direct role in providing food and their maintenance of a vast library of species from which Homo sapiens has already drawn the basis of civilization (27). one by one. Biodiversity collapse causes extinction Diner – Judge Advocate General’s Corps-1994 [Major David N. Some structural and functional changes. erosion. as ecosystems undergo qualitative changes to alternative stable states (30). would be superimposed on those of cold and darkness.nuclides could kill much of the fauna of fresh and coastal waters. (ii) reduced evapotranspiration by plants contributing to a lower rate of entry of water into the atmosphere. could be longer term. The diversity of many natural communities would almost certainly be substantially reduced. toxic runoff. Revegetation might superficially resemble that which follows local fires. Accelerated loss of these genetic resources through extinction would be one of the most serious potential consequences of nuclear war. and extremes of climate. As biologic simplicity increases. generation and preservation of soils. probably. These include regulation of atmospheric composition. Silting. plant death. and rainout of radio. and perhaps irreversible. From the human perspective. animals. Wildfires would be an important effect in north temperate ecosystems. p. and recycling of nutrients. 5). It is likely that most ecosystem changes would be short term. Other major consequences for terrestrial ecosystems resulting from nuclear war would include: (i) slower detoxification of air and water as a secondary result of damage to plants that now are important metabolic sinks for toxins. and numerous species of plants. Another major uncertainty is the extent of fire storms. major dust storms (28). Theoretically. Like a mechanic removing. could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. and therefore a more sluggish hydrologic cycle. moderation of climate and weather. humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems.. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. thus delaying and modifying postwar succession in ways that would retard the restoration of ecosystem services (29).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 211 /414 Nelson <tournament> Natural ecosystems provide civilization with a variety of crucial services in addition to food and shelter. Stresses from radiation. United States Army Military Law Review Winter.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 212 /414 Nelson <tournament> **NUKE WAR PROBABILITY** 212 .

Harvard Professor. prof. it is hard to see the utilitarian aspects of such a war. since it may very well entail the end of all human civilization as well as the destruction of numerous other forms of life (probably everything except cockroaches). . however.?"10 213 . it is essentially just an extension.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 Nuclear war precedes all ethics Nye. Nuclear war is the end of all ethics Nye. of the combination of excessive violence and residual effects.9 In the eloquent words of John Bennett. Since our earlier analysis of these two areas failed to provide an ethical framework for either of them even in isolation. prof. 1986 “Nuclear Ethics”. the actual end of the war would probably be a silent. . as ethically acceptable. "How can a nation live with its conscience and . This point does bear on the ethicality of all. we shall not even begin to try to defend their combination. and ethical backgrounds. be they clubs or nuclear missiles. Each of us must draw our own conclusions as to the ethicality of such an action. It is extremely hard to defend as a step towards ultimate good. Harvard Professor. since although the announced intent of the war may be to save the earth from the yoke of Communism or Imperialism. based on our own cultural. 24 The first of these ethical points is rather simple: if the intent of the overall war is ethically unsound. smoking planet. It is difficult to see how such a war can be viewed as following St. 1986 “Nuclear Ethics”. of IR at Harvard University. unless you believe that the world needs to be completely destroyed and started anew. p. 24 This leads us to the last and most difficult problem with nuclear weapons: that they risk nuclear holocaust. This holocaust is a case of extreme (excessive?) violence.out nuclear war. . 86 Joseph Nye. nuclear holocaust. Even outside the precepts of just war. But it is an old ethical axiom that no right action aims at greater evil in the results. religious. p. . albeit extreme. 86 File Name 213 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War Evaluated First Joseph Nye. and my personal feelings on all out war is that there is no provocation that can ethically support such devastation. of IR at Harvard University. Augustine's just war standard of creating peace. but merely returns us to a basis for our original assumption that war can be just. Since nuclear holocaust is a combination of massive destruction and residual effects. then the use of any weapons in such a cause is wrong. political. kill twenty million children in another nation . This fact does not let us differentiate ethically between nuclear and non-nuclear arms. possibly including the remaking of all life on the planet through genetic mutations and nuclear winter.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 214 /414 Nelson <tournament> 214 .

and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In the shadow of this power. and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. In other words. once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder. Therefore. extinction would shatter the frame. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless. If we wish to act to save our species. the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated. the earth. If one does occur. our wonder should make us humble. if we wish to ignore the peril. that the adversaries may use all their weapons. may be severe. our own fate. of course. the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from. If they do use all their weapons. the game will be over. The discovery of the energy in mass – of "the basic power of the universe" – and of a means by which man could release that energy altered the relationship between man and the source of his life. including effects of which we as yet unaware. the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down catastrophically.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 215 /414 Nelson <tournament> Schell Extinction from nuclear war dwarfs all other impact calculus – you must treat the RISK of extinction as morally equivalent to its certainty Schell. we stand before a mystery. be a misrepresentation – just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. we have to muster our resolve in spite of our awareness that the life of the species may not now in fact be jeopardized. that the global effects. and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence. But it is clear that at present. We are in deep ignorance. thoughtful people everywhere in the world realized that if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face the possibility of extinction. 93-96 1982 To say that human extinction is a certainty would. scientifically speaking. our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution. pp. and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. and they tend to calm our fear and to reduce our sense of urgency. and that our species may be extinguished. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known. the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. ready to be used at any second. although. morally they are the same. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. We are left with uncertainty. and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat we now post to the world and to ourselves. we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional. and are forced to make our decisions in a state of uncertainty. that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown. eternal defeat on the same footing as risk that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. And if the effects are not moderate but extreme. At just what point the species crossed. may be moderate. or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a nuclear holocaust. infinite. Yet at the same time we are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust. To employ a mathematician's analogy. and with more being added every day. with it. the stake is. every risk has been contained within the framework of life. we have entered into the zone of uncertainty. and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. 215 . the global effects in the ozone and elsewhere. Up to now. 82 Jonathan Fate of the Earth. there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it. In weighing the fate of the earth and. To begin with. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. humanly speaking. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purpose would be drowned for all time. because if we lose. On the other hand. we know that a holocaust may not occur at all. and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. is not precisely knowable. In that sense. which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. or will have crossed. the adversaries may not use all their weapons.

pdf]. [2]. and the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (NSPD 17). Americans' heightened state of fear of terrorist attacks and their apparent willingness to support any course of action that could potentially protect them from real or imagined terrorist threats. The fact that Iran has been declared in noncompliance [. @ Univ. and who thus provide the administration with a strong argument for the use of nuclear weapons to defend them.D. William Schneider Jr. 16.D. Dec. The Israel factor [1]. [2]. to use nuclear weapons against Iran. of Chicago.antiwar. which promises to respond to a WMD threat with nuclear weapons. J. Hirsch 05 [Jorge. Crouch II.000 American soldiers in Iraq. 2005." which allows the president "to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States" without consulting Congress. professor of physics at Cal. Linton Brooks. and John Bolton are nuclear-weapons enthusiasts who advocate aggressive policies and occupy key positions in the top echelons of the Bush administration. a society of physicists opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. which can only lead to a diplomatic impasse. The determination of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that Iran has connections with al-Qaeda. The allegations of involvement of Iran in terrorist activities around the world [1]. Senate Joint Resolution 23. Ph. and its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. and the War Powers Resolution [.." The doctrine of preemptive attack adopted by the Bush administration and already put into practice in Iraq. which "allows" the president to attack anybody in the "global war on terror. "Authorization for Use of Military Force.S. [2] .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 216 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War Likely With all the problems that the status quo presents a nuclear war will defiantly happen but with so many nuclear countries we cannot find out where it will start.php?articleid=8263] The nuclear hitmen: Stephen Hadley. Robert Joseph. Stephen Cambone. which makes it "legal" for the U.pdf] with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." The Bush administration's willingness to use military power based on unconfirmed intelligence and defectors' fairy tales. A nuclear doctrine that advocates nuclear strikes against non-nuclear countries that precisely fit the Iran profile: the "Nuclear Posture Review" and the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations. member of the American Physical Society. 216 . including acts against America [1].com/orig/hirsch. The course of action followed by the Bush administration with respect to Iran's drive for nuclear technology. “Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran” http://www. 150. whose lives are at risk if a military confrontation with Iran erupts.

strong alliances.htm) When the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the United States. 217 . Each side could destroy the other many times.k. In the new cold war. Russian forces achieved nuclear equality. a.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/coldwar/strategy/strategy-mutual-assured-destruction. This fact was officially accepted in a military doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction.nuclearfiles.” http://www.a. In the old cold war Americans had enjoyed superior nuclear force. Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Project. (“Mutually Assured Destruction. The cold war became a conflict more dangerous and unmanageable than anything Americans had faced before.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 217 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War Likely – Escalation Mutually assured destruction insures a quick escalation of a nuclear war hence leading to all out destruction. Mutual Assured Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration. however. the Cold War had entered a new phase. In short: Whoever shoots first. Nuclear Files 2009. an unchallenged economy. MAD. and a trusted Imperial President to direct his incredible power against the Soviets. MAD reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. dies second.

Qatar. King Adbdullah of Jordan admitted as much in a January 2007 interview when he said: "The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region.americanprogress. "You are failing to contain Iran and we need to prepare. Instead of seeing this nuclear surge as a new market. Saudi Arabia and the five other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain. Sarkozy declared that the West should trust Arab states with nuclear technology. While U. Iran. these countries that control over one-fourth of the world's oil supplies are investing in nuclear power programs. "The Middle East Nuclear Surge. Gamal Mubarak. four. says the country will build four power reactors. . King Abdullah met Canada's prime minister in July and discussed the purchase of heavy water Candu reactors. or five nuclear nations. 218 . China. Not to be outdone. wants nuclear power. Other leaders are not as frank in public. Cirincione. This unprecedented demand for nuclear programs is all the more disturbing paired with the unseemly rush of nuclear salesman eager to supply the coveted technology. son of the current Egyptian president and his likely successor. This is not about energy. and the United States also jockeying for nuclear sales to this oil state. Egypt and Turkey. Sarkozy has a point: No one can deny Arab states access to nuclear technology. Here is where the nuclear surge currently stands. two of Iran's main rivals. . "We can't trust you. it "called on the Arab states to expand the use of peaceful nuclear technology in all domains serving continuous development. Finally.) Suddenly. the countries with nuclear technology to sell have a moral and strategic obligation to ensure that their business does not result in the Middle East going from a region with one nuclear weapon state . ethnic.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 218 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuclear War Likely – Middle East Prolif The Arms Race in the Middle East is creating a breeding ground for a chance of a nuclear war. Oman." http://www. After this summer everybody's going for nuclear programs.S. Kuwait. Morocco wants assistance from the atomic energy agency to acquire nuclear technology and in March sponsored an international conference on Physics and Technology of Nuclear Reactors. with the first beginning later this year. But the main message to the West from these moderate Arab and Muslim leaders is political. not industrial. The race to match Iran's capabilities has begun. But is this really about meeting demands for electric power and desalinization plants? There is only one nuclear power reactor in the entire Middle East—the one under construction in Busher. as do several other states." He was referring to the war in Lebanon last year between Israel and Hezbollah. If the existing territorial." Algeria and Russia quickly signed an agreement on nuclear development in January 2007.Israel . but confide similar sentiments in private conversations.html] Iran is still probably five to 10 years away from gaining the ability to make nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs." It is not too late to prove them wrong. both in South Africa. perceived in the region as evidence of Iran's growing clout. and political disputes continue unresolved. this is a recipe for nuclear war. especially as they are acquiring it under existing international rules and agreeing to the inspection of International Atomic Energy Agency officials. the Arab League has provided an overall umbrella for these initiatives when. Almost a dozen Muslim nations have declared their interest in nuclear energy programs in the past year. Indicating that this could be just the beginning of a major sale and supply effort. and the United Arab Emirates) at the end of 2006 "commissioned a joint study on the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. South Korea. Jordan announced that it. are in the lead." Perhaps these states are truly motivated to join the "nuclear renaissance" promoted by the nuclear power industry and a desire to counter global warming.to one with three. Both have flirted with nuclear weapons programs in the past and both have announced ambitious plans for the construction of new power reactors. after multiple energy crises over the 60 years of the nuclear age. Nuclear war is guaranteed if the status quo continues. But its program is already sending nuclear ripples through the Middle East. (Israel has a research reactor near Dimona.org/issues/2007/08/nuclear_surge. 8/21/2007 [Joseph. too. Turkey will build three new reactors. In all of Africa there are only two. officials were reaching a new nuclear agreement with India last month. with the first to be completed within the next 10 years. with France. . it is a nuclear hedge against Iran. at the end of its summit meeting in March." they are saying. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed a nuclear cooperation deal with Libya and agreed to help the United Arab Emirates launch its own civilian nuclear program.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be World War III. irredentism. First of all. in transition. but feasible. there are huge numbers of Chinese going into Siberia. These are great powers capable of initiating and waging major wars. put the Germans on their own. and in between a huge buffer zone called eastern or central Europe. American foreign policy professor at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. I can figure out all sorts of ways. Is it impossible to imagine the Russians and the Germans getting into a fight over control of that vacuum? Highly likely. of course.org/conf/cfr10/index. a third reason? China. not for resource reasons but because Japanese sea-lines of communication run through there and a huge Chinese navy may threaten it? I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine that.ciaonet. 219 . Mearsheimer (1998-99 Whitney H. states oftentimes compete for economic resources. Is it hard to imagine Japan and China getting into a war in the South China Sea over economic resources? I don’t find that hard to imagine. in political terms. These are countries. no. R. for sure.org/conf/cfr10/ Now having made the case for the obsolescence of modern war. http://www. not against it-a cause of war that enjoys a certain legitimacy even now. positing a lot of scenarios where great powers have good reasons to go to war against other great powers.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 219 /414 Nelson <tournament> Great Power War Likely Great power wars are not obsolete and are still on the table Professor John J. I must note that there are two major question marks hanging over it: Russia and China. War to reclaim lost or stolen territory has not been rendered obsolete in the way that the more traditional causes have. Russia could come to believe this about Ukraine. there are a number of good reasons why great powers in the system will think seriously about going to war in the future. and I’ll give you three of them and try and illustrate some cases. and let me tell you why. University of Chicago) CFR February 25. 1999 http://www.html Now I think the central claim that’s on the table is wrong-headed. Chinese and Russians fighting each other over Siberia? As many of you know. namely. Moreover. is dear to the heart of realists like me. not highly likely. Mandlebaum flows neg – he concedes that great power war is still likely with Russia and China Michael Mandelbaum. which means that the Taiwan Strait and the Russian-Ukrainian border are the most dangerous spots on the planet. Is it hard to imagine a situation where a reconstituted Russia gets into a war with the United States and the Persian Gulf over Gulf oil? I don’t think that’s implausible. First. but possible. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science. you got the Germans on one side and the Russians on the other. Again. That’s a scenario that makes me very nervous. and in these two countries. the forces of warlessness that I have identified are far less powerful and pervasive than they are in the industrial West and in Japan. Take the United States out of Europe. Call it what you want. China believes that Taiwan properly belongs to it. and that’s to enhance their security. What about nationalism. You start mixing ethnic populations in most areas of the world outside the United States and it’s usually a prescription for big trouble. each harbors within its politics a potential cause of war that goes with the grain of the post-Cold War period-with it. Is it hard to imagine Japan and China getting into a war over the South China Sea. but it is great-power war. and the political forms and political culture they eventually will have is unclear. Shepardson Fellow. none of which are highly likely. the places where World War III could begin. fighting in the United States over Taiwan? You think that’s impossible? I don’t think that’s impossible. that the Chinese and the Americans end up shooting at each other. Council on Foreign Relations. A second reason that states go to war which. 1999 “Is Major War Obsolete?”.ciaonet. I could go on and on.

2006.org/doi/pdf/10. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. the US could disarm any nuclear opponent before they could retaliate Liber. Whether the scenario was a preemptive strike during a crisis. Spring 2006. or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise attack. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. A preemptive strike on an alerted Russian arsenal would still likely fail.1162/isec. and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania 2006 (Keir Liber. International Security.4. Today the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy vis-à-vis its plausible great power adversaries. the United States and the Soviet Union possessed such large. it could conceivably disarm the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a nuclear first strike.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 220 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely Nuclear war won’t escalate.1 The age of MAD. Many scholars believe that the nuclear stalemate helped prevent conºict between the superpowers during the Cold War. 220 . the victim would always be able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor.30. Furthermore. the Chinese nuclear force is so vulnerable that it could be destroyed even if it were alerted during a crisis. The End of Mad The Nuclear dimension of US Primacy http://www. however. and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace today. By the early 1960s. For the frst time in decades.7) For nearly half a century. the world’s most powerful nuclear-armed countries have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). but a surprise attack at peacetime alert levels would have a reasonable chance of success. welldispersed nuclear arsenals that neither state could entirely destroy the other’s nuclear forces in a ªrst strike.mitpressjournals. is waning. and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Nuclear war was therefore tantamount to mutual suicide.

International Security.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 221 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely – US Russia A US first strike would cripple Russia.39 Because the technical steps require 7–13 minutes. The End of Mad The Nuclear dimension of US Primacy http://www. in fact it is questionable whether it would give them any warning at all. (4) execute launch sequences. Furthermore. radar-absorbing. attack is the ability of Russia to launch on warning (i. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Russian commanders would need 7–13 minutes to carry out the technical steps involved in identifying a U.mitpressjournals. quickly launch a retaliatory strike before its forces are destroyed ).7) A critical issue for the outcome of a U. attack began with hundreds of stealthy cruise missiles and stealth bombers. submarine attack from the Atlantic. Russian satellites cannot reliably detect the launch of SLBMs. 38 This timeline does not include the time required by Russian leaders to absorb the news that a nuclear attack is The End of MAD? 21 under way and decide to authorize retaliation. it is hard to imagine that Russia could detect an attack.40 But there is a large east-facing hole in Russia’s radar network. these missiles—small. It is unlikely that Russia could do this. even a minimally prudent leader would need to think hard and ask tough questions before authorizing a catastrophic nuclear response. and launch missiles in less than 10– 15 minutes. (2) convey the news to political leaders. and perhaps no time if the U. decide to retaliate. Russian leaders might have no warning of an SLBM attack from the Pacific. Spring 2006. 221 .S. and flying at very low altitude— would likely provide no warning before detonation.30. its leaders would still have less than 10 minutes’ warning of a U.e.S. Given that both Russian and U. retaliation would be impossible Liber. attack and launching their retaliatory forces. and (5) allow the missiles to fly a safe distance from the silos. Russia’s vulnerability is compounded by the poor state of its early warning system. (3) communicate launch authorization and launch codes to the nuclear forces. and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania 2006 (Keir Liber. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame.S. early warning systems have had false alarms in the past. Finally. low-flying B-52 bombers could fire stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles from outside Russian airspace. The Russian early warning system would probably not give Russia’s leaders the time they need to retaliate. Stealthy B-2 bombers could likely penetrate Russian air defenses without detection.4.. They would have to (1) confirm the sensor indications that an attack was under way.2006.org/doi/pdf/10.S.41 Even if Russia plugged the east-facing hole in its radar network.S.1162/isec. and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Russia relies on groundbased radar to detect those warheads.

which is anarchic. that while this point of view. Now carried to its most extreme conclusion. decided that they do not wish to go to war.ciaonet. there is no great-power conflict into which the many local conflicts that have erupted can be absorbed. It exists only in Europe. useful. I argue. Modern history which can. And realists. like a law of nature. There have been four such wars in the modern period: the wars of the French Revolution. in the wake of the Cold War. indeed a superior. This is not to say that the world has reached the end of ideology. for that ideology was inherently bellicose. States enter into common security arrangements when they have already.org/conf/cfr10/ My argument says. By major war. less than impossible. then what has been the motor of political history for the last two centuries that has been turned off? This war. this eventuates in an argument made by some prominent political scientists that democracies never go to war with one another. “ Major war is obsolete in a way that styles of dress are obsolete. a copy of which you received when coming in.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 222 /414 Nelson <tournament> Major war is obsolete – nuclear weapons and rising cost check aggression Michael Mandelbaum. War is no longer regarded by anyone. Some caveats are. is obsolete. As for the benefits. And I should add that what I have called common security is not a cause. This was previously a cause of conflict and now is far less important. 1999 “Is Major War Obsolete?”. by far. What is that argument? It is that major war is obsolete. the reconfiguration through negotiations of military forces to make them more suitable for defense and less for attack. the costs have risen and the benefits of major war have shriveled. Well. liberalism. or foot-binding are obsolete. One of these is the rise of democracy. as a paying proposition. So if I am right. indeed. these now seem. http://www.” Why is this so? Most simply. And as for the ideas on behalf of which major wars have been waged in the past. the most influential events in modern history. It is obsolete in the way that the central planning of economic activity is obsolete. quite the contrary. Here the collapse of communism was an important milestone. there are reasons to think that it is true now. between the powerful states and the less powerful ones. It is something that is out of fashion and. because I believe there are no such laws of history. tends to be pacific. if not extinct. for other reasons. which was widely believed 100 years ago. I wouldn’t go that far. Now it’s true that one important cause of war has not changed with the end of the Cold War. for democracies. This is what I have called in my 1996 book. common security. at least from the point of view of the major powers. using all of their resources over a protracted period of time with revolutionary geopolitical consequences. the third feature of the post-Cold War international system that seems to me to lend itself to warlessness is the novel distinction between the periphery and the core. I would argue that three post-Cold War developments have made major war even less likely than it was after 1945. while it could be revived. And there it is certainly not irreversible. be seen as a series of aftershocks to these four earthquakes. but more than unlikely. World War I. Moreover. Major war is obsolete in the way that slavery. was not true then. in fact. these are in steep decline. with the industrial democracies debellicised and Russia and China preoccupied with internal affairs. World War II. dueling. By common security I mean a regime of negotiated arms limits that reduce the insecurity that anarchy inevitably produces by transparency-every state can know what weapons every other state has and what it is doing with them-and through the principle of defense dominance. probably not even Saddam Hussein after his unhappy experience. What do I mean by obsolete? If I may quote from the article on which this presentation is based. but that changing conditions have made ineffective at best. Nuke War Not Likely – Rising Costs 222 . and the Cold War. even desirable. modest to non-existent. But I do believe there is something in it. of the major forces that have made war less likely. argue that that structure determines international activity. American foreign policy professor at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. tend to be peaceful. however. It is a social practice that was once considered normal. The Dawn of Peace in Europe. The traditional motives for warfare are in retreat. I argue. The costs of fighting such a war are extremely high because of the advent in the middle of this century of nuclear weapons. to whom Fareed has referred and of whom John Mearsheimer and our guest Ken Waltz are perhaps the two most leading exponents in this country and the world at the moment. but a consequence. tacitly. in order where common security is concerned. and those preparations sooner or later issue in war. But the ideology that is now in the ascendant. It is a practice once regarded as a plausible. They are. Few though they have been. I believe there is a peaceful tendency inherent in democracy. way of achieving a socially desirable goal. but they would have been high even had mankind never split the atom. that a post-Cold War innovation counteracts the effects of anarchy. this kind of war. there is no present demand for it. To quote from the article again. That is the structure of the international system. I believe. our own. I mean war waged by the most powerful members of the international system. counterproductive at worst. I don’t believe that this is a law of history. It’s not universal. “ While for much of recorded history local conflicts were absorbed into great-power conflicts.their consequences have been monumental. for it leads sovereign states to have to prepare to defend themselves. but that now seems odious.

no longer a mechanism of historical change. In the age of nuclear deterrence. 223 . thankfully. War-driven change has been abolished as a historical process.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 223 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely – Deterrence Nuclear deterrence prevents great power G John Ikenberry Albert G. China.foreignaffairs. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order.org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/the-rise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west.html The most important benefit of these features today is that they give the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising powers. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University “The Rise of China and the Future of the West” Foreign Affairs January/February 2008 http://www. and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the existing order. greatpower war is. The fact that the United States.

but by no means the only. divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest. but he was not able to convince his contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war.30 For millennia. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated. military. Comparative Strategy 22.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been dramatic. In Edward Luttwak’s terminology. in Michael Mandelbaum’s words. that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state interaction. Mackinder and his contemporaries a century ago would hardly recognize the rules by which the world is run today—most significantly.”25 Geopolitical and geo-strategic analysis has not yet come to terms with what may be the central. wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in economic. a revolution of ideas. most significant trend of international politics: great power war. For these states. First. and ideas are often. it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily 224 . are very often forces themselves. It is unlikely that a game of nuclear “chicken” would lead to the outbreak of a major war. Others have argued that. while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational exercise.2 April 2003 p 109-129 Mackinder can be forgiven for failing to anticipate the titanic changes in the fundamental nature of the international system much more readily than can his successors. and most obviously. and clearly controversial. Second. major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each other. quite unlike their less-developed neighbors. analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next century are next to nil.” which we ignore at our peril.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments supporting this revolutionary. Angell noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were “surrendering of certain dominations.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 224 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely – International System The international system prevents war—economic. Indeed.26 John Mueller has been the most visible. Angell’s major error was one that has been repeated over and over again in the social sciences ever since—he overestimated the “rationality” of humanity. a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war could possibly bring. there is reason to believe that this normative calculation may have changed. . and a new system of incentives which all but remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient exercise. Angell recognized earlier than most that the industrialization of military technology and economic interdependence assured that the costs of a European war would certainly outweigh any potential benefits. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world. nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of the would-be aggressor. where World War III is. territory was the main object of war because it was directly related to national prestige and power. especially now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher. has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national wealth is accumulated. Increasingly. at least in the last few decades. Christopher Fettweiss. April prof security studies – naval war college. the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make today’s great powers shy away from direct conflict. and therefore power. as Dahl notes.”33 Just as advances in weaponry have increased the cost of fighting. ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed. National wealth and prestige. it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than power. .”34 The third and final argument of Angell’s successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has occurred. “a major independent variable. the shift from the industrial to the information age that seems to be gradually occurring in many advanced societies has been accompanied by a new definition of power. and that proved to be the more important factor. reach. not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences. and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases. is now obsolete. As John Keegan has argued. “somewhere between impossible and unlikely. because nuclear threats are not credible in the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers.” added John Mueller.32 The economic incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been. and ideological trends have changed. modern military technology has made major war too expensive to contemplate. are no longer directly related to territorial control. it is hard to see how nuclear war could be considered “an extension of politics by other means”—at the very least. Beliefs. civilian innovation in lieu of military–technical advancement. After the war.” where “the methods of commerce are displacing military methods—with disposable capital in lieu of firepower.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced Angell’s warnings. a recasting of patriotic ideals. rather than military. geopolitics is slowly being replaced by “geoeconomics. As early as 1986 Richard Rosecrance recognized that “two worlds of international relations” were emerging. claim. unlike their era. ideologies. seem to have reached the revolutionary conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige. encapsulated in the “globalization” metaphor so fashionable in the media and business communities.35 “Ideas.31 The intervening years have served only to strengthen the argument that the major industrial powers. The idea of war was still appealing —the normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of fighting. Today.

37 creating for the first time. a form of violence famed and fabled for centuries. states cannot fight wars if doing so does not occur to them or to their opponent. and this “autonomous power of ideas. but because it has sunk from thought as a viable. As Mueller explained. treated with crisp precision.36 The heart of this argument is the “moral progress” that has “brought a change in attitudes about international war” among the great powers of the world. or probed with deductive panache. You can’t fight a duel if the idea of doing so never occurs to you or your opponent. This normative shift has rendered war between great powers “subrationally unthinkable. “an almost universal sense that the deliberate launching of a war can no longer be justified. great power war. but today popular pressures push for peaceful resolutions to disputes between industrialized states.” to borrow Francis Fukuyama’s term. is avoided not merely because it has ceased to seem ‘necessary’. just as dueling is no longer a part of the set of options for the same classes for which it was once central to the concept of masculinity and honor. Dueling. Angell’s successors suggest that such a belief now exists in the industrial (and postindustrial) states of the world.” removed from the set of options for policy makers. the fact that major war was futile was not enough to bring about its end—people had to believe that it was futile.”38 At times leaders of the past were compelled by the masses to defend the national honor. has brought about the end of major.40 225 . As Angell discovered.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 225 /414 Nelson <tournament> measured. conscious possibility.39 By extension.

pdf) history of successful nuclear deterrence suggests that nations have indeed been in awe of nuclear weapons. once the anticipated horror of the nuclear destruction of even a single city had been realized ?2 Another of the more probable scenarios has been a use of such weapons by North Korea. 226 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 226 /414 Nuke War Not Likely – North Korea Nelson <tournament> North Korea wouldn’t Use a nuclear weapon. Spring 2005. but therewould be many complications should Pyongyang use such weapons against either. have been deterred by the prospect of their use. to many complications Quester. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. 2005 (George Quester.navy. or even the United States. even while they were intent on deterring their adversaries as well. Would the nations that have been so successfully deterred (sinceNagasaki) fromusing nuclear weapons not then be stopped in their tracks once deterrence had failed.nwc. a state perhaps not quite as Yet on the more positive note. the “undeterrable” as the suicidal pilots of 11 September 2001 but given to rational calculations that are often very difficult to sort out. This use could come in the form of a North Korean nuclear attack against Japan. South Korea. Naval War College Review. https://portal.3 The nearest targets for a North Korean nuclearweaponwould be South Korea and Japan. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005. If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken.

This system uses technology similar to the banking industry’s “chip and pin” to ensure that even if weapons fall into terrorist hands they cannot be detonated. the location of preconfigured nuclear weapons crisis deployment sites. These have been based on copying U. and the storage of the components in protected underground sites.S. or activity involving a nuclear weapon can be undertaken by fewer than two persons. These measures provide the Pakistan Army’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD)—which oversees nuclear weapons operations— a high degree of confidence in the safety and security of the country’s nuclear weapons. The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational and research institution based in the Department of Social Sciences at the West Point. c) technical and procedural safeguards. the physical separation of warhead cores from their detonation components.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel-Vol2Iss7. Pakistan makes extensive use of secrecy and deception.000 individuals from the SPD’s security division and from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI). and it also uses a rudimentary Permissive Action Link (PAL) type system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons. to its nuclear weapons infrastructure. Pakistan operates a layered concept of concentric tiers of armed forces personnel to guard nuclear weapons facilities. the Pakistan Army conducts a tight selection process drawing almost exclusively on officers from Punjab Province who are considered to have fewer links with religious extremism or with the Pashtun areas of Pakistan from which groups such as the Pakistani Taliban mainly garner their support.4 The purpose of this policy is to reduce the risk of collusion with terrorists and to prevent nuclear weapons technology getting transferred to the black market. This includes the precise location of some of the storage facilities for nuclear core and detonation components. Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau agencies are involved in the security clearance and monitoring of those with nuclear weapons duties. in practice the Pakistan Army has complete control over the country’s nuclear weapons. procedures and technologies. 227 . and against the suggestion that its nuclear weapons could be either spirited out of the country by a third party (posited to be the United States) or destroyed in the event of a deteriorating situation or a state collapse in Pakistan. Pakistan operates an analog to the U. decision. and comprise: a) physical security. Pakistan uses deception—such as dummy missiles—to complicate the calculus of adversaries and is likely to have extended this practice Taken together. In addition.ctc. inappropriate external affiliations. against its main adversary India.6 Finally. July 2009 http://www.000 and 10. The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational and research institution based in the Department of Social Sciences at the West Point. under personnel reliability programs. drug use.usma. the use of physical barriers and intrusion detectors to secure nuclear weapons facilities. between 8. and how often authenticating and enabling (PAL-type) codes are changed). and sexual deviancy. Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) that screens individuals for Islamist sympathies. It operates a tightly controlled identification system to assure the identity of those involved in the nuclear chain of command.S.pdf) Pakistan has established a robust set of measures to assure the security of its nuclear weapons. With respect to personnel reliability. 5 Despite formal command authority structures that It imposes its executive authority over the weapons through the use of an authenticating code system down through the command chains that is intended to ensure that only authorized nuclear weapons activities and operations occur. the reasons for their removal. 2009 (CTC Sentinel.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 227 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely – Pakistan Nuclear Power plants have excellent security CTC Sentinel. aspects of the nuclear command and control arrangements. 3 The army uses staff rotation and also operates a “two-person” rule under which no action. b) personnel reliability programs. personality problems. and d) deception and secrecy. Significant elements of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons infrastructure are kept a closely guarded secret.2 In terms of physical security. practices. In total.7 and many aspects of the arrangements for nuclear safety and security (such as the numbers of those removed cede a role to Pakistan’s civilian leadership. these measures provide confidence that the Pakistan Army can fully protect its nuclear weapons against the internal terrorist threat.

