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

2001 Saturday Final EDITION http://www.The potential impact on a city can be estimated by looking at the effectiveness of an aerosol in producing downwind casualties. Anthrax and tularemia are predicted to cause the highest number of dead and incapacitated.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.lexisnexis.C. could kill up to 3 million people.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. as well as the greatest downwind spread. Here is a list of all of the recognized Biological Weapons. 01 Ben Wake The Ottawa Citizen October 13. A government study estimated that about 200 pounds of anthrax released upwind of Washington. 9 .. D.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

such as Zambia.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 23 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ. Most people expressed concern about lack of funds to do shopping because prices have been hiked so much. 23 . Alfonsaias Haamanjanti said people should not overspend unnecessarily but consider critical things such as school fees and uniforms for children when schools reopen. adding that most Zambians should consider saving their money and use it when there is real need. making it difficult for many people to buy gifts for their beloved ones. He said the global financial crisis may be felt so much next year. “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. with only a few people managing to spend for Christmas. According to a survey carried out this morning by ZANIS.com/?p=6713) Effects of the global economic crisis have already started showing a negative impact on growing economies.” http://www. 12 24 08.developing countries A global economic crisis has a hard effect on growing economies and provides significantly reduced funds for families living in these countries. (Luska Times. saying there is need to save money and shop only when it is necessary.lusakatimes. Mr Haamanjati said it is important to budget for the things that one needs by writing a list and follow it. He pointed out that the global financial crisis may not be felt now.

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

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

financial assets. Dr. globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.000 to 100. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. Erik Gartzke. wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property. Since the early 1990s. they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. those nations have more to lose should war break out. Thanks in part to globalization. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. as I argued a moment ago." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40. but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. are growing in number. and from a peak of 700. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government. According to the Associated Press report. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr." By the way. The death toll from war has also been falling. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other. 7 (Daniel. almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech. including the freedom to trade. As national economies become more intertwined with each other. If people need resources outside their national borders. Far from stoking a "World on Fire. among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. 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. Through econometric analysis. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars.000 in 1951 during the Korean War. meanwhile. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. 4/20/2007. there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. In short. In contrast. 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. Peacemaking missions. a professor of political science at Columbia University. and human capital. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom. he found that. At the extremes. director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies. As economies develop. dipping below 20. service economy.000 a year by one measure. 26 . and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other." as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy. In short. ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17. 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.freetrade. significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. studies say.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 26 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ interdependence prevents war Economic interdependence prevents war Griswold. http://www. Trade. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.000 in the 1990s. "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period. it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. Democracy and Peace." In 2006.org/node/681) A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported. First. say oil or timber or farm products. "War declining worldwide. globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy. "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. Dr. the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free.

One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s. http://www. in History from the University of Maryland 2/26. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession. fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control.empirically proven Sean O’Donnell Staff Writer. 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.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 27 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Economic Decline  Nuclear War Prolonged Recession yields nuclear war. B. 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. or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Baltimore Examiner.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. Will this recession lead to World War II. Asia. 27 . From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II.A.examiner. However sometimes history repeats itself. to war.

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

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. 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. The irony is that just as the world would welcome the US consumer going back to old habits of spending and consuming. Americans have realized that a little savings can go a long way.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.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 29 /414 Nelson <tournament> after economic slowdowns. 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. 29 .

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

So a US slowdown that hurts China will reverberate in Japan.S. up 2. “The United States: Still the Growth Engine for the World Economy?” My kind hosts. many Wall Street gurus predicted that Europe would outpace the US.6 million people. 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. ''Allowing for trade linkages. “Can world weather slow down in US?” p. 2/6/06. In January. Netting all this out. Lady Thatcher would like it—and assume that in 2006 we grow at last year’s preliminary rate of 3. 84% of Canada's. It slowed to a still solid 3. and California produces roughly the same output as China. The statement the Federal Open Market Committee released Tuesday quite summed up our current situation succinctly: “Although recent economic data have been uneven. Fisher.2 percent in 2004. the consensus of most economic forecasters is that growth in the first quarter will rebound to a rate well above 4 percent. says Stephen Roach. South Korea and commodity producers such as Russia. it is in the Northeast and North Central states. it will eventually happen. Key to Global Economy The US is essential to the global economy – no other country is close to US production. 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. the US and China combined contributed an average of 43% to global growth. Taiwan. That is a big number. And it is important that it remain so because no other country appears poised to pick up the torch if the U. which compares with the latest reading of 8.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 31 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – U. Lexis The ability of other countries to emerge from the US economy's long shadow may reflect more wishful thinking than logic. Germany. In dollar terms. Mr Roach says.5 percent in 2005.5 percent. we create the economic equivalent of a Sweden—or two Irelands or three Argentinas. yes. So. economy. New Zealand. while Asia and Europe lack sufficient domestic demand to offset reduced US spending on overseas goods. Canada and Brazil. a significant portion of which is fed by imports.4 percent for Europe and even higher rates for some of the continent’s major economies. 26 percent in China and 70 percent in India. New Zealand Herald 07 The New Zealand Herald. 06 Richard W. To understand what this kind of growth means. Let me explain why. Be conservative—once again.S. chief economist at Morgan Stanley in New York. European Vulnerability ''It didn't happen _ a lesson 31 . ''Globalisation makes decoupling from such a concentrated growth dynamic especially difficult.2 million in a year. 20 percent in the U. according to Mr Roach. especially as some of the bigger emerging countries mature. Growth advanced briskly at 4. 3-20-2007. a growth rate of 3. China's Reverberations The US accounts for 24% of Japan's total exports. Unemployment stood at a four-year low of 4. is equivalent to surges of 16 percent in Germany. measured on the basis of purchasing-power parity. Britain and France. the United States is the growth engine for the world economy. In dollar terms.” This is especially true in what I call the “growth rim”—an arc of population centers with favorable demographics that begins in Virginia. No doubt. Just as China is dependent on the US.S. We have weathered hurricanes’ fury and record-high energy prices while continuing to grow and keep inflation under control. our growth is driven by consumption. economy employed 134.S. Australia.7 percent.'' he says.3 billion in 2006.'' As the US economy faltered in early 2001.5 percent in the U. then through the megastate of Texas and on to the uberstate of California and up to Seattle. runs down the southeastern seaboard through Georgia to Florida.K.6 trillion a year in goods and services. Texas produces 20 percent more than India. we need only follow Margaret Thatcher’s wise hectoring to “do the math. President of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas. To the extent there is weakness in the U. Every year.. other countries rely on Asia's second-largest economy. I use “mega” and “uber” to describe the two largest states for a reason: to illustrate the depth and breadth of our economy. Again. economy stumbles or tires The US is key to the global economy. The math tells us we would add $440 billion in incremental activity—in a single year.” The United States produces $12. which totaled $2 trillion last year. From 2001 through 2006. Right now. Of course. What we add in new economic activity in a given year exceeds the entire output of all but 15 other countries. The American economy has been on an upswing for more than four years. Fisher. The global economy is too dependent on exports to the US. have asked me to address the question: Is the United States still the growth engine for the world? The answer is yes. the expansion in economic activity appears solid. the total effects could be larger than 60%. President of the federal reserve bank.S. 86% of Mexico's and about 40% of China's. the U. whose trade deficit was $765. although I would not be surprised if GDP were revised upward when we take a more definitive look at the fourth quarter. the world still needs the US consumer. And there may be more fallout from a US decline.

Those declines in the biggest and most-profitable market for many German. UK. lower profit. The earnings of European companies' US units plunged 64% in 2001. chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management in New York. Europe is vulnerable to a US slowdown through its businesses abroad. French and Dutch enterprises resulted in reduced orders. 0. Even though only about 8% of European exports go to the US.'' says Joseph Quinlan.'' Mr Quinlan says 32 .9% in 2002 and 0.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 32 /414 Nelson <tournament> investors should bear in mind today. according to Mr Quinlan.9% in 2000.8% in 2003. slower job growth and weak business confidence.9% in 2001. ''As the US economy decelerates and as the dollar continues its slide. Europe will sink or swim with the US in 2007. euro-area growth shrank to 1. After expanding 3.