S. a nuclear power plant would be a tough nut to crack. In that regard. managed by Battelle. Clearly. Battelle Press. Truck bombs and armed attacks are certainly something to consider. airline crashes are not the only way for a terrorist to attack a nuclear power plant.”. they have demonstrated that they are not. Not wanting to give any terrorists alternative ideas. (Scott W. 228 . It turns out that nuclear power plants are one of the few facilities in our national infrastructure that does consider these things. it would not be a tough choice. of course. Every U. managed by Battelle 2004.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 228 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Nuclear Terror Nuclear Power plants have excellent security Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. That is not to say these wackos are afraid to die. 2004) But. nuclear power plant has a trained armed security force who is authorized to use deadly force to protect the plant. “A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity. one would assume that they do want to have a reasonable chance of successfully completing their vile mission. However. Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. but if I had a choice of going after a facility either totally unprotected or protected with only a night watchman versus a facility with a team of military capable troopers armed with automatic weapons.

is that some of the perceived horror of such weapons may be fading. People did not begin speaking about a “nuclear taboo” for a number of years after Nagasaki. A similar taboolike aversion was thought to apply to biological warfare. The longer one goes without engaging in some form of warfare. something we disapprove of. but there are also a few ways in which that state of affairs may endanger it. but one subject never touched upon is that of avoiding starvation by consuming the body of a dead comrade. The fact that the nuclear taboo is not violated decade after decade. If a six-year-old girl asks whether she could marry her brother when they grow up. of a prolongation of non-use is most probably that such non-use will be strengthened and renewed thereby. then. There have been parallel “taboos” in other areas of warfare. A taboo. that nuclear weapons are not used again in anger. taboos that have indeed been violated in the last several decades. Spring 2005. Another such taboo is. that the feeling arose that a barrier now existed to treating nuclear weapons as “just another weapon.”We instead respond simply. the stranger and less manageable that kind of conflict will seem. hardly anyone who remembers seeing the first photographs of their victims or who recalls the nuclear testing programs of the 1950s and 1960s. and the more the public and others will regard it as simply not to be contemplated.navy. perhaps suggesting. an unwelcome result of the bans on nuclear testing.”17 But in time there will be hardly anyone alive who was a victim of the 1945 attacks. be for the world to manage to keep that taboo observed and intact. It was only in the late 1950s.nwc. The only fair test of the long-term viability of the nuclear taboo would. Related. https://portal.pdf) One often hears references to a “taboo” on the use of nuclear weapons. “Your brother and you are always squabbling about your toys. of course. Air Force crews are briefed on hundreds of measures they can take to survive after a crash. is speculation as to whether a “customary international law” on the use of nuclear weapons may be said to have emerged.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (1/6) The Nuclear Taboo is to strong to break. arguably strengthens the taboo.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 229 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation . The reinforcement comes simply from the general sense that such an act must be unthinkable because no one has initiated one for so long. [Continues on next page: No text omitted] 229 . The net trend. so that ordinary human beings will be a little less primed to reject automatically the idea of such weapons being used again. but a somewhat unthinking and unchallenged conclusion that such escalation is simply out of the question . the effective prohibition was reinforced by the Geneva Protocol but observed even by states that had not yet ratified the protocol (the best example being the United States at its entry intoWorld War II). of course. after more than a decade had passed without repetition of the experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. something about which we do not weigh benefits and costs but that we simply reject. Further. Naval War College Review. simply because they have gone so long unused.We do not hear many discussions of the costs and benefits of a nuclear escalation. it is in this sense that “customary international law”is held to be settling into place by which the abstinence of other states presses our own state to abstain. her parents typically do not reason with her.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. The best example in ordinary life is the taboo on incest. but people usually have difficulty putting their finger on exactly what that means. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. 2005 (George Quester. The world for many years sensed the development of such a taboo on chemical warfare. surely you can find someone else more compatible to marry. for we do not hear of taboos on bank robberies or on murder. The entire question is just not thinkable . The taboo on nuclear weapons use that seems to have settled into place over the nearly sixty years sinceNagasaki may indeed have taken this form. A taboo surely is more than simply something we want to avoid.18 The long period since naval forces have confronted each other on the high seas (broken only by the Argentine-British war over the Falklands) may have had some similar characteristics. the longer we wait for a nuclear war the less likely it becomes Quester. refers to something that we are not willing even to think about doing. just as it seems to have been over the decades of the Cold War and its aftermath. If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken.16 How such a custom or taboo is developed and what happens to it when violated will play an important part in our assessment of what the world would be like after a new nuclear attack. intended to shield the environment and discourage horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation. the net result. by which the battlefield application of such weapons has become illegal without any international treaties being signed or ratified. though hardly identical. cannibalism.“No one marries their brother or sister!” The child quickly enough picks up the signal that this is something that is simply not done.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 230 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation . that any such use of nuclear weapons between now and 2045 would be followed by reactions and consequences that reinforced rather than eroded the taboo. of the non-use of such weapons.nwc.. and so different. pessimism may not be necessary. Naval War College Review. But analysts and ordinary citizens around the world to whom the author has put these odds typically dismiss themas too optimistic. 2005 (George Quester. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. or the United States might support the worry that people around the world have simply been repressing an unpleasant reality. If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken. https://portal. essentially that “we have not been thinking at all about the next use of nuclear weapons. to repeat.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (2/6) [Continues from previous page: No text omitted] Similarly.navy. 230 . Ordinary people and even military professionals in many countries were coming to assume that nuclear weapons were so horrible. Japan. and as a result the perpetrator did not advance its interests by such an escalation but actually lost the battles and territories that were at issue. The chances are as good as three out of five that no nuclear event will occur in the period up to the year 2045—that there is a better than even chance that the world will be commemorating a full century. that it simply made no sense to think of even acquiring them. but we think that you are too optimistic about such use being avoided. Indeed. since Nagasaki. the response has often been a bit bizarre. the world’s resistance to the proliferation of nuclear weapons has at times seemed to be mobilizing a widespread popular feeling that a taboo or “customary international law”was developing on proliferation as well. refusing to think about a very real danger. Yet the possibility remains that the relative inattention is not simply a repression of reality but rather a manifestation of the unthinkableness of nuclear weapons use One could also introduce another wedge of hope. That would be the case if the world did not retreat in the face of such use but rallied to punish it. Spring 2005.” Such responses in Israel.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005. Sweden. If a nuclear weapon was use countries would rally against the nation preventing retaliation Quester.pdf) This entire question might seem the more interesting at first to those who are pessimistic about future risks and who might thus regard speculation about an end to the nuclear taboo as overdue . Yet. since analysis of the likely consequences of nuclear escalation might stimulate governments and publics to head it off. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.

the United States and other nuclear powers have consistently voted against these. International Security 29. and the private moral concerns of individual decisionmakers. not a legal. Director of the International Relations Programs at Brown Unviersity. this belief is not entirely detached from reality . uses of nuclear weapons are illegal under the traditional laws of armed conflict. then this could affect their choices and behavior. and behavior. and use.S. while the legality of nuclear weapons remains in dispute. the taboo is a de facto. there is by no means agreement that all uses of nuclear weapons are illegal.e.g. Together. shifts in NATO policy. as required by the UN charter. political declarations by the nuclear powers that they will not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are members of the NPT).4tannenwald. 2005 (Nina Tannenwald. In the words of sociologists William and Dorothy Thomas. legal analyses have repeatedly defended the legality of use of nuclear weapons as long as it was for defensive and not aggressive purposes. Although one might be skeptical that this is just empty rhetoric. Although resolutions passed in the UN General Assembly and other international forums have repeatedly proclaimed the use of nuclear weapons as illegal.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 231 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation .jhu. and negative security assurances (i. 20 Nevertheless. the diplomatic statements of governments and leaders. they are real in their consequences. U. legal use has been gradually chipped away through incremental restrictions—an array of treaties and regimes that together circumscribe the realm of legitimate nuclear use and restrict freedom of action with respect to nuclear weapons. This includes public opinion. proliferation. 231 . "If men define situations as real. Director of the International Relations Programs at Brown Unviersity.html#authbio) The nuclear taboo. he denuclearization of the army and marines. As a systemic phenomenon. however.. There is no explicit international legal prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons such as exists for. Stigmatizing the Bomb. Political and military leaders themselves began using the term to refer to this normative perception starting in the early 1950s. if not most. the taboo exists at the collective level of the international community (represented especially by the United Nations). If actors see the use of nuclear weapons as if it were a taboo. As noted earlier. although increasing agreement exists that many.."18 This subjective (and intersubjective) sense of "taboo-ness" is one of the factors that makes the tradition of nuclear nonuse a taboo rather than simply a norm. bilateral and multilateral arms control agreements. even when. also has an intersubjective or a phenomenological aspect: it is a taboo because people believe it to be. a tradition of nonuse hardly existed. The most obvious evidence lies in discourse—the way people talk and think about nuclear weapons—and how this has changed since 1945. and by the changing policies of states that downgrade the role of nuclear weapons (e. chemical weapons. objectively. The discourse evidence is supplemented both by international law and agreements that restrict freedomof action with respect to nuclear weapons. As the inhibition on use has developed over time. it has taken on more taboo-like qualities—unthinkingness and taken-for-grantedness. say. these agreements enhance the normative presumption against nuclear use.edu/journals/international_security/v029/29. institutions. the resolutions of international organizations. norm. These agreements include nuclear weapons-free zones. domestic practice.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (3/6) Tannenwald.4 (2005) 5-49.S. 19 As the 1996 World Court advisory opinion on the issue confirmed. Evidence for the taboo lies in discourse. as their rhetoric suggests. the trend line of decreasing legitimacy and circumscribed legality is clear. and the buildup of conventional alternatives).21 Many of these legal constraints have been incorporated into U. where they are reflected in constraints on deployments and targeting. 2005. they substantially increase the burden of proof for any such decision. http://muse. arms control. but this need not mean that all countries have internalized it to the same degree. By multiplying the number of forums where a decision to use nuclear weapons would have to be defended. 22 Thus.

Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security. The latter arose as a response to a realization of the danger or the unforeseeable consequences involved in nuclear war. This means a nuclear state may not use its ultimate capability unless a threshold is crossed (e. It is also used to the extent that both social and nuclear taboos are based on the fear of consequences of a given course of action. 232 . Secretary of State John Foster Dulles initially used the term taboo to describe the prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons.g. Decision makers and the public at large in most nuclear-weapon states believe that great danger is involved in the use of nuclear weapons with respect to casualties and aftereffects. 39 No. have desisted from their use. which.S..99. what makes atomic weapons different is a powerful tradition for their nonuse. the main reason for the uniqueness of nuclear weapons is the perception that they are unique and that once introduced into combat. unless the survival of the state itself is threatened). Dulles was in favor of developing usable nuclear weapons to obtain the battlefield military objectives of the United States. 1953. makes it imperative that the possessor will not use them against another state except as a last-resort weapon. Breaking the taboo could bring the revulsion of generations to come unless it were for an issue of extremely vital importance-a situation that thus far has failed to materialize. the tradition of nonuse has been characterized by many scholars as equivalent to a taboo (e.V.4 Clearly. In his words. On October 7. even when they could have received major tactical and strategic gains by using nuclear weapons.. the difference is in the perception of the impact." Although prolonged conventional war can also cause somewhat similar levels of destruction. Not surprisingly. Schelling popularized the concept of a tradition of nonuse in his writings in the 1960s. normative. 110) argued. the nuclear taboo has developed largely as a function of the awesome destructive power of atomic weapons. "a jointly recognized expectation that they may not be used in spite of declarations of readiness to use them. confined. 4) These stringent definitions of social taboos may not be fully applicable in the nuclear context. 249). Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security. Vol.g. nuclear states. even in spite of tactical advantages in their use" (Schelling 1980.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (4/6) Nuclear weapons won’t be used even if it’s in their best interest Paul. or limited. in both psychological and physical terms. In this context. A tradition in this respect is based on a habit or disposition that prevents the use of nuclear weapons as a serious option for consideration by decision makers. 260). However. The swiftness with which destruction can take place is the distinguishing point in this respect. Hoffmann 1966. and rational constraints involved in the use of nuclear weapons and their possible role in the formation and evolution of the taboo U. the term taboo is used in its figurative and loose sense-as an unwritten and uncodified prohibitionary norm against nuclear use. in turn. The analysis in this article elaborates on the moral. Paul. Schelling 1980. restrained. December 1995.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 232 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation . they could not be "contained. he was reported to have said: "Somehow or other we must manage to remove the taboo from the use of these weapons" (quoted in Bundy 1988. The potential for total destruction gives nuclear weapons an all-ornothing characteristic unlike any other weapon invented so far. JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION.3 As Schelling (1994. 260). 1995 (T. legal. Nuclear Taboo and War Initiation in Regional Conflicts.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 233 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation . with the Soviet attainment of nuclear and missile capability in the early 1960s. The crisis underlined the dangers of atomic posturing to the point of perma. Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security. it began with the revulsion and the fear that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks engendered in the consciousness of the public and political leadership. The Cuban missile crisis further showed the perils of a crisis spilling over to a possible nuclear war. 185). In the United States. 50). JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION. Russia. arising from the awareness that effective defenses against a nuclear attack do not exist. and Israel-have found no occasion to use them.V. Paul. 4) The taboo has been observed by all nuclear and opaque-nuclear states thus far. 185). France. Since then. even the cold war wasn’t enough to prompt their use Paul. 39 No.nently discrediting this kind of atomic diplomacy (Bundy 1984. the taboo or the tradition of nonuse became well entrenched despite many urgings by military and political leaders to break it during times of intense crises. The Vietnam War saw the entrenchment of the tradition of nonuse of nuclear weapons. the United Kingdom. China. each passing decade saw the strengthening of this tradition. Possibly. It was observed in the 1950s and 1960s when the United States could have gained major tactical and strategic objectives against its adversaries. Nuclear Taboo and War Initiation in Regional Conflicts. December 1995. The American unwillingness to use them in Korea and Vietnam to obtain military victory and the Soviet refrain from using them to avert defeat in Afghanistan suggest the entrenchment of the taboo among the superpowers even during the peak of the cold war period . Although the fear of nuclear weapons had been somewhat removed by the end of the 1940s. may have contributed to the development of the nuclear taboo. 35. Vol.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (5/6) Super Powers recognize the importance of not breaking the nuclear taboo. Weart 1988). This sense of vulnerability. In 1969. India.5 The Chinese aversion to using them against the Vietnamese to obtain victory in the 1979 war also point out that other nuclear powers have observed the taboo. Nations with different ideological and political systems and military traditions-the United States. and the experience of over four decades "has more firmly established a de facto norm of non-use" (Russett 1989. 1995 (T. Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security.son 1990. 587-8). a sense of renewed vulnerability began to creep into the American public perception (Malcolm. pointing toward the emergence of a global "recognition that nuclear weapons are unusable across much of the range of traditional military and political interests" (Russett 1989.6 233 . President Nixon "could not make the nuclear threat in Vietnam that he believed he had seen Eisenhower use successfully in Korea" (Bundy 1988. 8.

Neighboring states that may be neutral or aligned with the nuclear state could be the victims of a nuclear attack as well. 234 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 234 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation . The fear that. the capacity to destroy may not be useful. There exists no guarantee that aftereffects such as the spread of radioactive debris could be confined to the target state's territory. the effects of nuclear attack may be beyond the local area of attack but could have wider effects. or psychologically worth obtaining if it involves the destruction of all or a sizable segment of an enemy's population and results in the contamination of a large portion of the territory with radio-active debris. 4) The taboo was also likely to have been strengthened by a rational calculation that military victory following a nuclear attack may not be materially. once unleashed. spatially and temporally (Lee 1993. as the relation between the power to harm and the power to modify the behavior of others is not linear (Jervis 1984. Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security. 18). December 1995. 39 No. Paul.V. Additionally.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (6/6) A nuclear victory would have to many consequences for their use Paul. Nuclear Taboo and War Initiation in Regional Conflicts. Thus the tradition must have emerged largely from the realization by nuclear states that there are severe limits to what a state can accomplish by actually using a nuclear weapon (Gaddis 1992. Vol. 1995 (T. politically. It also implies that after a certain point. Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security. 23). 21). JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION. nuclear terror could escape meaningful political and military control and physical limitation may have influenced decision makers' choices in this regard.

235 . but the nation-state itself. probably the most pretentious (witness its title) and flawed of these books. Schell's proposal. the extant scientific knowledge would always allow a nation to reconstruct this ultimate weapon. that is. but few should contest Schell's sincerity in explicitly raising the profoundly moral issues that have too long been neglected in the ethically sterile discussions that have characterized mainstream nuclear doctrine. No cause. for any life. Similarly. Kinsley. to build clandestine nuclear weapons and thus begin the nuclear arms race towards extinction once again. Schell forces the reader to confront these issues directly. He openly acknowledges that "the task we face is to find a means of political action that will permit human beings to pursue any end for the rest of time. His examples of a thermonuclear holocaust are no more graphic. the abandonment of national sovereignty and perhaps individual liberties as a means of retreating from the nuclear precipice. Whether Schell is right or wrong in assuming his high moral ground is the normative prerogative and judgment of the individual reader. The fundamental culprit to Schell's way of thinking is not Zuckerman's dedicated nuclear engineer nor Ivan the Targeteer. past an immediate nuclear freeze. can relieve us of that burden. Schell has the courage of his conviction to realize where his positions will take him." but he surely could not disavow such a position. to rely on conventional weapons to preserve national sovereignty is to invite a nation to cheat.pdf Lastly. at the very worst. he avers.. 1 (Mar. 226). We are asked to replace the mechanism by which the political decisions. nor is his litany of secondary effects (e. 1982) have claimed that Schell has no right to impose his set of values on the body politic. But it is also the most important. it has served as the catalyst of the antinuclear movement.g.. And this. he argues. No.although better written-than are those of other authors. is better than no life. are reached.jstor. But. But these are just preliminary groundwork to Schell's main thesis-that mankind's major obligation is to its future and the "fact" that nuclear war literally destroys whatever future may exist. one turns to Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth. Schell does not actually say "better red than dead. pp. in spite of his grandiose style of writing. however. the task is nothing less than to reinvent politics" (p. is why this book warrants careful attention. 181-189 http://www. for in many ways. that even with a nuclear disarmament treaty.g.. 1983). the effects on the food chain and the possible depletion of the earth's ozone layer) any more convincing. Perhaps. In sum. Vol.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 235 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Schell Schell’s views on policy are flawed and impossible to achieve Review: Freeze: The Literature of the Nuclear Weapons Debate Author(s): Peter deLeon he Journal of Conflict Resolution. He admits that the nuclear weapons demon cannot be put back in the bottle. Schell probably does not expect to have his thesis accepted uncritically. is some form of functioning world government. he admits his data are open to wide variation and interpretation. 27. Some (e.org/stable/pdfplus/173847. given his "evidence" and logic. whatever they may be.

and it cannot be reinforced by the nonoccurrence of a nuclear holocaust.zero probability and minus infinity is minus infinity. because it might merely serve to generate numb passivity or avoidance of the entire issue. we can try to get a large audience for Schell's book. of humankind is thereby placed in doubt. or the larger but more delayed of two punishers. However. by the species. 95). as Schell points out. The choice correctly posed and evaluated by Schell is structurally identical to Pascal's wager on the existence of God. which bring at least some of the future aspects of the first alternative into the present. smaller-scale. while giving repeated exposure to both outcomes. to the second alternative-survival. including open discussion. Another method is to train the subjects to make an early "commitment" response that precludes access to one of the choices later. its value-the termination of life -is minus infinity. We can also expose all people. 349-353 NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER) Schell relies primarily on rational argument. Much more immediate and local reinforcers such as societal approval. then. which (as noted above) is a strikingly potent stimulus. Political support for disarmament is on the rise. the commitment response must be continuous. more delayed reward (or the lesser but more immediate punisher) is to adjust the delay values gradually. nonviolent protest. A rational calculus suggests that although the probability of nuclear extinction may be small. which has an expected utility of plus infinity despite the possibly infinitesimal probability that belief in God is necessary and sufficient for eternal life. University of New Hampshire. access to political office. because that nonevent will always be equally well correlated with pursuit of the arms race until the holocaust occurs. molecular events. to instigate and maintain behavior that is compatible with the second alternative. of the first alternative-continuation of the arms race-is therefore entirely consistent with laboratory data . Likewise. to stimuli correlated with nuclear warfare such as pictures of the burned and dying and dead at Hiroshima. As a warning of imminent disaster and a motivator of action. 236 . but of course this method is ruled out by the nature of the nuclear dilemma. because the methods for making them are well known and cannot be unlearned. However. Our current choice. I fear that Schell's calculus will not make converts to disarmament-choice behavior depends not on rational calculation but on experienced events. Clearly. and the product of any non. we can never really preclude access to nuclear weapons. as a species. the choice is clear (Schell. We need. 82 JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR ON RESISTING EXTINCTION: A REVIEW OF JONATHAN SCHELL'S THE FATE OF THE EARTH' JOHN A. p. everywhere. The problem now is to identify events and contingencies that will foster sustained commitment.forced if it is to be maintained through the protracted negotiations and rearrangements of international politics that will be required. In terms of relative expected utility. and political action that opposes the momentum of the arms race and leads to disarmament. Perhaps the problem is best approached by invoking more immediate. The entire system of sovereign nation-states is therefore a dangerous relic of prenuclear times and must be abandoned. Laboratory work on commitment and self-control suggests that humans and animals will usually choose the smaller but more immediate of two rewards. as hundreds of thousands of people in many countries have rallied to demonstrate their opposition to the threat of nuclear war. For example. in addition. But Pascal's rational argument never made converts-faith appears to derive from certain immediate experiences.One significant event that can be experienced by any reader is exposure to Schell's book itself. such behavior must be rein. and films showing the awesome power of nuclear test explosions. NEVIN UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE1982. 38. Can knowledge from the laboratory help us switch over to the second alternative? One way in which animals can be trained to choose the larger. even in his own case. it is supremely effective in arousing concern and activating behavior. and economic well-being will be necessary. we have witnessed some of the requisite behavior during this year. to their own long-term detriment.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 236 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Schell Schell’s rationality argument contradicts with human nature Nevin. But this is not sufficient.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 237 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AT: Schell
Society won’t react to warning about nuclear war, disproving Schell’s argument Nevin 82
JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR ON RESISTING EXTINCTION: A REVIEW OF JONATHAN SCHELL'S THE FATE OF THE EARTH' JOHN A. NEVIN UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE1982, 38, 349-353 NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER) It is impossible not to acknowledge the power of Schell's presentation, but its very power may lead to two further problems. First, his account of Armageddon generates strong aversive emotional reactions, and we know

from the study of negative reinforcement that such stimuli strengthen behavior that removes them. The orienting-response literature also suggests that organisms will orient away from cues that signal aversive events. We are, therefore, likely to turn away from warnings of nuclear warfare and engage in other activities. Second, the ultimate horror that Schell portrays is widely regarded as inevitable. The arms race is often said to possess a sort of impersonal momentum, like a massive object that rolls on inexorably, regardless of our actions; and certainly the recent history of negotiations to control the arms race, conducted by people who are well aware of its potential ultimate outcome, does nothing to reassure us. In
the laboratory, uncontrollable aversive events have been shown to produce a state of inactivity termed helplessness. Taken

together, the history of uncontrollability of the arms race, the aversiveness of our reactions to warnings of
nuclear warfare, and the lack of correlation of such warnings with experienced events would seem to explain the absence of effective privateaction (thinking) to analyze the problem or overt behavior to effect disarmament. This combination of factors may be responsible for what Robert Jay Lifton has termed "psychic
numbing," a refusal to confront the threat of universal death that hangs over our heads like an executioner's sword. How can we approach the absence of relevant action-the refusal to look up at the sword and do something to blunt it or prevent it from falling-from a behavioral perspective? Consider an analogy. If we saw a person afflicted with a potentially fatal disease, taking daily doses of an addictive drug that gave temporary relief from distress but in addition exacerbated the disease, we would diagnose the behavior as maladaptive. Appealing to this person to exercise "self-control" would not be likely to have much effect. If this person became our client, we would immediately regulate access to the drug and take steps to eliminate its use, while at the same time arranging a program of behavioral therapy to maintain abstinence when treatment ended. Schell suggests that human society, living as it does under the constant threat

of self-imposed termination while using its economic resources to build more instruments of universal death in the name of security, is like this client-"insane," in Schell's words. Immediate therapy is essential. However, our society is both client and therapist. Consequently, we are enmeshed in a problem, at the level of society and species, that parallels the problem of "self-control" at the level of the individual. Schell poses the choice facing humanity in terms very close to the laboratory study of selfcontrol:

237

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 238 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**IMPACT TAKEOUTS**

238

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 239 /414

Nelson <tournament>

AT: Giligan
Violence is too deeply entrenched into our society to end poverty, even Gilligan concedes Alvarez, Professor in the department of criminal justice at Northern Arizona University and Bachman, Professor and Chair of the Sociology and Criminal Justice Department at the University of Delware 2007
(Alex Alvarez, Professor in the department of criminal justice at Northern Arizona University and Ronet Bachman, Professor and Chair of the Sociology and Criminal Justice Department at the University of Delware, 2007 Violence: the enduring problem Chapter 1 ,Pg. 19-20, http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/17422_Chapter_1.pdf

We also worry about violence constantly, and change our behavior in response to perceived threats of violence. We avoid certain parts of town, add security features to our homes, and vote for “get tough” laws in order to protect ourselves from violent offenders. At the time this chapter was written, Americans were fighting in
Iraq and Afghanistan and news reports were full of fallen soldiers, car bombings, torture of prisoners, and beheadings of

hostages. In short, whether domestically or internationally, violence is part and parcel of American life. In fact, the sociologists Peter Iadicola and Anson Shupe assert that violence is the “overarching problem of our age” and suggest that every social problem is influenced by the problem of violence.47 James Gilligan, a medical doctor who directed the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School, put it this way: The more I learn about other people’s lives, the more I realize that I have yet to hear the history of any family in which there has not been at least one family member who has been overtaken by fatal or life threatening violence ,
as the perpetrator or the victim—whether the violence takes the form of suicide or homicide, death in combat, death from a drunken or reckless driver, or any other of the many nonnatural forms of death.48 So it’s safe to say that

violence is not foreign to us, but rather is something with which we rub shoulders constantly.We know violence through our own lived experiences and the experiences of our family, friends, and neighbors, as well as through the media images we view. At a deeper level, this means that our identities as citizens, parents, children, spouses, lovers, friends, teammates, and colleagues are often shaped by violence, at least in part. Who we are as individuals and as human beings is shaped by the culture within which we live.How we define ourselves, the ways in which we relate to others, and our notions of what we stand for and what we believe in, are all determined in large part by the influences and experiences of our lives—or, as the great
English Poet Alfred Lord Tennyson once wrote, “I am a part of all that I have met.”49 In a similar vein, although a bit less poetically, the sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann suggest, “Identity is a phenomenon that emerges from the dialectic between individual and society.”50 In short, our life experiences shape who we are. Therefore, if violence

is a part of our reality, then it plays a role in shaping us as human beings and influences how we understand the world around us. To acknowledge this is to understand that violence is part of who we are and central to knowing ourselves and the lives we lead. Because of this prevalence and its impact on our lives, some have suggested that Americans have created and embraced a culture of violence . Culture is a
nebulous concept that includes values, beliefs, and rules for behavior. These qualities detail what is expected, what is valued, and what is prohibited.51 Essentially, then, this argument contends that our history and experiences have resulted in a system of values and beliefs that, to a greater extent than in some other cultures, condones, tolerates, and even expects a violent response to various and specific situations.52 Other scholars have further developed this theme by arguing that, instead of a culture of violence in the United States, there are subcultures of violence specific to particular regions or groups. First articulated by the criminologists Wolfgang and Ferracuti, this viewpoint suggests that members of some groups are more likely to rely on violence. As they suggest Quick resort to physical combat as a measure of daring, courage, or defense of status appears to be a cultural expectation . . . When such a cultural response is elicited from an individual engaged in social interplay with others who harbor the same response mechanism, physical assaults, altercations, and violent domestic quarrels that result in homicide are likely to be relatively common.53 This argument has been applied to various subcultural groups such as Southerners, young African American males, and others.54 The South historically has had much higher rates of violence than other regions of the country and many have suggested that it is a consequence of Southern notions of honor that demand a violent response to certain provocations. The argument suggests that Southern culture, in other words, is more

239

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 240 /414

Nelson <tournament>

violence prone than other regional cultures. Violence, then, is something that appears to be embedded in our values and attitudes, which is why some have suggested that violence is “as American as apple pie.”55

240

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 241 /414 Extinction Impossible

Nelson <tournament>

It is impossible to kill all humans. Schilling 00 But others have pointed out that the human animal (as opposed to human civilization) would be almost impossible to kill off at this point. People have become too widespread and too capable, a few pockets of individuals would find ways to survive almost any conceivable nuclear war or ecological collapse. These survivors would be enough to fully repopulate the Earth in a few thousand years – and another technological civilization would be a precedent. Maybe this will happen many times A nuclear war would only kill hundreds of thousands of people. It is defiantly survivable and the impact is not huge. Brian Martin Formal training in physics, with a PhD from Sydney University, 2002 (“Activism after nuclear war,”
http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2002/Martin_ActivismNuclearWar.html)

In the event of nuclear war, as well as death and destruction there will be serious political consequences. Social activists should be prepared. The confrontation between Indian and Pakistani governments earlier this year showed that military use of nuclear weapons is quite possible. There are other plausible scenarios. A US military attack against Iraq could lead Saddam Hussein to release chemical or biological weapons, providing a trigger for a US nuclear strike. Israeli nuclear weapons might also be unleashed. Another possibility is accidental nuclear war. Paul Rogers in his book Losing Control says that the risk of nuclear war has increased due to proliferation, increased emphasis on nuclear war-fighting, reduced commitment to arms control (especially by the US government) and Russian reliance on nuclear arms as its conventional forces disintegrate. A major nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions of people. But less catastrophic outcomes are possible. A limited exchange might kill "only" tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Use of nuclear "bunker-busters" might lead to an immediate death toll in the thousands or less.

Humanity is resilient: extinction is highly unlikely.
Bruce Tonn, Futures Studies Department, Corvinus University of Budapest, 2005, “Human Extinction Scenarios,” www.budapestfutures.org/ downloads/abstracts/Bruce% 20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdf) The human species faces numerous threats to its existence. These include global climate change, collisions with nearearth objects, nuclear war, and pandemics. While these threats are indeed serious, taken separately they fail to describe exactly how humans could become extinct. For example, nuclear war by itself would most likely fail to kill everyone on the planet, as strikes would probably be concentrated in the northern hemisphere and the Middle East, leaving populations in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand some hope of survival. It is highly unlikely that any uncontrollable nanotechnology could ever be produced but even it if were, it is likely that humans could develop effective, if costly, countermeasures, such as producing the technologies in space or destroying sites of runaway nanotechnologies with nuclear weapons. Viruses could indeed kill many people but effective quarantine of a healthy people could be accomplished to save large numbers of people. Humans appear to be resilient to extinction with respect to single events.

241

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 242 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Nuclear War
The chance of a nuclear war is just as likely as it was a half century ago.
Daily Newscaster November 15, 2008 (“World conflict brewing but nuclear war unlikely,” http://74.125.47.132/search? q=cache:SLntzFWp_iEJ:www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/11/15/world-conflict-brewing-but-nuclear-war-unlikely/ +"World+conflict+brewing+but+nuclear+war+unlikely"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) In August, oilgeopolitical expert F.W. Engdahl wrote, “The signing on August 14th of an agreement between the governments of the United States and Poland to deploy on Polish soil US ‘interceptor missiles’ is the most dangerous move towards nuclear war the world has seen since the 1962 Cuba Missile crisis.” Now, I don’t like being in a position

where I have to contradict the leading analyst of the New World Order, but there is no chance we are any closer to a nuclear war than we were in the 1950s, 1962, or any time in the last 58 years . I can’t speak for Mr.
Engdahl but most NWO conspiracy theorists expect a depopulation event to rid the planet of 5 billion useless eaters. The Illuminati, they say, need only 500 million of us for slaves when they take over the world. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there couldn’t be a depopulation event before 2012 but a nuclear war is not in the cards. Nuclear World War III

would make too much of the planet uninhabitable and that would include the One World governors as well as the 500 million humans they need for slaves. Think about it: why haven’t we had a nuclear accident since the 50s? Where is Dr. Strangelove or some insane Air Force General Jack D. Ripper who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union or how about just a plain f— up? If things can go wrong, they will go wrong and the U.S. government or any nuclear power are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

242

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 243 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Biological Attack Not Probable
Biological Warfare wouldn’t cause widespread death Ropeik & Gray, Writers, 02
David Ropeik, George M. Gray, A Practical Guide for Deciding What’s Really Safe and What’s Really Dangerous in the World Around You, 2002, Pg. 186, Books.Google.com Fortunately, carrying out an attack with biological agents which kills large numbers of people is difficult. Distributing these pathogens in a way that exposes large numbers of people is not simple. You don’t just brew up some deadly germs in a lab and go somewhere and shake them out of a jar. For most biological weapons to reach more than just a few people, they have to be dispersed in the air. To accomplish that, the agent has to be dried, then ground up or “milled” into tiny particles that can remain airborne for days, and in some cases further treated to control clumping. These steps take time, money, special equipment, and expertise. They also require sophisticated protective clothing, filters, and containment equipment if the people who want to use them as weapons don’t want to become their own first victims. The Japanese terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo, before its Tokyo subway attack with the nerve gas sarin, attempted several attacks with botulinum toxin, anthrax, and other agents but couldn’t manage to cause a single death. And the 2001 mailborne anthrax attacks in the United States demonstrated how difficult it is to use even potent “weaponized” agents to kill more than a small number of people. .

243

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 244 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Indo-Pak
Indo-Pak nuclear conflict unlikely. The Michigan Daily ‘02
(“Experts say nuclear war still unlikely,” http://www.michigandaily.com/content/experts-say-nuclear-war-still-unlikely) University political science Prof. Ashutosh Varshney becomes animated when asked about the likelihood of nuclear war between India and Pakistan. "Odds are close to zero," Varshney said forcefully, standing up to pace a little bit in his office. "The assumption that India and Pakistan cannot manage their nuclear arsenals as well as the

U.S.S.R. and U.S. or Russia and China concedes less to the intellect of leaders in both India and Pakistan than would be warranted." The world"s two youngest nuclear powers first tested weapons in 1998, sparking fear of subcontinental nuclear war a fear Varshney finds ridiculous. "The decision makers are aware of what nuclear weapons are, even if the masses are not," he said. "Watching the evening news, CNN, I think they have vastly overstated the threat of nuclear war," political science Prof. Paul Huth said. Varshney added that there are numerous factors working against the possibility of nuclear war. "India is committed to a nofirst-strike policy," Varshney said. "It is virtually impossible for Pakistan to go for a first strike, because the retaliation would be gravely dangerous." Political science Prof. Kenneth Lieberthal, a former special assistant to President Clinton at the National Security Council, agreed. "Usually a country that is in the position that Pakistan is in would not shift to a level that would ensure their total destruction," Lieberthal said, making note of India"s considerably larger nuclear arsenal. "American intervention is another reason not to expect nuclear war," Varshney said. " If anything has happened since September 11, it is that the command control system has strengthened. The trigger is in very safe hands." But the low probability of nuclear war does not mean tensions between the two countries who have fought three wars since they were created in 1947 will not erupt. "The possibility of
conventional war between the two is higher. Both sides are looking for ways out of the current tension," Lieberthal said.

244

and an attack against Iran could inflame U. their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. "The threat from Iran is. all of them are unattractive. saying the small-scale enrichment project was strictly for research and not for development of nuclear weapons. Col. I made it clear. But he suggested the hint of military strikes is more of a public show to Iran and the public than a feasible option. a Pennsylvania State University professor who studies U.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 245 /414 Nelson <tournament> Iran The US won’t have a have a nuclear war with Iran.'' 245 .S. U.S. Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States of any other country in the world. a serious threat. foreign policy.S. Security Council has demanded Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program. in essence. of course. to a strong alliance." the president said last month in Cleveland. The U. It's a threat to world peace." he said. it's a threat. forces already are preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan. that we will use military might to protect our ally. I'll make it clear again. But Iran has so far refused to halt its nuclear activity. Defense experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and complicated.S. he has defended his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and other enemies. said it would be no surprise that the Pentagon has contingency plans for a strike on Iran. Mark Ballesteros would not comment Sunday on reports of military planning for Iran. military never comments on contingency planning. problems in the Muslim world. "That's a threat. And while he has stressed that diplomacy is always preferable. Stephen Cimbala." Cimbala said. too risky. "The U.'' Pentagon spokesman Lt.N. "If you look at the military options. "Either because they won't work or because they have side effects where the cure is worse than the disease.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 246 /414 Nelson <tournament> **IMPACT CALCULUS** 246 .

tend to be overestimated. rather than mere debility. say. The tendency to overestimate the dramatic comes into play with outcome-evaluation.exaggerating the badness of the bad and the goodness of the good. “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983 But while there is room for (perfectly legitimate) differences from person to person. 83 Nicholas Rescher. And such psychological tendencies as are involved with familiarity. Hazards involving threats that are particularly striking or dramatic -. can all foster unrealism in appraising negativities. People frequently tend to inflate “extreme” outcomes -.leading to death. University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy. while risks of a commonplace. it is clear that when these go too far there also arises a significant prospect of impropriety and exaggeration. of Philosophy. ~ 247 . or likely to take more rather then fewer lives -. understanding. undramatic nature whose eventuations are no less serious tend to be underestimated. Prof. etc. The perceived value of an outcome may prove to be widely off the mark of any realistic estimate of its actual value. dread.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 247 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts Exaggerated (1/2) The threat of huge impacts is often exaggerated Rescher. Our psychological capacity for imagination may run riot. We tend to overrate the positivity of imagination-projected boons and negativity of imagination-projected hazards: anticipated tragedies often do not prove to be all that awful. Our perception of the magnitude of risks tends to be distorted by the structure of our anxieties.

''4° The other side of the coin is that people tend to underestimate systematically the relative probability of -.as for example: -. “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983 In risk assessment one is often inclined -.probabilistically multiplicative events (i. undramatic (though often inherently important events) -.humdrum. and to overestimate the eventuation of low-probability events. it is difficult to convince oneself that a particularly feared disaster may be extremely unlikely. 38 In particular. twice shy syndrome''). Homicides were incorrectly thought to be more frequent than diabetes and stomach cancer. those whose eventuation involves the complex concatenation of many circumstances) -. Even in the best of circumstances.4' Interesting misjudgments come to light through these data. of Philosophy. those whose eventuation can be realized along various different routes) The operation of such principles means.particularly those that have actually occurred in past experience in some memorable way (the “once bitten.even reassuring statements by technical experts designed to establish their improbability -.chance events that have failed to occur for a long time (the MQnte Carlo Fallacy) The first of these phenomena is particularly significant. Indeed a systematic bias emerges -.or even constrained to resort to subjective probabilities.relatively frequent or familiar events -probabilistically additive events (i. and when this is done. These can sometimes be checked against the objectively measurable facts.39 -. tornadoes.relatively rare events -.to overestimate the more unusual and dramatic low-frequency causes of death and to underestimate the more commonplace. whereas diseases actually take about fifteen times as many lives. Then too there is the tendency to exaggerate the likelihood of wished-for consummations. Prof. certain common fallacies come to light. people tend to overestimate systematically the relative probability of certain sorts of eventuations -. 83 Nicholas Rescher.striking or dramatic or particularly dreaded outcomes (large gains or losses) -.appears to have the effect of increasing their preceived likelihood by enchancing the apprehension of their reality. mocked by Adam Smith when he spoke of “that majority activated by the absurd presumption in their own good fortunes. Homicides were also judged to be about as frequent as stroke. This unrealism greatly hampers profitable discussion of low-probability hazards. 248 . and pregnancy (including childbirth and abortion) was also greatly over-estimated. accidents were judged to cause as many deaths as diseases. among other things.. Any discussion or consideration of possible disasters -..Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 248 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts Exaggerated (2/2) Low probability scenarios are often exaggerated as important high probability scenarios are forgotten Rescher. The incidence of death from botulism.e. For example. that people incline to underestimate the eventuation of highprobability events. although the latter actually claims about 11 times as many lives. University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy.e.

as the old precept has it: there is no need to bother with trifles. Livy called poisonings of enemies "secret crimes. Any action could potentially have devastating impacts. The latter tend to take the view that small probabilities represent extremely remote prospects and can be written off. then. If you breakfasted on grains (even organic ones). Your cereal with milk may have been contaminated by mold toxins. Now numbers between zero and one can get to be very small indeed: As N gets bigger. often as not. 1/N will grow very. Your cup of coffee included twenty-six compounds known to be mutagenic: if coffee were synthesized in the laboratory. The former take the line that small numbers are small numbers and must be taken into account as such. 99 Jessica Stern. Evaluated First (1/2) Probability should be evaluated before magnitude Rescher. these worst possible outcomes are wildly improbable (and sometimes do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). 249 . including the deadly aflatoxin found in peanuts. And your eggs may have contained benzene. Your breakfast increased your risk of cancer. 83 Nicholas Rescher. but public perception of risk seems to depend on other variables: there is little correlation between objective risk and public dread. Although both margarine and butter appear to contribute to heart disease. is one to do about extremely small probabilities in the rational management of risks? On this issue there is a systemic disagreement between probabilists working in mathematics or natural science and decision theorists who work on issues relating to human affairs. The worst threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing that.hup." But why do poisons evoke such dread? This question has long puzzled political scientists and historians.) When something is about as probable as it is that a thousand fair dice when tossed a thousand times will all come up sixes. but it is emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard. Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former National Security Council Member “The Ultimate Terrorists” 1999 http://www. you were exposed to serious risks at nearly every stage of your progression from bed to the office. Most people are more worried about the risks of nuclear power plants than the risks of driving to work. When you got up this morning. and many of these are more harmful than synthetic pesticide residues.html Poisons have always been seen as unacceptably cruel. the frame gives way. Examining possible reasons for this discrepancy will help us understand why the thought of terrorists with access to nuclear. The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about risk in real-life situations. so it is held. Fellow at CFR." considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. but we don’t evaluate them because of the low probability Stern. and milk. Even lying in bed exposed you to serious hazards: 1 in 400 Americans is injured each year while doing nothing but lying in bed or sitting in a chair--because the headboard collapses. University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy. the FDA would probably ban it as a cancercausing substance. Your risk of suffering a lethal accident in your bathtub or shower was one in a million. or malnutrition.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 249 /414 Nelson <tournament> Prob.harvard.edu/features/steult/excerpt. corn. What. you exposed yourself to dangerous toxins: plants produce their own natural pesticides to fight off fungi and herbivores." Cicero referred to poisoning as "an atrocity. One answer is that people's perceptions of risk often do not match reality: that what we dread most is often not what actually threatens us most. another known carcinogen. and evoke disproportionate fear. of Philosophy. and biological weapons fills us with dread. depending on what you ate. Prof. where we may well be prepared "to take our chances. “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983 A probability is a number between zero and one. obesity. and more alarmed by the prospect of terrorists with chemical weapons than by swimming in a pool. or another such failure occurs. chemical. The crux in risk deliberations is not the issue of loss "if worst comes to worst" but the potential acceptability of this prospect within the wider framework of the risk situation. heart attack. A picture of a mushroom cloud probably stays long in viewers' consciousness as an image of fear. a new theory suggests that low-fat diets make you fat. very small. People tend to exaggerate the likelihood of events that are easy to imagine or recall. we can pretty well forget about it as worthy of concern. (De minimis non curat lex. Experts tend to focus on probabilities and outcomes. Disasters and catastrophes stay disproportionately rooted in the public consciousness. then.

In our yearning for the risk-free society we may well create a social system that makes risk-taking innovation next to impossible. The price of absolute security is absolute stultification. 83 Nicholas Rescher. of Philosophy. obviously. (And so are the costs . it is needful to discriminate between a good risk and a bad one).a balance whose "propriety" must be geared to a realistic appraisal of the hazards and opportunities at issue. 250 . Only through the shrewd deployment of science and technology can we resolve the problems that science and technology themselves have brought upon us. and denying future generations opportunities and technologies needed for improving the quality of life. and by all means let us manage them with prudent conservatism. H. Prof. The critical thing is to have a policy that strikes a proper balance between malfunctions and missed opportunities . depleting its resources in preventive action.for instance cancer research and. “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983 The stakes are high. the potential benefits enormous. University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy. The processes at issue are irreversible. America seems to have backed off from its traditional entrepreneurial spirit and become a risk-aversive. By all means let us calculate our risks with painstaking care. Frost's maxim that "every mistake in war is excusable except inactivity and refusal to take risks" (though. slow investing economy whose (real-resource) support for technological and scientific innovation has been declining for some time. "because a total avoidance of risks means that society will become paralyzed. Evaluated First (2/2) Catering to minute risks based on higher magnitude creates policy paralysis. Man is a creature condemned to live in a twilight zone of risk and opportunity. And so we are led back to Aaron Wildavski's thesis that flight from risk is the greatest risk of all. the multi-million dollar gamble on interferon.) But there is no turning back the clock. making their impacts inevitable Rescher.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 250 /414 Nelson <tournament> Prob. But in life as in warfare there is truth in H. in particular.

To begin with. This precedence ordering entails certain limitations to the reach of classical decision theory. We have here a sequential priority-ordering of the several principles. Here the top alternative enjoys the greater expected value.) Unless we are prepared to dismiss extremely remote possibilities as having a probability of “effectively zero” -. (Recall the discussion of the rationale of insurance on pp. This is shown by those cases where an expected-value calculation rules in favor of an alternative whose probability is too small to qualify it as a “real possibility. which fixes an automatic process for one's overriding another in those cases where their rulings conflict.and thus not counting as real possibilities at all -. None of these evaluative resolutions at issue is dictated by the objective circumstances and imprinted in the nature of things. 83 Nicholas Rescher. Note that a refusal to see the situation in terms of a = 0 keeps the catastrophe in the picture. in which case-.computed in the stardard way -. It is thus clear that rule (III) takes priority over (I). which proceeds on the basis of the unmodified and unadulterated use of expected-value appraisals. Rule (II) is to be applied subject to an “insofar as possible” condition. Prof. They are instruments of human devising contrived for human purpose in the effective management of affairs. are simply too massive for the stakes otherwise at issue. First. In particular. 251 .that of a dilemma -. so As these deliberations indicate. It calls on us to dismiss highly improbable possibilities as ''unrealistic. It can ordinarily be implemented by setting the value of a catastrophe at -. (They are described on pp. as per Figure 1. With (II) we are to identify a certain “level of catastrophe” and take the stance that a negativity whose magnitude exceeds this level is to be seen as having value -. of Philosophy. this principle itself needs to be curtailed. with (III) we are to identify a certain level of “effective zerohood” for probabilities. note that rules (I) and (II) can clash.~. University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy.” (Recall the Vacationer's Dilemma of p. The application of all three of these rules calls for essentially judgmental. will fail to resolve the matter if it should happen that every alternative leads to possible catastrophe. that alternative whose expected value is maximal is thereby to be viewed as maxipreferable. which in turn takes precedence over (I). regardless of the impact Rescher. so as to avoid them at any (ordinary) cost.) Rule (III) calls on us to implement the idea of ''effectively zero probabilities” by setting the probability of ''extremely remote” possibilities at zero. but to replace the actual situation by its policy transform through a change of the form V--~--°° orp~0. it is intuitively clear that the bottom alter native is far preferable (and would continue to be so even if the 60C loss were increased to some other “ordinary” negativity. With (I) we are involved in negativity-eval~uation. 40. For consider the situation of Figure 2. it is clear that rules (II) and (III) can also conflict. “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983 The rational management of risk calls for adherence to three cardinal rules: (I) Maximize Expected Values! (II) Avoid Catastrophes! (III) Dismiss Extremely Remote (''Unrealistic'') Possibilities! The first of these is a matter of using the expected-value of the various alternative choices -.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 251 /414 Nelson <tournament> Prob Before Mag Ext Probability of a scenario is evaluated before all else. subjective inputs. secondly.we shall find our actions systematically stultified to a degree which we are unwilling to accept in ''real life” situations. when ''the game's not worth the candle'' because the potential negative outcomes. when it becomes too conservative in its operation and leads to a stultification of action.as index of their relative preferability. treating as zero whatever probabilities fall short of this threshold value. we are in each case not to view the situation as it actually stands.) Moreover rules (I) and (III) can also clash. 87-88. 79-80 above. of course. Thus in assessing risks by way of expected-value appraisals.) The clear lesson is that rule (II) takes priority over (I) in such cases where catastrophes loom. A deployment of the concepts of catastrophe-avoidance and of “effectively zero'' probabilities modifies this policy in two directions. With (II) we must fix on a threshold of ''catastrophe.'' With (III) we must decide at what level of improbability effective zerohood sets in and possibilities cease to be real. Again. We are to ignore the ruling of a straightforward calculation of expected values and insist on valuing catastrophes at --~. But. Nevertheless. This.'' Note that rules (II) and (III) enjoin us to view the choice-situation in a guise different from the actual facts.in the context of expected-value calculation. catastrophe is seen to represent an unacceptable risk.special precautions will be necessary. An element of “as if” is involved in both cases. Just this rationale motivates the recourse to ''effectively zero'' probabilities. unlikely though their realization may be. the three cardinal principles of risk management stand in a relation of preferential rank-order so that: (Ill) takes precedence over (II). Finally.

Those defending consequentialism. Any such reasons would have to speak to the same level of fundamentally and relevance as that incorporated by the theory of individual rights itself. one need not be very concerned about the most recent estimate of the consequences of banning or not banning guns. and that history and analysis support our understanding of principle. Let's not do it precisely because to do so would violate the fundamental requirements of human nature. All in all. then.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 252 /414 Nelson <tournament> Systemic Impacts First Err on the side of systemic impacts – it’s the biggest consequence in the long term Machan. 03 Tibor Machan. Simply because some additional gun controls or regulations might save lives (some lives. when we also know that learning can always be improved. not some recent empirical data that All in all. Only if and when there are solid.1 Such is now the leading jurisprudence 252 . Therefore. It is enough to know that violating the rights of individuals to bear arms is a bad idea. that violating rights in a particular instance is necessarily wrong in the eyes of a "rational and fair man. beyond a doubt. It is those requirements that should be our guide." the state may go ahead and "accept the natural outcome of dominant opinion" and violate those rights. even revised? Isn't progress in the sciences and technology proof that past knowledge always gets overthrown a bit later? As in We must go with what we know but be open to change— provided that the change is warranted. even if at times it does not achieve the desired good results. breaking up or not breaking up Microsoft. Finally. demonstrable reasons to do so science and engineering. 2003 “Passion for Liberty” honesty is the best policy. modified. liberty. so in morality and politics: . To violate rights has always produced greater damage than good. emeritus of philosophy at Auburn University. have argued the opposite thesis: Unless one can prove. or any other public policy. for that matter. have no staying power (according to their very own theoretical terms). Professor of Philosophy. perhaps at the expense of the satisfaction of other consumers) are no reasons to violate basic rights. prof. you will ask. like should we throw out the old principles and bring on the new principles Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. so let's not do it. isn't this being dogmatic? Haven't we learned not to bank too much on what we've learned so far. I support the principled or rights-based approach. so is respect for every individual's rights to life. and property. even when we are terribly tempted to do so. this is what will ensure the best consequences—in the long run and as a rule. perhaps at the expense of other lives) and simply because breaking up Microsoft might improve the satisfaction of consumers (some consumers. In normal contexts.

A fault tree suggests a robust work process when several events must co-occur before the catastrophic failure occurs. First the employee must be disgruntled. several events must co-occur. The more "And" gates are in the tree structure.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 253 /414 Nelson <tournament> Probability Evaluation Key The probability of each element of an argument chain must be evaluated Alemi. Any one of these events can lead to transfer of data. None of these events are sufficient to cause the sentinel event. 2003). Several books (Krouwer. Professor of Risk at George Mason University. Each event depends on a series of other related events. Third. It is possible that several events must co-occur before the sentinel event may occur. the employee must have a method of transferring the data. Since the catastrophic failure is rare. In short. The fault tree can then be used to assess the probability of the catastrophic and rare event using the following formula: 253 . there may be several ways to transfer the data: on paper. 2006 http://gunston. October 4.edu/healthscience/riskanalysis/ProbabilityRareEvent. 2004) and papers describe this tool (Marx and Slonim. outsiders must have contact with the employee. The second step is to estimate probabilities for the fault tree. The more "Or" gates in the path to failure. the probability of a finding a disgruntled employee can be assessed. In fault tree when any one of a series of events may be sufficient by themselves to cause the next event to occur. The probability of an employee having access to large data sets can be assessed by counting employees who have such access during the course of their work. the less robust the work process. providing for a complex web of relationships. For example. when several events must co-occur. in assessing the probability of an employee providing information to outsiders. or electronically on disk. Fault tree is a collection of events connected to each other by "and" and "Or" gates. in part. it is difficult to asses this probability directly. it is also possible for several events by themselves to lead to catastrophic failure. we use an "And" gate to show it.gmu. information must be available to the employee. For example. Lecture on the Probability of Rare Events. the probability of various events leading to this failure are assessed. Professor of Risk Analysis.D in Decision Analysis. depend on other factors. through objective data or subjective opinions of experts various probabilities in the fault tree can be assessed. For example. In contrast. All of these events must co-occur before hospital data is sold to an outside party. Ph. Each of these events can. Then all possible ways in which the sentinel event may occur is listed. In a fault tree. 06 Farrokh Alemi. we show this by an "Or" gate. Instead. the more robust the work process modeled.asp The concept of fault trees and reliability trees has a long history in space and nuclear industry. The first step in conducting fault trees is to identify the sentinel adverse event that should be analyzed. Fourth. electronically by email. The probability of an employee being approached by someone to sell data can be assessed by providing an expert data on frequency of reported crimes and asking him/her to estimate the additional unreported rate. Second.

that the notion of accounting for the data can be seen to provide such support only when clouded by a pair of misunderstandings. as far as its accounting for anything is concerned. 14 So the first error in reflective equilibrium’s use of the notion of accounting for the data lies in its holding theories responsible for accounting for things that are not actually among the data. Normally. The data do not include that certain acts are wrong.ku. 2002 Department of Philosophy University of Kansa Practical Equilibrium: A New Approach to Moral Theory Selection http://web. What I have in mind is that we need to say that what a moral theory is supposed to do. which the theoretician must weave into a smooth fabric” and that “The process is closely analogous with the systematization of the ‘data’ of various levels in natural science” (1979. consider what the data actually are. that these intuitions that we are aware of having are correct. I wish to argue. . when actually the only data there are are that we have those intuitions. p. The reason for this adjustment is simple: moral theories differ from scientific ones in that they are not in the business of predicting or explaining anything: they are in the business of prescribing. cf. are never justified. For this interpretation of accounting for the data would accommodate the interpretation of what the data actually are that I have just been arguing for. is not to explain our having certain intuitions. vi). the instructions we’re interested in are those that concern specific situations in which we might engage in some conduct or regard to the intuitions we should have 254 . 155). It is a further claim.using predictions for data is key Eggleston 02 Ben Eggleston January 12.edu/~utile/unpub/pe. 1998. our own judgment of the matter.pdf The language of “data” to be accounted for recurs even more frequently in papers published in the wake of Rawls’s book. Whereas the first adjustment had to do with what the data are. or giving instructions. 517. not among the data to be accounted for. But Imaintain that we need to make a second adjustment in order to arrive at a sound interpretation of the notion of accounting for the data in the case of a moral theory. but that the theory explains the fact that we have those intuitions.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 254 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Rescher Rescher’s theories are flawed. The two misunderstandings concern what the data to be accounted for actually are. It says that a moral theory must explain the truth of the intuitions that we have. this one has to do with what it means for a moral theory to account for data. and that when these two misunderstandings are removed. But actually this overstates our data: in fact our data are just our observations of our own intuitions. p. such as acts of punishing the innocent. . and how a moral theory accounts for whatever data it accounts for. Now at this point it may appear that I am arguing that what the notion of accounting for the data means in the case of a moral theory is not that the theory explains the truth of the intuitions that we have. we might think that our data are that acts of certain kinds. is all that we can really detect in any instance of moral appraisal. Singer writes that “The reflective equilibrium conception of moral philosophy . Others have offered similar characterizations. the notion of accounting for the data actually lends support to practical equilibrium. such as our observation that it seems to us that punishing the innocent is never justified. and Nicholas Rescher writes that our intuitions “are the data . When it comes to our moral intuitions. . though. the data include only our regarding certain acts as wrong— for this latter phenomenon. p. . lead[s] us to think of our particular moral judgmentsas data against which moral theories are to be tested” (1974. First. 13 So the notion of accounting for the data is often regarded as providing support for reflective equilibrium. but to endorse our having those intuitions.

then these limitations reduce the urgency of the possible unknown effects associated with the measure. then – given the unpredictable nature of actual causation – almost any decision may lead to a disaster. and we might still not have known that polywater does not exist. (Hansson 1996) Asymmetry of uncertainty: Possibly. it is the other way around so that a decision not to build such a bridge will lead to a nuclear war. The emission of a new substance into the stratosphere constitutes a qualitative novelty. Such asymmetry is a necessary but insufficient condition for taking the issue of unknown dangers into serious consideration.We therefore need criteria to determine when the possibility of unknown dangers should be taken seriously and when it can be neglected. Interference with complex systems in balance: Complex systems such as ecosystems and the atmospheric system are known to have reached some type of balance. (Donahoe 1969 ) Soon afterwards. then for all that we know. we therefore have to disregard many of the more remote possibilities. Department of Philosophy and the History of Technology. the same can be said of uncontrolled interference with economic systems. then the very idea of planning and taking precautions seems to lose its meaning. html] However.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 255 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Bad . physicists have sometimes feared that the new levels of energy might generate a new phase of matter that accretes every atom of the earth. The substance might "grow at the expense of normal water under any conditions found in the environment. Winter 2005 http://scholar. 2. If we assume that all cause-effect relationships are chaotic. such a world-view would leave us entirely without guidance. One case in point is the false alarm on so-called polywater. Cases can also easily be found in which it was an advantage that far-fetched dangers were not taken seriously. Fortunately. In a sense.edu/ ejournals/SPT/v9n2/hansson. then no attempts would had been made to replicate the polywater experiments. a decision to build a second bridge between Sweden and Denmark will lead through some unforeseeable causal chain to a nuclear war. An interesting example of the novelty factor can be found in particle physics. it was shown that polywater is a non-existent entity. an alleged polymeric form of water. Before new and more powerful particle accelerators have been built. Novelty: Unknown dangers come mainly from new and untested phenomena. or otherwise more worthy of our attention. 05 Sven Ove Hansson ["The Epistemology of Technological Risk. the introduction of a new species of earthworm is connected with much more uncertainty than the option not to introduce the new species.Policymaking Ejecting low probability internal link chains is key to rational policymaking .accumulated experience proves that appeals to the possibility of catastrophic causal chains should not influence decision-making Hansson. it would not be feasible to take such possibilities into account in all decisions that we make . than the other. Number 2. In cases like this. experience does not bear out this pessimistic 255 . any decision may have catastrophic unforeseen consequences.vt. uncontrolled interference with such systems is connected with a high degree of uncertainty. However." thus replacing all natural water on earth and destroying all life on this planet. We have no reason why one or the other of these two causal chains should be more probable. The absence of such limitations contributes to the severity of many ecological problems. a minor modification of the liturgy of the Church of England may trigger a major ecological disaster in Africa. which may be impossible to restore after a major disturbance. Spatial and temporal limitations: If the effects of a proposed measure are known to be limited in space or time.) It might be argued that we do not know that these systems can resist even minor perturbations. the prestigious scientific journal Nature printed a letter that warned against producing polywater. appeals to the possibility of unknown dangers may stop investigations and thus prevent scientific and technological progress. this is an argument for piecemeal rather than drastic economic reforms. In order to be able to decide and act. In 1969. On the other hand. (Arguably. even in situations when we consider ourselves well-informed." Techne: research in philosophy and Technology. 4. If the warning had been heeded. The following list of four criteria has been proposed for this purpose. Possibly. (Ruthen 1993) 3. The best that we can hope for is a set of informal criteria that can be used to support intuitive judgement. such as global emissions and the spread of chemically stable pesticides. The decision to regard these and similar fears as groundless has been based on observations showing that the earth is already under constant bombardment from outer space of particles with the same or higher energies. whereas the construction of a new bridge does not. If far-reaching indirect effects are taken into account. This problem cannot be solved with probability calculus or other exact mathematical methods. Due to this irreversibility. Volume 9. If causation is chaotic.lib.

256 . Accumulated experience and theoretical reflection strongly indicate that certain types of influences on ecological systems can be withstood. and political systems. although our knowledge about their resilience towards various disturbances has not been sufficiently systematized. economic. whereas others cannot.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 256 /414 Nelson <tournament> worldview. The same applies to technological. social.

Fall.9 Retailers. A second group was given the same options. the policies we enact will reflect a similar bias. fifty percent of the physicians said they preferred radiation treatment. 8 We tend to overemphasize low probabilities and underestimate large ones. and this asymmetry can be exploited in the way choices are presented. 84% said they would prefer surgery. really means. there is a 1/3 probability that nobody will die. Health care professionals are no less susceptible to the effects of framing than their patients who have less experience and lack their expertise. and 78 after five years.brandeis.html Even if the practical difficulties of obtaining people's consent could be overcome.13 It is generally believed that consistency in judgments is a minimal condition of rationality. very little credit is due. The following hypothetical case was put to a group of physicians: Imagine that you have operable lung cancer and must choose between two treatments: surgery and radiation therapy. If we are irrational in our judgments about risk. 200 people will be saved. However when the same options were presented in terms of survival rates rather than mortality rates. 32 are dead after one year. These findings have disturbing implications for public policy. Two alternative programs to combat the disease are proposed If program A is adopted. Since our judgments about risk are apparently inconsistent. we frequently avoid the statistical information and rely instead on a description or heuristic which feels less strange. none die during treatment.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 257 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Bad – Background Beliefs Risk assessment irrationally exaggerates low probability impacts. Given our untrustworthy attitudes. People's perceptions frequently fail to match up with the actual dangers risks pose and few people have a "feel" for what a chance of dying. there is a 1/3 probability that 600 will be saved and a 2/3 probability that no one will be saved When the alternatives were posed in these terms in a test survey. We are also poor judges of outcomes. but "we want to give [people] credit for at least knowing their own minds. 10 die during the operation. We have to struggle to resist the gambler's fallacy: the belief that after a series of losses the odds must favor a win. It is perhaps not completely surprising to learn that people are poor judges of probabilities. If program B is adopted. it is hard not to draw the conclusion that our attitudes towards risk are also irrational. 400 people will die. especially in a society like our own which relies on a democratic process. as experiment after experiment reveals: Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual flu epidemic which is expected to kill 600 people. a consent-based approach to legitimating risk-imposing activities can only lead to irrational public policies. Research by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman has shown that we are regularly led astray in our assessments of probabilities by rules of thumb. it is widely reported that people are notoriously poor judges of risks." Daedalus.10 The influence of framing on judgments about risk is systematic and pervasive. 257 . "when it comes to assigning values to the outcomes of their choices. unless action is taken. 1990. for example. Professor of Philosophyat Brandeis University. Andreas Teuber"JUSTIFYING RISK. Of 100 people having surgery. 1990 http://people. Objective risk analysis is impossible because our decisions are always tainted by our background beliefs. Of 100 people having radiation therapy. and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die This time only 22 percent opted for the first program. know enough about our suceptibility to the way options are framed to represent a surcharge for credit card customers as a discount to those who are willing to pay cash."12 Apparently. Volume 119 – Number 4. if program B is adopted. 72 percent of the respondents opted for program A. and shows up at all levels of education.edu/~teuber/paperrisk. only 28 percent for program B. Faced with a judgment that requires even a minimal familiarity with statistics. while 78 percent opted for the second. We appear to be more concerned to avoid a loss than to receive an equivalent gain." as one report puts it. but re-described (re-framed) in this way: If program A is adopted.vote affirmative in the face of the undeniable impact of detention T Teuber. say a chance of one in a million. Which treatment do you prefer?11 Given these options. 23 are deadafter one year. and 66 after five years.

as Beck uses the term. 2. locating the politics of risk at the heart of forms of social and cultural life.it’s not sufficient to respond to risk as a purely material event. compulsive dynamic of advanced or reflexive modernization that. seeks to reclaim ‘the political’ from its modernist relegation to the institutional sphere. measured. and the lack of attribution of systemic risks to this system on the other. in Beck’s reckoning. ‘society becomes self-critical’ (1999b: 81).” Sociology. The prospects for arresting the dark sides of industrial progress and advanced modernization through reflexivity are routinely short-circuited. says Beck. The aff challenges the current epistemology of risk. propels modern men and women into ‘self-confrontation’ with the consequences of risk that cannot adequately be addressed. according to Beck – leads to societal self-confrontation: that is. by the insidious influence of ‘organized irresponsibility’. a constant denial of the suicidal tendency of risk society – ‘the system of organized irresponsibility’ – which manifests itself in. 36. in effect. the questioning of division between centres of political activity and the decision-making capacity of society itself. according to Beck. and this. is maintained through political ideologies of industrial fatalism: faith in progress. No. ‘Within the horizon of the opposition between old routine and new awareness of consequences and dangers’. 2002 It is the autonomous. Foundation Director of the Centre for Critical Theory at the University of the West of England. according to Beck. Modernity’s blindness to the risks and dangers produced by modernization – all of which happens automatically and unreflectingly. This self-created dead end. 258 . refers to a political contradiction of the self-jeopardization and selfendangerment of risk society. Elliott. is achieved primarily through sub-political means – that is. There is. at least according to the standards of industrial society. Society. controlled or overcome.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 258 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Bad – Irresponsibility The production of risk enacts a system of organized irresponsibility that relies on obsolete political ideologies. in which culpability is passed off on to individuals and thus collectively denied. Sociology. say. Vol. This is a contradiction between an emerging public awareness of risks produced by and within the social-institutional system on the one hand. dependence on rationality and the rule of expert opinion. writes Beck. 2002 Anthony Elliot “Beck’s sociology of Risk: A Critical Assessment. Irresponsibility. technically orientated legal procedures designed to satisfy rigorous causal proof of individual liability and guilt.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 259 /414 Nelson <tournament> 259 .

how they evaluated new information that did not support their views. and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works. He picked two hundred and eighty-four people who made their living “commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends. The respondents were asked to rate the probability of three alternative outcomes: the persistence of the status quo. Harvard Professor. that people who make prediction their business—people who appear as experts on television.361 forecasts.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 260 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Bad .” and he started asking them to assess the probability that various things would or would not come to pass.205crbo_books1 It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book. 05 Louis Menand 2005 PhD Colombia and Robert M. renown. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world. and Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are. and Anne T. the experts had made 82. get quoted in newspaper articles. on the ground that Quebec would succeed in seceding. and how accurate they were at predicting specific outcomes.Monkeys Expert predictions are less accurate than dart throwing monkeys Menand. The results were unimpressive. and.newyorker. By the end of the study. are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys. http://www. The New Yorker. how they reacted when their predictions proved to be wrong. in 2003. and they rarely admit it. recession). or wrong for the right reasons. Would there be a nonviolent end to apartheid in South Africa? Would Gorbachev be ousted in a coup? Would the United States go to war in the Persian Gulf? Would Canada disintegrate? (Many experts believed that it would. the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be.) And so on. Tetlock got a statistical handle on his task by putting most of the forecasting questions into a “three possible futures” form. Bass Professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University. they’re rarely held accountable. “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton. or less of something (repression. When they’re wrong. or blindsided by an improbable event. People who follow current events by reading the papers and newsmagazines regularly can guess what is likely to happen about as accurately as the specialists whom the papers quote. and how they assessed the probability that rival theories and predictions were accurate. who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has. 260 . just because they made a mistake. Our system of expertise is completely inside out: it rewards bad judgments over good ones. the experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three outcomes—if they had given each possible future a thirty-three-per-cent chance of occurring. advise governments and businesses. They insist that they were just off on timing. but the experts are being paid.. beyond a certain point. “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. or ought to work. economic growth).. Tetlock also asked questions designed to determine how they reached their judgments. depth of knowledge. both in the areas of the world in which they specialized and in areas about which they were not expert. $35).. The accuracy of an expert’s predictions actually has an inverse relationship to his or her self-confidence. No one is paying you for your gratuitous opinions about other people. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— and his conclusions are based on a long-term study that he began twenty years ago. On the first scale. either. and participate in punditry roundtables—are no better than the rest of us. in other words. 12-052005. more of something (political freedom. or almost right.com/critics/con. And he measured his experts on two dimensions: how good they were at guessing probabilities (did all the things they said had an x per cent chance of happening happen x per cent of the time?).