A reduction in global growth from 4. Certainly. But now a new and colder front is crossing the macroeconomic weather map: the prospect of a global slowdown. the Fed and the Treasury are seeing to that. Unfortunately. It also matters a great deal more to US exporters. the period considered. Indeed. Yet there are four reasons to be less cheerful. US key to global economy – no other country comes close Arora & Vamvakidis ’05 (Vivek & Athanasios.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 33 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – U. This could be explained by the role of the United States as a major global trading partner.S. pointing out that nearly all China’s growth is accounted for by domestic demand. World and U. The impact of U. as in the 1930s. Small wonder only a handful of global equity markets are in positive territory relative to August 2007. partly because of the strength of the euro. strong global growth has been the main reason the US recession did not start sooner. net exports accounted for all but 30 basis points of the 1. Europe has clearly not decoupled from America. this is not the Great Depression 2. “Economic Spillovers” Finance and Development. US exports have surged. with a correlation coefficient of over 80 percent.S. And remember: the European Union’s economy is still more than five times larger than China’s.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/arora. Key to Global Economy US depression causes Global collapse Niall Ferguson. the critical phase is not the US phase. in the context of a standard growth model. growth on growth in other countries during the past two decades. 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. The United States accounted for nearly a quarter of the expansion in world real GDP during the 1990s. The US slowdown will also affect many emerging markets less reliant on exports than China. growth is a significant determinant of growth in a large panel of industrial and developing countries. Optimists such as Jim O’Neill at Goldman Sachs celebrate the “decoupling” of China from the US.S. suggest that U. With the dollar weakened as an indirect consequence of the Fed’s open-handed lending policy. For a time. the global slowdown is about to kick away the last prop keeping the US recession at bay.aspx?pageid=184 The question is whether or not this American hurricane is about to run into two other macroeconomic weather systems. Estimates of the overall impact of U. http://www. The growth of the world economy since 1980 has owed much to lower trade barriers. 2008. decoupling is not a cause for celebration if. Third. According to Morgan Stanley. IMF Senior Resident Representatives. how many governments responded to the jump in rice prices by imposing export restrictions. Second. growth turns out to be higher than the impact of growth in the rest of the world. U. the recent breakdown of the Doha round of global trade talks sent a worrying signal that commitment to free trade is weakening. not exports.1 per cent this year to 3. At the same time.0. it is a synonym for deglobalisation. We also found the impact of U. According to Joachim Fels of Morgan Stanley.S. In 2004. the United States could be expected to have a significant influence on growth in other countries.htm) Economists usually see the United States as an engine of the world economy: U. Trade with the United States accounts for a substantial share of total trade in a large number of countries. growth on growth in other countries to be larger 33 . too. Admittedly the forecasts do not sound too alarming. 2004).niallferguson. The results are robust to changes in the sample. Up until now the global impact of the crisis has been limited. No 3. The World Bank has identified 33 countries where high food prices have already generated civil unrest.S. what began as a US crisis is fast becoming a world crisis. while more than half have declined by between 10 and 40 per cent. and world output are closely correlated.S.com/site/FERG/Templates/ArticleItem. 50 of the 190 countries in the world currently have double-digit inflation. One year on. economic growth appear to influence growth in other countries to a significant degree. The downside of this. Sept.S. http://www. First. growth have moved closely together in recent decades. on closer inspection.S. But. this coincidence of a US slowdown and soaring oil prices revived unhappy memories of 1970s stagflation.imf. including common drivers of growth in both the United States and other countries.8 per cent growth in US output over the past year. Indeed. was a rise in commodity prices as strong Asian demand coincided with a depreciating dollar. No. How a local squall might become a global tempest. Vol 42. and the inclusion of other growth determinants. It is when the crisis goes global that the term “credit crunch” will no longer suffice. and movements in U. the commodity price rise has generated inflationary pressures in many emerging markets that will not recede overnight.S. Professor of Economic History at Harvard. It was troubling. given its size and close links with the rest of the world. however.6 per cent next year could positively help damp inflationary pressures. the eurozone is now growing more slowly than the US. with an effect as large as one-for-one in some cases (Arora and Vamvakidis.

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

the value of the U. 35 . and America's ability to remain a strong world leader. Senior Policy Analyst for International Economics @ the Heritage Foundation. economy weakens and other countries' economies strengthen.S. economy. If America continues to fall behind. Americans will then have fewer opportunities to improve their lives and foreigners will find investing in the United States less and less attractive.S. families. As the U.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 coffers of the U. dollar could continue to decline. the United States' leadership and power in the world decline as well. July 23.S.

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

According to Jeffrey Sachs. He believes that if the U.S." he says. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS. could make a significant dent in the fund's $5 billon shortfall if it so chose. He says the disease has cost industry on the continent about $12 billion in lost worker productivity. a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. says Sachs. to improve the world's prosperity and its health. Peter Chernin is one of a number of business leaders who've supported a $100 million campaign to fight the malaria pandemic in Africa. For example. to cut long-term investments in development for near-term savings.cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6) As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis. we can end malaria deaths and remove a major obstacle to economic development. [it] requires that these diseases be brought under control.. the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS." Gupta says the Global Fund's progress in the fight against AIDS. He says he and other health and business leaders who attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. Gupta says." Sachs argues that the United States.voanews. which currently contributes about one third of the Global Fund's resources." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life. which he says. that led to the creation of the Global Fund in the first place. malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission. Gupta says. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases." Global Fund Board Chairman Rajat Gupta agrees that the United States could do more to help the fund out of its financial crisis. were to take on more of a leadership role. They were simply calling on donor nations to make good on their pledges. TB and malaria. he believes." Those monies could not "for one moment balance the lives that are at stake. including the humanitarian and security aspects. could save nearly two million additional lives in the coming years.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 37 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Disease Economic downturns divert funds from disease treatment Skirble. "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. which has fallen behind on its pledged commitments. "puts at risk the malaria control effort. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans. and now it is the United States' turn to step up and get that going. Malaria” 04 February 2009. 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 recessionpinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. "That was at least one of the many aspects. TB. "And [with] just a fraction of that investment. That continued support. other nations would follow. TB and malaria must be sustained. TB and AIDS is essential to the economic development of poor nations. VOA “Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS. prevention and research programs in poor countries. 37 . one that could be picking up the slack by buying our goods and being a full productive part of the world economy. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. Every year since 2001. http://www." Keeping up the fight against killer diseases like 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. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months.com/english/archive/2009-02/200902-04-voa23. leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment. 9 (Rosanne. Switzerland were not asking for a bailout. And it's just bad economic policy.reporter for the Voice of America. "For Africa to be a full trading partner.

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

Thus the groundwork will be laid for a chain reaction of conflicts across a spectrum of relations. with one nation after another forced into escalating confrontation along several fronts. 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.

3 billion.3 billion to address the world's worst food crisis in a generation. But only $1 billion has been disbursed.down 62 percent from a record set in February.1625 on Friday -. In June. Although the price of commodities has come down in the past few months. in turn." said Muchiri. is tied up in bureaucracy. “Washington Post. and McCrummen. Diouf said. and he warned of a looming disaster next year if countries do not make food security a top priority. the global food crisis has worsened. farmer Stephen Muchiri is suffering the consequences. Oxfam. and Europe -. Muchiri said nearly everyone he knows is cutting back on planting. Jacques Diouf. 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. political unrest and rising prices. Its director-general. The precarious aid situation is compounded by export taxes and bans imposed this year by a number of grain. 08 Ariana Eunjung Cha and Stephanie McCrummen. Wheat futures for December delivery closed at $5. could exacerbate the global food shortage. While the world's attention has been focused on rescuing investment banks and stock markets from collapse. China scrambled to protect itself. said in a recent speech that he worries about cuts in aid to agriculture in developing countries. "The financial crisis is providing an excuse for people across the spectrum -.people here are saying that money is enough to feed the poor in Africa for the next three years . Financial Meltdown Worsens Food Crisis. and soybean futures are 47 percent lower. while initially welcomed by consumers. he said." said Oxfam spokeswoman Amy Barry.and fertilizer-producing nations. He said he is also concerned by protectionist trade measures intended to counteract the financial turmoil.could see its moves having ripple effects on vulnerable countries. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has criticized export restrictions because they "drive up world prices and cut off supplies of raw materials. which had been earmarked by the European Commission for helping African farmers. governments. 10-26-08. About 5. As Global Prices Soar. 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. Corn futures are down 53 percent from their all-time high." Diouf said. "invite a cycle of retaliation that is as economically counterproductive as it is politically hard to resist. companies -. with some governments now arguing that they can no longer afford to give up that money.N." Mandelson said last month.S. "The global financial crisis should not make us forget the food crisis . Graduate of Columbia and John Hopkin’s School of Advanced International Studies. " 40 . including China. multilateral organizations.lower prices could mean less incentive for farmers to cultivate crops. More People Go Hungry. which means even less food for a continent where the supply has already been weakened by drought. donors and agencies gathered in Rome to pledge $12. India. Pakistan. An additional $1. 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. Ukraine and Argentina.” Lexis As shock waves from the credit crisis began to spread around the world last month." Such restrictions. in Nairobi. 36 countries still need emergency assistance for food. Such declines. could eventually increase deflationary pressures -.governments.700 miles away. Richer countries from the United States to the Persian Gulf are busy helping themselves and have been slow to lend a hand. estimates that economic chaos this year has pulled the incomes of an additional 119 million people below the poverty line.the world's biggest grain and rice producer and the biggest exporter of certain types of fertilizer -. China -. 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. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 923 million people were seriously undernourished in 2007. E. a casualty of the growing financial tumult. The U. "The amount of money used for the bailouts in the U.to not do the right thing. head of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation. Washington Post Writer. That.U. It's planting season now.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 40 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Turns Famine Economic collapse exacerbates global food crisis Cha. the Britain-based aid group.

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

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

almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. 4/20/2007. Dr. dipping below 20. meanwhile. say oil or timber or farm products. are growing in number. and human capital. In contrast. Democracy and Peace. 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. According to the Associated Press report. At the extremes. globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. Dr. 43 . director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies. Since the early 1990s. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. In short. as I argued a moment ago. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars.org/node/681) A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported.freetrade. the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free. financial assets. significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. service economy. As economies develop. Trade. those nations have more to lose should war break out. In short. they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home." In 2006. 7 (Daniel. Through econometric analysis. http://www." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40. studies say. among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property. Thanks in part to globalization. "War declining worldwide. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. a professor of political science at Columbia University. and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. 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. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy. hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech. Far from stoking a "World on Fire.000 a year by one measure. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government. ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17. Peacemaking missions. growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. First. he found that. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 43 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Solves War Economic interdependence prevents war Griswold.000 to 100. "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. If people need resources outside their national borders. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other. including the freedom to trade. but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. Erik Gartzke. 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. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable." as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book. there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom." By the way. As national economies become more intertwined with each other. The death toll from war has also been falling.000 in 1951 during the Korean War. with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period. and from a peak of 700.000 in the 1990s. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.