Herbeck. Available Online via ERIC Number ED354559. Perhaps our experience with risk analysis in debate can inform our understanding of the crisis rhetoric which we confront on an almost daily basis. it seems to us. 92 Dale A. we will be well-armed in our battle with the bogeyman of our age 261 . Critics of the laboratory metaphor have argued that we have failed as scientists. Prof at Boston College. Debate Coach at Boston College. is an appreciation of nature of risk analysis and how it functions in argumentation." Paper Presented at the 78th Annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association (Chicago. IL). and John P. Katsulas. for we have produced little of consequence in our lab. October 29th-November 1st 1992.rejection within the laboratory of debate spills over to policy making Herbeck. Professor of Communication and Director of the Fulton Debating Society at Boston College. If we understand this tool. The best check on such preposterous claims. 10-12 It is sometimes argued that debate is a laboratory for testing argumentation.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 261 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Bad – Decisionmaking Spillover Refusing their method is critical to move away from this bad form of risk . "The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Polcy Debate. p.

15 July 2007. yet “hedgehogs” are more focussed and willing to make tough decisions. In the context of the book “hedgehogs” emerge as having fixed views. The author sees the best long term predictor of good judgment to be a Socratic commitment by protagonists to thinking about how they think. while an outside view is needed to provide a reality check. Theory offers certainty and imagination helps to cope with uncertainty. Too often those involved are over absorbed in inward looking details to build their stories. who expect nothing and “meliorists” who are open to seeking improved outcomes. The author is a psychologist but has worked for many years with a range of specialists in different disciplines in order to distil the quintessence of expert political judgment.uk/4bookrev26. In times of increasing uncertainty it would seem that fox-like characteristics are at a premium over those of “hedgehogs” in evaluation. not only for the immediate need but sustainable into the longer term. St Andrews Management Institute. “Expert Political Judgment” is an attempt to identify the characteristics of individuals who have the ability to analyse situations in depth and with accurate foresight so that their decisions are informed by expert political judgment. The main focus of the book is on forecasting outcomes of particular situations and on identifying the specific techniques and mental attitudes which do so most successfully. By contrast “foxes” are open-minded.co. flexible and self-critical. 262 . The book draws to a conclusion with a challenge: “Are we open-minded enough to acknowledge the limits of openmindedness?” This chapter is a critique of scenario planning which the author sees as advising only that “anything is possible”. 07 Adrian Davies. Horatio. Hamlet’s solution was inexpert and created a new set of political problems. The quest is for the mindset and toolkit which will optimise forecasting by “quantifying the unquantifiable”. For the mindset contrasts are drawn between “radical sceptics”. Judgment seems to involve a metacognitive trade off between theory driven and imagination driven modes of thinking. staff for STMI Consulting. Luck is recognised as a factor but is set aside as exogenous. Another facet of mindset is Isiah Berlin’s contrast between “hedgehogs” who “know one big thing” and “foxes” who “know many little things”. One key finding of the book is that “foxes” emerge as winners of most of the tests. seeing issues as “black or white” and supremely self-confident. Book Review: “Expert Politial Judgement”. This was Hamlet’s admission that he was confused by complexity and had difficulty in coming to judgment. http://www.samiconsulting. Tetlock fails to realise that scenario planning should be used as a means of guiding action not engendering endless debate. though “hedgehog” confidence is needed to take action.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 262 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Monkeys Menand bases his claims off flawed principals in “Expert Political Judgement” Davies.html There are more things in heaven and earth. than are dreamt in your philosophy”.

would lead us to believe that it is pointless. Associate Professor of Sociology at York University. then the abyss of chronological inscrutability supposedly opens up at our feet. a result of human action shaped by decisions in the present – including. instead. history has no intrinsic meaning. for instance. the acceptance of historical contingency and of the self-limiting character of farsightedness places the duty of preventing catastrophe squarely on the shoulders of present generations. 4) When engaging in the labor of preventive foresight. it conflates the necessary recognition of the contingency of history with unwarranted assertions about the latter’s total opacity and indeterminacy. rather than embarking upon grandiose speculation about what may occur. nor can it be sloughed off to pure randomness. let us be content to formulate ad hoc responses to emergencies as they arise.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 263 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Good (1/3) We should make predictions even if they aren’t perfect Fuyuki Kurasawa. ‘4 (Constellations. we should adopt a pragmatism that abandons itself to the twists and turns of history. The future no longer appears to be a metaphysical creature of destiny or of the cunning of reason. to strive for farsightedness in light of the aforementioned crisis of conventional paradigms of historical analysis. Acknowledging the fact that the future cannot be known with absolute certainty does not imply abandoning the task of trying to understand what is brewing on the horizon and to prepare for crises already coming into their own. an outcome of chance. In addition. the incorporation of the principle of fallibility into the work of prevention means that we must be ever more vigilant for warning signs of disaster and for responses that provoke unintended or unexpected consequences (a point to which I will return in the final section of this paper). contra teleological models. direction. 263 . contra scientistic futurism. Vol. The future appears to be unknowable. the first obstacle that one is likely to encounter from some intellectual circles is a deep-seated skepticism about the very value of the exercise. or endpoint to be discovered through human reason. In fact. and if. While this argument has the merit of underscoring the fallibilistic nature of all predictive schemes. trying to anticipate and prepare for possible and avoidable sources of harm to our successors. It becomes. perhaps even harmful. No. 11. A radically postmodern line of thinking. Therefore. prospective trends cannot be predicted without error. from a normative point of view. of course. If.

Bush Administration loyalists say that their predictions about postwar Iraq were correct. "to see the world as a shifting mixture of self-fulfilling and self-negating prophecies: self-fulfilling ones in which success breeds success. even there. a point that Richard Posner has made about these kinds of public intellectuals. whether rightist or leftist.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 264 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Good (2/3) Their Menand evidence doesn’t apply – it doesn’t say that all predictions are bad. Churchill was not a man who let contradictory information interfere with his idees fixes. A prediction. from his essay on Tolstoy. predictions that fail are only "off on timing. they change the channel. more likely to be extreme politically. 05 Louis Menand 2005 PhD Colombia and Robert M. pro-invasion liberals who are now trying to dissociate themselves from an adventure gone bad insist that though they may have sounded a false alarm. and failure. though. is that when you're right you can be really and spectacularly right. This led him to make the wrong prediction about Indian independence. therefore. and pundits behave exactly the way Tetlock says they will. are skeptical of grand schemes. Great scientists. and then self-negating prophecies kick in as people recognize that things have gone too far. He says: Low scorers look like hedgehogs: thinkers who "know one big thing. on the other hand. failure but only up to a point. foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise. and Anne T. "The Hedgehog and the Fox. Elsewhere. He was never distracted by the contingencies that might combine to make the elimination of Hitler unnecessary. which is that "we as a society would be better off if participants in policy debates stated their beliefs in testable forms"-that is. any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. just a little off on timing. the line between expertise and advocacy is very blurry. at least in the long term. sadly. Foxes. when the argument gets more nuanced. therefore. the simpler solution over the more complex. High scorers look like foxes: thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade). In world affairs. His hedgehogs were liberal as well as conservative." according to which Soviet Communism was doomed no matter what." aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains. the big idea. A hedgehog is a person who sees international affairs to be ultimately determined by a single bottom-line force: balance-ofpower considerations. of course. and that idea alone." or are "almost right. but the long run irons them out. dictates the probable outcome of events. Tetlock uses Isaiah Berlin's metaphor from Archilochus. and honored their reputational bets. They tend. versus ten per cent for the foxes." and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters. For the hedgehog. Tetlock says. as probabilities-"monitored their forecasting performance. in this context. in his sample. or globalization and the spread of free markets. (Hedgehogs were. don't see a single determining explanation in history. Tetlock has published an analysis of the political reasoning of Winston Churchill. that experts got beaten by formulas. there can be traps in the kind of highly integrative thinking that is characteristic of foxes. Harvard Professor." He thinks that we're suffering from our primitive attraction to deterministic. Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or nearly impossible came to pass. who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not. which is that most of them are dealing in "solidarity" goods. Whatever it is. for example. are often hedgehogs.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were more cautious-that their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible "ad hocery" that require stitching together diverse sources of information. display bristly impatience with those who "do not get it. not "credence" goods. 10/5/2005. A hedgehog is the kind of person who holds a great-man theory of history. or the clash of civilizations. and the same with his foxes. and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess. They value parsimony." derailed by an unforeseeable accident. Their analyses and predictions are tailored to make their ideological brethren feel good-more white swans for the white-swan camp. is just an exclamation point added to an analysis. just that predictions without evidence are bad Menand. It has to do not with what the experts believe but with the way they think. against twenty per cent for foxes. Or he or she might adhere to the "actor-dispensability thesis. Tetlock notes. Bass Professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University The New Yorker. On radio and television and the editorial page. It's true that the only thing the electronic media like better than a hedgehog is two hedgehogs who don't agree. according to which the Cold War does not end if there is no Ronald Reagan. Tetlock also has an unscientific point to make." to illustrate the difference. 264 . But he does believe that he discovered something about why some people make better forecasters than other people." Tetlock did not find. But it led him to be right about Hitler. they erred "in the right direction"-not really a mistake at all. The upside of being a hedgehog. Unlike hedgehogs. There are always little swerves in the short run. parsimony may be a liability-but. overconfident hedgehogs. Liberals want to hear that whatever conservatives are up to is bound to go badly. which he opposed. lexis It was no news to Tetlock.

Nor did what experts thought--whether they were liberals or conservatives. economic growth. But foxes did not mindlessly predict the past. But these schemes will fail in cross-validation. and assorted extrapolation algorithms--we find few signs that expertise translates into greater ability to make either "well-calibrated" or "discriminating" forecasts.35 Undiluted radical skepticism requires us to believe. really believe. Chapter 3 demonstrates the usefulness of classifying experts along a rough cognitive-style continuum anchored at one end by Isaiah Berlin's prototypical hedgehog and at the other by his prototypical fox. the foxes consistently edge out the hedgehogs but enjoy their most decisive victories in long-term exercises inside their domains of expertise. and ways to improve ourselves. to expand the explanatory power of that big thing to "cover" new cases .34 Here is a doctrine that runs against the grain of human nature.pupress. good or bad. displayed for theirs. It tracks the accuracy of hundreds of experts for dozens of countries on topics as disparate as transitions to democracy and capitalism.38 over the pro-simplicity branch. and nuclear proliferation. Chapter 2 introduces us to the radical skeptics and their varied reasons for embracing their counterintuitive creed. crackpots will claim vindication for superstitious schemes that posit patterns in randomness. and so on--made scarcely an iota of difference to accuracy. the more eclectic foxes knew many little things and were content to improvise ad hoc solutions to keep pace with a rapidly changing world. and those rooted in meliorism. "overpredicted" fewer departures.html) 2005 Expert Political Judgement. But the search bore fruit.36 Chapter 2 presents evidence from regional forecasting exercises consistent with this debunking perspective.37 The intellectually aggressive hedgehogs knew one big thing and sought. that when the time comes to choose among controversial policy options--to support Chinese entry into the World Trade Organization or to bomb Baghdad or Belgrade or to build a ballistic missile defense--we could do as well by tossing coins as by consulting experts. Radical skeptics welcomed these results. Radical skepticism tells us to expect nothing (with the caveat that if we toss enough coins. psychologist. expect some streakiness). 05 Philip Tetlock (psychologist) http://www. The foxes' self-critical. How experts thought--their style of reasoning--did matter. On any given spin of the roulette wheel of history. which proclaims the superiority of the confident. optimists or pessimists. Foxes were more sensitive to how contradictory forces can yield stable equilibria and.39 These results also domesticate radical skepticism. Who experts were--professional background. When we pit experts against minimalist performance benchmarks--dilettantes. from the status quo. I divide the guiding hypotheses into two categories: those rooted in radical skepticism.edu/chapters/s7959. they agree on little else. Treating the regional forecasting studies as a decathlon between rival strategies of making sense of the world. But they squabble over which styles of reasoning--quick and decisive versus balanced and thoughtful--enhance or degrade judgment.princeton. This tamer brand of skepticism--skeptical meliorism--still warns of the dangers of hubris. interstate violence. Chapter 3 tests a multitude of meliorist hypotheses--most of which bite the dust. point-counterpoint style of thinking prevented them from building up the sorts of excessive enthusiasm for their predictions that hedgehogs. But the data revealed more consistency in forecasters' track records than could be ascribed to chance. Cognitive-content meliorists identify good judgment with a particular outlook but squabble over which points of view represent movement toward or away from the truth. Politics is no more predictable than other games of chance. is not quixotic and there are better and worse ways of thinking that translate into better and worse judgments. under the banner of parsimony. Meliorists seize on these findings to argue that crude human-versus-chimp comparisons mask systematic individual differences in good judgment.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 265 /414 Nelson <tournament> Predictions Good (3/3) The study Menand cites is out of context – it just says that we need to examine the evidence behind predictions. They recognized the precariousness of many equilibria and hedged their bets by rarely ruling out anything as "impossible. we delude ourselves: history is ultimately one damned thing after another. dart-throwing chimps. Their guiding precept is that. with its wild-eyed implication that experts have nothing useful to tell us about the future beyond what we could have learned from tossing coins or inspecting goat entrails. realists or institutionalists. status." These results favor meliorism over skepticism--and they favor the pro-complexity branch of meliorism. as a result. but they start squirming when we start finding patterns of consistency in who got what right. especially well-informed ones. What works today will disappoint tomorrow. although we often talk ourselves into believing we live in a predictable world. decisive modes of thinking favored by hedgehogs. Tetlock. Drawing on the literature on judgmental accuracy. Chapters 2 and 3 explore correspondence indicators. dialectical style of reasoning can spare experts the big mistakes that hammer down the accuracy of their more intellectually exuberant colleagues. which maintains that the quest for predictors of good judgment. 265 . Cognitive-style meliorists identify good judgment not with what one thinks. balanced modes of thinking favored by foxes. but it allows for how a self-critical. Although meliorists agree that skeptics go too far in portraying good judgment as illusory. our shared need to believe that we live in a comprehensible world that we can master if we apply ourselves. which proclaims the adaptive superiority of the tentative. but with how one thinks. which equates good political judgment with good luck. a random walk with upward and downward blips but devoid of thematic continuity. Analysis of explanations for their predictions sheds light on how foxes pulled off this cognitive-stylistic coup.

Up to now. we have entered into the zone of uncertainty. Visiting Fellow at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. our own fate. the game will be over. because if we lose. eternal defeat on the same footing as risk that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. and with more being added every day. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless. In that sense. But it is clear that at present. every risk has been contained within the framework of life. and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat we now post to the world and to ourselves. Evaluated First (1/3) Nuclear war and extinction outweighs all impacts – a fraction of infinity is still infinity Schell. infinite. the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. we stand before a mystery. or will have crossed. we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional. the earth. Therefore. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known. and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. scientifically speaking. we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. At just what point the species crossed. In the shadow of this power. the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand. and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. 93-96 1982 On the other hand.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 266 /414 Nelson <tournament> Mag. is not precisely knowable. 266 . But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from. there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it. our wonder should make us humble. thoughtful people everywhere in the world realized that if the great powers entered into a nuclear-arms race the human species would sooner or later face the possibility of extinction. the stake is. Fate of the Earth. the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated. humanly speaking. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purpose would be drowned for all time. if we wish to ignore the peril. extinction would shatter the frame. ready to be used at any second. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. In weighing the fate of the earth and. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. pp. To employ a mathematician's analogy. morally they are the same. although. and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder. and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. The discovery of the energy in mass – of "the basic power of the universe" – and of a means by which man could release that energy altered the relationship between man and the source of his life. and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. with it. and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence. 82 Jonathan Schell. In other words. which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. We are in deep ignorance. our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution. once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble.

Vice President of global analysis for Stratfor April 23. Humans instinctively take steps to prevent negative outcomes. An analyst can dismiss a dark possibility as dubious. Many of the standing policies we take for granted have grown from such evaluations. But such opinions — even if they truly are near-certainties — cannot form the foundation of state power. mights and maybes that pepper their radar screens every day. 2008 Fear is a powerful motivator. Anyone can blithely say Cuba or Serbia would not dare ignore the will of their more powerful neighbors. expert on international relations and Asian Politics. oftentimes regardless of how likely — or more to the point. 08 Peter Zeihan. worrying about China using the archipelagos of Southeast Asia as a staging point for an invasion of Australia may seem ludicrous. As with individuals.or that Brazil’s or Egypt’s nuclear programs are so inconsequential as not to impact the international balance of power. unlikely — those unpleasant outcomes are. the same is true for countries. IR expert for Stratfor. Egypt cannot afford to risk the possibility. but within that lingering concern lies the root of the Anglo-American alliance. National leaders do not have the luxury of ignoring the plethora of coulds. even getting results when the threat is exceedingly remote. 267 . Evaluated First (2/3) National leaders don’t have the Luxury of ignoring large impacts Zeihan.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 267 /414 Nelson <tournament> Mag. It makes us cross at crosswalks even when traffic is thin. While the likelihood of Israel bombing the Aswan High Dam is rather remote. Similarly. They must evaluate even improbable threats against the potential damage to their respective national interests. but that fear dominates military planning in Canberra. Worrying about continental European countries sublimating their national differences. which contributed to Cairo’s burying-of-the-hatchet with Israel. pay more over time for fire insurance than our homes are worth. but a national leader cannot gamble with the lives of his countrymen and the existence of his state. uniting into a federated super state and invading the United Kingdom may seem to flirt with lunacy. and shy away from snakes even when signs clearly inform us they are not poisonous.

1983 Risk: A Philosophical Certain hazards are simply unacceptable because they involve a relatively unacceptable threat—things may go wrong so badly that. relative to the alternatives.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 268 /414 Nelson <tournament> Mag. “unacceptable”. of Philosophy. Evaluated First (3/3) Some impacts warrant extra attention. Prof. They are (probablistically) incommersuable: confronted with such “incomparable” hazards. it’s just not worthwhile to “run the risk. we do not bother to weigh this “balance of probabilities” at all. The imbalance or disparity between risks is just too great to be restored by probablistic readjustments.” even in the face of a favorable balance of probabilities. in the circumstances. but simply dismiss one alternative as involving risks that are. Rescher. The rational man is not willing to trade off against one another by juggling probabilities such outcomes as the loss of one hair and the loss of his health or his freedom. 67 In such situations we are dealing with hazards that are just not in the same league. 268 . 83 Nicholas Rescher (Department of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh) Introduction to the theory of risk evaluation. p.

namely to reshape the popular moral perception so as to give more credit and social approbation to those who devote their time and resources to benefiting humankind via global safety compared to other philanthropies. The cleft between the feel-good projects and what really has the greatest potential for good is likely to be especially great in regard to existential risk.nickbostrom. especially if we play our cards right. Maxipok. the objective of reducing existential risks should be a dominant consideration when acting out of concern for humankind as a whole. where an “okay outcome” is any outcome that avoids existential disaster. This suggests an offshoot moral project. there is less of a feelgood dividend to be derived from efforts that seek to reduce them.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 269 /414 Nelson <tournament> Role of Ballot = Magnitude The ballot should prefer the advocacy that avoids the fastest and most probable internal link to extinction Bostrom Prof at Oxford. since there clearly are other moral objectives than preventing terminal global disaster. rather than a principle of absolute validity. vol 9] http://www. At best. it is nonetheless arguable that because the negative utility of an existential disaster is so enormous. 269 . Moral action is always at risk to diffuse its efficacy on feel-good projects[24] rather on serious work that has the best chance of fixing the worst ills. March. While that option is indisputably attractive. Its usefulness consists in helping us to get our priorities straight. In other words. PhD and Professor at Oxford University. 2002 [Journal of Evolution and Technology. 02 Nick Bostrom. we can call it Maxipok: Maximize the probability of an okay outcome. maximin implies that we should all start partying as if there were no tomorrow. a kind of satisficing rule.”)[26].html Previous sections have argued that the combined probability of the existential risks is very substantial. is different from Maximin (“Choose the action that has the best worstcase outcome. this is a rule of thumb. Since we cannot completely eliminate existential risks (at any moment we could be sent into the dustbin of cosmic history by the advancing front of a vacuum phase transition triggered in a remote galaxy a billion years ago) using maximin in the present context has the consequence that we should choose the act that has the greatest benefits under the assumption of impending extinction. It may be useful to adopt the following rule of thumb for moral action. a prima facie suggestion. it seems best to acknowledge that there just might be a tomorrow. Although there is still a fairly broad range of differing estimates that responsible thinkers could make.com/existential/risks. Since the goal is somewhat abstract and since existential risks don’t currently cause suffering in any living creature[25].

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 270 /414 Nelson <tournament> 270 .

" says co-author of the study Brian Toon. causing DNA damage. Once the soot is released into the upper atmosphere. Ultraviolet light has the ability to alter the human DNA. Mills extracted his results from computer models. "The models show this magnitude of ozone loss would persist for five years. a regional global war would cause the ozone layer of the Earth to be destroyed in as little as a decade. as the current due to ultraviolet light. According to recent studies.softpedia. and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 271 /414 Nelson <tournament> Extinction Evaluated First Even a regional nuclear war would destroy all life on Earth – ozone loss and UV rays prove Gache. "The figure of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs compares pretty accurately to the approximately 110 warheads that both states reportedly possess between them. Ultraviolet rays influx. Wyn Bowen. both have a nuclear arsenal of about 50 nuclear warheads bearing 15 kilotons of explosive material.shtml Global or not. "This study is very conservative in its estimates. society demonstrated it was unwilling to tolerate a small percentage of ozone loss because of serious health risks. global disaster is soon to follow. Previous models were created during the 1980s. It should ring alarm bells to remind us all that nuclear war can destroy our world far faster than carbon dioxide emissions." says Mills. and colleagues used computer models to study how 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would affect the atmosphere. skin cancers and cataract in most . as Mills considers. Alternatively. "By adopting the Montreal Protocol in 1987. process that facilitates the reaction between nitrogen oxides and ozone. caused by the decay of the ozone layer. This might be because the old models do not take into consideration the columns of soot rising at altitudes of 80 kilometers into Earth's atmosphere. thus determining a heating of the surrounding atmosphere. In case the disagreements between the two countries reach very high levels as to make use of their entire nuclear arsenal. of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at theSchool of Oriental and African Studies." says Dan Plesch. would increase by 213 percent. US. Michael Mills of the University of Colorado at Boulder. a nuclear war would kill us all.com/news/Regional-Nuclear-War-Would-Destroy-the-World-82760. 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would be enough to determine substantial changes in Earth's atmosphere. but other organisms may be at risk as well. Science News Editor for Softpedia. it would block and absorb most of the solar energy. Take India and Pakistan for example. plants would suffer damage twice." says professor of non-proliferation and international security in the War Studies Group at King's College.if not all living beings. And if nuclear weapons didn't do the job. But ozone loss from a limited nuclear exchange would be more than an order of magnitude larger than ozone loss from the release of gases like CFCs. then the Sun would. 271 . however those investigations revealed that impact of the nuclear detonations would be much more moderate. Michael Mills from the University of Colorado reckons that such a nuclear war in South Asia would decay about 40 percent of the ozone layer in the middle latitudes and 70 percent in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Science News Editor. 08 Gabriel Gache. an online science and technology news resource 8th of April 2008 http://news. UK. although he notes that no one knows how likely a nuclear exchange is. all living beings being at the mercy of the Sun's ultraviolet rays.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 272 /414 Nelson <tournament> **PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE** 272 .

The essence of the Precautionary Principle is that when lives and the future of the planet are at stake. director of science and health. evident effects such as these can seldom be linked decisively to a single cause. there is no way of knowing for sure how much healthier people might be if they did not live in the modern chemical stew.in babies' first bowel movement. in the blood of U. despite imperfect knowledge and even ignorance. provides important clues to all of these conditions and what to do about them. because the chemicals are everywhere -. Sometimes the period of time between particular causes and particular results is so long. that it is impossible to make a definitive link. “multinational monitor” September 2004. may trigger problems in the child's brain or endocrine system. cancers and learning disabilities are preventable. teenagers and in the breastmilk of Inuit mothers.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1. but the child's mother might never know she was exposed. significant numbers of birth defects. people must act on these clues and prevent as much harm as possible. as incomplete as it may be. with so many intervening factors. No unexposed "control" population exists. such as the disappearance of species.S. http://multinationalmonitor. Nevertheless. These standards may never be satisfied when many different factors are working together. Scientific uncertainty is a fact of life even when it comes to the most obvious environmental problems.Risk Avoidance Precautionary Principle essential to avoid unquantifiable risks Myers. such as climate change. and the most potentially devastating trends. scientific knowledge. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. if ever.html But serious. for example. Sometimes the timing of exposure is crucial -. But clearly. Scientific standards of certainty (or "proof") about cause and effect are high. producing many different results. In the real world.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 273 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Good. 273 .a trace of the wrong chemical at the wrong time in pregnancy. Scientists seldom know for sure what will happen until it happens. and seldom have all the answers about causes until well after the fact.

Risk assessment was developed in the 1970s and 1980s as a systematic way to evaluate the degree and likelihood of harmful side effects from products and technologies. regulators could more convincingly demonstrate the need for action. turned out to be most useful in "proving" that a product or technology was not inordinately dangerous. More precisely. With precise. those projections were necessarily subject to assumptions and simplifications. and should be taken off the market. These risk assessments have consumed enormous resources in strapped regulatory agencies and have slowed the regulatory process. http://multinationalmonitor. Or not. weight to costs to the environment or future generations. “multinational monitor” September 2004. quantitative risk assessments in hand.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 274 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Good. it dictated the questions.in the form of a quantitative risk assessment demonstrating harm in excess of acceptable limits -. Risk assessments could "prove" that a product was dangerous. risk assessments presented sets of numbers that purported to state definitively how much harm might occur. Quantitative risk assessments usually addressed a limited number of potential harms. often missing social. which became standard practice in the United States in the mid-1980s and was institutionalized in the global trade agreements of the 1990s.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1. cultural or broader environmental factors. director of science and health. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. Risk assessments would stand up in court. As quantitative risk assessment became the norm. They have diverted attention from questions that could be answered: Do better alternatives exist? Can harm be prevented? 274 . commercial and industrial interests were increasingly able to insist that harm must be proven "scientifically" -.html Ironically.before action was taken to stop a process or product. These exercises were often linked with costbenefit assessments that heavily weighted the immediate monetary costs of regulations and gave little.Risk Fails Risk Assessment paradigms fail Myers. would cause a certain number of deaths per million. one tool that has proved highly effective in the battle against environmental regulations was one that was meant to strengthen the enforcement of such laws: quantitative risk assessment. if any. Quantitative risk assessment. Although risk assessments tried to account for uncertainties. The next question for policymakers then became: How much harm is acceptable? Quantitative risk assessment not only provided the answers.

That is.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 275 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Good – Risk Fails Precautionary Principle preferable to Risk assessment Myers.should begin as early as possible in the conception of a technology and should continue through its release and use. It points to the need to examine not only single. but because it omits certain basic requirements of the decision-making process.including the identification of uncertainty -. linear risks but also complex interactions among multiple factors.than traditional risk analysis provides. Its proponents argue that because conservative assumptions are built into these assessments.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1. The Precautionary Principle calls for the examination of a wider range of harms -.what "risks" are evaluated and how comparisons are made -. technology or activity and alternatives have been well developed and tested and a great deal of information has already been gathered about them. Risk assessment is not necessarily inconsistent with the Precautionary Principle. a precautionary approach should begin before the regulatory phase of decision-making and should be built into the research agenda. 275 .including social and economic ones -. that these numbers are usually a sufficient basis for deciding whether the substance or technology is "safe. is only useful in conditions of relatively high certainty. What is not consistent with the Precautionary Principle is the misleading certainty often implied by quantitative risk assessments -. http://multinationalmonitor. when the product.are easily manipulated by those with a stake in their outcome. Under the Precautionary Principle. and the broadest possible range of harmful effects. “multinational monitor” September 2004. probing consideration of harm -. director of science and health. risk assessment has been used to delay precautionary action: decision-makers wait to get enough information and then attempt to "manage" rather than prevent risks. uncertainty is also given due weight. in other words.html Risk assessment is the prevalent tool used to justify decisions about technologies and products.that precise numbers can be assigned to the possibility of harm or level of safety. they are sufficiently precautionary. Standard risk assessment. Too often. and generally only to help evaluate alternatives to damaging technologies. the current type of risk assessment is only helpful at a narrow stage of the process. The assumptions behind risk assessments -. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network." and that lack of numbers means there is no reason to take action. however. This broad.

html This is not true. A broad precautionary approach will encourage the development of better technologies.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1. http://multinationalmonitor. “multinational monitor” September 2004. It can also mean imposing a moratorium while further research is conducted. http://multinationalmonitor. calling for monitoring of technologies and products already in use. Alternatives to harmful technologies (such as genetic modification to reduce pesticide use) must be scrutinized as carefully as the technologies they replace.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1. • 276 . Redirection of research and ingenuity toward inherently safer. and increasing transparency and the responsibility of proponents and manufacturers to demonstrate safety should lead to cleaner products and production methods. director of science and health. more sustainable technologies. Making uncertainty explicit. products. considering alternatives. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network.html Precautionary action usually means adopting safer alternatives. Using this approach.AT Innovation Stultification The Precautionary Principle improves innovation Myers. and so forth The Precautionary Principle encourages better technologies Myers. and processes.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 276 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Good. Precaution suggests two approaches to new technology: • Greater vigilance about possible harmful side effects of all innovations. society will say "yes" to some technologies while it says "no" to others. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. more harmonious. It does not make sense to replace one set of harms with another. “multinational monitor” September 2004. director of science and health. Brand-new technologies must receive much greater scrutiny than they have in the past.

about what products contain. the threat of liability and market pressures. by government and industry.html Any debate over the possibility of "zero risk" is pointless. especially on issues that go beyond individual and corporate choice. for the exploration of -. 277 . Our real goal must be to impose far less risk and harm on the environment and on human health than we have in the past. and international bodies to make far-reaching decisions that greatly reduce the risks we now impose on the earth and all its inhabitants.and rigorous research on -alternatives. Increasingly. The Precautionary Principle is based on the assumption that people have the right to know as much as possible about risks they are taking on. http://multinationalmonitor. With food and other products. and about the testing and monitoring of those ingredients. manufacturers are choosing to reduce risk themselves by substituting safer alternatives in response to consumer uneasiness. It is the responsibility of communities. such choices are often played out in the marketplace. We must harness human ingenuity to reduce the harmful effects of our activities. director of science and health.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 277 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Good.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1. and to make choices accordingly.AT Zero Risk Precautionary Principle doesn’t demand zero risk. just an attempt to reduce harm Myers. A key to making those choices is transparency -. Market and voluntary action is not enough. Another is support. The real question is who or what gets the benefit of the doubt. “multinational monitor” September 2004. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. governments. in exchange for what benefits.