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

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

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

to improve the world's prosperity and its health. For example." Those monies could not "for one moment balance the lives that are at stake. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Switzerland were not asking for a bailout.cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6) As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis. Gupta says. And it's just bad economic policy. a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.S. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. to cut long-term investments in development for near-term savings. could save nearly two million additional lives in the coming years. "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. Malaria” 04 February 2009. that led to the creation of the Global Fund in the first place. "That was at least one of the many aspects." Sachs argues that the United States. and now it is the United States' turn to step up and get that going. [it] requires that these diseases be brought under control. According to Jeffrey Sachs. which currently contributes about one third of the Global Fund's resources.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 47 /414 Nelson <tournament> Economic decline turns TB. TB and AIDS is essential to the economic development of poor nations. the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans. Tuberculosis and Malaria supplies one-quarter of all AIDS funding. were to take on more of a leadership role. TB and malaria must be sustained. says Sachs. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months. 9 (Rosanne. one that could be picking up the slack by buying our goods and being a full productive part of the world economy.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-02/200902-04-voa23. including the humanitarian and security aspects. "For Africa to be a full trading partner. They were simply calling on donor nations to make good on their pledges. malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission.reporter for the Voice of America. Gupta says. TB. he believes." Gupta says the Global Fund's progress in the fight against AIDS. He believes that if the U." he says. which has fallen behind on its pledged commitments. He says he and other health and business leaders who attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos." Global Fund Board Chairman Rajat Gupta agrees that the United States could do more to help the fund out of its financial crisis. could make a significant dent in the fund's $5 billon shortfall if it so chose.." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life. leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment. 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. That continued support. Malaria. we can end malaria deaths and remove a major obstacle to economic development. prevention and research programs in poor countries. the Global Fund has been forced by the recession-pinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. AIDS Economic downturns divert funds from disease treatment Skirble. VOA “Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS. http://www." Keeping up the fight against killer diseases like malaria. two-thirds of tuberculosis funding and three-fourths of malaria funding. "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. Every year since 2001. the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. "puts at risk the malaria control effort. 47 . the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases. which he says. He says the disease has cost industry on the continent about $12 billion in lost worker productivity. TB and malaria. "And [with] just a fraction of that investment.

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

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

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

governments sought to take advantage of the dollar's role as a key currency before and after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods institutions.aspx?id=20484) These estimates suggest that roughly a quarter of America’s relative decline is due to U. according to O'Brien.org/Article.S. it becomes clear both that the U." In David Calleo's words.com/articles/59200/niall-ferguson/hegemony-or-empire?page=4.2009. the U. "extravagant privileges. A strong economy is key to American hegemony Ferguson. quoting Charles de Gaulle.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 51 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ turns heg Economic decline undermines heg Pape. The National Interest. as described by O'Brien and Hobson. And when one examines past declines and their consequences. “Hegemony or Empire?” http://www.S. both by making the decline steeper and faster and crowding out productive investment that could have stimulated innovation to improve matters. economic weaknesses (spending on the Iraq War. mutually balanced tariff reductions under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later the World Trade Organization). The third pillar of American dominance can be found in the way successive U.S. If we end up believing in the wishful thinking of unipolar dominance forever. According to these authors.that is. September/October 2003 The authors' argument about the uniqueness of American hegemony rests on four main pillars. This point is developed by another of the book's contributors.S. nothing achieved by the United Kingdom -. 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).foreignaffairs. In other words.. the terms under which the Washington-based International Monetary Fund granted its loans. Second. As Robert Gilpin argues in his chapter.not even in the first flush of the Industrial Revolution -. enabled the United States to be "far less restrained . This deliberate process contrasts markedly with the willy-nilly way free trade spread in the nineteenth century. tax cuts. the tariff reductions achieved in the 1967 Kennedy Round negotiations (and subsequently) owed much to "American pressures." As Robert Gilpin notes. 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. the costs could be far higher than a simple percentage drop in share of world product. current-account deficits. the U. Foreign Affairs. such policies led to a "hegemony of the dollar" that gave the U. The most obvious is economic: as they point out.ever compared with the United States' recent economic predominance. 3 (Niall.professor of political science at the University of Chicago. which. economy has outstripped almost all of its competitors for much of the past century. self-inflicted wounds of the Bush years significantly exacerbated America’s decline. Angus Maddison. a sixth to China’s superior performance and just over half to the spread of technology to the rest of the world.S.nationalinterest. All of this has led to one of the most significant declines of any state since the mid-nineteenth century.S. and explored in almost encyclopedic depth in the chapter by Moses Abramovitz and Paul David. 9 (Robert." Such pressure was classically exerted through "conditionality" -. etc..). 51 .22. the authors point to the way the United States has very deliberately used its power to advance multilateral. fall is remarkable and that dangerous instability in the international system may lie ahead. http://www. “Empire Falls” 01.

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

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

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

a policy of "sustainable development" involves reducing the environmental burden Hong Kong's economy places on its neighbors. Hong Kong is much wealthier than mainland China and indeed most of the rest of Asia. Forcing the current generation to conserve resources for the future is like taxing the poor to give money to the rich. Montana. 12 13 99. Here Hong Kong's great success is truly in evidence. can have a substantial negative impact on economic growth. a cornerstone of many "sustainable development" proposals. “Apple Daily.php) Perhaps more relevant to Hong Kong's future is a recent finding that government efforts to regulate environmental quality. Hong Kong is a good example of how economic growth will lead to a higher quality of the environment. “Apple Daily. 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.org/articles/article175. it will help promote economic growth in the region and thus improved environmental quality for its neighbors and itself.php) In addition to asking Hong Kong to give up growth for the sake of future generations. Even well intentioned regulations can have a negative impact on economic growth and thus unintentionally on desired improvements in environmental quality.8%. Hong Kong” http://www.org/articles/article175. Its economic freedom and consequent wealth will not only allow it to enjoy increased prosperity in the future but also increasing environmental quality. then with per capita incomes lower than many Third World countries today.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 55 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. 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. with individual incomes as high as those in the United States and higher than in most parts of Europe. 12 13 99.perc. 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. (Mathew Brown. In that case Hong Kong. would never have been able to achieve the remarkable economic growth that has made it one of the richest places on Earth. As such it is in a position to worry more about the impact its neighbors have on Hong Kong's environment than vice versa.environment Countries that practiced “Sustainable development” actually created a negative impact on economic growth and environmental quality.perc. Montana. Hong Kong” http://www. an economist at the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman. By continuing the liberal trade and economic policies that have made Hong Kong the envy and model for much of Asia. and indeed the rest of the world. (Mathew Brown. 55 . 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. 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.

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

adult literacy.wri. The industrialized economies still dominate economic activity.” http://www. an unprecedented rate of increase.7 trillion global GDP in 1993 [1]. secure individual and property rights. and broad-based health and educational services are also vital to raising overall living standards. accounting for US$22.5 trillion of the US$27. There is a strong correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and indicators of development such as life expectancy. political and civil rights. economic growth alone does not guarantee human development. The world economy has grown approximately fivefold since 1950. 97. and some indicators of environmental quality. infant mortality. Wellfunctioning civil institutions. in particular the populous economies of east and south Asia. “Economic growth and human development. though. 57 .org/publication/content/8372) Economic growth is an important factor in reducing poverty and generating the resources necessary for human development and environmental protection.poverty/environment Economic growth is key to reducing poverty and helping the environment.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 57 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. Despite its shortcomings. However. Yet a remarkable trend over the past 25 years has been the burgeoning role played by developing countries. (World Resources institute. GDP remains a useful proxy measure of human well-being.

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

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

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

we have seen a general decline in violence and disorder in developed societies. killing another person in order to take his belongings was common. and helps establish stability and the quality of health. 61 . As the world economy accelerated from centuries of slow growth to a period of rapid growth starting from the middle of the 20th century. and also a decline in large-scale warfare in general. 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. Simply put.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 61 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good-violence Economic growth leads to less violence and disorder. 04 30 06. Today. they are more interested in maintaining and strengthening it. rather than disrupting it or trying to bypass it.html) In centuries past.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/the_psychology_. (The Futurist. "The Psychology of Economic Progress. when more people have a stake in the stability and health of the system." http://futurist.

" http://www.go. JBIC offers a range of support tools. 62 . which is the objective of governments.html) It is estimated that 1. 09 03.social services Economic growth helps increase social services. Economic growth helps increase social welfare. and must be accelerated to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. as welfare analysis of economic growth is limited within the literature.google. Whist some work has been undertaken for transitional economies. "Infrastructure development to alleviate poverty. Reducing poverty in developing countries requires sustainable economic growth and the development of infrastructure to support that growth.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 62 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ growth good. and there is a growing awareness throughout the international community that agricultural development is extremely important in reducing poverty. 11 06. About three-quarters of these 1.1 billion people in the world live on less than a dollar a day. the costs of achieving economic growth are often not fully considered. For rural areas where many of the poor live. welfare analysis has been generally limited to the suggestion of general frameworks." http://books. "Chairman of MIND (Munasinge Institute for development). economic growth boosts incomes and creates employment opportunities. leading to a decrease in poverty.jp/en/report/jbic-today/2006/11/index_02. 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. However. As the development experience in Asia has shown. Within the literature and public policy. (JBIC. Economic growth leads to higher incomes and improved access to basic needs. 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. Economic growth is desirable if it improves social welfare. leading to higher standards of living. Japanese bank of international cooperation.jbic. (Mathew Clarke.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. including the combination of various frameworks for the effective use of agricultural infrastructure and ensuring sustainable results from it.1 billion live in rural areas in developing countries.

the permanent stimulation of new "needs" through advertising." http://books. 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 . multiple versions of the same product and unnecessary packaging are all unavoidable. the wastefulness of consumer societies. as the title indicates. This argument undervalues the great disparities in income that exist within the developed countries. "Environment. However. and the exploitation of the Third World by wealthier nations. national executive.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. 09.google. Capitalism and Socialism. Document of the DSP. They contain very detailed presentation of trends in resource depletion and energy supply. 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. Trainer argues strongly against those who believe that these problems can be addressed adequately through existing political and social institutions.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. 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.

emerging economies. Nor will the resilience be universal: eastern Europe’s indebted economies will suffer as global banks cut back. thanks to their strong domestic markets and prudent macroeconomic policies. there are signs that some of the larger emerging economies could see a decent rebound. it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. However. Yet perhaps the idea was dismissed too soon. Over the past six months the global slump seemed to prove the sceptics right. Despite debate over the accuracy of China’s GDP figures (see article). So will smaller. China is exhibit A of this new decoupling: its economy began to accelerate again in the first four months of this year. Even if America’s output remains weak.com/opinion/displaystory. Decoupling 2. Economies such as China or Brazil were walloped late last year not only. jstor Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal problems .“Foreign Policy) Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring Rivalries”. It is based on two under-appreciated facts: the biggest emerging economies are less dependent on American spending than commonly believed. and they have proven more able and willing to respond to economic weakness than many feared.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 64 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ defense Economic problems don’t increase the likelihood of war Bennet and Nordstrom. Naysayers claimed America’s weakness would fell the emerging world. Such optimism has fuelled commodity prices which have. That said. or even mainly. http://www. when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry. Scott and Timothy Nordstrom. confined to a few of the biggest. 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. will continue to be hit hard.emerging economies are more independent from the US The Economist. Growth this year could be close to 8%. In addition. 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. and rivals require even more attention. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. most economists agree that output will grow faster than seemed plausible only a few months ago. Fixed investment is growing at its fastest pace since 2006 and consumption is holding up well. Hypotheses 1 and 2 posit opposite behaviors in response to a single cause (internal economic problems). and emerging economies intertwined with America. Journal of Conflict resolution. 33-61. Us not key to world economy. (Over half of China’s exports go to other emerging economies. they demand are search design that can account for substitutability between them. 2009.1 p. Leaders may choose to negotiate a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy. Hypothesis 2: Poor economic conditions increase the probability of rivalry termination. In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs.economist. 64 . because American demand plunged. 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.44 no. such as Mexico. many commentators—including this newspaper—argued that emerging economies had become more resilient to an American recession. many emerging countries had been aggressively tightening monetary policy to fight inflation just before these shocks hit. dept of political science @ the University of Penn. Emerging economies reeled and decoupling was ridiculed. Among other things.cfm ?story_id=13697292) REMEMBER the debate about decoupling? A year ago.0 is a narrower phenomenon. The result was that domestic demand slumped even as exports fell. in turn. vol. 2k (D. 5-21 (“Decoupling 2. brightened the outlook for Brazil and other commodity exporters.) They were hit hard by the near-collapse of global credit markets and the dramatic destocking by shell-shocked firms. Military competition between states requires large amounts of resources. As such. more tradedependent countries. and China recently overtook the United States as Brazil’s biggest export market. 2000. and least indebted. 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 the best performing countries will grow more slowly than they did between 2004 and 2007.0” May 21.

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

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

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

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

More importantly. not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable. These factors may seriously affect crop production. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt. no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas.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. in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2. about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification. the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36.5 billion hectares. For example.49 Across the archipelago.51 For developing countries during the 1980s.47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers.48 Moreover.2 to 3. salinization. and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity. changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns. he concludes. nutrient depletion.9 percent a year.utoronto. less than half the rate of the 1970s. What is left is either less fertile. The geographer Vaclav Smil.54 Taken together.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0.Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto. and compacting. who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage. International Security“ On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict” 199. which includes both current and potential cropland. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests. 91 (Thomas. acidification. problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive.8-7.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land.55 69 .htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change. In addition. range from 3.52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries.17 hectares by the year 2025. waterlogging. which can be traced out in the figure. infested with pests.4 billion hectares.6 million hectares. Currently. perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization. cropland grew at just 0. Since the Second World War. total global cropland amounts to about 1. estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion.26 percent a year. given the current rate of world population growth. logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion. experts expect that the world average of 0.53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet. the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000. http://www. erosion.library. but nearly all the best land has already been exploited. and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods. or harder to clear and work. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact. when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan. logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 69 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environmental destruction turns agriculture Environmental degradation destroys cropland Homer-Dixon. others are not yet visible anywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

in the long run. we should remember. South and Southeast Asia. It is the people who don’t use violence who need democratic freedoms to survive. which stretches from Africa to the Middle East to Central. the aims of Al Qaeda and its allies are advanced by the actions of repressive regimes in the Muslim world.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/usint9009_txt. 7-7. 75 .Terrorism Human Rights credibility gives us the influence to start modern movements and ensure necessary cooperation to stop terrorist attacks Tom Malinowski. for three reasons.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. They have thrived in the most repressive societies in the world. and when their rights are protected by independent courts. its credibility and influence are diminished. p. Second. But as for terrorists. they do not need human rights to do what they do. non-violent political movements that represent their peoples’ aspirations. speak. and deny their people fair justice. Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan shut down political dissent. Without a doubt. First. they are contributing to the radicalization of their people. But such movements can only exist under democratic conditions. Egypt. Washington Advocacy Director. and to seize upon that anger to transform the region politically.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 75 /414 Nelson <tournament> Human Rights Promo Good. I strongly believe that promoting human rights is central to America’s central national security imperative of defeating terror. lock up non-violent dissidents. more radical organizations can also exploit democratic freedoms to express their views. abuse the rule of law. http://hrw. when people are free to think. 2004. when they can form political organizations. thus playing right into the hands of terrorist movements. torture opponents. The terrorists’ primary aim. And when ordinary people in the region associate the United States with their repressive governments. and they will be part of the political landscape as societies in the Middle East become more open. 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. extremist movements in this region is the development of moderate. is to turn the hearts and minds of the people of this region against their governments and against the West. When governments in countries like Pakistan. Promoting Human Rights and Democracy. Indeed. Third. the only viable alternative to the rise of violent. When America is seen to be compromising the values it has long preached. promoting human rights and democracy is important because America’s moral authority partly depends on it. speaking out for economic progress and better schools and against corruption and arbitrary rule. Al Qaeda’s aim of painting the United States as the enemy is also advanced. American power in the world is more likely to be respected when it is harnessed to goals that are universally shared. write and worship without fear. Human Rights Watch.

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

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

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

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

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

both aesthetic and economic. the locus of planetary biodiversity. and weather mechanics. and pharmaceuticals. viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. 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. many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures. nutrient cycling.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 81 /414 Nelson <tournament> Oceans Oceans key to survival Craig '03 (Robin Kundis Craig -. 20 In addition. and quality of life. including carbon sequestration." 19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year. for millions of people worldwide. marketable goods such as shells. and it remains the axis of existence. worldwide.Associate Professor of Law." 17 oceans provide food. aquarium fish. 18 Indeed. and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. life support processes. 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. 81 .

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

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

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

and that both sides often see themselves as heroic and self-sacrificing for a worthy cause. in villains. 85 . 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. In this. not to mention one another on occasion. good and bad guys play similar games and salute a core of common values. and affirm masculine identity. At a deep level. 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. war and many other forms of male aggression are manifestations of the same evil they supposedly defend against. and armies.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 85 /414 Nelson <tournament> Patriarchy  War Manifestation of Evil . 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 believe that evil forces exist out there. The evil is the patriarchal religion of control and domination that encourages men to use coercion and violence to settle disputes.

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

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. in villains. manage human relations. not to mention one another on occasion. we have to believe that evil forces exist out there.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 87 /414 Nelson <tournament> Patriarchy  War Manifestation of Evil . and armies. At a deep level. war and many other forms of male aggression are manifestations of the same evil they supposedly defend against. governments.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. and affirm masculine identity. and that both sides often see themselves as heroic and self-sacrificing for a worthy cause. good and bad guys play similar games and salute a core of common values. 87 . In this. The evil is the patriarchal religion of control and domination that encourages men to use coercion and violence to settle disputes.