Does it consider long-term costs? The costs to society? The costs of harmful side effects -. Like precautionary science. costs and benefits are complex and surrounded by uncertainty -. which can only partially be expressed by money.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1. director of science and health. that analysis is probably incomplete.monetary and nonmonetary? The costs spread over a product's entire lifecycle -. Tallying the "cost" of precaution requires making true value judgments. But in the 21st Century. “multinational monitor” September 2004.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 278 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Good.html If a cost-benefit analysis indicates that a precautionary approach is too expensive. sustainable economy.including disposal? The pricetags of most products and developments do not reflect their real costs. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. http://multinationalmonitor. 278 . in which connections.but they cannot be ignored. precaution is essential to a healthy. precautionary economics operates in the real world.AT Cost A2 very expensive Myers.

html On the contrary. 279 . Moreover. the Precautionary Principle calls for more and better science.nor does it raise our sights to better alternatives.AT Bad Science The Precautionary Principle encourages scientific evaluation in addition to societal action Myers. But we must be much more cautious than we have been in the past about moving forward in ignorance. Waiting to take action before a substance or technology is proven harmful. or even until plausible cause-andeffect relationships can be established.deaths. Humans and the environment become the unwitting testing grounds for these technologies. director of science and health. and well they should be. This is no longer acceptable. It does not take into account many unknowns and seldom accounts for complex interactions -. The more we know. Any decision to take action -. 04 Nancy Myers is communications director for the Science and Environmental Health Network. and the like. experience. They are based on what we know about how processes work and might be affected by a technology. especially investigations of complex interactions over longer periods of time and development of more harmonious technologies. Scientific standards of certainty are high in experimental science or for accepting or refuting a hypothesis. http://multinationalmonitor. It calls for scientific monitoring after the approval of products. Most statements of the Precautionary Principle say it applies when there is reason to believe serious or irreversible harm may occur. 2) Taking action in advance of scientific certainty undermines science. precautionary decisions also take into account what we know we do not know. Risk assessment is only one evaluation method and provides only partial answers. “multinational monitor” September 2004. extinctions.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 279 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Good.before or after scientific proof -. regardless of whether there is scientific evidence to support their fears. observations. The assertion that the principle is "anti-science" is based on any or all of the following faulty assumptions: 1) Those who advocate precaution urge action on the basis of vague fears. scientifically. poisoning. the greater will be our ability to prevent disasters based on ignorance. Those reasons are based on scientific evidence of various kinds: studies. professional judgment. not science. not vice versa. science should serve society. 3) Quantitative risk assessment is more scientific than other kinds of evaluation. However.is a decision of society. precedents. may mean allowing irreversible harm to occur -.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp1.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 280 /414 Nelson <tournament> **AT PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE** 280 .

it purports to give guidance. I therefore aim to challenge the Precautionary Principle not because it leads in bad directions.Paralysis (1/3) The precautionary principle is paralyzing and destroys the possibility for any action Sunstein professor at the University of Chicago Law School 2005. the central claim of this chapter. but because read for all its worth. That kind of self-blinding is what makes the principle seem to give guidance. The real problem with the Precautionary Principle in its strongest forms is that it is incoherent. and I shall have a fair bit to say about why people and societies are selective in their fears. prominent law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. because it condemns the very steps that it requires. The principle threatens to be paralyzing. It provides help only if we blind ourselves to many aspects of risk-related situations and focus on a narrow subset of what is at stake. “Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle” p3-4 2005 My larger point.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 281 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Bad. 281 . forbidding regulation. The regulation that the principle requires always gives rise to risks of its own – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously mandates. inaction. Cass R Sunstein. but it fails to do so. is conceptual. it leads in no direction at all. and every step in between.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 282 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Precautionary Principle Bad- Paralysis (2/3)
The precautionary principle is flawed – it totalizes risk assessment to the point of nihilism and stifles calculated risk-taking that solves extinction Scruton professor of philosophy 2004,
Roger Scruton former professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College in London, founder of the Claridge Press and author of more than 20 published books on philosophy and theory, Summer 2004[National Interest] The Precautionary Principle clearly presents an obstacle to innovation and experiment. But there are deeper reasons for being troubled by it, reasons that bear on the very essence of human life and on our ability to solve practical problems. First, there is the tendency of the principle to disaggregate risks in ways that defeat the possibility of reasonable solutions. Risks are never single, nor do they come to us only from one direction or from one point in time. By not taking the risk of angering my child, I take the risk of dealing, at some later stage, with a spoiled and self-centered adolescent. All practical reasoning involves weighing risks against one another, calculating probabilities, ring-fencing uncertainties, taking account of relative benefits and costs. This mode of reasoning is instinctive to us and has ensured our extraordinary success as a species. There is a branch of mathematics-decision theory-devoted to formalizing it, and there is nothing in decision theory that looks like the Precautionary Principle. For the effect of this principle is to isolate each risk as though it were entirely independent of every other. Risks, according to the principle, come single-wrapped, and each demands the same response-namely-Don't! If, in obeying this command, you find yourself taking another risk, then the answer again is "Don't!" The principle is therefore logically on a par with the command given by an American president to his senior civil servant: "Don't just do something, stand there!" But, as the president realized, standing there is not something that civil servants are very good at. Bureaucrats have an inveterate need to be seen to be doing something. The effect of the principle therefore is to forbid the one identified risk, while removing all others from the equation. What this means can be vividly seen from a recent instance. A European directive, responding to the slight risk that diseased animals might enter the human food chain, insists that all slaughter should now take place in the presence of a qualified vet, who must inspect each animal as it arrives at the abattoir. There is no evidence that veterinary examination in these circumstances is either necessary or (in the rare cases when infected animals come to the abattoir) effective. Nevertheless, the Precautionary Principle delivered its usual result, and the edict was imposed. Small abattoirs all over Britain were forced to close down, since their profit margins are as narrow as those of the farmers whom they serve, and qualified vets require fees that reflect their qualifications. The effect of this on husbandry,on the social and economic life of farming communities, and on the viability of small pasture farms has been devastating, the effect on animal welfare equally so. Instead of travelling a quarter of an hour to the local abattoir, our herds must now travel three or four hours to one of the great processing plants that enjoy
the presence of a permanent vet. Farmers who have taken pride in their animals and cared for them through two or more winters are distressed to part with them on such terms, and the animals themselves suffer greatly. This damage done to the relation be-tween farmer and herd has further

adverse effects on the landscape. Unable to take full responsibility for the life and the death of his animals, a farmer ceases to see the pointof his unprofitable trade. The small pasture farms that created the landscape of England are now rapidly disappearing, to be replaced by faceless agro-businesses or equestrian leisure centers. This damages our landscape, and in doing so damages our sense of nationhood, of which the landscape has been the most potent symbol. As if those long-term costs were not
bad enough, we have also had to endure the short-term cost of hoof-and-mouth disease, which in the past would usually be contained in the locality where it broke out. In its latest occurrence, the disease was immediately carried all over the country by animals on their way to some distant abattoir. The result was the temporary, but total, ruination of our livestock farming. Now, a responsible politician would have taken into account, not only

the small risk addressed by the directive, but also the huge risks posed to the farming community by the destruction of local abattoirs, the risks posed to animals by long journeys, the benefits of localized food production and local markets for meat, and so on. And he would have a motive for considering all those things, namely, his desire to be re-elected, when the consequences of his decision had been felt. As a rational being, he [or she] would recognize that risks do not come in atomic particles, but are parts of complex organisms, shaped by the flow of events. And he would know in his heart that there is no
more risky practice than that of disaggregating risks, so as one by one to forbid them. Even bureaucrats, in their own private lives, will take the same line. They too are rational beings and know that risks must constantly be taken and constantly weighed against each other. However, when a bureaucrat legislates for others and suffers no cost should he get things wrong, he will inevitably look for a single and specific problem and seize on a single and absolute principle in order to solve it. The result is the Precautionary Principle and all the follies that are now issuing from the unconscionable use of it. This suggests

another and deeper irrationality in the principle. It is right that legislators should take risks into account, but not that they should automatically forbid them, even when they can make a show of isolating them from all other relevant factors. For there is an even greater risk attached to the habit of avoiding risks-namely, that we will produce a society that has no ability to survive a real emergency when risk-taking is the only recourse. It is not absurd to think that this is a real danger. How many a soporific Empire, secure in its long-standing abundance, has been swept away by barbarian hordes,

282

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 283 /414

Nelson <tournament>

simply because the basileus or caliph had spent his life in risk-free palaces? History is replete with warnings against the habit of heeding every warning. Yet this is the habit that the Precautionary Principle furthers. By laying an absolute edict against risk, it is courting the greatest risk of all, namely, that we shall face our next collective emergency without the only thing that would enable us to survive it.

Precautionary Principle Bad- Paralysis (3/3)
The Precautionary principle causes complete stultification, everything has some risk of an impact Hathcock, Council for Responsible Nutrition, 00
J.N. Hathcock, (2000). The precautionary products. AgBioForum, 3(4), 255-258 principle—An Impossible burden of proof for new

The zero-risk impetus of the precautionary principle fails to recognize that although science can provide a high level of confidence, it can never provide certainty. Absolute proof of safety is not achievable because it would require the proof of a negative, a proof that something (risk) does not exist. The precautionary principle always tells us not to proceed because there is some threat of harm that cannot be conclusively ruled out. Thus, "the precautionary principle will block the development of any technology if there is the slightest theoretical possibility of harm." (Holm & Harris, 1999, p. 398). With a separate precautionary principle as a component of risk management, such an assertion by regulatory decisionmakers could completely negate the role of science in food safety decisions.

283

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 284 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Precautionary Principle Bad- Innovation (1/3)
The precautionary principle stifles innovation and essential technologies Miller, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, 01
Dr. Henry I. Miller, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, Director of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, June,2001 http://www.policyreview.org/jun01/miller print.html In both the United States and Europe, public health and environmental regulations usually require a risk assessment to determine the extent of potential hazards and of exposure to them, followed by judgments about how to regulate. The precautionary principle can distort this process by introducing a systematic bias into decision making. Regulators face an asymmetrical incentive structure in which they are compelled to address the potential harms from new products, but are free to discount the hidden risk-reducing properties of unused or underused ones. The result is a lopsided process that is inherently biased against change and therefore against innovation. To see why, one must understand that there are two basic kinds of mistaken decisions that a regulator can make: First, a harmful product can be approved for marketing — called a Type I error in the parlance of risk analysis. Second, a useful product can be rejected or delayed, can fail to achieve approval at all, or can be inappropriately withdrawn from the market — a Type II error. In other words, a regulator commits a Type I error by permitting something harmful to happen and a Type II error by preventing something beneficial from becoming available. Both situations have negative consequences for the public, but the outcomes for the regulator are very different. Examples of this Type I-Type II error dichotomy in both the U.S. and Europe abound, but it is perhaps illustrated most clearly in the FDA’s approval process for new drugs. A classic example is the FDA’s approval in 1976 of the swine flu vaccine — generally perceived as a Type I error because while the vaccine was effective at preventing influenza, it had a major side effect that was unknown at the time of approval: A small number of patients suffered temporary paralysis from Guillain-Barré Syndrome. This kind of mistake is highly visible and has immediate consequences: The media pounce and the public and Congress are roused, and Congress takes up the matter. Both the developers of the product and the regulators who allowed it to be marketed are excoriated and punished in such modern-day pillories as congressional hearings, television newsmagazines, and newspaper editorials. Because a regulatory official’s career might be damaged irreparably by his [or her] good-faith but mistaken approval of a high-profile product, decisions are often made defensively — in other words, above all to avoid Type I errors. Former FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt aptly summarized the regulator’s dilemma: In all our FDA history, we are unable to find a single instance where a Congressional committee investigated the failure of FDA to approve a new drug. But, the times when hearings have been held to criticize our approval of a new drug have been so frequent that we have not been able to count them. The message to FDA staff could not be clearer. Whenever a controversy over a new drug is resolved by approval of the drug, the agency and the individuals involved likely will be investigated. Whenever such a drug is disapproved, no inquiry will be made. The Congressional pressure for negative action is, therefore, intense. And it seems to be ever increasing. Type II errors in the form of excessive governmental requirements and unreasonable decisions can cause a new product to be “disapproved,” in Schmidt’s phrase, or to have its approval delayed. Unnecessary or capricious delays are anathema to innovators, and they lessen competition and inflate the ultimate price of the product. Consider the FDA’s precipitate response to the 1999 death of a patient in a University of Pennsylvania gene
therapy trial for a genetic disease. The cause of the incident had not been identified and the product class (a preparation of the needed gene, encased in an enfeebled adenovirus that would then be administered to the patient) had been used in a large number of patients, with no fatalities and serious side effects in only a small percentage of patients. But given the high profile of the incident, regulators acted disproportionately. They not only stopped the trial in which the fatality occurred and all the other gene-therapy studies at the same university, but also halted similar studies at other universities, as well as experiments using adenovirus being conducted by the drug company Schering-Plough — one for the treatment of liver cancer, the other for colorectal cancer that had metastasized to the liver. By these actions, and by publicly excoriating and humiliating the researchers involved (and halting experiments of theirs that did not even involve adenovirus), the FDA cast a pall over the entire field of gene therapy, setting it back perhaps as much as a decade. Although they can dramatically

compromise public health, Type II errors caused by a regulator’s bad judgment, timidity, or anxiety seldom gain public attention. It may be only the employees of the company that makes the product and a few stock market analysts and investors who are knowledgeable about
unnecessary delays. And if the regulator’s mistake precipitates a corporate decision to abandon the product, cause and effect are seldom connected in the public mind. Naturally, the companies themselves are loath to complain publicly about a mistaken FDA judgment, because the agency has so much discretionary control over their ability to test and market products. As a consequence, there may be no direct evidence of, or publicity about, the lost societal benefits, to say nothing of the culpability of regulatory officials. Exceptions exist, of course. A few activists, such as the AIDS advocacy groups that closely monitor the FDA, scrutinize agency review of certain products and aggressively publicize Type II errors. In addition, congressional oversight should provide a check on regulators’ performance, but as noted above by former FDA Commissioner Schmidt, only rarely does oversight focus on their Type II errors. Type I errors make for more dramatic hearings, after all, including injured patients and their family members. And even when such mistakes are exposed, regulators frequently defend Type II errors as erring on the side of caution — in effect, invoking the precautionary principle — as they did in the wake of the University of Pennsylvania gene therapy case. Too often this euphemism is accepted uncritically by legislators, the media, and the public, and our system of pharmaceutical oversight becomes progressively less responsive to the public interest. The FDA is not unique in this regard, of course. All regulatory agencies are subject to the same sorts of social and political pressures that cause them to be castigated when dangerous products accidentally make it to market (even if, as is often the case, those products produce net benefits) but to escape blame when they keep beneficial products out of the hands of consumers.Adding the

284

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 285 /414

Nelson <tournament>

precautionary principle’s bias against new products into the public policy mix further encourages regulators to commit Type II errors in their frenzy to avoid Type I errors. This is hardly conducive to enhancing overall public safety.

Precautionary Principle Bad- Innovation (2/3)
Innovation key to life saving medical tech Miller, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, 01
Dr. Henry I. Miller, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, Director of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, June,2001 http://www.policyreview.org/jun01/miller print.html Activists have since extended their antichlorine campaign to so-called “endocrine disrupters,” or modulators, asserting that certain primarily man-made chemicals mimic or interfere with human hormones (especially estrogens) in the body and thereby cause a range of abnormalities and diseases related to the endocrine system. The American Council on Science and Health has explored the endocrine disrupter hypothesis and found that while high doses of certain environmental contaminants produce toxic effects in laboratory test animals — in some cases involving the endocrine system — humans’ actual exposure to these suspected endocrine modulators is many orders of magnitude lower. It is well documented that while a chemical administered at high doses may cause cancer in certain laboratory animals, it does not necessarily cause cancer in humans — both because of different susceptibilities and because humans are subjected to far lower exposures to synthetic environmental chemicals. No consistent, convincing association has been demonstrated between real-world exposures to synthetic chemicals in the environment and increased cancer in hormonally sensitive human tissues. Moreover, humans are routinely exposed through their diet to many estrogenic substances (substances having an effect similar to that of the human hormone estrogen) found in many plants. Dietary exposures to these plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, are far greater than exposures to supposed synthetic endocrine modulators, and no adverse health effects have been associated with the overwhelming majority of these dietary exposures. Furthermore, there is currently a trend toward lower concentrations of many contaminants in air, water, and soil — including several that are suspected of being endocrine disrupters. Some of the key research findings that stimulated the endocrine disrupter hypothesis originally have been retracted or are not reproducible. The available human epidemiological data do not show anyconsistent, convincing evidence of negative health effects related to industrial chemicals that are suspected of disrupting the endocrine system. In spite of that, activists and many government regulators continue to invoke the need for precautionary (over-) regulation of various products, and even outright bans. Antichlorine campaigners more recently have turned their attacks to phthalates, liquid organic compounds added to certain plastics to make them softer. These soft plastics are used for important medical devices, particularly fluid containers, blood bags, tubing, and gloves; children’s toyssuch as teething rings and rattles; and household and industrial items such as wire coating and flooring. Waving the banner of the precautionary principle, activists claim that phthalates might have numerous adverse health effects — even in the face of significant scientific evidence to the contrary. Governments have taken these unsupported claims seriously, and several formal and informal bans have been implemented around the world. As a result, consumers have been denied product choices, and doctors and their patients deprived of life-saving tools.

285

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 286 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Precautionary Principle Bad- Innovation (3/3)
The Precautionary Principle forces society away from technological advancement Hathcock, Council for Responsible Nutrition, 00
J.N. Hathcock, (2000). The precautionary products. AgBioForum, 3(4), 255-258 principle—An Impossible burden of proof for new

The problem with the precautionary principle is two-fold, one logical and the other perceptual. First, the logical fault— the precautionary principle was originally developed to provide risk managers with a tool for decision-making on environmental threats from processes or substances that had not undergone safety evaluation or regulatory approval. The precautionary principle was not defined or developed for application to the intentional components of foods that require or depend on a conclusion of safety. Application of this principle could create an impossible burden of proof for new food products or ingredients. Second, the perceptual fault—the term "precautionary principle" is seductively attractive because it sounds like something that everyone should want and no one could oppose. Upon initial consideration, it might seem that the only alternative to precaution is recklessness but, in fact, excessive precaution leads to paralysis of actions resulting from unjustified fear. In many cases, the slight but non-zero risk associated with a product or process is far safer than the alternative of doing nothing. Excellent examples include the outbreak of cholera resulting from fear of chlorinated water (Anderson, 1991) and the reluctance to permit food fortification with folic acid to reduce the incidence of specific birth defects for fear of masking vitamin B-12 deficiency (United States Food and Drug Administration [US FDA], 1996).

286

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 287 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Precautionary Principle Bad- Pandemic
The Precautionary principle enables mass pandemics Miller, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, 01
Dr. Henry I. Miller, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, Director of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, June, 2001 http://www.policyreview.org/jun01/miller print.html The danger in the precautionary principle is that it distracts consumers and policymakers from known, significant threats to human health and diverts limited public health resources from those genuine and far greater risks. Consider, for example, the environmental movement’s campaign to rid society of chlorinated compounds. By the late 1980s, environmental activists were attempting to convince water authorities around the world of the possibility that carcinogenic byproducts from chlorination of drinking water posed a potential cancer risk. Peruvian officials, caught in a budget crisis,used this supposed threat to public health as a justification to stop chlorinating much of the country’s drinking water. That decision contributed to the acceleration and spread of Latin America’s 1991-96 cholera epidemic, which afflicted more than 1.3 million people and killed at least 11,000.

287

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 288 /414

Nelson <tournament>

Precautionary Principle Bad- Militarism
The precautionary principle is used to legitimize military interventionism Sunstein professor at the University of Chicago Law School 2005,
Cass R Sunstein. prominent law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. “Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle” p3-4 2005 My point of departure is the Precautionary Principle, which is a focal point for thinking about health, safety, and the environment throughout Europe. In fact the Precautionary Principle is receiving increasing worldwide attention, having become the basis for countless international debates about how to think about risk, health, and the environment. The principle has even entered into debates about how to handle terrorism, about “preemptive war,” and about the relationship between liberty and security. In defending the 2003 war in Iraq, President George W Bush invoked a kind of Precautionary Principle, arguing that action was justified in the face of uncertainty. “If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.” He also said, “I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It’s too late if they become imminent.” What is especially noteworthy is that this way of thinking is essentially the same as that of environmentalists concerned about global warming, genetic modification of food, and pesticides. For these problems, it is commonly argued that regulation, rather than inaction, is the appropriate course in the face of doubt.

288

Dowling Debate 2008-2009

File Name 289 /414

Nelson <tournament>

**UTIL**

289

” R. I their roles being those of being instruments for achieving or vehicles for bringing into being and sustaining the greatest good. if. Ratner p. Bentham's clear apprehension of utilitarianism's commitment to rejecting the view that there are certain basic natural human moral rights that hold of human beings as human beings. from time to lime. 1984 HJ. Utilitarian choices are made by existing humans. professor of philosophy. it would morally be indifferent which group was chosen. Smart. professor of law at USC. If its ethic is to be expressed in the language of moral rights. and the members of the platoon would have the moral right to be killed for the sake of the greatest good. The decisions of every human are derived from the experience. professor of philosophy.' possess moral rights. it might be said to hold that it is the greatest good or the greatest /pleasure that has a moral right to exist. Utility and Rights. McCloskey. 1984 HJ. professor of law at USC. if the greatest good could be realized by promoting the pleasure of only one or other of two distinct groups of one hundred persons. C. 1984 Hofstra Law Journal.' Utilitarianism is the only calculus that takes into account human response Ratner. Of course. situation to situation. No legitimate reason to include rights discussion under util f/w McCloskey. and others. strictly speaking. and reflect the desires. it would remain exposed to the basic criticisms of rule-utilitarianism set out by JJ. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. including such rights as the rights to live or to be killed. Utility and Rights. Similarly. G.735. to be free or to be constrained. Clearly it would be difficult to find plausible act-utilitarian reasons for propagating such a falsehood. “The Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy. 1984 (Leonard G. In spite of this. in terms of utilitarianism. just as there may be good utilitarian reasons for ascribing responsibility to persons who are not morally responsible for their actions. of that human.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 290 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util O/W Rights Utilitarianism precludes any claim of moral rights – rights not quantifiable. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. Humans may be concerned with the needs and wants of animals or of future generations. A utilitarian might seek to accommodate talk about human moral rights within the utilitarian framework by arguing that there are good utilitarian reasons for attributing human rights to persons who do not possess moral rights. then. Frey. Pgs 121-122. and not by virtue of the utility of a belief in and action on the basis of respect for such rights. fundamental moral rights simply by virtue of being human beings. it could be developed as an element of a rule-utilitarianism. with theories of natural moral rights of persons of the kinds set out in the UN Declarations. and Evolution” HeinOnline) Because evolutionary utilitarianism is concerned with human survival and depends on human response. This might be urged in terms of act-utilitarianism as a tactical move for maximizing good. 290 . its goal is necessarily fulfillment of human needs and wants. or human persons. an abstraction such as the greatest good cannot in any literal sense of 'moral right. Alternatively. On the other hand. Frey. they having a moral right to contribute to the common good as vehicles or instruments thereof. that there are natural moral rights that hold of persons as persons. but that concern is inescapably a product of existing human needs and wants. Pg 124. G. to be helped or to be harmed or used-the rights varying from person to person. whilst the rights individuals may possess as vehicles or instruments of the greatest good would be a mixed bunch. in a war. and is committed to denying. very many utilitarians today seek to reconcile their utilitarianism with theories of human moral rights. Utilitarianism denies. the greatest good could be achieved only be sending a particular platoon on a suicide mission. the officer in charge would have the moral right to order the platoon to go on the mission. This is a very different way of thinking about moral rights from that in terms of there being certain basic human moral rights.” R. that individual persons and animals have no moral right to a specific share in or of the greatest good. of human beings qua human beings. whilst a rule-utilitarianism that incorporated such a human moral rights component would normatively be more attractive than many versions of rule-utilitarianism. according to which we are claimed to possess various basic. and no member of either group would have a moral right to the pleasure. myself. Reciprocity. Thus.

is a fallacy. in what circumstances and for what purposes.put best implement those preferences. Goodin “The Utilitarian Response. Implicitly. less.google. Optimal participation involves the selection of capable officials who make independent community fulfillment decisions but remain subject to effective community supervision. while they may affect others as well. in others. professor of law at USC. The need/want fulfillment of such members expands with their approval of community decision-making institutions. A different menu of options – in some respects greater. That. 1984 Hofstra Law Journal. 291 .+is+a+fallacy %22+goodin&source=bl&ots=9hUQGnLTzV&sig=URHUw3uamFPyVmKwTyG1onBQvZI&hl=en&ei=zKxmSsfVMpCEt gfLvP3yDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1] The distinction I shall here propose works along a dimension orthogonal to that one. 1984 (Leonard G. contemporary discussions of varieties of utilitatianism are all standardly addresses. resource allocations and behavior constraints that significantly reflect their in. in others. Ratner p. Using the felicific calculus for micro-level purposes of guiding individuals choices of personal conduct is altogether different from using it for macro-level purposes of guiding public officials’ shoices of general social policy. Instead of differentiating utilitarianisms on the basis of what they are used to choose.“ Because the need/want preference of community members are best known to them. Self-constrained majoritarianism thus appears to be the evolving political counterpart of utilitarianism. the enhanced need/want fulfillment that has accompanied the progression. most of the objections standardly lodged against utilitarianism in the private sphere.731-2. professor of law at USC. Those differences are such as to neutralize in the public sphere. Or so I shall argue.” Ed p. A different menu of options – in some respects greater. 140-1 http://books. and the inability of totalitarian governments to match that fulfillment. I submit.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 291 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Good – K2 Policymaking Utilitarianism key to policy making Ratner. a continuity suggested by the progression of western nations from autocracy toward representative democracy. but in any case different.com/books? id=l3ZBwjK_1_QC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=%22That. Such approval lowers the costs of dissenter disruption while increasing psychological security and productive efficiency. Goodin90 [RobertE. The utilitarian enhanced-fulfillment goal is most effectively implemented by communities that optimize (not maximize) individual participation in policy formulation. but in any case different – is available to public and private choosers.is available to public and private users. “The Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy. principally affect the chooser’s own lives. public officials’ choices of general social policy. less. to individuals acting in their personal capacities and making choices which. they are irrelevant (or anyway much less problematic) as applied to utilitarianism as a standard of public policy. True through such complaints may be as applied to utilitarianism as a standard of personal conduct.+I+submit. I suggest doing so on the basis of who is supposed to use the utilirarian calculus to make choices. It does not matter who is using the utilitarian calculus. Policymakers should adapt utilitarian calculus – applicable throughout society. first and foremost. and Evolution” HeinOnline) Evolutionary progression toward majoritarian decision-making follows from the utilitarian function of social organization to enhance human need/want fulli1lment. Reciprocity. Implicitly.

K2 Determine Rights Utilitarian calculus is the only way to determine rights’ relative importance. in principle. which is much more than can be said of most other theories. relative to each other. Brandt. and how stringent they are. to require abstaining from assisting a person with terminal illness in ending his own life if he requests it. it is proper to inquire whether the utility maximizing moral code would prefer free speech to the cost of lives (and in what circumstances). professor of philosophy @ U Mich. (For instance. that it tells us. Pg 199. to refrain from assisting in the discharge of a sentence of capital punishment. on the utilitarian theory? The idea. more positively to support life by providing adequate medical care. or to include a certain right with a certain degree of stringency as compared with other rights. one wants to know what should be the scope of the " right to life. Utilitarianism. How does one do this. to abstain from life-termination for seriously defective infants or to refrain from abortion. Before turning to possible " deeper" difficulties. Morality. how to find out what are a person's rights. for instance. or to refrain from killing combatants in war time and so on. If one wants to know whether the right to life is stronger than the right of free speech on political subjects. 292 .) Suppose.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 292 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Good . and Rights. unless reliance on intuitions is supposed to be a definite way of telling what a person's rights are. 1992 Richard. Cambridge University Press. of course. let me make just one point favorable to the utilitarian view." Then it would be proper to inquire whether the utility-maximizing moral system would require people to retrain from taking the life of other adults. is that we have to determine whether it would maximize long-range expectable utility to include recognition of certain rights in the moral code of a society. it might be optimistic to include a right to life with more stringency than a right to liberty and this with more stringency than the right to pursue happiness.

or wishful Promotion of the well being of all seems to be the appropriate. guaranteeing their personal security. is that far from undermining utilitarianism as a public philosophy. his father James. We want public officials to be neutral. Inevitably. these criticisms highlight its strengths. By doing so.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 293 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Good – Best Interest Utilitarianism necessitates public policy that requires that leaders take the action which is in the best interest of people Shaw Philosophy Professor 1999 (William H. As explained later in this chapter. reform government social and economic policy and the judicial institutions of their day. and. 293 . The previous two chapters addressed sorne of these criticisms. however dedicated and well intentioned. and common circum. that it is coldly calculating and concerned only with maximizing. john Stuart Mill. in utility-enhancing ways. improving people’s physical health. Consider. indeed the only sensible. The point here. and the standard objections to utilitarianism as a personal morality carry little or no weight against it when viewed as a public philosophy. utilitarianism is especially compelling. for instance. 1999. not on a case by case basis. To the extent that utilitarians disagree among · themselves over these matters. “contemporary ethics: taking account of utilitarianism” p 171-2) Utilitarianism ties right and wrong to the promotion of well-being. they must do this through general rules.that is. procedures. utilitarian approach provides the necessary framework for addressing questions of institutional design and for fashioning effective public policy. but it is not only n personal ethic or a guide to individual conduct. though. increasing individual freedom and opportunity. a normative basis for public policy and the structuring of our social. public officials can make it less likely that utilitarianism will demand too much of any one individual because others are doing too little. typical conditions. that it demands too much of moral agents and that it permits one to violate certain basic moral restraints on the treatment of others. and their friends and votaries. General welfare is a broad goal. Moreover. impersonal. many of the problems facing society have no simple answers because they are tangled up with contested issues of fact and controversial questions of psychology. and sensible policies and institutions will typically focus on more specific desiderata . the institutions that structure the choices people face. a utilitarian approach to public policy requires officials to base their actions. sociology. where necessary. Nevertheless. Realism and empiricism are the hallmarks of a utilitarian orientation. legal. and so on — that contribute significantly to people's well-being. their policy recommendations will diverge. lt is also a "public philosophy°" . In the public realm. utilitarians can usually accomplish more good than they can through isolated individual action. Implementing even there goals can prove difficult. Indeed. For them utilitarianism was. The present chapter explicates the utilitarian approach to three matters that have long engaged social and political philosophers and that concern. and detached and to proceed with their eyes firmly on the effects of the policies they pursue and the institutions that their decisions shape. of course. they will strive to Easter institutions that false over from individuals much of the task of promoting the general welfare of society. touchstone for assessing public policies and institutions. by organizing the efforts of countless individuals and compelling each of us to play our part in collective endeavors to enhance welfare. and programs on the most accurate and detailed understanding they can obtain of the circum. Utilitarians — will seek to direct and coordinate people's actions through effective public policy and to reshape. assess. unverified abstractions. For this reason. it was just this aspect of utilitarianism that primarily engaged Bentham. the criticisms that utilitarianism is too impersonal and ignores one's individual attachments and personal commitments. Policy making requires public officials to address general issues. a social and political philosophy and only secondarily a private or personal moral code.stances. they saw utilitarianism as providing the yardstick by which to measure. not customary practice.such as promoting productivity. Because of its consequentialist character. by clarifying what is at stake and continually orienting discussion toward the promotion of well-being. Shaw. this fact precludes public officials from violating the rights of individuals as a matter of policy. others will be dealt with in Chapter 8. In particular. a. first and foremost.stances in which they are operating and the likely results of the alternatives open to them. Furthermore. and political institutions. and economics. Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy at SJSU.

but from inflexible linguistic "principles” and their emotional overtones.”‘ A priori rights divorced from need/want fulfillment depend on the magic power of language. Reciprocity. they insist. rights identify the resource and behavior allocations that are perceived by the community as enhancing such fulfillment. revelation of various a priori rights or moral standards is often accompanied by disparagement of other such rights or standards as crypto-nti1itarian. Liberty is perceived as freedom for behavior that improves the quality of existence. reflects human experience. and Evolution” HeinOnline) Disregarding the significance of evolutionary survival.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 294 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Good – Concrete Decisionmaking Only Utilitarianism makes justifications based on the end result rather then ambiguous language Ratner. religion. equality as rejection of disparate individual worth and "discriminatory" treatment. autonomy as the individual choice implied by liberty and equality. professor of law at USC. Ratner p." "equality. When not determined by social consequences.758-9. Necessarily ambiguous generalizations. Definition. in fact. Indeed. They seek instead to identify the intuitive "preexisting rights” that must. But the equivocal significance of that experience may be replaced with the illusory security of fixed meaning. and other "civil rights” activity. 1984 Hofstra Law Journal. the morality of behavior tends to be resolved by definition of the words used to characterize the behavior. Ethical connotations are then drawn not from the underlying empirical lessons that provide a context for meaning.”' But they disclose no nonrnystical. of course. evolved to describe and correlate heterogeneous events. underlie such choice. “The Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy.*'” which are. derived from the search for increased per capita need/want fulfillment.”° Although frequently accorded a transcendental immutability. Derivation of meaning from the social purposes that engender the terminology leads to a utilitarian appraisal of need] want fulfillment. The preexisting rights of nonutilitarian morality are usually identified as components of "liberty. 1984 (Leonard G."'°’ labels that suggest a concern with individual need/want fulfillment and its social constraints. source of the rights. nonutilitarian intuitionists deny that utilitarianism provides a "moral" basis for choice between competing need/want fulfillments. such as speech. professor of law at USC.” and “autonomy. acquire a controlling normative role.‘“ 294 .

1984 (Leonard G. While the accommodation holds.” Negotiations to reduce the nucleardeterrence costs confront the participants with a predicament like the "prisone1’s dilemma"“' if nuclear weapons can escape detection: although both participants would benefit from a reduction. Ratner p. professor of law at USC. so may the evolutionary process. If that accommodation fails. each is impelled to increase its nuclear weapons as protection against an undetected increase by the other. 295 . Reciprocity.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 295 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Good – Prevents Nuke War Utilitarianism prevents nuclear war Ratner.mains the survival remedy pending a reciprocity solution. nonnuclear self defense re. professor of law at USC. The survival costs of nonnuclear warfare of course continue to be high. compensation for combatants commensurate with risk would provide a kind of market accommodation for those induced thereby to volunteer and would reduce the disproportionate wartime-con·-scription assessment. 1984 Hofstra Law Journal. but when the survival costs of capitulation are perceived as exceeding them.758. But each may also be impelled to refrain from their use. and Evolution” HeinOnline) Without effective reciprocity. Rejection of those costs is perhaps being accommodated with the intolerable survival costs of nuclear warfare by payment of more immediate nuclear-deterrence costs. “The Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy. self-defense is the only survival remedy. Passive resistance to a Hitler has survival costs that are acceptable to few communities.

professor of law at USC. Stokes & Leary. Don Moore Tepper Business School. and exposes the utilitarian underpinning of a priori rights. Mackie. yet their behavior produced different results. 1975.people are inherently utilitarians Gino et al 2008 [Francesca Gino Kenan-Flagler Business School. a functional description of evolutionary utilitarianism identities enhanced per capita need/want fulfillment as the long-term utilitarian-majoritarian goal. When the patient died. we seek to answer the question: Do people judge the ethicality of the two sellers differently.000 in repairs. in one study participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario of a surgeon deciding whether or not to perform a risky operation (Baron & Hershey. Extending prior work on the effect of outcome severity on judgments (Berg-Cross. and the buyer spends $20. anthropology. Ratner p. 1984 (Leonard G. Allison. Most people would agree that the seller’s unethical behavior deserves to be punished. “The Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy. 1984 Hofstra Law Journal. that morality rests ultimately on utilitarian self interest.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 296 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Inevitable Utilitarianism inevitable Ratner." In the context of the information provided by biology. 1989. Reciprocity.edu/research/pdf/08-080. Harvard University “No harm.” The description confirms that process as arbiter of the tension between individual welfare and group welfare (i. under what conditions are people’s judgments of ethicality influenced by outcome information? Past research has shown some of the ways that people tend to take outcome account in a manner that is not logically justified (Baron & Hershey. and were asked to rate the quality of the No Foul 4 surgeon’s decision to operate. After reading about identical decision processes. no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments” http://www.727. despite the fact that their behavior was the same? And if so. 296 . illuminates the critical relationship of self interest to that goal. The surgeon knew the probability of success. between autonomy and reciprocity)*° and suggests a utilitarian imperative: that utilitarianism is unavoidable. so the buyer never faces a flooded basement. A few months after the closing. surmounts the strident intuitionist attack. Max H. & Messick. In this paper. that in the final analysis all of us are personal utilitarians and most of us are social utilitarians. Mitchell & Kalb.pdf] A home seller neglects to inform the buyer about the home’s occasional problems with flooding in the basement: The seller intentionally omits it from the house’s legally required disclosure document. Carnegie Mellon University. 1996). and fails to reveal it in the negotiation. except that it is followed by a long drought. Both sellers were similarly unethical. 1Utilitarianism is inevitable .hbs. and other disciplines. 1988.e. economics. 1984). Lipshitz. professor of law at USC. Now consider the same behavior on the part of a second seller. Bozman Harvard Business School. participants learned either that the patient lived or died. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. and Evolution” HeinOnline) utilitarianism reconciles autonomy and reciprocity. the basement is flooded and destroyed. 1988).. their research found that people information into judge the wisdom and competence of decision makers based on the nature of the outcomes they obtain. participants decided it was a mistake to have operated in the first place. and discloses the trial-and-error process of accommodation and priority assignment that implements it . For instance. 1981. Baron and Hershey (1988) labeled this tendency as the outcome bias.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 297 /414 Nelson <tournament> 297 .

2004. 07 Jason G. Posner (2004) has recommended withdrawing federal support for such experiments because the benefits do not seem to be worth the risks. 298 .html&VersionObject=A09EDA45D011A282BA7021E754D0B39C&Template=79799&PageStyleSheet=81 604 We already invest in some extinction countermeasures. the necessary equipment and materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are self-replicating. as asteroids. NASA.7 billion is spent researching climate change and there are many strategies to reduce carbon emissions (Posner. Mathney. There are policies to reduce nuclear threats. We would be motivated by self-interest to do so.cfm?MODULE=/se-server/mod/modules/semod _printpage/mod_default. 5 Current U. Williams. and planets have valuable resources to mine. 2007) and there has been some research on how to deflect these objects using existing technologies (Gritzner & Kahle. 2006. and strengthen the capacities of local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam. $1. as well as efforts to secure expertise by employing former nuclear scientists. 2007). NASA spends $4 million per year monitoring near-Earth asteroids and comets (Leary. Franco. Sommer Scholar s at Johns Hopkins' ) http://www. 2006). such as the NonProliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Lewis. 181). and the technological requirements for colonization are not beyond imagination (Kargel.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 298 /414 Nelson <tournament> Survival Instinct Good – Extinction Multiple Inevitable Scenarios for extinction make it necessary to act on our survival instinct Mathney. Consultant to the Center for Biosecurity.S. monitor biological agents and emerging diseases. the most severe may be bioterrorism. 1994.org/se/util/display_mod. As for astronomical risks.upmc-biosecurity. biodefense efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines. The knowledge needed to engineer a virus is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon. 2004. Of current extinction risks.cfm&PageURL=/website/resources/publications/2007_orig-articles/2007-10-15reducingrisk. to escape our sun’s death. p. a weapon can have an exponential effect on a population (Warrick. 2006). we are likely to build self-sufficient colonies in space. moons. 1996). If we survive the next century. humanity will eventually need to relocate. There is currently no independent body assessing the risks of high-energy physics experiments. & Shuler. 07 (MBA is a Consultant to the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC.

we can see a significant net welfare improvement in the short run. avoid a massive tragedy. perhaps. will remix the future in similar fashion. we know that in the short run we will save millions of lives. it is difficult to see the violent destruction of Manhattan as on net.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 299 /414 Nelson <tournament> Consequentialism Good Consequentialism is best. in ex ante terms. or If we stop the bomber. No matter how hard we try to stop the bomber. or perhaps broader panics. and freedom of the United States. But we would not breathe a sigh of relief on hearing the news of the destruction for the first time. Even trying to stop the bomber.pdf+%22nuclear+attack+on+Manhattan %22+cowen&hl=en&gl=us] Let us start with a simple example. should not argue against stopping the bomber. the emboldening of terrorists. namely a suicide bomber who seeks to detonate a nuclear device in midtown Manhattan. we are not. We can of course imagine possible scenarios where such destruction works out for the better ex post. and may imply the birth of a future Hitler. if we can stop the bomber.2004 http://docs. To put it simply. Cowen 2004 [Tyler Cowen. while facing radical generic uncertainty about the future in any case. After all. with no guarantee of success. While the more distant future is remixed radically. Reasonable moral people. and protect the long-term strength.com/gview? a=v&q=cache:JYKgDUM8xOcJ:www. regardless of the details of their meta-ethical stances. prosperity. stopping the bomber will reshuffle future genetic identities. favoring either the short-term or long-term prospects of the world. This will tip the consequentialist balance against a nuclear attack on Manhattan. Obviously we would seek to stop the bomber. a priori. we need only some probability that the relevant time horizon is indeed short (perhaps a destructive asteroid will strike the earth). 299 . Furthermore. we should not rationally believe that some new positive option has been created to counterbalance the current destruction and the new possible negatives. the explosion leads to a subsequent disarmament or anti-proliferation advances. our long-run welfare estimates will likely show some improvement. There would be a new and very real doorway toward general collapse of the world.gmu.google. The bomb going off could lead to subsequent attacks on other major cities. committed to a very definite view of how effective prevention will turn out in the long run. short term impacts are key even when the longterm impacts are uncertain. for instance.Still. Department of Economics George Mason University “ The epistemic Problem does not refute consequentialism”November2. Even if the long-run expected value is impossible to estimate.edu/jbc/Tyler/Epistemic2.

So an agent produces maximum good per unit of activity by focusing his efforts on those he is closest to.’ Consequentialism is based on the greater good. prof philosophy. including himself. not on self-interests Kagan. in the same vein. Kagan. people cannot function effectively at all unless they devote somewhat more energy to promoting their own well-being than to promoting the well-being of other people. and that such differential treatment of oneself is therefore required on consequentialist grounds. is all he has to attend to. This means that agents are morally required to make their largest possible contribution to the overall good-no matter what the sacrifice to them. and on these occasions alone is he called on to consider public utility.jstor. 1984).’ Sidgwick suggests an argument of the second type when he says that because ‘it is under the stimulus of self-interest that the active energies of most men are most easily and thoroughly drawn out’. Princeton. it would ‘not under actual circumstances promote the universal happiness if each man were to concern himself with the happiness of others as much as with his own. p. but rather to the long-term advantages of having psychologically healthy agents who are efficient producers of the good. by very nature.pdf) Consequentialism claims that an act is morally permissible if and only if it has better consequences than those of any available alternative act. http://books. prof social thoughts and ethics. Yale. 239-254 http://www. No.google. But first it is necessary to give fuller characterization of a plausible prerogative of this kind. in every other case. 94 (Samuel Scheffler. Here the appeal is no longer to the immediate consequantialist advantages of promoting one’s own well-being. prof social thoughts and ethics. There is no limit to the sacrifices that morality can require.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 300 /414 Nelson <tournament> Consequentialism Fails Consequentialism. 11/24/94.org/stable/pdfplus/2265413. 3 (Summer. Vol. will fail in public policy to improve the well-being of others Scheffler. it is said that human nature being what it is. 13. writes that ‘the occasions on which any person (except one in a thousand) has it in his power…to be a public benefactor – are but exceptional. private utility. the interest or happiness of some few persons.’ Mill. Princeton. pp. from his more intimate knowledge of his own desires and needs. Consequentialists often argue that a differential attention to one’s own concerns will in most actual circumstances have the best overall results.selves might involve (remembering only that their own well-being counts too). 14-16.com/books? hl=en&lr=&id=M95w6e9pzZsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA14&dq=reject+consequentialism&ots=hbQFBohbTL&sig=VgDh7pP6sAhJ 1IKGaBA3BW7hi1Y) I will maintain shortly that a hybrid theory which departed from consequentialism only to the extent of incorporating an agent-centred prerogative could accommodate the objection dealing with personal integrity. Yale. 84 (Philosophy and Public Affairs. and his greater opportunities of gratifying them. The Rejection of Consequentialism. prof philosophy. 300 . it is said that one is in a better position to promote one’s own welfare and the welfare of those one is closest to than to promote the welfare of other people. To avoid confusion. Two sorts of considerations are typically appealed to in support of this view. First. it is important to make a sharp distinction at the outset between an agent-centred prerogative and a consequentialist dispensation to devote more attention to one’s own happiness and well-being than to the happiness and well-being of others. and agents are never permitted to favor their own interests at the expense of the greater good. Second. We find an example of the first type of argument in Sidgwick’s remark that ‘each man is better able to provide for his own happiness than for that of other persons.

Vol.improperly permitting sacrifices to be imposed on some for the sake of others.jstor. 239-254 http://www.org/stable/pdfplus/2265413. 3 (Summer. prof social thoughts and ethics. The objection that consequentialism demands too much is accepted uncritically by almost all of us. discussions of the claim that consequentialism demands too much are often undermined by failure to distinguish this claim from the widely discussed objection that consequentialism permits too much. Kagan. Yale. I will not consider here the merits of such restrictions. we must search for deeper foundations.jstor. We must display the reasons for limiting the requirement to pursue the good. Some sacrifices for the sake of others are meritorious. We want to claim that there is a limit to what morality can require of us. but not required. 3 (Summer. 1984). most moral philosophers introduce per. If we are to go beyond mere intuition mongering. Common morality grants the agent some room to pursue his own projects. Consequentialism can result in sacrifices on some for the sake of others Kagan.pdf) Our ordinary moral intuitions rebel at this picture. But the mere fact that our intuitions support some moral feature hardly constitutes in itself adequate philosophical justification. which consequentialism fails to incorporate Kagan. prof social thoughts and ethics.pdf) Furthermore. Yale. It is only the grounds for rejecting such a general requirement to promote the overall good that we will examine here. No. prof social thoughts and ethics. forbidding certain kinds of acts even when the consequences would be good. pp. however. but we are not required to do so. Vol. 301 . Kagan. No. 84 (Philosophy and Public Affairs.mission to perform nonoptimal acts without even a word in its defense. Yale. 239-254 http://www.erogatory . It is important to note. Yale. even though other actions might have better consequences: we are permitted to promote the good.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 301 /414 Nelson <tournament> Consequentialism Fails There is a limit to what morality can require for us.org/stable/pdfplus/2265413. 1984). Some theories include deontological restrictions. 84 (Philosophy and Public Affairs. that even a theory which included such restrictions might still lack more general permission to act nonoptimally-requiring agents to promote the good within the pennissible means. they are super. 13. prof social thoughts and ethics. pp. 13.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 302 /414 Nelson <tournament> **AT UTIL** 302 .

For Mill. Liu. Fundamentally. IN other words. there is an uneven distribution of benefits and costs. 2000 ISBN:1566704030. Indeed. therefore it’s good. no matter how the aggregate is distributed. it is economic logic and globalization. without any attention to the inequity and inequality in the current system. More importantly. Liu. Utilitarianism policies result in inequality Liu PHD University of Pennsylvania 2000 (Dr. America. the end is the same. Some people win. p. This example illustrates clearly the danger of using the utilitarian perspective as the only means for policy analysis. Now. In calculating benefits and costs. they are often too complicated to be practical. The capitalistic powerhouses in Europe practiced material and cultural imperialism against countries in Africa. the proposal is nothing new to those familiar with the history. “just because it sells. each person is counted as one and only one. you cannot get fairer than this.” the capitalist mode of production and consumption.20-21]) However. They did it through guns and powder.” However. doesn’t mean we have to worship it” (Peirce 1991). Even worse and more subtly. they had their logic for exporting opium to Canton (Guangzhou) in China through force. and objective. people are treated equally. This time. its strengths are also its weaknesses. it delivers the philosophy of “it exists. They did it by raising the banner of trade and welfare enhancement. A policy’s outcome is Pareto optimal if nobody loses and at least one person gains. and “a particular kind of politicaleconomic power and its discriminatory practices” (Harvey 1996:368). Seemingly. writes 2000 [Environmental Justice Analysis: theories. p. PHD @ University of Pennsylvania. but the means is not through guns and powder. the utilitarian disregards the distributive justice issue altogether and espouses the current mode of production and consumption and the political-economic structure. Of course. 303 . the logic underlying Summers’ proposal represents “cultural imperialism. methods and practice. They are also to flexible and subject to manipulation.20-21]) Besides these ridiculous policy implications in the United States and in the world. 2000 ISBN:1566704030. we see a new logic. straightforward. it is political-economic power. Its quantifications techniques are far from being simple. For almost all policies. “justice arises from the principle of utility”. they fail to deal the issue of equity and distributive justice. Utilitarianism in concerted only the aggregate effect. They are impersonal and lack compassion. The Pareto optimality would is almost nonexistent. while others lose. Instead. Except for its beautiful guise of economic logic. and Asia for years. This time. PHD @ University of Pennsylvania.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 303 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Bad – No Equality/Justice Utilitarianism cant address the issues of equity and distributive justice Liu PHD University of Pennsylvania 2000 (Dr. methods and practice. writes 2000 [Environmental Justice Analysis: theories.

“Utilitarianism. the murder of millions of human beings can be justified in the minds of reformers if it is thought to move us closer to paradise on earth. such thinking largely served as the justification for the mass murders of millions of innocent people in communist countries where the leaders sought to establish the “workers’ paradise. The Journal of Private Enterprise.org/publications/article. This is precisely the view that was taken by communist revolutionaries as they implemented their grand schemes of remaking society .” [2] But. which is what Bentham’s utilitarianism asserts. http://www. The result is a legislative and economic dilemma. But then. this perspective gives rise to a serious problem. For instance. but merely to assert that utilitarian ethics will have the tendency of promoting collectivist policies.independent.independent. 304 . a majority of individual car buyers may not be willing to pay the cost of such equipment in the form of higher auto prices. In their book. The failure of utilitarianism at this point is extremely important for a whole host of policy issues. individuals prone to political action. Professor of Business Administration and Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. All of this is not to say that matters of utility are unimportant in policy decisions. Professor of Business Administration and Economics 2002 (Cleveland 2002 Paul A. the rent seeking behavior that is spawned as a result of this mind set will prove detrimental to the economy .”[3] If morality is ultimately had by making the individual’s happiness subservient to the organic whole of society.. As a result . Since theft is the first the utilitarian principle will tend to lead to the collective use of government power so as to redistribute income in order to gain the “greatest happiness” in society. this labor saving device. Ekelund and Hebert provide a well-conceived example to demonstrate this problem. http://www. it simply “asserts that men are bound together in societies solely on the basis of a rational calculation of the private advantage to be gained by social cooperation under the division of labor. this is precisely what has happened. Among them. In democratic countries the destruction of human liberty that has taken place in the past hundred years has occurred primarily for this reason. However. That means property rights may be violated if it is assumed to promote the utilitarian end. Nevertheless. what happens to individual human rights? Are they not sacrificed and set aside as unimportant? In fact. and held under the sway of utilitarian ethics. as Opitz shows. property rights are essential in securing a free market order. Regrettably. Rather. will likely be willing to decide in favor of the supposed collective interest over and against that of the individual. utilitarianism offers no cohesive way to discern between the various factions competing against one another in political debates and thus fails to provide an adequate guide for ethical human action. They write: It is presumably in the general interest of American society to have every automobile in the United States equipped with all possible safety devices. then the human rights of the individual may be violated. Professor of Business Administration and Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. kind of action will be justified as that which is most socially expedient in order to reach the assumed ethical end.” To put the matter simply. Edmund Opitz has rightly observed that utilitarianism with its “greatest happiness principle” completely neglects the spiritual dimension of human life. utilitarianism can then be used to justify some heinous government actions. A History of Economic Theory and Method. The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy. In addition. has no logical stopping place short of collectivism. The common good is not necessarily the sum of the interests of individuals.asp?id=1602) A final problem with utilitarianism that ought to be mentioned is that it is subject to being criticized because of a potential fallacy of composition.asp?id=1602) Indeed. Indeed. In this case. Utilitarianism is used to justify mass murder by governments Cleveland.org/publications/article. the issue of the government’s provision of public goods is worth our consideration.. The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy. in short.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 304 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Bad – Mass Murder Utilitarian thinking results in mass murder Cleveland Professor of Business Administration and Economics 2002 (Cleveland 2002 Paul A. the collective interest does not coincide with the sum of the individual interests. However. The Journal of Private Enterprise. the widespread confusion over this point is one of the primary reasons why western market economies have continued to drift towards the ready acceptance of socialist policies.

Utilitarianism.. Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community" (Emphasis added).Indiscriminate efforts to preserve babies among the lower classes often results in serious injury to the race . using subjective criteria that appeals to themselves personally. conditions under which racial groups of distinctly superior hereditary qualities . also known as pragmatism.{94} As recently as six years ago. have no right to life because these people are not in full possession of their faculties.. {96} These utilitarian authors are fully consistent with other utilitarians in that they first reject the principle that are humans have equal moral status.. then surely there are other innocent and vulnerable member of society who can be similarly found to lack equal moral status. racial consanguinity occurs only through endogamous mating or interbreeding within racial stock .G.{93} connected the purported inequality of the unborn to the goals of the eugenics movement. unborn people. holds that "the end justifies the means. has been able to construct a comprehensive racial policy of population development and improvement . these ideas have met stout opposition in the Rousseauian social philosophy ..com/humanities/casey/ch3.. and mentally and physically handicapped people.. 305 ..leaderu." If a means provides a solution to a practical problem. Madison Grant.. and even children before their first birthday. "Nazi Germany used the findings of eugenicists as the basis for the killing of people of inferior genetic stock.." (Emphasis added).. While Kuhse and Singer may be personally comfortable with their conclusions. have emerged. which bases . ‘The Public Policy of Casey V. this approach leaves all of us less than secure from being dehumanized. have argued that no human being has any right to life..{88} President of the American Eugenics Society Inc."{92} Another leader in the eugenics movement. Gypsies." and has helped pave the way toward America’s final solution to problem pregnancy. ". This rejection helped pave the way toward intellectual acceptance of Nazi Germany’s "Final Solution. and any other society that uses utilitarianism in medical ethics also leaves great portions of society at risk of death at the convenience of society at large.. Smith 2002 (Michael G Smith 2002.{86} The Holocaust. was founded on Hegel’s pragmatic philosophy. Campbell. guided by the nation's anthropologists.. Eugenics is founded on the utilitarian philosophy of German philosopher Hegel.. eugenicists and social philosophers.. abandoning the principle of human equality could lead to eugenics because eugenics is founded on the same philosophy that some people are of lesser value than others. Leadership University.{87} C. it is morally justifiable.html) Furthermore.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 305 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Bad – Annihilation Medical utilitarian calculus ensures human dehumanization and annihilation. Campbell. two medical ethicists. Planned Parenthood’ http://www. If newborn infants can be found to lack equal moral status..{90} Mr. they have concluded that "mentally defective" people. then. in which Nazi Germany saw a problem in the existence of Jews.. Clearly. it sets a pattern .. Kuhse and Singer.{95} Using a utilitarian approach. in 1931{89} has written: "Adolf Hitler .. its whole social and political theory upon the patent fallacy of human equality . The Nazis left few people in Germany safe from the gas chambers. the equal moral status of all humans must be recognized by the law.{91} has clearly rejected the idea of human equality. they identify certain humans they find expendable. a leader in the eugenics movement..

The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy. In effect. the idea being promoted is that human action is essentially the same as that of a machine in operation.asp?id=1602) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it has a very narrow conception of what it means to be a human being. then there is no meaning to human thought or human action and all human reason is reduced to the point of being meaningless. In these terms. human beings are essentially understood to be passive creatures who respond to the environment in a purely mechanical fashion. This notion reduces a human thought to nothing more than a series of bio-chemical reactions. only “bad” calculations. As such. no person is responsible for his or her own behavior. Yet.independent.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 306 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Bad – VTL Utilitarianism takes away all value to live Cleveland Professor of Business Administration and Economics 2002 (Cleveland 2002 Paul A.org/publications/article. Within Bentham’s view. there are no “bad” motives.[6] 306 .. The Journal of Private Enterprise. http://www. Professor of Business Administration and Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. if this is true.

307 . The first thing to notice is that utilitarianism is a general normative theory either about what is desirable. 1994: 150). 1994: 150). On the other hand however. being “morally defensible” (which “entails the idea of a moral presumption in favour of respecting them”) only in so a far as they contribute to overall utility (Lyons. though the heavens fall.ac. professor of philosophy @ U Mich. these reasons are not equivalent to the moral force of such rights. Conversely. if one follows Hobbes and says.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 307 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Excludes Rights Rights incompatible with utilitarianism. than that liberty which every man hath to make use of his natural faculties according to right reason. A philosopher can be a utilitarian without offering any definition of "a right" and indeed without having thought about the matter. then it is pretty clear that a utilitarian will have no place for rights in his sense. The problem then. which Lyons calls “the legal rights inclusion thesis” (Lyons. liberty) is for some sort of thing to be secured to one absolutely. but in the first instance not a theory of rights at all. leaving this debate aside as it exceeds the scope of this paper. “Suggesting A ‘Separate’ Approach To Utility and Rights: Deontological Specification and Teleogical Enforcement of Human Rights. 1994: 150). then they seem as confusing on this scheme as natural or moral rights are claimed to be. Utilitarianism. that of “government house utilitarianism” (see Goodin. legal rights are seen as being compatible with utilitarian goals as they are normatively neutral. 1994: 150). Brandt. Cambridge University Press. as conceived by Lyons. This then raises the question as to whether or not utilitarianism can accommodate any rights at all. even legal rights as its exponents claim it is able to do. because they do not exclude direct utilitarian arguments against exercising such rights or for interfering with them (Lyons. 1995: 27) is worth considering as a possible means to a solution. or normative force” (Lyons. 1992 Richard. the utilitarian finds herself in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why rights ought to be bothered with at all. Bentley graduate of the Department of government at the University of Manchester. and Rights. Util ignores fundamental rights and creates a slippery slope until rights lose all significance Bentley 2k [ Kristina A. However. It is true that some definitions of "a right" are so manifestly incompatible with the normative theses of utilitarianism that it is clear that a utilitarian could not admit that there are rights in that sense.pdf] Utilitarian theories usually present the view that they are capable of accommodating the idea of legal rights. as well as providing a normative theory about such rights. For instance. "Neither by the word right is anything else signified.uk/pir/postgrad/vol1_issue3/issue3_article1. Morality." one is not going to be able to accept a utilitarian normative theory . or about what conduct is morally right. as if they may be violated on an ad hoc basis to satisfy the demands of maximal utility. as such rights would then in certain circumstances preclude the pursuit of the most utile course of action owing to their “moral force. if someone says that to have a right (life. Again. This being the case. in its rule formulation at least.” September. is whether or not utilitarians can account for the moral force of legal rights (which people are commonly regarded as having by rights theorists and utilitarians alike). http://www.abdn. except by implication. an alternative approach. and that this is a self-evident truth. for a utilitarian is not going to underwrite a man's absolute liberty to pursue his own good according to his own judgment. as: although there are often utilitarian reasons for respecting justified legal rights. utilitarian theorists are sceptical of the idea of moral rights unsupported by legal institutions. Pg 196.

then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. if not treated sanely. liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. p 91-93 There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival. Dictators never talk about their aggressions. when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore. Co-founder and former director of The Hastings Institute. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if. provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. Survival can become an obsession and a disease. of wiping out all other values.then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 308 /414 Nelson <tournament> Survival Instinct Bad – Destroys Humanity The quest for survival destroys humanity Callahan. It is easy. director of The Hastings Institute. 308 . The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable. and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life. “The Tyranny of Survival” 1973. or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. It is directed even at a legitimate concern for survival. If. the need for survival is basic to man. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. But my point goes deeper than that. if the price of survival is human degradation. because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive. of course. they succeeded in not doing so. without in the process. and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements. 73 Daniel Callahan. but only about the need to defend the fatherland. no rights. suppress. to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. both biologically and psychologically. PhD in philosophy from Harvard University. destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival? To put it more strongly.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 309 /414 Nelson <tournament> **RIGHTS/DEONTOLOGY** 309 .

In sum. and the end of all human aspiration . Prof of Law @ Wake Forest U. Dehumanization outweighs every other impact Montagu and Matson." Thus. Ask Milovan Djilas. It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent physical harm.com/vb/archive/index. Its more conventional name. is dehumanization. this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Hourseman of the Apocalypse. 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. http://64.html+montagu+matson+dehumanization&hl=en The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine (psychiatry aside). echoing Ernest Hemingway . then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. famine.cross-x. For that reason. if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and the Proper ordering. of course. Sylvester Petro. or natual calamity on record -. despotism. pg." 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. Professor of American Studies at University of Hawaii The dehumanization of man.233. Esteemed Scientist and Writer.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 310 /414 Nelson <tournament> Must Evaluate Human Rights (1/2) Violations of freedom and justice must be evaluated before every other impact Petro Professor of Law 74. plague. That road leads to chaos. one may still insist. tyranny. yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war. 4801) However.php/t939595. and Floyd Matson.104/search?q=cache:hnDfqSFkJJwJ:www. 310 .187. yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its lethal effects are everywhere on display. University of Toledo Law Review. Ask Solzhenitsyn. scientist and professor 83 Ashley Montagu.and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation."I believe in only one thing: liberty. principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare.

The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development. and to help develop a culture and jurisprudence of indivisible human rights. globalization of the market economy. New York City Law Review. peace. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world. who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. particularly affecting Northern countries. machinations to truncate it in the international arena. Indeed. Rev.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 311 /414 Nelson <tournament> Must Evaluate Human Rights (2/2) Human rights abuses must be evaluated Copelon. environmental protection. particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women. version of rights. the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. and security. Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority of the U.Y. Professor of Law. Professor of Law and Director of the International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic at the City University of New York School of Law. City L. 3 N. encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability. to rebuild popular expectations.S.S. 311 . 1998/99. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights. violence by official and private actors. it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy. in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty. 98 Rhonda Copelon. and military and environmental depredation. 59 The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.

we are inviolable because 312 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 312 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology precludes util. therefore. ‘not only is it an evil for a person to be harmed in certain ways. then. but for it to be permissible to harm the person in those ways is an additional and independent evil’ (p. issue 11. So Nagel faces the Scheffler problem: ‘How could it be wrong to harm one person to prevent greater harm to others? How are we to understand the value that rights assign to certain kinds of human inviolability. ‘A right is an agent-relative. of course. not an agentneutral. For. “On Defending Deontology”.91). Louis. Ratio. That status is one of being inviolable (which is not. our emphasis – note the presumption inherent in the question). So there is a sense in which we are better off if there are rights (they are a ‘kind of generally disseminated intrinsic good’ (p. the grounding is indirect – the notion is that worlds in which there are agent-relative reasons are better than worlds in which there are not. and then seeks to show that deontology is such a system. that agent-relative reasons rest directly on considerations of value in a manner obviously susceptible to the CVC.89. The claim is not. and are. Nagel argues that an agent relative morality. value’.88). of course. Thus rights (the obverse of constraints) have value. The answer ‘focuses on the status conferred on all human beings by the design of a morality which includes agent-relative constraints’ (p. part of the basic structure of moral theory. qua moral system. which makes this consequence morally intelligible?’ (p. This is precisely because it is supposed to resist the CVC (one is forbidden to violate a right even to minimize the total number of such violations). says Nagel (1995. In short. Thus we concur with Hooker (1994). 48-49 Ebsco] Nagel effectively accepts the consequentialist view that a system of moral rules can only be defended by showing that their adoption brings about some good that could not otherwise be realized. p. A system of morality that includes inviolability encapsulates a good that its rivals cannot capture. to say that one will not be violated.93)). p. pace Howard-Snyder (1993).89). that rule consequentialism is not a 'rubber duck'. rather. but that one may not be violated – even to minimize the total number of such violations).the values of deontology come first Mcnaughton and Rawling 98 [David McNaughton and Piers Rawling are professors of philosophy at Keele University and the University of Missouri-St. is intrinsically valuable. Hence there are rights.