Co-coordinates POWER--Portland Organizing to Win Economic Rights.kept discretely hidden away from the eyes. This is. 88 . housing. The existence of poverty in the richest country on earth cannot remain a secret for long. as outlined in International Law. When exposed. perpetuated on the weak and the poor every year of every decade. to see the children stricken with preventable diseases in the midst of the world's best-equipped hospitals.only our ev is comparative Spina 2k (Stephanie Urso. To see these things one needs neither a high-powered satellite nor a specialized degree. to see the worried faces of homeless mothers waiting to be added to the waiting list for non-existent public housing. 201) This sad fact is not limited to the United States. 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. One needs only to open one's eyes and dare to see the reality before them. In addition to all the indignities suffered by poor people in America. "Abolishing Poverty: A Declaration of Economic Human Rights. we must suffer the further indignation of being disappeared . Americans. or in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. Yet even as you look you still might not see the millions of poor people in America. including the United States. candidate in social/personality psychology at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. unending.which disregards the basic human needs of its own despairing people in favor of misguided military adventures that protect no one.by far the world's richest and most powerful . jobs at living wages. all nations have a moral and legal obligation to ensure the basic needs and well-being of all their citizens. That is. ears. That's where the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign comes in.peaceworkmagazine. despite huge economic gains and a vast productive capacity. In a land whose founding documents proclaim life. throughout the world. to find the unemployment lines filled with parents who aren't eligible to see a doctor and who can't afford to get sick. Meanwhile. like the majority of the world's peoples. Poverty poses the greatest threat to the world—we have a moral obligation to eradicate it Vear 04 (Jesse Leah.a terror boldly and callously proliferated by our own government. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. billions are spent waging wars and occupying countries that our school children can't even find on a map. Globally. we must hold this nation to its promises. and justice for all. and every single year. Smoke and Mirrors: The Hidden Context of Violence in Schools and Society. Over half a century after signing this document." http://www. or to detect the crumbling of our nation's under-funded. liberty. 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. whether in nations half-way across the globe. as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths. compared to 100. Among the rights outlined in the Declaration are the rights to food.D. the United States has sorely neglected its promise. to hear the rumble in the bellies of millions of hungry Americans whose only security is a bread line once a week. in effect.000 deaths per year from armed conflict. approximately every five years. our terror is the terror of poverty . the equivalent of an ongoing. p. 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.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 88 /414 Nelson <tournament> Poverty Ongoing global poverty outweighs nuclear war. 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. health care. thermonuclear war or genocide. in fact accelerating. under-staffed schools.htm) Locked in the cross-hairs of domestic and foreign policies which intentionally put our bodies in harm's way. Surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect the moral bankruptcy of a nation . With this campaign. fair-minded people .org/pwork/0407/040704. Ph. are compassionate. and education. an International Treaty signed in 1948 by all UN member nations. and conscience of the rest of society and the world. 18 million deaths a year are caused by structural violence. 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.

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

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

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

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 92 /414 Nelson <tournament> Space Weaponization: NASA Key NASA KEY TO SPACE WEAPONIZATION [Bruce K. the project has now grown to $100 billion and is not yet finished. NASA's job is to do the research and development. Virtually every system now under development is well over budget.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5971 6/27/09 RFF NASA was created as a civilian agency with a mission to do peaceful space exploration. 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. 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. Permanent. The international competition for resource extraction in space (helium-3 on the moon) is now full on. Bush appointed former Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe to head NASA in late 2001. The military would ride the NASA Trojan horse and accelerate space weapons development without the public's knowledge. Just one illustration is NASA's International Space Station. 2009 http://www. When George W. 92 . 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 military will create the space weapons systems to ensure free corporate access to the space highways of the future. NASA would expand space nuclear power systems to help create new designs for weapons propulsion." This meant that every NASA space launch would be both military and civilian at the same time. the new space agency director announced that all NASA missions in the future would be "dual use. The taxpayers will fund the technology investment program. and then be ready to turn everything over to private corporate interests once the technology has been sorted out. March 19. But the growing influence of the military industrial complex has rubbed out the line between civilian and military programs.

credible second strike. then. Clearly. The failing of a space-MAD strategy comes on the third count: early warning or survivable second-strike capability. hence. 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. Limited use of nuclear weapons was destabilizing. A nation could use nuclear weapons on a small scale and prevail in a predominantly conventional conflict. Comparing the emergence of nuclear-tipped ICBMs with the accession of space weapons does yield some stark differences. it had to be paired either with a reliable early warning capability allowing a reactive nuclear response or with a survivable second-strike capability. Conceding offensive dominance was critical if MAD were to deter nuclear holocaust. Furthermore. More than its name implies. even if one could construct a workable space-MAD strategy. etc. As a common MAD logic developed across the globe (but primarily between the two players in the game—the United States and Soviet Union). eliminating the “mutual” from MAD and only assuring the destruction of the less aggressive state. we’ll be compelled to use them. Putting weapons in space could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy: we put them there because we anticipate we’ll need them. one can draw and apply lessons as the possibility of space weapons emerges. one had to avoid any such strategy. 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). but the potential for instantaneous. and because they’re there. and lesser powers may concede hegemony but will continue to seek asymmetric counters. Examples include Vietnam and Afghanistan. 2. 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. Thus. Should space be weaponized and two space-capable foes emerge. Further. if MAD were to prohibit a nuclear exchange. 2. space basing is equivalent to exposure—no strike capability can be reliably hidden or protected in space in order to allow a surviving. there exists no obvious strategy for employing space weapons that will enhance global stability.and land-based early warning networks and the latter via submarine-launched ballistic missiles. 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. 3. In their logical evolution.) still allowed lesser powers to test the resolve of the principals—particularly over issues of peripheral interest to those nuclear powers.4 The result will be a space strategy that better aligns with what evolved out of the nuclear dilemma: mutual assured destruction (MAD).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. Oxford University. DeBlois (PhD. we needed them. Visions of massive space superiority and the touted huge. Principal powers will simply not allow a space hegemon to emerge. space weaponization could bring a new round of MAD. indefensible. The same argument against the logic of “tactical” nuclear weapons would also apply to the “tactical” use of spacebased weapons. 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. including missile-defense systems and civil-defense programs. though. Unlike the strategy for nuclear weapons. Any point on earth could have a weapon pointed at it with clear line of sight . In simple terms. the nuclear-MAD approach teaches that this is an intensely expensive means of dealing with mutual distrust between nations. One had to avoid an odd array of destabilizing practices and systems. Aside from these differences. hence. Stabilizing approaches that reduced the viability of surprise via first strike were pursued. conflict protraction. Threatening to use military force had always been an instrument of diplomacy. A nation could launch a successful first strike. The dissolution of that distrust and the corresponding reduction of nuclear arms lie at the very heart of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START). and on at least the first two counts. 3. Although MAD successfully deterred a nuclear exchange over the past 40 years. the threat of annihilation would still exist—it is difficult to distinguish space-based WMD from space-based non-WMD. it was a very costly means of overcoming the lack of trust between superpowers. of a nuclear weapons–space weapons analogy can only be that while the threats from each type of weapon are similar. Again. aligning with nuclear-capable parties. any conflict could automatically escalate to a higher level . and complete annihilation posed a new rubric in the games nations play. Although the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (outlawing weapons of mass destruction [WMD] in space) prohibits complete annihilation. 93 . was a direct result of this logic. the most successful strategy (MAD) for dealing with the former cannot work for the latter. however. 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. in spite of the immediate tactical benefits it offered to outnumbered NATO forces in Europe. nontraditional foreign-policy traits became apparent. It is logical to concede the offensive dominance of space-based weapons in low-earth orbit (LEO). Symmetric nuclear capabilities among the principal powers weakened the credibility of their use. Space-MAD weapons without early warning or reliable survivability logically instigate a first strike. coercive power advantage they provide will likely prove as bankrupt a notion as that of massive nuclear retaliation. while asymmetric responses (guerrilla and terrorist tactics. From this experience. A nation could survive nuclear attacks and prevail. both give way to strategies that recognize an international context of reactive nations. 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. one could do so: 1. this is not a good situation. the potential of directed-energy weapons takes the notion of instantaneous to the extreme. Deterrence in the form of MAD had to overcome the notion of “winning”—one that could come in several forms: 1. and defense of every national asset from such an attack would prove next to impossible. one would have to eliminate the notion of “winning” a space-weapons exchange. Once they were used. 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. The United States pursued both: the former via space. Prohibiting the development of the neutron bomb. The term theater nuclear weapons was an oxymoron—every nuclear weapon was strategic because it posed the threat of escalation. nuclear deterrence was born. these weapons offer the potential for instantaneous and indefensible attack. Obviously. The conclusion.

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

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

in which one side perceives any loss as a gain for the other. bringing regional and global economic and political instability and. stimulate additional actions. which the PRC sees as a potential partnership for blocking Chinese regional aspirations or. Like neutrons firing from a split atom. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia. and could ultimately prove destabilizing for Sino-U. Of particular concern for Beijing is the possibility that Tokyo's decision formally to join U.S. Arms Race” The Washington Quarterly http://muse. and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Foreign Policy. 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. which will be supported by an array of space systems and sensors. in broader terms. 16 Beijing remains wary of the joint research program on missile defense by the U. which in turn.S. Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons. First. where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara. relations. the others are capable of constructing them. missile defense system. space dominance as a major threat to its geostrategic interests. 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.S. “The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain. Beijing perceives the proposed U. India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race.-Japanese alliance.4martel. for containing China. as a strategic menace to China and to international security.S. 2003. 96 . perhaps.S. the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945. South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's.jhu. “Averting a Sino-U. US-CHINA CONFLICT IS A ZERO-SUM COMPETITION William C.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. 2000 <Joseph. China evidently views U. director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs. Moreover.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. 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. critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation.” Lexis] The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia. China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region. then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. forces in the areas of space-based intelligence and communications.S. These views inevitably breed a zero-sum competition.S.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26. Five of these states have nuclear weapons.

One has only to compare today’s global attitudes toward slavery with those of 150 years ago. Oxford University. the social nature of people can change. This assumption is ultimately founded on a belief that the nature of people—their historical tendency to wage war—cannot change. pursuing a national space strategy on the assumption made at the outset—that “space will be weaponized. political. THIS ACTION CONDEMNS US TO GLOBAL WAREFARE [Lt Col Bruce M.” 97 . More than challenging a flawed assumption. 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.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”. 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. That assumption is not necessarily true and runs counter to the American spirit. Doing so assumes determinism—that the future will happen and that we have to optimize our position in it. Furthermore. we only need to decide where and how to go. If we continue to assume that major global warfare between nations is inevitable and prepare for it accordingly. the issues raised here indicate that long-term military costs and the broader social. we only need to decide if the US will take the lead”—can be challenged on a more fundamental level. Contrarily. The future is what we make it. we condemn ourselves to that future. 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. Division Chief of Strategic Studies and Assessments at the National Reconnaissance Office) 1998] “Space Sanctuary: A Viable National Strategy” In total. DeBlois (PhD.

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

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." What if America weaponizes space? One would think such an action would kick-start a procession of other nations to follow suit. Fact of Life "Militarization of space is a fact of life." Dolman said." But history reveals an entirely different reality .S. But the rewards for the state that weaponizes first--and establishes itself at the top of the Earth's gravity well. 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. Moreover. based in space. nations reacting not to threats but to illusory phantoms. without sparking mass arms races or hair. by the way. U. it would be perceived as an attempt to maintain or extend its position. “Weapons in Space: The http://www. the U.trigger tensions.afa.S. 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. Fogleman said. armaments that appeared only on the pages of Aviation Week. Senior Editor. well then. Tirpak.com/news/050617_space_warfare.org/magazine/march2001/0301space. DOMINANCE Leonard David. If the U. These are not just systems that send warheads through space." Dolman suggested. Aside from the waste. CAN WEAPONIZE – OTHER STATES WON’T CHALLENGE U. For those that think space weaponization is impossible. The argument about the militarization of space is "moot. http://www.asp “The Space Commission Reports”.S. 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. he said. but otherwise. "The U. in effect. 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. The fact that space weaponization is technically feasible is indisputable. Of course it would! But this is an entirely different situation.S. SPACE HAS ALREADY BEEN MILITARIZED John A. circling Earth. The international system looks to it for order. "This argument comes from the mirror-image analogy that if another state were to weaponize space. 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. I don't think aerospace integration and a restructured space segment of the US Air Force are mutually exclusive.space.com. 2005." Dolman responded.html 7/7/09 RFF Dawn of a New Era” Space. such as intercontinental missiles or the proposed global bomber. Russia is particularly vulnerable to such manipulation. he said the commission didn't intend to "challenge the aerospace integration [concept]. Apollo and space shuttle vehicles. 99 ." he said." Fogleman asserted. to scary space hardware it actually built to combat what it saw as "soldier-astronauts" aboard militarized Gemini. from the major defensive weapons systems it fielded to counter U. And these systems were all Russian ones. garnering all the many advantages that the high ground has always provided in war--will find the benefits worth the costs. would have to react. he noted that a handful of nations already have the "crude" means to do great damage to a satellite constellation. he said. this needs to change. . Air Force Magazine Online. Weapons have occasionally been deployed in space for decades. the status quo . March 01. These are systems that put the weapons into stable orbits." He noted that there is a ban on nuclear weapons tests in space.. and nowhere challenged by a credible authority. The issue is. "It will be very expensive. most of them predating President Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" to develop an anti-missile system.S. "because space has been militarized. whether you weaponize space. In recent years." 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. is the world's most powerful state. there is "no prohibition against weapons in space today" under any existing treaty. In later discussion with reporters. 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. were to weaponize space.S. Now come the newest stories that echo down the interconnected corridors of the American mainstream media. or to badly reasoned deductions. "Space weaponization can work. Dolman said he takes issues with that notion. building such hardware created new hazards to everyone involved.. Dolman said such belief falls into the same camp that "man will never fly"." While the Air Force has not suffered much until now by putting nonspace experts in command of space organizations.

infectious diseases are also having an impact on whole societies. Many cities and townships in the developing world expands at the expense of pristine land.com/embor/journal/v9/n1s/full/embor2008110. this was successfully done with smallpox. most notably to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). In addition to affecting the health of individuals directly. it is not easy to predict where and when most infectious agents will strike or which new diseases will emerge. Increasing urbanization and the growth of urban slums that lack sanitation and clean water. Moreover. After all. In many developing countries. 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. trade and travel are notoriously effective at spreading infectious diseases to even the most remote parts of the globe (Table 2). Global trade and travel introduce new pathogens into previously virgin regions . 2003). crucial sectors for sustained development such as health and education. for example. hantavirus. pathogens are sometimes able to change hosts and infect humans (Parish et al. but also cause significant economic losses both directly in the developing world and less directly in the developed world.nature. Pathogens constantly change their genetic make-up. this was the case when West Nile virus arrived in New York City. the misuse and overuse of antibiotics is eroding our ability to control even common infections. similarly. These and other infectious agents not only take an enormous physical toll on humanity. where the diseases find a more vulnerable population and can develop into epidemics. Human forays into virgin areas of the African equatorial forests have brought us into contact with the Ebola virus. the once first-line drugs against malaria are now almost useless. Ebola epidemic could occur anywhere in the world. The new host—in this case. have seen a marked loss of qualified personnel. one could simply think the solution would be . 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. Unfortunately. from where it quickly spread throughout North America. however. When humans live in close contact with animals. In the present-day global village. survive and challenge human ingenuity (Table 1). re-adapt. they [viruses and bacteria] are 'the fittest' and the chances are slim that human ingenuity will ever get the better of them" (Stefansson. given the increased resort to the sex trade for survival. and can create precarious conditions—such as poor hygiene and nutrition or risky sexual behaviours—which hasten the spread of infectious diseases. which challenges the development of vaccines against infectious diseases. but which subsequently found a new. EMBO reports 9.html) During the past couple of decades. commercial sex workers and long-distance truck drivers have contributed greatly to the spread of such infectious diseases from one community to another. although its real origin has not yet been identified. to try to eliminate the pathogens and/or their vectors from their natural reservoirs or hosts. In addition. tuberculosis (TB) and malaria. susceptible host in humans. for example. in the late 1990s. for example. S13–S17 (2008). re-emergence and persistence of otherwise easily controllable diseases. International Consultant on Public Health. but also of economic interest. Mass migrations. Mass migrations are often the result of emergency situations such as floods. to invest in and organize an internationally coordinated strategy to fight the major infectious diseases. sexual transmission of these diseases is accelerated. In areas of extreme poverty. natural disasters. "From the evolutionary perspective. severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). social and political causes. microbes have shown a tenacious ability to adapt. 2005). either individually or in combination. or at least to bring them under control Of course. which contributes further to the emergence. economies and political systems. Cholera and malaria were similarly brought under control in the USA and southern Europe. often cause a breakdown in healthcare systems.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 100 /414 Nelson <tournament> TB (1/4) TB collapses the economy Fonkwo. Many bacteria have become resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics. 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. economic collapse and other catastrophes. It is therefore a matter not only of public health. Nipah virus and the HIV epidemic were all due to pathogens that were normally found in animals. In the developing world in particular. constantly mutate and recombine to find their way through the host defence mechanisms. a human—is often not as adapted to these zoonotic diseases as the original host. 2008 (Peter Ndeboc. famines or earthquakes. http://www. 100 . Wars. Promiscuous sexual behaviour and substance abuse remain the main means of transmission of blood-borne infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. wars. institutional settings—such as child-care centres. International Consultant on Public Health. the next rabies or . S1. The reasons for their persistence are manifold and include biological. provide fertile ground for infections. The past outbreaks of avian influenza. thereby disturbing natural habitats and bringing humans into more intimate contact with unknown and possibly dangerous microorganisms.