The means must justify themselves. Anderson. If morality is based on results.inviolability is intrinsically valuable. Americans in the eighteenth century could justify slavery on the basis that it provided a good consequence for a majority of Americans. Certainly the majority benefited from cheap slave labor even though the lives of black slaves were much worse. 2004 (Kerby Anderson is the National Director of Probe Ministries International. But at best we can only guess at the future. When results occur.html) One problem with utilitarianism is that it leads to an "end justifies the means" mentality. The end never justifies the means. then we would have to have omniscience in order to accurately predict the consequence of any action. Utilitarianism provides no objective and consistent foundation to judge results because results are the mechanism used to judge the action itself. But we all know that the end does not justify the means. A fourth problem with utilitarianism is that consequences themselves must be judged. . If any worthwhile end can justify the means to attain it. Stalin could justify his slaughter of millions because he was trying to achieve a communist utopia.probe. we must still ask whether they are good or bad results. A particular act cannot be judged as good simply because it may lead to a good consequence. utilitarianism cannot protect the rights of minorities if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. the means must justify themselves – utilitarianism justifies the Holocaust. A third problem with utilitarianism is predicting the consequences.org/theology-and-philosophy/worldview-philosophy/utilitarianism-the-greatest-good-for-thegreatest-number.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 313 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology comes first. and often these educated guesses are wrong. a true ethical foundation is lost. 313 . Second. then Hitler could justify the Holocaust because the end was to purify the human race. Probe Ministries “Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” http://www. If that were so. The means must be judged by some objective and consistent standard of morality.

part of the basic structure of moral theory.88). is intrinsically valuable. The claim is not. our emphasis – note the presumption inherent in the question). In short. that agent-relative reasons rest directly on considerations of value in a manner obviously susceptible to the CVC. p. A system of morality that includes inviolability encapsulates a good that its rivals cannot capture.89). Hence there are rights. not an agentneutral. that rule consequentialism is not a 'rubber duck'. ‘A right is an agent-relative. issue 11. Thus we concur with Hooker (1994). to say that one will not be violated. says Nagel (1995. the grounding is indirect – the notion is that worlds in which there are agent-relative reasons are better than worlds in which there are not. which makes this consequence morally intelligible?’ (p.89. ‘not only is it an evil for a person to be harmed in certain ways. but for it to be permissible to harm the person in those ways is an additional and independent evil’ (p. This is precisely because it is supposed to resist the CVC (one is forbidden to violate a right even to minimize the total number of such violations). p. we are inviolable because 314 . but that one may not be violated – even to minimize the total number of such violations).93)). Nagel argues that an agent relative morality. So there is a sense in which we are better off if there are rights (they are a ‘kind of generally disseminated intrinsic good’ (p. Thus rights (the obverse of constraints) have value. qua moral system. pace Howard-Snyder (1993). rather.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 314 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology precludes util. For. then. of course. So Nagel faces the Scheffler problem: ‘How could it be wrong to harm one person to prevent greater harm to others? How are we to understand the value that rights assign to certain kinds of human inviolability. “On Defending Deontology”. The answer ‘focuses on the status conferred on all human beings by the design of a morality which includes agent-relative constraints’ (p. therefore. and are. and then seeks to show that deontology is such a system. of course. Louis. value’. That status is one of being inviolable (which is not. 48-49 Ebsco] Nagel effectively accepts the consequentialist view that a system of moral rules can only be defended by showing that their adoption brings about some good that could not otherwise be realized.the values of deontology come first Mcnaughton and Rawling 98 [David McNaughton and Piers Rawling are professors of philosophy at Keele University and the University of Missouri-St.91). Ratio.

that any substantive outcome acheived by morally proper procedure is morally right and hence acceptable (so long as rights are not in play). (But total numbers killed do not count if members of one group have to kill members of another group to save themselves from threatened massacre of enslavement or utter degradation or misery. So long as rights are not in play. or involve the clash of interests.com/books?id=MtGJdmzqLZoC&dq=kateb+%22what+does+a+theory %22&source=gbs_navlinks_s] What does a theory of rights leave undecided? Many issues of public policy do not affect individual rights. the situations must be desperate. When may rights be overridden by the government? I have two sorts of cases in mind: overriding a particular right of some persons for the sake of preserving the same right of others. That choice does not mean that those to be sacrificed are immoral if they resist being sacrificed. whether for the disadvantaged or for everyone.) 315 . which ordinarily is only to help to decide what theory of rights leave alone. sacrifice. say.can (perhaps must) choose to save the greater number of lives and at the cost of the lesser number. or when all hope of innocence is gone.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 315 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology comes before util. To accept utilitarianism (in some loose sense) as a necessary supplement. For the state to override-that is. against utilitarianism.utilitarianism can be a last resort to preserve fundamental rights Kateb 1992 [George Kateb is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics. It thus should function innocently. Such issues pertain to the promotion of a better life. Just as one may prefer saving one’s own life to saving that of another when both cannot be saved.” An advocate of rights could countenance.a right of some so theat others may keep it. The state (or some other agent) may kill some or allow them to be killed). despite frequent ingeniuous efforts to claim that they do. It follows. One can even think. circumstances in which the choice is between sacrificing a right of some and letting a right of all be lost. of course. at Princeton University “The Inner Ocean” http://books. I cannot see any resolution but to heed the precept that numbers count. advocates of rights can rightly allow a loose utilitarianism as the proper guide to public policy. the state’s overriding of rights for these two reasons. though they should always be eager to keep the state’s energy under suspicion. the lesser are also not wrong if they resist being sacrificed. they may kill their attackers in an attempt to end the threat. I havein mind. I emphasize. that if a third party is right to risk or sacrifice the lives of the lesser for the lives of the greater number when the lesser would otherwise live. But its advocates must know its place. that every care must be taken to ensure that the precept that numbers of lives count does not become a license for vaguely conjectural decisions about inflicting death and saving life and that desperation be as strictly and narrowly understood as possible. above all. is that utilitarianism has a necessary place in any democratic country’s normal political deliberations. however.google. so a third party-let us say. if the only alternative is letting everyone die. and overriding the same right of everyone for the sake of what I will clumsily call “civilization values. Emeritus. The subject is painful and liable to dispute every step of the way. the state. The main point. It is the right to life which most prominently figures in thinking about desperate situations. when there is otherwise no hope for either group. however. perhaps must countenance.

However. 1994: 53). such that if thousands of lives would be saved by the torture. So while Dworkin would probably argue that to torture someone to give others in society pleasure at the sight would be trumped by the right not to be tortured. to refer back to Gewirth’s example. trump the right of an individual not to be tortured. As Richard B. assertions that these conceptions of justice are incompatible are not always acknowledged by exponents of consequentialism. he would perhaps concede that to torture an individual to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb. according to the rights-based account. it would always be morally wrong to torture an innocent person. Conversely. or supersede ordinary notions of well-being. as is the case in Gewirth’s example. the opponents of this view hold that rights constitute an area which is beyond the reach of such calculations. Bentley graduate of the Department of government at the University of Manchester. 1994: 52). may be justified. accessing the same things as util Bentley No Date [ Kristina A. Most utilitarians of course have not thought there is such an incompatibility” (Brandt. as it does not rule out rights being overridden by such considerations when other fundamental rights are threatened (Jones. theories of rights quite simply consider respect for rights to be the primary consideration in the course of social deliberation. Dworkin’s formulation again places the domain of rights beyond the reach of ordinary considerations of utility.pdf] The second area of departure between utilitarianism and rights-based theories is that “utilitarians advocate a simple maximising strategy” as the aim is “to maximise social utility and a society is justified in doing whatever enhances its aggregate utility” (Jones. Consequently. This is because rights are regarded as being considerations which are special in the sense that they protect individuals from the potential excesses of such calculations.uk/pir/postgrad/vol1_issue3/issue3_article1. while a utilitarian approach would weigh up the evidence. Consequently.abdn. 1994: 53). in this instance. This roughly reflects Dworkin’s notion of “Rights as Trumps” which override. as the right to life of all others in society may.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 316 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology preserves fundamental rights and still accesses the ultimate good. The difference however is that Dworkin’s theory occupies some middle ground. even if this would result in a large increase in aggregate utility in such a society. “Suggesting A ‘Separate’ Approach To Utility and Rights: Deontological Specification and Teleogical Enforcement of Human Rights” http://www. 1992: 196). as it would be pointless if rights could be “set aside in a mere calculus of competing preferences” (Jones.ac. even if this potentially infringes on individual rights. but he does make provision for rights to be balanced against one another (to “trump” one another) in cases of extreme gravity for rights themselves. 316 . while utilitarians consider the ultimate “good” or “utility” on the balance to be the correct goal to pursue. then it ought to be done. Brandt states: “There is a fundamental incompatibility between utilitarianism and human rights.

ignoring social ethics and. when he states that "claims of welfare economics to be scientific are highly dubious. and ethical considerations. However. if the results are used by policy makers. if ethics is influencing our analyses but ignored. [Ethics and economic policy for the food system. as implied by Stigler. it is critically important that the causal relationship between policy options and expected impact on the population groups of interest is quantitatively estimated . General Sessions. in which both quantitative and qualitative variables are taken into account? I believe we are. is the precision and objectivity just an illusion? Are we in fact being normative when we claim to be positive or are we. contributing to a situation in which we know "the price of everything and the value of nothing?" The economists' focus on efficiency and the Pareto Principle has made us less relevant to policy makers. xvi). Hueth. the socalled new welfare economics (which is no longer new) was a step toward more relevancy for policy makers (Just. 9) seems to think so. replace ethics with precision and objectivity? Or. They (and I) find this subject complex and elusive in comparison with the relative precision and objectivity of economic analysis. 2005. as suggested by Gilbert (p. whose main concerns are who gains. who loses. context. American Journal of Agricultural Economics Ebsco Host. The predictive ability is likely to be low and. But are we trading off scientific validity for relevancy? Robbins (p. By focusing on the distribution of gains and losses and replacing the Pareto Principle with estimates of whether a big enough economic surplus could be generated so that gainers could compensate losers. as argued by Robbins? I am not questioning whether the quantification of economic relationships is important.] Economists seldom address ethical questions as they infringe on economic theory or economic behavior. as a consequence. Another major step toward relevancy was made by the more recent emphasis on political economy and institutional economics. when did we. and Schmitz). Economic analyses that ignore everything that cannot be quantified and included in our models are not likely to advance our understanding of economic and policy relationships.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 317 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology Good – K2 Policy Evaluating the deontological aspects of a policy is critical to policy making Pinstrup-Andersen. Does that make us less scientific. But not at the expense of reality." But if Aristotle saw economics as a branch of ethics and Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. 01DEC-05. when did we as economists move away from philosophy toward statistics and engineering and are we on our way back to a more comprehensive political economy approach. 317 . by how much. the outcome may be different from what was expecte. Neither will they be relevant for solving real world problems. In the case of food policy analysis. much of which can be described only in qualitative terms. It is. and can or should the losers be compensated.

we will not be showing disrespect for the one if we so use him. I believe. but only to respect the constraints that express its presence. Kamm 92 [ FM Kamm is Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy. Indeed. Kagan claims that the only sense in which we can show disrespect for people is by using them in an unjustified way. Kennedy School Non-consequentialism. but is already present in the status that persons have. He simply wants them in their proper place.“International Deontology Defended: A Response to Russell Hardin”. Kant does not dismiss consequences. the person as an end-in-itself. a better place. It does not follow (causally or noncausally) upon any act. Ensuring it provides the background against which we may then seek their welfare or pursue other values. as it has more important creatures in it. the categorical imperative that requires all of us to act in a way that respects the intrinsic value of other rational beings.3' In this sense the inviolable status (against being harmed in a certain way) of any potential victim can be taken to be an agent-neutral value. Philosophy and Public Affairs. It is a false but all-too common myth that Kant believed that consequences were irrelevant to the evaluation of moral action. we are creatures whose interests as recipients of such ordinary benefits as welfare are more worth serving. 390 JSTOR] If we are inviolable in a certain way. a statement that echoes Mill’s famous principle of utility. Hence. pg. The world is. In his practical writings Kant explicitly states that each of us has a duty to maximize the happiness of other individuals. Ethics and International Affairs. And this other sense of disrespect is. if it is justified to kill one to save five. “ p. categorical imperative means deont still maximizes happiness Donaldson 95 (Thomas Donaldson is Professor of Business Ethics at Georgetown U. namely. and the significance of status. in a sense. Deontology does not dismiss consequences.”. But Kant’s duty to promote beneficial consequences is understood to be derived from an even higher order principle. 318 . tied to the failure to heed the greater inviolability of persons. we are more important creatures than violable ones. even though we also should not treat animals in an unjustified way. such a higher status is itself a benefit to us.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 318 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology Good – K2 VTL Deontology key to giving human life value. It is not our duty to bring about the agent-neutral value. But there is another sense of disrespect tied to the fact that we owe people more respect than animals. 147-154) When discussing nuclear deterrence or intervention it is common to exaggerate the nonconsequential nature of Kantianism. This is a nonconsequential value.

by every rational consideration." he asks. None of that has much if anything to do with reason. the suicidal dangersof what we call 'rational argument' when we con-front questions that can only be decided by an appeal to an entirely different faculty from that of cool reason. No argument based on reason will lead me to care for posterity or to lift a finger in its behalf. For all that. as an American. what the hell-one will also recognize the moral interdependence of generations as one of the conditions for extracting whatever possibilities there are for human happiness. fmr. If a case is to be made for caring about the fate of posterity. But this is not because the economist's arguments are 'wrong'-indeed. depressing state of the world. is not to make the rational case for obligations 319 . And surely. http://www. meaningless and terrible-in which case.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 319 /414 Nelson <tournament> Callahan (1/2) Callahan embraces reason and says it must be used in combination with a moral obligation to make decisions Callahan. that of "the transcendent importance of posterity for them. Heilbroner quotes an anonymous "Distinguished Younger Economist" who has concluded that he really doesn't "care" whether mankind survives or not. precisely the opposite answer is thrust upon us with irresistible force. Director of the Hastings Institute. the worst forms of sentimentality (or pure cruelty). it is to love both the fact and idea of life itself. simply startling. war and the like-will bring people back to what is an essentially "religious" insight. she implied. after praising the position I took in opposition to Garrett Hardin's "Life-boat Ethic" ("Doing Good by Doing Well. In "What has Posterity Ever Done for Me?" (New York Times Magazine. tribalism." It is intriguing to see the way Heilbroner develops his case. January 19. she seemed to be saying. Surely. An Inquiry Into the Human Prospect. A recent article by Robert L. Only some fundamental revelatory experience-to wit. February 1975. 1974). To love and believe in life at all is not just to love one's own life. I am far more fearful of a deliberate abandonment of reason than of the evils which can be done in its name. and god knows what else. More deeply. it will arise out of the highly rational recognition that (for better or worse) we are where we are because it seemed to our ancestors only sensible to worry about the fate of their descendants. just as (also for better or worse) still earlier generations had worried about their descendants. It is because their position reveals the limitations-worse." Heilbroner queries." I find Heilbroner's despair at finding a rational basis to care about posterity. Indeed. Those vast. to begin with the past." Dec. there is an inherent conflict between humanitarianism and rationalism. "should I lift a finger to affect events that will have no more meaning for me 75 years after my death than those that happened 75 years before I was born? There is no rational answer to that terrible question. Heilbroner. utterly unanalyzed assumptions about politics. fallen into a fatal trap by trying to argue with Hardin’s thesis on "rationalistic rounds. 1975). famine. ended her letter with a complaint. Fmr. including the life of those yet to be born. intricate edifices rest on a bowl of porridge. "an outrageous position? I must confess it outrages me. regardless of its condition. author of The Tyranny of Survival & Senior Fellow at Yale. particularly when such positions are advanced in the name of no-nonsense rational calculation. "Is this. however. We have in the twentieth century been subjected to endless wars.jstor. 75 DANIEL CALLAHAN. I had." My beginning with the past is no accident. One can well understand how rationality has come to have a bad name. neither of which will be saved if they must be defended on the narrow base of reason and logic. The issue at stake is "humanitarianism" and the future of altruism. is indicative of the muddle created when one calls for an abandonment of rationality in favor of something more Illuminating. I balk at admitting such a dualism. Director of the Hastings Institute. just as I rebel at the general black-balling of reason and logic which seems to many to offer the only antidote to the generally insane. or the distant past." Going on. As an unreconstructed rationalist. unless one has decided that human life is. or ethics. he must find some slight trace of present and personal meaning in the historical fact that some distant people once upon a time signed a "declaration of independence. Heilbroner tries to make the case that contemporary human beings will never learn to take responsibility for the future of mankind until they give up trying to find a compelling reason why they should. made up of irrational self-interest. Prof. or human nature.org/stable/3560956 A RECENT correspondent. Poke around a bit under the facade of carefully-honed rationality and precise logical moves and what does one usually discover? Pure mush. The fault with the latter form of attacking "reason" is that it takes those arguing in its name too much at their own word. he can hardly believe (to stick to his own field of economics) that Adam Smith and the other "worldly philosophers" have no significance whatever any more. despite the fact that they had a critical place in shaping the world in which we live today. Indeed. One can also understand the sense of distaste any feel in the face of articulate proponents of "triage" in our dealings with poor countries and a "lifeboat ethic" in deter-mining our own moral responsibilities toward the starving. My point here. author of the much-acclaimed book. "Why. within their rational framework they are indisputably right. ills and disasters carried out in the name of somebody or other's impeccable logic and assertedly rational deliberations.

" Of course we may have to act harshly. and longing for a return to something more primitive. can readily be seen in the texture of some of Heilbroner's other arguments. It is a far more difficult matter to be rational. by which he seems to mean some deep sense of obligation toward the future. whose justification cannot be found in the precepts of rationality. how are we to act harshly. But. even revolting. the pillar to the center of the earth Heilbroner offers us begins to look like a piece of balsa wood. the frequently indignant reaction which greeted Hardin's "lifeboat ethic" indicates that many are not about to adopt a policy of calculating callousness. Heilbroner himself cites at least one person who does not share his feelings. I can think of still others). presuming he is spared the ordeal of worrying about whether the premises are correct. Hardin is correct when he says that we must think very hard about the question of survival. "there are moral dilemmas to be faced even if one takes one's stand on the 'survivalist' principle. Garrett Hardin and Robert Heilbroner. to whom and under what circumstances? Are we also meant to abandon reason in trying to answer that question? Are we supposed to solve the evident "moral dilemmas" to which Heilbroner refers by a dependence.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 320 /414 Nelson <tournament> Callahan (2/2) toward posterity. It is only to indicate there are rational ways of going about it (and if you don't like the reasons I've given. some and perhaps many people will decide that survival at any price is not a moral good. reason has its say even in the way we feel. seem to come out at opposite poles in the place they give to reason. The truly hazardous part of despairing of reason." he writes."Almost anyone can work through a simple syllogism. But it seems to me at least clear that the worst possible solution is to choose one at the expense of the other. "Of course. But he seems not to have realized that. unless the drive for survival has a moral basis and a saving reference to some-thing deeper than rational calculation.. "logical" though that may seem. It takes more than mere logic to move people deeply. per-haps very harsh measures. and for very healthy reasons. [But] this essential commitment to life's continuance gives us the moral authority to take measures. to bring the circle full turn. particularly where ethics is concerned 320 . The amusing side of all this is that the two principal "survivalists" of our day. powerful enough to give us the courage and the toughness to take those immediate steps necessary to discharge our obligation. More than that.. He is looking for what he calls the "survivalist" principle. There is enough evidence from recent psychological research to indicate that our feelings and emotions are vigorously tutored by our perceptions and cognition. Heilbroner is correct when he discerns that the appeal to reason has its limitations. but must be sought in the unbearable anguish we feel if we imagine ourselves as the executioner of mankind. Neither is likely to carry the day. And Heilbroner's quest for some deeper affective. and unless we are to suppose that person to represent a class of one. Moreover. not on reason. "religious" motivation for survival seems the very model of that soft-hearted and woolly-headed humanitarianism which Hardin identifies as the villain. but on a sense of "unbearable anguish"?I see no reason to hope that even a fully shared sense of anguish would tell us how to resolve moral dilemmas. or to think that we can make a flat choice between them. A no less important insight is that there is all the difference in the world between being "rational “and being "logical. especially to move them to act. Hardin appears the very paradigm of that cool rationality which Heilbroner believes to be our greatest threat to survival.. however much such thought may end by posing hard. choices. just as there are rational ways of establishing a variety of other moral duties. Nothing I have said here solves the vexing problem of the right relationship between reason and feeling in the moral life.

The moral difficulty is obvious: the social concern with survival as the only or as the decisive variable in making decisions on technological utilization is decision-making at a level well below any acceptable moral minimum. Cambridge University Press. 3 (Jul. The "survival only" thesis fails by overemphasizing one value. 1975).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 321 /414 Nelson <tournament> Callahan Ext We replace survival as the sole aspect of decision making Moore. 321 . then indeed just about anything is permitted. http://www. Given the failure of the extreme positions. He very effectively points out that there is almost nothing people won't do once they are convinced that survival (of a group. 75 Harold Moore. 37. Callahan claims that two extremes are to be avoided in forging a responsible perspective: the "tyranny of survival" on the one hand and the "tyranny of individualism" on the other. Cambridge University Press. life or kind of life) is at stake. The thesis of "individualism" errs in another way: in making the satisfaction of individual needs and desires the locus of morality it offers no real hope of coping with either man's communal life or the moral problems that ineluctably follow from man's social nature.jstor. The Review of Politics. Callahan argues for the development of a public morality. If survival is the only value. No. one that is capable of integrating values other than mere survival.org/stable/1406214 If the solution does not lie in the development of more efficient technology. then contemporary society needs a new basis for analyzing the moral problems precipitated by recent technological developments. Vol..

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 322 /414 Nelson <tournament> 322 .

. Pg 12. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. p. 225). reveals what the person is. we demonstrate an ability to subordinate the pursuit of our own good.. 3. 323 . Rawls himself makes the same strong connection between reasonableness and these two kinds of priority: But the desire to express our nature as a free and equal rational being can be fulfilled only by acting on the principles of right and justice as having first priority. Taylor. whose actions are determined by the laws of nature rather than the moral law (p. Princeton University Press. Project MUSE. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. which may be unduly influenced by the “contingencies and accidents of the world. . Moral law outweighs other considerations – integral to human nature. and to compromise it is not to achieve for the self free reign but to give way to the contingencies and accidents of the world” (p.e.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. beings able to act in conformity with. . Princeton University Press. 86 of Theory: “the sense of justice . When we act reasonably. Robert. . Taylor. This sentiment cannot be fulfilled if it is compromised and balanced against other ends as but one desire among the rest (TJ. to sacrifice justice for the sake of welfare or excellence of character would be to sacrifice what is of absolute value (the good will) for what is of merely relative value (its complements). No. i. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. No. Just as reasonableness is a key facet of our autonomy. our independence from natural and social contingencies. 2003. 3. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 323 /414 Nelson <tournament> Moral Justice First Moral justice vital – sets us apart from animalistic tendencies. Robert.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. The tight connection between reasonableness and autonomy is explained by Rawls in sec. A person who acts reasonably acts according to a principle of reciprocity: he seeks to give “justice to those who can give justice in return” (p.” to those principles we would choose as members of the intelligible realm—our reasonableness. is the ability to limit the pursuit of one’s conception of the good out of a respect for the rights and interests of other people and out of a desire to cooperate with them on fair terms. so the priorities of right and justice are expressions of our reasonableness: we best indicate our commitment to guide our actions by the principles of justice by refusing to compromise those principles for the sake of our other ends. 503). This explains our sense of shame when we fail to act reasonably: we behave then as if we were members of a “lower order” of animal. or the capacity for a sense of justice. is emblematic of our autonomy. the moral law. Project MUSE. 447). Pg 13. emphasis added). In Kant’s terms. . 2003. The Priority of Right over the Good and the Priority of Justice over Welfare and Efficiency are both expressions of our nature as reasonable beings. Therefore in order to realize our nature we have no alternative but to plan to preserve our sense of justice as governing our other aims. 503. Reasonableness. says Rawls. and out of respect for. in other words.

however. 3. and autonomy: if our desires are largely the product of natural and social contingencies. 12 The image of rationality here is active . professor of philosophy @ Princeton. so defined. which we pursue through a plan of life. Rationality is our capacity for a conception of the good. Princeton University Press. rationality exercises authority over them: rationality elevates some desires and lays low others. Pg 14. we arrange the pursuit of our interests and ends according to a coherent scheme (secs. not passive. Taylor. We schedule.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. Rather than being haplessly driven on by the dominant desires. and prune our desires in accordance with this plan. Desires that tend to interfere with other ends. rather than living from impulse to impulse. Paton notes that prudential reasoning in Kant’s moral theory involves “a choice of ends as well as means” and a subsequent “maximum integration of ends. temper. Robert. 63–64).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 324 /414 Nelson <tournament> Moral Rationality First Moral rationality key to sustainable decisionmaking – avoids animalistic tendencies. one may find it difficult to see the connection between rationality. Far from being a slave of desire. are weeded out. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. This conception of rationality is consistent with at least one reading of Kant’s idea of practical reason as applied to the pursuit of happiness: H. 2003. as other animals do. then how can acting in accordance with a plan to advance them be an aspect of our autonomy? In other words. as Rawls indicates in the following passage: The aim of deliberation is to find that plan which best organizes our activities and influences the formation of our subsequent wants so that our aims and interests can be fruitfully combined into one scheme of conduct.”13 324 . rationality is its master. given what was said in the previous subsection. No. then how can rationality possibly express our nature as free and equal beings? According to Rawls.” 11 and these passions are the result of such contingencies. Now. Project MUSE. rationality is much more than a “slave of the passions. prioritize. or which undermine the capacity for other activities. it integrates retained desires into “one scheme of conduct”. if rationality is merely the “slave of the passions. whereas those that are enjoyable in themselves and support other aims as well are encouraged.” The exercise of rationality involves a clear distancing from one’s immediate desires. and it even shapes the development of future desires. J.

in performing or even contemplating the performance of such an action the son would lose all self-respect and would regard his life as no longer worth living. Alan. 'monstrous'. the concept appropriate to it is not merely 'wrong' but such others as 'despicable'. dishonourabte. it includes saintly and heroic actions whose moral merit surpasses what is strictly required of agents. what is base. The principle requires respect for the rights of all persons to the necessary conditions of human action. or despicable is not merely bad or wrong but goes beyond these in moral demerit since it subverts even the minimal worth or dignity both of its agent and of its recipient and hence. It is absolute . 'dishonorable". In parallel fashion. Just as the supererogatory is superlatively good. This absoluteness may be analyzed in several different interrelated dimensions. and this includes respect for the persons themselves as having the rational capacity to reflect on their purposes and to control their behaviour in the light of such reflection. What is supererogatory is not merely good or right but goes beyond these in various ways. To inflict such extreme harm on one' s mother would be an ultimate act of betrayal. and its moral wrongness is so rotten that a morally decent person will not even consider doing it. The principle hence prohibits using any person merely as a means to the well-being of other persons. such concepts function as the contrary extremes of concepts like the supererogatory . so the despicable is superlatively evil and diabolic.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 325 /414 Nelson <tournament> Rights Absolute Rights absolute – can’t infringe on one person’s rights to increase well-being of others. Joram Graf Haber. “Are There Any Absolute Rights?” Absolutism and its Consequentialist Critics. prof of philosophy @ U Chicago. This is but another way of saying that the rights it would violate must remain absolute. In the scale of moral modalities . as would any attempt by others to force such an action . For a son to torture his mother to death even 10 protect the lives of others would be an extreme violation of this principle and hence of these rights. 325 . Gewirth.' A mother' s right not to be tortured to death by her own son is beyond any compromise. the main objection to the very raising of such question s is the moral one that they seem to hold open the possibility of acquiescing and participating in an unspeakably evil project. so that she could then be safely hidden while the hunt for the gang members continued? Entirely apart from the fact that the gang could easily pierce this deception. 1994. 'base'. Pgs 137-138 Ought Abrams to torture his mother to death in order to prevent the threatened nuclear catastrophe? Might he not merely pretend to torture his mother. all stemming from the supreme principle of morality. For this reason . the basic presupposition s of morality itself.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 326 /414 Nelson <tournament> 326 .

they would be sacrificing their highest-order interest in rationality and its preconditions. In order to advance the reconstruction of the Hierarchy Argument. 53). If the parties were to sacrifice the basic liberties for the sake of other primary goods (the “means that enable them to advance their other desires and ends” [p. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. Note also that lexical priority can be justified here for all of the basic liberties. Taylor. and such a threat is disallowed given the absolute priority of this interest over other concerns. as called for by the Priority of Liberty? In short. however slightly. and thereby failing to express their nature as autonomous beings (p. 2003. 476]). which is why parties in the Original Position “give first priority to preserving their liberty in these matters” (pp. The freedoms of speech and assembly. 3. are necessary to create a stable and safe personal space for purposes of reflection and communication. and freedom of thought are essential to the creation and revision of plans of life: without secure rights to explore ideas and beliefs with others (whether in person or through various media) and consider these at our leisure. Pg 16.14 327 . Project MUSE. Robert. it justifies such priority because the basic liberties are necessary conditions for the exercise of rationality. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. not merely a subset of them (as was the case with the strains-of-commitment interpretation of the Equal Liberty of Conscience Argument). as well as the right to personal property and immunity from arbitrary arrest and seizure. 493). we must now answer the following question: How does this highest-order interest in rationality and its preconditions justify the lexical priority of the basic liberties over other primary goods. Even small restrictions on these basic liberties would threaten our highest order interest. Freedom of the person (including psychological and bodily integrity). without which rationality would be compromised if not crippled. 131–32). liberty of conscience. Princeton University Press.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 327 /414 Nelson <tournament> Rights/Liberty K2 Rationality Rights and basic liberties are a prerequisite of rational decisionmaking. No. we would be unable to make informed decisions about our conception of the good. A brief examination of the basic liberties enumerated by Rawls will indicate why they are necessary conditions for the exercise of rationality (p.

Pg 133.and values such as pleasure and happiness. professor of philosophy. A consideration of the morally rightful resolution of such conflicts brings out the inadequacy of the utilitarian calculus as a basis for determining the morally right response to such situations and conflicts. the right to moral autonomy and integrity. or with only negative reference.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 328 /414 Nelson <tournament> Moral Resolution O/W Util Utilitarianism fails to take into account prima facie rights– moral resolution of conflicts necessary. Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. many of which are rights of recipience. HJ. The theory of prima facie human rights that is outlined here is one in terms of prima facie rights. and the absence of pain and suffering. 328 . Many of these conflicts are to be resolved without reference . When the consequences do enter seriously into the resolution of the conflicts. viewed as a right of recipience. McCloskey. the solution arrived at is often very different from that which would be dictated by utilitarian con siderations. The points made in the preceding section may be illustrated by reference to conflicts of prima facie human rights such as the right to life. 1986. in which the rights create obligations and claims that collide with one another and with the moral demands created by other values. to consequences.