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

3 million people were infected (3. and a gradual socioeconomic improvement in most countries.7–2. and their impact on the human race. . especially with regard to improving the basic quality of life for the poorest people. The burden of infectious disease already weakens the military capabilities of various countries and international peace-keeping efforts. The social cost of the lost productivity further increases the burden on society. the toll amounts to approximately US$1 billion each year. especially those that can cause an epidemic continue to make costly disruptions to trade and commerce in every region of the world (Table 3).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 102 /414 Nelson <tournament> of TB in economic terms can therefore be easily calculated: given 8. This will only later result in demographic changes such as reduced fertility and ageing populations. This has a heavy economic impact on society. on average. In slowing down social and economic development. the pessimist scenario of steady deterioration foresees little or no progress in countering infectious diseases in the future. 2008). Finally. This will contribute further to political destabilization in the hardest-hit parts of the world. Emerging and re-emerging diseases. the losses represent 35. which represented more than 15% of the GDP.1 million people were living with AIDS (25 million of whom were in sub-Saharan Africa). in particular from HIV/AIDS. could take one of the following pathways. 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 1999 (WHO. socioeconomic advances.7 million deaths). the relationship between humans and infectious diseases. and each AIDS death is estimated to have resulted in 34. The third and most likely scenario foresees an initial deterioration followed by limited improvement. heart disease and cancer. Persistent poverty in the least-developed countries will create conditions that sustain reservoirs of infectious diseases. as major health challenges. 5.4 million in sub-Saharan Africa). there is an additional deficit of US$11 billion. diseases challenge democratic developments and transitions. and AIDS has caused 21. According to this scenario. and less than 20% of these malaria cases ever see a doctor for treatment. The threat. TB or malaria. 36. a vicious spiral will develop between infectious diseases and poverty. compared with those without. the economic value of lost life years in 1999 caused by AIDS represents 11. 102 . more than 75% of which are among African children. with new and effective drugs and vaccines made affordable. 16 million deaths averted and US$6 billion saved. outbreaks of infectious disease will cause more friction between developing and developed countries. 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.7% of the GNP. can easily spread to richer parts of the world.3% less per year. 2003).1% of the GNP. The optimistic scenario foresees steady improvement whereby ageing populations and declining fertility.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa) and three million people died (2. and contribute to civil conflicts. and families spend up to 25% of their income on treatment. By contrast. Microbial resistance will continue to increase faster than the pace of drug and vaccine development. trade embargoes or restrictions on travel and immigration owing to i .6 DALYs lost. with an average loss of 15 years of income per death. In the year 2000. According to the WHO Macroeconomics Report. By contrast. and assuming a 30% decline in average productivity. The good news is that infectious . many of which are likely to appear in poorer countries first. Each year there are between 400 and 900 million febrile infections owing to malaria (0. a 50% reduction in TB-related deaths would cost US$900 million per year. the majority of whom are potential wage-earners. but the return on investment by 2010 would be 22 million people cured. infectious diseases n general. In addition. Gallup & Sachs estimated the aggregate loss owing to the disease in some 25 countries at approximately US$73 billion in 1987. and the success of global and national efforts to create effective systems of surveillance and response. and hinder global commerce to the greater detriment of poor countries. Depending on these variables. which face the majority of the problem. 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.8 million deaths to date.4 million patients yearly according to the most recent WHO estimates (Kim et al. Annual deaths are estimated at two million and. Countries with a severe malaria burden grew 1. AIDS/HIV also creates an enormous burden for the global economy. Assuming that each DALY is valued at the per capita income. Pregnant women have a higher risk of dying from the infection or of having children with low birth weight. If each DALY is valued at three times the per capita income. the economic burden of AIDS on sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 72 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY). 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. 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. the future of developing and transitional economies. Every 12 months TB therefore causes roughly US$12 billion to disappear from the global economy. Children suffer cognitive damage and anaemia.

politicians. TB and malaria—in order to have the greatest impact. country-by-country.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). joint efforts will have to focus on the main killer diseases—including HIV/AIDS. 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. and for making appropriate and timely decisions. as historical examples have shown. the investment in the fight against infectious diseases is evidently good business: the world economy—and. especially given the potentially far-reaching and devastating effects that they could have on the human race at large. 103 . best practices will have to be identified and scaled up. and to estimate their social and economic impact. 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. This requires correct education and the spread of knowledge. the prevailing problem of the physical and financial inaccessibility of most of these drugs will have to be addressed. 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. 2001. health professionals. Therefore. Such information is essential for advocacy. individual family economies— stands to benefit from such investments. we just need to do it. We already know a lot of what we must do. Even from the purely economic point of view. Stop TB Partnership. Medical treatment. subsequently. however. financial and non-financial resources with a view to mobilizing support internationally. psychosocial support—including palliative care for debilitating diseases—and highly active anti-microbial therapy will be essential. even these simple measures will not be enough to bring infectious diseases under control if there is no political and international commitment. In conclusion. 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. This will require special efforts to identify and overcome legal barriers. infectious diseases constitute a major problem for the world. and to analyse. 2006). all stakeholders—researchers. No country can afford to remain aloof in the battle against these diseases. In addition. 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 . but even more so for the developing world. In the face of limited resources.

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

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

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

By contrast. until 2001 far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning. in reasonable context. The economic destruction on September 11 was also unprecedented. to purchase Russian nuclear technology and data. Nonetheless. outside of 2001. In fact. Volume 6 Issue 2 Page 208-234. and during the entire twentieth century fewer than 20 terrorist attacks resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people. of course. When terrorism becomes really extensive. These difficulties may lead terrorists to conclude that nuclear acquisition is too difficult and too expensive to pursue. 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. hundreds of billions of pieces of luggage have been transported on American carriers and none has exploded to down an aircraft. “Combating http://www. al Qaeda has been exposed to numerous scams involving the sale of radiological waste and other non-weapons-grade material. But people are mainly concerned about random terror. actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic. for all the attention it evokes. we generally no longer call it terrorism. . of course. virtually none of these terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 107 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terrorism Defense Nuclear weapons are too expensive RAND. Since that time. And except for 2001. is the central fear. However. Aum Shinrikyo tried without success to hire Russian nuclear experts. extreme events often remain exactly that—aberrations. These efforts were thwarted by Russian officials’ refusal to cooperate and by the lack of technical expertise within the group. 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. 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. Moreover. Throughout the 1990s. to mine uranium.org/pubs/research_briefs/ RB165/index1. 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. it should be kept in mind that 9/11 was an extreme event: until then. 05 (John. even using an expansive definition of terrorism and including domestic terrorism in the mix. however. International Studies Perspectives. This does not mean that one should cease worrying about luggage on airlines. Obviously. rather than harbingers 107 . Those adept at hyperbole like to proclaim that we live in "the age of terror" (Hoagland. no more than 329 had ever been killed in a single terrorist attack (in a 1985 Air India explosion). the number of people worldwide who die as a result of international terrorism is generally only a few hundred a year. but it does suggest that extreme events do not necessarily assure repetition—any more than Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 has. Professor of Political Science at OhioState.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. Similarly. but war.rand. terrorism. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count. In almost all years. fewer people have died in America from international terrorism than have drowned in toilets. tiny compared with the numbers who die in most civil wars or from automobile accidents. shown great skill at political subversion. 5 (RAND research brief. Indeed. 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. not sustained warfare. in addition. 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. 2004). Some of this is definitional. However. and to steal sensitive nuclear power plant information. The threat of terrorism has been greatly exaggerated – empirically proven Mueller. May 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Katharine. torture or kill. Negroes. successful dehumanization of women. dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and brainwashing. Throughout history.com “Stop Dehumanization of People to Stop Wars” http://www. By portraying the enemy as less than human.com/main/articles/nomorewars. March 22 yonip. treated as secondclass human beings.yonip. Up to now. 123 . it is much easier to motivate your troops to rape. 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. women are dehumanized in many societies -. Muslims. worldwide. The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the prevailing.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 123 /414 Nelson <tournament> War causes dehumanization Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars Vinulan-Arellano 03. mass rape of women is common. Slaves. Jews. groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized.they are made sexual objects. During wars.html] In war time. and now.

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." But in the United States. health officials say. which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly. arms.boston. 124 .S. In some US hospitals in Iraq. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 124 /414 Nelson <tournament> War Turns Disease War increases the spread of fatal disease. which was contracted by 122 troops last year in Afghanistan. “Spread of disease tied to U. 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. usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face. Boston Globe 07. Leishmaniasis . military officials said. dengue fever.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. or legs. hands. combat deployments” http://www. the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil. [05-07. Among those diseases appearing more frequently in the United States are three transmitted by mosquitoes: malaria. and chikungunya fever.500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

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

Many reports provide clear and quantitative evidence of violations of the requirements of immunity for civilian populations. 2007) Modern military technology. and all immunization programs increased. Because almost no civilian telephones.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. 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. and missile warheads. especially infants and children. proportionality. Operating rooms. with clearly foreseeable consequences to human rights of civilians. and other vital facilities were crippled. military personnel operate. antibiotics. 7 (Barry Levy. while avoiding the stigma of direct attack on the bodies and habitats of noncombatants. 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. Without electrical power.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College.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.S. 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. military has never conceded that its policies violated human rights under the Geneva Conventions or the guidelines under which U. They mock the concept of “life integrity rights.S.S. or any electricity beyond what could he supplied by emergency generators designed to operate only a few hours per day. water purification and pumping ceased immediately in all major urban areas. Edition 2. In combination with the prolonged application of economic sanctions and the disruption of highways. Fuel shortages and the disruption of transportation limited civilian access to medical care. War and Public Health. computers. 127 . The technique has been termed "bomb now”. bridges. these deaths have been the consequence of and explicit military policy. At the same lime. and other essential medications were rapidly depleted. die later.” In contrast to the chaos and social disruption that routinely accompany armed conflicts. and facilities for refining and distributing fuel by conventional bombing. 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). The U. sewage disposal. especially the use of high-precision bombs. were rapid. The appearance and epidemic spread of infectious diarrheal disease in infants and of waterborne diseases. Supplies of anesthetics. or transmission lines were operable. these actions had severely damaging effects on the health and survival of the civilian population. Victor Sidel. the Ministry of Health was effectively immobilized. medical care and public health measures were totally disrupted. Modern multistory hospitals were left without clean water. as did sewage pumping and treatment. x-ray equipment. Vaccines and medications requiring refrigeration were destroyed. and the prevention of unnecessary suffering. such as typhoid fever and cholera. rockets.