This line of reasoning goes as follows. indeed the only one within our control. not by just following his actual moral principles wherever they may lead. and in fact shows why a utilitarian requires a concept of moral obligation and what the concept will be. and it is optimal for the code to be $0. a morality of principle. but by following the moral principles the acceptance of which in society would maximize expectable utility. and Rights. as amended where long-range utility requires. we must emphasize that the right act is the one permitted by or required by the moral code the acceptance of which promises to maximize utility. Of course. the utilitarian will want everyone to be sensitive to the utility of giving aid to others and avoiding injury. to follow his conscientious principles. and not compromise. But suppose there is a minor disparity between the requirements of the moral code and what will do most good: suppose Mary will have to walk to work tomorrow. Utilitarianism. that is. and surely a good way up to a point. Second. with Bentham. If he has decided this.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 329 /414 Nelson <tournament> Morals Compatible With Util Concept of morals not mutually exclusive with utilitarianism. professor of philosophy @ U Mich. or the obligatory act. It is clear that acting morally in this sense will never be very costly in utility. and Rights. Brandt. Brandt. that he will want expedient acts as a means to happiness.as if such educational encouragement of sympathy is not enough. however. He will want. S. Utilitarianism. is to employ moral education to make people more sympathetic or altruistic. Cambridge University Press. but the gain in convenience to the person who obstructs her driveway will be: greater than the loss to her. Now. there will not be gross disparity between what it requires and conduct that promises to maximize benefit." For instance. taken together. There is. Morality. mainly because people are ill-informed about the probable consequences of what they do. If my exegesis of J. and in any case because the intent to do as much good as one can may lead to action at cross-purposes rather than to more beneficial cooperative behavior. that is the price that has to be paid for a policy. an optimal rule-utilitarian moral code will contain " escape clauses. . Only if we do this will we have room for a concept of " a right" which cannot be overridden by a marginal addition to the general welfare. Moreover. where so doing conflicts with the utility-maximizing code. One way. First. Morality. Let us say. who wants maximal happiness. 1992 Richard. we must hold that a person does the right act. My conclusion is that if we are to be utilitarians in the sense that we think morality should maximize long-range utility. So the utilitarian. But the thoughtful utilitarian will further ask himself how he can bring it about that people perform acts which. in order to do what in a particular situation will maximize utility . the one thing should be clear: If the moral system has been carefully devised. then it is inconsistent of him to turn around and advise individuals just to follow their discretion about what will maximize utility in a particular case. So it seems the consistent utilitarian will conclude that there is a moral obligation not to obstruct Mary' s driveway illegally. these recommendations are ones in which he would join. Pg 204-205. there are two positions we must espouse. We begin with the assumption that the utilitarian wants to maximize happiness in society. with its sanctions and implicit directives. Will the consistent utilitarian then advise the driver to park illegally? Let us suppose the utilitarian has decided that a utility maximizing moral code will not direct a person to do what he thinks will maximize expectable utility in a particular situation. It will occur to him that a legal system. Mill is correct. will both guide people what to do. follow conscience except where utility demands amendment of the principles of the code. except in extreme circumstances. and where it is costly at all. it will permit a driver to obstruct a driveway illegally when there is an emergency situation. professor of philosophy @ U Mich. in accordance with the optimal code. however.roughly. But once it is decided that the optimal code is not that of act-utilitarianism. another line of thinking that connects desirability with moral obligation for the utilitarian. 329 . To avoid such disparity. Pg 212. ideally ones that will maximize it as compared with other options. then. and at the same time provide motivation to conform to the legal standards. a legal system which as a whole will maximize happiness by producing pro-social conduct at the least cost. It looks. So he will want acts that produce welfare. requirements or encouragement to do so are pan of our actual moral cede. but to follow certain rules . will maximize happiness. if they become so. is human actions with that effect. he knows that one important means to his goal. they will tend to act more frequently to produce happiness in others. Cambridge University Press. and at the same time think that a utilitarian morality should have room for recognition of rights that cannot be overridden by marginal gains in utility. Successful integration of morality into utilitarian calculus possible. this means that people who want to do what is right may have to do some thinking about their moral principles in particular situations. Of course. will do something more than just try to motivate people to aim directly at it. 1992 Richard. the utilitarian will say it is desirable for a person to follow the optimal moral code.

professor of philosophy @ U Mich. perhaps nonviolent economic pressure that causes inconvenience or discomfort on behalf of a cause. and in societies in which individuals have felt it is their place to be downtrodden. First. or joining in a public protest. dispositions to fed guilt . Utilitarianism. A third level is that of passive disobedience. Of course. calling attention to the situation and inviting sympathy and support. A second level is public protest. Cambridge University Press. in order to bring about a change in those who are infringing moral obligations or to bring about legal institutions to prevent or punish such infringements.10 Second. 330 . may also be inclined not to feel ashamed or embarrassed to protest on their own behalf. it was not the case. patients may have a disposition to resent infringements of the rules we have been talking about when these impinge on them. as I have described it.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 330 /414 No Rights = Violent Backlash Nelson <tournament> Failure to satisfy moral obligations leads to violent backlash. when they are the parties injured.and of the attitudes of the generality of other persons toward agents approval or disapproval of them. Pgs 188-189. is a feature of agents . Morality. ill-treated. This feature need not occur. and so on. persons who resent it when they are injured or deprived in one of these ways or even when they are threatened because of the nonexistence of institutions able to protect them. people tend to resent any deliberate injury . or deprived. In my account nothing has been said about the patients. lack of cooperation. Finally there is violent action. 1992 Richard. The practice of company stores might elicit one level of protest. How can we absorb this idea into the conceptual scheme developed so far? Morality. I now suggest that we should extend our description of moral codes. the practice of lynch law on members of a racial minority quite another. the targets of the behavior of agents. willingness to cause personal or property damage.their motives. Of course there are several levels of this. and Rights. so this reaction is not specific to rules of rights. The first is expression of resentment to the injuring party. Presumably the level of protest will normally correlate with the strength of the obligation being infringed and the seriousness of the damage or threat. particularly for the institution of legal devices for prevention of what has occurred or redress or punishment when it already has occurred. to include something about patients. Brandt. or threatened.

disease a person? So to act is to violate a right. an eye. barbarous forms of punishment such as chopping off hands. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. How can another have the right to injure. Ill health and mutilation of the body need not threaten life. blinding. and still be the same person. Although it is true that we can lose an organ. Deliberately to harm the health of persons is to violate their personhood. Utility and Rights. infect. our body appertains to us as persons. professor of philosophy. 331 . G. McCloskey. A very powerful moral justification would be necessary for such an act not to constitute a grave end illegitimate violation of a right. a leg. our body is ours to care for and maintain as the vehicle of our personhood.” R. although not in the sense suggested in Locke's labor argument for private property nor in the sense claimed by many feminists in their defense of abortion from a woman's right to control (and mutilate?) her body. In a real sense.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 331 /414 Nelson <tournament> Right To Health O/W Right to health outweighs – violation of right to life. Pgs 127-128. impairing capacities. removing the tongue. The negative aspect of the case for the rights to health and bodily integrity is evidently strong. causing needless suffering. like the right to bodily integrity. So too with violation of bodily integrity. as with compulsory sterilization. overriding wills. Frey. The right to health. 1984 HJ. is related to but not whol1y based on the right to life.

The poorest are more likely to experience human rights violations. When poverty is so immediate and the suffering so intense. the world has a moral and strategic obligation to fight poverty and to address the human rights concerns of the most vulnerable.un. poverty reduction and the empowerment of the poor go hand in hand that we all have a moral duty to take action. The poorest are more likely to experience human rights violations. such as discriminateon and social exclusion. Poverty is above all about having no power and no voice. 06 Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa ( Bahrain). discrimination or other forms of persecution. we commemorate Human Rights Day with the theme “Fighting Poverty: a matter of obligation not charity”. we need to take action to empower the poor and address the root causes of poverty.htm Following is the message by Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa ( Bahrain).doc. If we are to eradicate poverty and promote human rights.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 332 /414 Nelson <tournament> Poverty Moral Obligation Humanity has a moral obligation to alleviate poverty. We have a moral obligation to solve poverty Al Khalifa. December 2006. If we are to eradicate poverty and promote human rights. education and housing. poverty reduction and the empowerment of the poor go hand in hand that we all have a moral duty to take action. President of the General Assembly. President of the General Assembly. observed 10 December: This year. It is because human rights. UN General Assembly Press Release. such as health care. the world has a moral and strategic obligation to fight poverty and to address the human rights concerns of the most vulnerable.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gasm380.un. 332 . we need to take action to empower the poor and address the root causes of poverty. such as health care. SAYS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT IN HUMAN RIGHTS DAY MESSAGE” 2006 www. United Nations“WORLD HAS MORAL OBLIGATION TO FIGHT POVERTY. discrimination or other forms of persecution. President of the General Assembly 8 December 2006 http://www. but failed solutions. Being poor makes it harder to find a job and get access to basic services. Poverty is above all about having no power and no voice. such as discrimination and social exclusion. education and housing. History is littered with well-meaning.htm When poverty is so immediate and the suffering so intense.doc. History is littered with well-meaning. but failed solutions. on the occasion of Human Rights Day.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gasm380. It is because human rights. PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS OF MOST VULNERABLE. Being poor makes it harder to find a job and get access to basic services.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 333 /414 Nelson <tournament> Action Key – End Result Irrelevant People are not a means to a result. involves a reflective awareness of ourselves in relation to others. seems to be that action “tracks” certain practical facts—facts about “where we stand” in relation to one another as members of a social world. Vol. Wollaston’s conception of action seems to presuppose a moral psychology which is different from Cumberland’s. Moreover. his view suggests that our ultimate practical concern is not for the effects we can produce. While Wollaston would not deny that every action involves an exercise of efficient causality. Kamm claims. echoed by Kamm. Mar 2001.18 And yet on both Wollaston’s and Kamm’s accounts. Thus Wollaston’s view. rather it is a claim about his status. this awareness determines an ultimate end of action which is not an effect to be brought about. “Three Conceptions of Action in Moral Theory” Ous. action contains a reflexive element. The claim that “you’re really something” is a not a claim about a person’s empirical or psychological state. The exercise of human agency. An action in accordance with moral constraints. 25p Ebsco] Kamm’s view of action. though less explicit and developed. 333 . the world to which action relates us descriptively is not the utilitarian’s world of natural causes and effects. 35 Issue 1. according to Wollaston. actions can succeed or fail to express the truth. That end is the faithful representation of the interpersonal order of which we are members. the results of an action are never as important as the action itself. the examples Wollaston invokes to illustrate his theory of action all involve claims about the status of an agent in relation to others. Schapiro 2001 [Tamar Schapiro is professor of philosophy at Stanford. And since there is such a fact of the matter.19 Similarly.20 Action expresses a conception of “where we stand” in relation to the other constituents of the world. states that another person has or lacks value as a matter of fact. conceived as a realm of status relations. Indeed his conception implies that in addition to a causal element. p93. shares this propositional orientation.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 334 /414 Nelson <tournament> **AT DEONTOLOGY/RIGHTS** 334 .

made by an agent who wants to infringe upon the rights of another. It is heartfelt. "because they are insufficiently rational. ''~4 On this point. Rorty's point is both clear and compelling: "Resentful young Nazi toughs were quite aware that many Jews were clever and learned. the real humans.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 335 /414 Nelson <tournament> Rights Violation Inev Hatred between groups of people make human rights violations inevitable Kohen. It is. however. The agent. typically. but not one in the fullest sense of that term or one who has actually achieved that status. The identity of these people.. 335 . would often be insanely dangerous--to let one's sense of moral community stretch beyond one's family. swimming. This rejoinder is not just a rhetorical device. might recognize that his victim is a PPA. 2005. ''8~ For Rorty. The first is that an agent can quite clearly sidestep rational inconsistency by believing that his victim is somehow less of an agent (and. In other words. ''83 It seems to me that the Nazis knew quite well that their Jewish victims could be PPAs in some sense.. rather than PPAs in the fullest sense. nor is it in any way irrational. ''86 This second point leads to the final critique of Gewirth's argument for the PGC. ''s5 The second problem for the PGC pointed out by Rorty is that it is overly academic and insufficiently pragmatic. Ph. its fifteen steps might be logically compelling to those in a philosophy department. . . Nor does it do much good to get such people to read Kant and agree that one should not treat rational agents simply as means. the victim is not properly a PPA. Since the days when the term "human being" was synonymous with "member of our tribe. We have contrasted us. here. The old adage about looking. for example). "The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency" Peer Reviewed Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. The rights of the Jews could be restricted. no amount of quacking will convince the agent that his victim is. a problem that will not be solved by demonstrating that the agent violates his victim on pain of self-contradiction because. . He might also recognize his victim as a potential PPA. not an untouchable . as a rational agent in the only relevant sense--the sense in which rational agency is synonymous with membership in our moral community. as Gewirth himself notes. because Jews were quite different from Germans. is bound up with their sense of who they are not . March 17. not a queer. but not to those who are actually making these decisions on inclusion and exclusion.oblivious to blatantly obvious moral distinctions. "This is not." we have always thought of human beings in terms of paradigm members of the species. because they live in a world in which it would be just too risky-. despite looking and acting very much like one. a duck. for this agent. "there are degrees of approach to being prospective purposive agents.springerlink." Rorty tells us. or an untouchable) have far greater resonance and preclude her having the same rights as the agent. two problems for Gewirth's theory here. a queer. with rudimentary or perverted or deformed examples of humanity. who offers the rejoinder. not a woman. or tribe. the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 confirm their awareness that Jews could plan and execute the same sorts of actions they could (voting and working. but other factors (being an infidel. that philosophers like Gewirth "seem . http://www.. the problem cannot be solved by sitting down with a chalkboard and diagramming how the agent and his potential victim are both PPAs. distinctions any decent person would draw. he argues. in fact. What is crucial for their sense of who they are is that they are not an infidel. clan. 82 There are.pdf The trouble with this response is pointed out by Richard Rorty. the people whom we should like to convince to join our Eurocentric human rights culture.indeed. Duke University Contemporary Political Science 05 Ari Kohen. but this only added to the pleasure they took in beating such Jews. a woman. As Rorty points out. they were. in the eyes of the Nazis. It is. what Rorty calls "pseudohumans. Assistant Professor.D. less of a human being) than he is himself. and quacking like a duck comes to mind here. in the case presented by Rorty. For everything turns on who counts as a fellow human being.com/content/8crjwyet6g6mr9fh/fulltext. I believe.

correlative duties are thought of as being. and duties are not correlative. in ways that morally oblige us to qualify our respect for the right. ailing I aunt in hospital. we may have important duties in respect of other persons. albeit unintentionally. basic human moral rights. yet it commits its exponents to losing a just war if success can be achieved. such as the right to life. Frey. the right to life interpreted as a right not to be killed.. Problems of a different kind are encountered by the claim that certain negative rights. only by sacrificing or not saving another life. The duty to maximize good. such that we can protect. 336 . Different rights. contract. to kill innocent persons. Similarly objectionable conclusions follow about the permissibility of killing morally innocent 'unjust aggressors' to save one's life. such as pleasure or pain. With rights of recipience. This is often so in respect of duties of benevolence towards determinate persons. may give rise to conflicts. only by the intentional killing of one innocent person. McCloskey. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. may conflict with one another. However these replies themselves encounter difficulties of many kinds. Pg 129.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 336 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Rights First Rights don’t come first – conflicting values and ideologies. Utility and Rights. Thomists have offered partial. G. Equally. This is so with the examples cited above. acceptance of these supporting theories amounts to an admission that human rights such as the right to life are not always absolute. And rights may conflict with other values. and knowingly. Utility and Rights. need give her no moral right to our visit. finite duties. if true. save one life.commonly / rights. foreseen good? No appropriate duty to satisfy rights of conscience. fixed. Pg 129. 1984 HJ. whilst duties and rights may be correlative-as when by a voluntary act a person enters into a promise. Utility and Rights. McCloskey. 1984 HJ. lend support to the reducibility-of-rights-to-duties thesis. Thus the Doctrine of Double Effect permits the knowing. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. professor of philosophy. that such a claim leads to morally unacceptable conclusions. and cannot be achieved without bringing about the unintended. the duties that arise from the right are not the determinate. for example. G. the theory of the Unjust Aggressor (who may be neither unjust nor morally responsible for what he does). At the same time. Frey.” R. for example. which dictates that we visit our lonely. professor of philosophy. becomes a parent . There may be no correlative duty to a right of conscience. Pg 123. McCloskey. unintentional killing of thousands of innocent children for the sake of a proportional good. Frey.' However. and more evidently. rights to aids and facilities. 1984 HJ.” R. as in curtailing acts directed at a persons' self-development to prevent gross cruelty to animals. and millions of innocent lives be saved. without those persons necessarily having rights against us. replies to criticisms based on these difficulties in terms of theories such as the Doctrine of Double Effect. Rights not absolute – doesn’t take into account intended good. the rights to life and to moral autonomy and integrity. G. How can it be so if we are said to have the moral right intentionally to kill the morally innocent unjust aggressor. the one right. professor of philosophy. including those of involving their exponents in morally abhorrent conclusions not unlike those to which they object when such I conclusions are shown to follow from rival theories. are always absolute. such that we have morally to determine which to respect and in what way. The view that rights and duties are correlative would. but only partial. when and if the intended good is proportionately good. namely.” R.

morally operative rights of a person in any concrete situation. and between respecting rights and securing other values. and the other because. 337 . professor of philosophy. Yet the acknowledgment of this feature of basic human rights is necessary for two reasons.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 337 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Rights First No absolute rights – competing values and rights of different groups. the one because (physical resources may be inadequate to allow all to enjoy their basic rights. The introduction of this distinction into human moral rights theory is both right and necessary. Frey. 1984 HJ. It does however greatly complicate the problem of determining what are the absolute. McCloskey. they are rights that are absolute rights only if they are not overridden by more stringent moral rights or other moral considerations. intrinsic rights-but they are simply prima facie rights. we may have to decide between the rights of different persons. in specific situations.” R. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. Pg 129. Utility and Rights. A similar distinction needs to be drawn and a similar terminology is required in respect of basic human rights. They are always rights-inalienable. G.

would be unlikely to jeopardize the central importance of equal citizenship as a determinant of status. Why. Pg 5. for example. an interest in securing self-respect for all citizens. so long as they were equally applied to all citizens? Such restrictions would involve no subordination and. No. why lexical priority is needed. economic and social inequalities might reemerge as the primary determinants of status and therefore of self-respect. Up to this point. the precedence of the equal liberties becomes all the more necessary. 338 . 3. it is essential that the priority of liberty be firmly maintained (p. Only at the end of his main presentation of the Self-Respect Argument does he briefly discuss the Priority of Liberty: When it is the position of equal citizenship that answers to the need for status. Princeton University Press.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. would very small restrictions on the basic liberties threaten the social basis of self-respect. Rawls has said nothing about the priority of the basic liberties. Project MUSE. rather.These two sentences provide a good illustration of what I earlier called the Inference Fallacy: Rawls tries to derive the lexical priority of the basic liberties from the central importance of an interest they support—in this case. Having chosen a conception of justice that seeks to eliminate the significance of relative economic and social advantages as supports for men’s self-confidence. being very small. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. 478). “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. Robert. he has focused exclusively on their equal provision. 2003. Taylor.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 338 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT Rawls Rawls’ conception of rights flawed – fails to explain why small incursions on liberty would threaten citizenship. Without question. It does not explain. however. the Self-Respect Argument makes a strong case for assigning the basic liberties a high priority: otherwise.

No. The Stability Argument has a structure similar to that of the Self. The three arguments for the Priority of Liberty that we identified in Theory can also be found in Political Liberalism. . imposing fines for the advocacy of violent revolution or race hatred) might actually enhance it. 74. is insufficient to justify the lexical priority of the basic liberties that support it—only the lexical priority of stability would do so. Project MUSE. In it. and both their strengths and weaknesses carry over into the new context. yet Rawls provides no argument for why stability should be so highly valued. Princeton University Press. Pointing out the high priority of stability. in other words. Taylor. both of these arguments are further illustrations of the Inference Fallacy. his most sustained arguments for it are to be found late in the book. a point to which we will return below.”Taking the second point first.. Pgs 20-21. .18 At least two new arguments can be found.” and he goes on to assert that Justice as Fairness is “the most stable conception of justice . this fact is not enough to justify it: as highly valued as stability is. pp. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction.Respect Argument. sacrificing the basic liberties that make it possible may be worthwhile if such a sacrifice is necessary to advance other highly valued ends. as opposed to strongly contributory to it. professor of philosophy @ Princeton.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. 76).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 339 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT Rawls Rawls fails to provide warrants for the absolute preservation of basic liberties over other ends. respectively. 2003. Rawls notes the “great advantage to everyone’s conception of the good of a . and this is the case importantly because of the basic liberties and the priority assigned to them. stable scheme of cooperation. 41. however.g. . Robert. Even if we assume. . that the Priority of Liberty is necessary for stability. Rawls never makes clear why the Priority of Liberty is necessary for stability. As I will now show. in the lecture entitled “The Basic Liberties and Their Priority. 339 . however. arguments that I will refer to as the Stability Argument and the WellOrdered Society Argument. 3. and some types of restrictions (e.” All of these arguments are framed in terms of Justice as Fairness rather than liberal political conceptions of justice more generally. Although Rawls briefly discusses and defends the Priority of Liberty early in Political Liberalism (PL. Very small restrictions on the basic liberties would seem unlikely to threaten it.

. Rawls asserts that his “conception of the person as free and equal” is “central to the democratic ideal” (PL..g. . the narrower the range of liberal conceptions defining the focus of the consensus. 340 . second. the utilitarian understanding of “equality” as the equal consideration of each person’s welfare).g. Project MUSE. however (e. No. Pgs 22-23.. 167). This idea is in competition with other democratic ideas. 2003. Taylor. If they were to accept not only this idea but also its companion idea of society as “a fair system of cooperation. pp. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. for Justice as Fairness to be the focus of an overlapping consensus would be for adherents of all reasonable comprehensive doctrines to endorse this idea. that the conceptions should be built on the “more central” of these fundamental ideas. the idea of the “common good” as it is understood by classical republicans). 167–68). Princeton University Press. that these ideas should be interpreted in the right way (PL. as well as with other interpretations of the same idea (e. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. then.”25 By “correctly based.” Rawls appears to mean at least two things: first. For example. 3.” then the procedures of political constructivism (including the Original Position) would presumably lead them to select Justice as Fairness as their political conception of justice. A necessary condition. along with the interpretation Rawls gives it. p. Rawls speculates that “the narrower the differences between the liberal conceptions when correctly based on fundamental ideas in a democratic public culture . Robert. as more “central to the democratic ideal” than other fundamental ideas.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 340 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT Rawls Rawls’ conception of personal freedom cannot resolve utilitarian democratic ideals.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31.

Pg 24. utilitarians would be likely to focus on another interpretation of the idea of free persons or perhaps on an entirely different fundamental idea or set of ideas. with its elevation of rationality over the satisfaction of desire and its consequent implications for agent motivation in the Original Position? It seems unlikely that any utilitarian (with the possible exception of John Stuart Mill in his most syncretic mood) would countenance this variety of asceticism.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. endorsed by both adherents of Kantian comprehensive doctrines and their fellow travelers. the Priority of Liberty would be one competitor idea among many in an overlapping consensus. Moreover. the many other residents do not have a right that the mother' s right to life be violated for their sakes .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 341 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Liberty/Rights First Priority of liberty not viable as basis of government – at best it would be a competing theory among other liberal conceptions of justice. Justice as Fairness might not be alone among the liberal conceptions in endorsing the Priority of Liberty: a reasonable comprehensive doctrine might. 1994. Would a utilitarian be able to endorse a Kantian conception of free persons. But here too it must be emphasized that in protecting his mother's right the son does not violate the rights of the others. He may be said to intend the many deaths obliquely. is at least equally important. Alan. the mother also does not have a right that their equally important rights be violated in order to protect hers. Taylor. it is not he who is causally or morally responsible for their deaths . Robert. Pgs 143. Hence. Is such acceptance likely? Consider the important example of the adherents of utilitarian reasonable comprehensive doctrines. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. for by the principle of the intervening action. in that they are a foreseen but unwanted side-effect of his refusal . But he is not responsible for that side-effect because of the terrorist s' intervening action.principle of intervening actions means that government is not held responsible for death of others.” leading through the procedures of political constructivism to a liberal conception of justice that endorsed the Priority of Liberty but rejected. We can conclude from this finding that the class of liberal political conceptions of justice constituting the focus of a realistic overlapping consensus would include conceptions that did not endorse the Priority of Liberty (although they would all give the basic liberties “special priority”). For rights cannot be justifiably protected by violating another right which. Princeton University Press. doing so would lead them to structure the Original Position differently and would presumably produce a political conception of justice that did not include the Priority of Liberty. but rejected by others. prof of philosophy @ U Chicago. Gewirth.” but he never suggests that they would choose the Priority of Liberty. support a Kantian conception of free persons but not Rawls’s particular interpretation of society as a “fair system of cooperation. Thus. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. the Difference Principle. No justification for violation of rights to prevent external loss . Thus. “Are There Any Absolute Rights?” Absolutism and its Consequentialist Critics. 341 . Rawls argues in Political Liberalism that classical utilitarians (such as Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick) would be likely to endorse a “political conception of justice liberal in content. Hence too he is not treating them as mere means to his or his mother's ends. 170). or Justice as Fairness more generally (PL. say. To be sure . for example. Project MUSE. Joram Graf Haber. 3. p. 2003. It would be unjustified to violate the mother's right to life in order to protect the rights to life of the many other residents of the city. according to the criterion of degrees of necessity for action. No.

but need not. Reason and Morality. the subject who is said to have rights is not always the same as the person who makes a claim or a right·judgment attributing the rights to the subject. the same person for whom freedom and well-being are necessary goods. Gewirth. the agent who is the subject of the generic rights is assumed to set forth or uphold the rights-judgment himself. Now in rights-judgments. the justifying reason of the generic rights as viewed by the agent is the fact that freedom and well-being are the most general and proximate necessary conditions of all his purpose. 342 . 'I have rights to freedom and well-being. at least tentatively. there is assumed some reason or ground that is held. Rather. such a principle cannot. This reason may. Pg 65. to justify that attribution. The object of the rights is these same necessary goods. so that without his having these conditions his engaging in purposive action would be futile or impossible.fulfilling actions. of course. however. it may. be adduced as constituting the justifying ground for the attribution of the generic rights to the agent. Moreover. In the present case. be some moral or legal code. 81.' the subject of the rights is the agent himself. professor of philosophy. a rights-judgment need not be set forth independently.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 342 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Morals First Government cannot act to uphold the rights of the subject on the basis of moral principle. figure as a subordinate clause wherein the attribution of rights to the subject is only conditional. Alan. in his statement making this attribution. In all cases. as knowing what conditions must be fulfilled if he is to be a purposive agent. where what is at issue is the justification of a moral principle. and he upholds the judgment not merely conditionally or tentatively but in an unqualified way. Because of this necessity. In the agent's statement. instead.

Although Sandel stands quite close to Rawls on the question of what a liberal society's principles of justice ought to be. 343 . though. in my estimation. while not entirely exempt from Engels's criticism. Beyleveld's response to this concern seems lackluster: "a PPA. added additional jargon that seems to encourage rather than refute Held's objection. one of the unfortunate marginal agents discussed above. Duke University Contemporary Political Science 05 Ari Kohen. ''95 This. is logically required to concentrate attention on the generic features as the basis of its rights-claims.com/content/8crjwyet6g6mr9fh/fulltext. must possess)b because they are not required to base those claims on other features. 2005. as they--like the other characteristics--are necessarily connected with agency. in which case he need not worry about granting the generic rights that he claims for himself. for having any purposes at all entails that he is a PPA and being a PPA necessitates his acceptance of the PGC.springerlink. Indeed. and must restrict its categorically binding rights-claims to these features. it simply means he must also include the generic features of action in his claim. it does not follow that he must accept the PGC regardless of the nature of his (or others') characteristics. because it is not logically required to attend to any other features. Michael Sandel's objections to Rawls' well-known ideas of the original position and veil of ignorance are equally apt in looking at the greatest weakness of Gewirth's theory. he contends that Rawls' assumptions about the populace of that society provide a poor foundation for his principles. Beyleveld has simply restated Gewirth's argument and. then.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 343 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Gewirth Gewirth’s theories fail to leave the theoretical realm Kohen. the argument he makes here does not stand up to scrutiny. Assistant Professor. which lends credence to our belief that there is something not quite human about these PPAs --is that Beyleveld seems to have conflated characteristics and purposes. seems to be the point of Engels' critique and of more recent critiques of analytical theories that attempt to abstract from the world in order to discuss it. except for marginal agents. It is correct that a PPA must accept the PGC regardless of the nature of his purposes. All he claims is that PPAs are required to base their rights-claims on the generic features of action (which everyone." but rather "it." at the same time that he is attempting to humanize them. regardless of its particular occurrent characteristics. for example. The biggest difficulty with this defense--apart from the way it is worded. For it sets up a morally neutral starting point that does not accept persons' actual power relations and other differences as a moral datum. the present approach in terms of the generic features of action has an important justification. In fact. http://www. he might be acting upon one of those marginal agents. "The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency" Peer Reviewed Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. By and large. This does not mean that a PPA cannot base his claim on characteristics other than the generic features of action . Gewirth seems to recognize his shortcoming even as he attempts to offer his response to Engels: "Hence.D. Ph. it seems that Gewirth has not gone a great distance toward refuting this critique nor has Beyleveld offered much assistance.pdf Despite his best efforts to demonstrate the way in which the PGC applies to real agents. However. for these characteristics might invalidate some aspect of the PGC. He might be. alternately. March 17. "94 Leaving aside the fact that Beyleveld refers to PPAs as neither "him" nor "her.

pdf To begin. he never isolates where negative consequences come from Kohen. instead. in the following statement about his rational agent: "It is to be noted that the criterion of "rational' here is a minimal deductive one. then. for nowhere does Gewirth actually make a case for why we may not engage quite comfortably in self-contradiction. then that self-contradiction is not necessarily painful for the agent.D. we might wonder. But to say that X does Y on "pain of self contradiction" is to say only that if X does Y. 344 . Beyleveld points out that quite the opposite is the case: "The error lies in Schumaker's reading of "incurring the pain of sellcontradiction. ''67 It seems. it seems important to question whatever we can assume that human beings are necessarily rational actors who behave as Gewirth outlines or. http://www. is that all agents have a meta-desire for consistency upon which all of their rational decisions are built. "68 The assumption. And yet. a bundle of desires engaged in continual struggle. involving consistency or the avoidance of selfcontradiction in ascertaining or accepting what is logically involved in one's acting for purposes and in the associated concepts. In fact. If it is not. March 17. then X contradicts itself and that this state of affairs causes X to suffer anguish.' We are to understand that Gewirth argues that PPAs will be motivated to be moral by the fact that to act immorally is to suffer some form of emotional distress. then X contradicts itself. "The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency" Peer Reviewed Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. It is not to say that if X does Y. here. Ph. in a footnote dealing with Millard Schumaker's multiple objections to the PGC.com/content/8crjwyet6g6mr9fh/fulltext.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 344 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Gewirth Gewirth’s study of contradiction fails. let us consider the argument that engaging in a self-contradictory action could be impossibly problematic for any agent. especially after looking at the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan. what reason is there for avoiding it. Duke University Contemporary Political Science 05 Ari Kohen. particularly if engaging in it could be in an agent's self-interest or if avoiding it turns out to be costly? The only answer that Gewirth seems to provide comes at the very beginning of his argument for the PGC. Assistant Professor. 2005.springerlink. It is important to note that the problem of contradiction seems simply to be implied.

Beyleveld deals with multiple versions of this objection in the fortieth through forty-fifth objections to the PGC. Though it might be the case that people are unable to rationally order their preferences. without contradiction. http://www. it certainly seems to be more often the ease that people can and do. it is not the strongest argument against Gewirth on the question of contradiction. described above. ''72 By way of a response.' because there is no determinate criterion of relevant similarity. What Gewirth fails to consider properly. or that some people do not have the sort of meta-desire for rational consistency that Gewirth assumes for the purposes of his theory. nor has it gone far enough to suit me . as noted above. however. ''73 This sounds remarkably similar to Gewirth's own objection to the formal principle. One such objection is that of Donald E. pointing out that "some person may without inconsistency claim the right to inflict various harms on other persons on the ground that he possesses qualities that are had only by himself or by some group he favors. who "alleges that '[i]t is trivial to claim that whatever is right for one person must be right for any relevantly similar person in any relevantly similar circumstances . in my estimation. who are not superior PPAs. Assistant Professor. Duke University Contemporary Political Science 05 Ari Kohen. he puts forward the ASA: that being a PPA is both the necessary and sufficient justificatory reason for having the generic rights. March 17. Fotion. 2005. Ph. Geels. yet refuse to grant these rights to other PPAs. He clearly recognizes the problem. This answer seems not to have placated Gewirth's detractors.com/content/8crjwyet6g6mr9fh/fulltext. ''75 345 . ''74 More interesting.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 345 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Gewirth Gewirth ignores the fundamental differences between peoples Kohen.D. are arguments like the one made by N. Because a PPA logically must claim the generic rights. as Lacan argues. "The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency" Peer Reviewed Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. Of course. it is the property of be/ng a PPA that is logically required to be the criterion of relevant similarities. that "a 'fanatic' (read 'elitist') can grant itself rights on the grounds that it is a superior PPA. As Beyleveld points out. Gewirth has quite clearly specified the criterion of relevant similarities: "a PPA must claim that it has the generic rights (according to the argument for the sufficiency of agency [ASA]) for the sufficient reason that it is a PPA.springerlink. however.pdf While this Lacanian critique is an interesting one. is the ability that people have to rationalize their actions in an effort to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with self-contradiction.

pdf More challenging for Gewirth is the claim not that a PPA is in some way special and thereby deserving of rights. Beyleveld's response to this objection. with which this book is solely concerned. seems neither to have been made directly against Gewirth nor is it carefully considered by him or by Beyleveld. then perhaps it is acceptable for society to