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

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

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

S. the United States ranks first among nations in military expenditures and arms exports. government has spent almost $500 bi l l i o n for the Iraq War. during a period when federal. This diversion of resources occurs in many countries. Victor Sidel. 131 .Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. For example. 7 (Barry Levy.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. The countries with the highest military expenditures are shown in Table I -1. War and the preparation for war divert huge amounts of resources from health and human services and other productive societal endeavors. but 38th among nations in infant mortality rate and 45th in life expectancy at birth. 2007) Many countries spend large amounts of money per capita for military purposes. and is spending (in 2007) more than $2 billion a week on the war. Since 2003. The same type of distorted priorities also exist in more developed countries. state. In some less developed countries. Edition 2. the U. and local governments in the United States have been experiencing budgetary shortfalls and finding it difficult to maintain adequate health and human services.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 131 /414 Nelson <tournament> War turns Health Funds are prioritized for war over health services Levy and Sidel. national governments spend S10 to $20 per capita on military expenditures but only SI per capita on all health-related expenditures. 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. Edition 2. 132 . commit acts of violence against women. War and Public Health.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. 7 (Barry Levy. there have been instances of men murdering their wives on return from battlefield. increasing domestic and community violence in the countries engaged in war.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. Victor Sidel. sometimes former military servicemen who have been trained to use violence.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. 2007) War often creates a cycle of violence. Teenage gangs may mirror the activity of military forces Men. War teaches people that violence is an acceptable method for settling conflicts.

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

when war seems ever-present." War is not inevitable.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. most people live peaceful. it lies in the consequences of war. Victor Sidel. 134 . 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. 2007) War is the one of the most serious threats lo public health. 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.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. the agendas of public health organizations. The greatest threat to the health of people worldwide lies not in specific forms of acute or chronic diseases—and not even in poverty. nonviolent lives. 7 (Barry Levy. War first occurred relatively recently in human history along with changes in social organization. Activities by public health professionals to prevent war and its health consequences are an essential part of our professional obligations. especially the development of nation-states. people lived in egalitarian groups in which generosity was highly valued and war was rare. Preventing war and its consequences should be part of the curricula of schools of public health. hunger. Public health professionals can do much to prevent war and its health consequences. Edition 2. or homelessness. Even at present. As stated in a resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly. and the practice of public health professionals. If we can learn from history. War and Public Health. we may be able to move beyond war and create a culture of peace. Rather.

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

The trend continues in today's conflicts. UNHCR (the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) has had to organize security patrols. who themselves had been traumatized by violence. The camps were located in isolated areas. 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. imprisoned and forced to satisfy the sexual needs of occupying forces. women were abducted. 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. 136 . Nearly 80 per cent of the 53 million people uprooted by wars today are women and children. In Bosnia and Herzegovina. they leave women. were reported to threaten to kill or starve girls if they resisted the boys' sexual advances. and many Asian women were also involved in prostitution during the Viet Nam war. and it trains field workers to be more sensitive to victims' needs. according to the report. “Sexual violence as a weapon of war” http://www. fence camps with thorn bushes and relocate the most vulnerable women to safer areas. girls and women are also subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war. Myanmar and Somalia. including HIV/AIDS. The incidence of rape was reported to be alarmingly high at camps for Somali refugees in Kenya in 1993. For example. During World War II. Sexual assault presents a major problem in camps for refugees and the displaced. When fathers. the very young and the elderly to fend for themselves. The high risk of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). 1996. husbands. refugee families frequently cite rape or the fear of rape as a key factor in their decisions to seek refuge. Some rape victims who were ostracized were moved to other camps or given priority for resettlement abroad.unicef. 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. During Mozambique's conflict. brothers and sons are drawn away to fight. 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. and hundreds of women were raped in night raids or while foraging for firewood.org/sowc96pk/sexviol. young boys. 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. accompanies all sexual violence against women and girls.htm) In addition to rape. UNHCR has formal guidelines for preventing and responding to sexual violence in the camps.

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

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

is profit. They just don't pay the workers who perform these tasks much. Over this same period. laundry and logistics provided. www. Many of the contracts are awarded without competitive bidding.aspx?act=pro&fil=IQ) has a listing of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and the value of the contracts they hold.asp?ID=1071) With these tasks shifting to private contractors. 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.3%. This means the conflicts can be more easily handled with a voluntary. PhD Economist .5231766. 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. effectively making them indentured servants. The Center for Public Integrity (www. 139 . now becomes a major source of bottom line revenue for private companies who previously got nothing from these services. and billions of dollars have literally “gone missing”. These expenditures represent a unique new source of revenue and profit for American business. The difference. an in so doing. we have reduced the populace's natural resistance to war and increased its profitability.story. there are new opportunities for corruption. Government investigators report literally billions of dollars have gone missing with no accounting for who received them or what was done with the money. (source http://oversight.com/articles/opedne_francis__080320_the_privatization_of.com/news/nationworld/chi-kbr-war-profiteers-feb21. We have privatized war.4 billion to $377. Third World contract workers have reported their employers withholding their passports.chicagotribune. there has been a huge increase in private contracts let by the US government. With privatization. Spending on contractor services can expand massively within the context of war. 3-22-08.opednews. They do not. “The Privatization of War” http://www. of course. This is not to say these services come cheap. All of this is symptomatic of deeper problems.1. Spending on private contractors has risen from $174.htm Since 2000. our military can be smaller. Conscription can more easily be avoided along. an increase of 86%. because much of what it being purchased are services which would previously have been done by military personnel.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 139 /414 Nelson <tournament> Cap War has become privatized. as can the political backlash from potential draftees and their relatives.5 billion. The Chicago Tribune reports ongoing investigations of Kellogg Brown and Root and various of their sub-contractors for gross violations and fraud. With contracting.house.publicintegrity. private contractors' collections for the Department of Defense increased from $133 billion to $279 billion annually. In addition to new opportunities for profit in a war theater. The result is a river of profit with little economic gain for the nation. a greater portion of military spending flows as profit to American businesses.gov/story. professional military. an increase of 102. fueling a stronger capitalism Ferguson 08 Francis Ferguson. Wartime allows emergency measures and expenditures which can proceed without customary bidding or oversight.org/wow/bio. Contractors such as Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) charge handsomely for the meals.

1992. Rev. 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. $62. The absence of a comparative dimension is a closely related source of Simpson's disparagement of his country's response to national emergency. but it makes for rather a tepid ending to the book. Pp.than the United States. IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE ODIOUS: DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN WARTIME BRITAIN. they ought to be drawn. 1679 1993-1994.8 Of course there are perils in using a purely relative standard. I am sure this observation is right. 453. 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. x. So far as I can judge. But the only lesson Simpson draws is that Britain should not have destroyed "about 99 per cent of public records dealing with detention. for example.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 -. By A. in hindsight at least. Peacetime civil liberties are a luxury that nations engaged in wars of survival do not believe they can afford. the answer to this question is more temperately . L. W. 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. but whether it reacted more or less temperately than other nations in comparable circumstances would do or have done.92 Mich. The administration of Regulation 18B caused hardships and. EXECUTIVE DETENTION IN TIME OF WAR . which is in line with general practice" (p. half a century later. to most of the rest. Oxford: Clarendon. Press. Brian Simpson. 140 . 422) and should not be refusing access. seems not to have contributed materially to Britain's survival or to have shortened the war. which was far less endangered.

it is much easier to motivate your troops to rape. Negroes. and 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. worldwide. Throughout history. successful dehumanization of women. During wars. mass rape of women is common. torture or kill. Muslims.com/main/articles/nomorewars. [Katharine. dehumanization is a key element in propaganda and brainwashing.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 141 /414 Nelson <tournament> Dehumanization T/ Dehumanization is used as propaganda during wars Vinulan-Arellano 03.they are made sexual objects. 141 . Slaves. March 22 yonip. women are dehumanized in many societies -. Jews.html] In war time. groups or races of human beings have been dehumanized. The proliferation of the sex trade are indications of the prevailing. Up to now.yonip.com “Stop Dehumanization of People to Stop Wars” http://www. treated as secondclass human beings. By portraying the enemy as less than human.

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

boston. Leishmaniasis . it seems possible that epidemics and global pandemics would propagate with no hope of effective mitigation by medical care. some of which might become pathogenic. taken separately. 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. may carry serious consequences for the global ecosystem: their interactions may be much more dire still. which was contracted by 122 troops last year in Afghanistan. hands. former professor at Stanford and Harvard. health officials say. For example. 143 . animals and unprotected humans in densely populated regions of northern mid-latitudes. even with reduced population sizes and greatly restricted human mobility. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated. arms." But in the United States. for such wars. combat deployments” http://www. At the same time. Foreign Affairs. as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the developing world. and other animals would likewise be vulnerable to preexisting and newly arisen pathogens. there can. After the soot and dust clear. 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). Together.S. “Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe” p. Plants.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. In some US hospitals in Iraq. Boston Globe 07. former professor at Stanford and Harvard. 84 (Carl Sagan. usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face. 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. War would increase immune system deficiency and create dangers of new and deadly diseases Sagan. Carried by vectors with high radiation tolerance. Pulitzer prize winning author. the high ambient-radiation fluxes are likely to produce. the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil. “Spread of disease tied to U.500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. making them more vulnerable to disease.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 143 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease T/ War increases the spread of fatal disease. [05-07. which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly. military officials said. and chikungunya fever. The preferential radiation sensitivity of birds and other insect predators would enhance the proliferation of herbivorous and pathogen-carrying insects. new varieties of microorganisms. these radiation assaults are likely to suppress the immune systems of humans and other species. or legs. through mutation. be a 200 to 400 percent increment in the solar ultraviolet flux that reaches the ground. weakened by low temperatures and low light levels. with an increase of many orders of magnitude in the more dangerous shorter-wavelength radiation. dengue fever. 1984. 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. Among those diseases appearing more frequently in the United States are three transmitted by mosquitoes: malaria. Lexis) Each of these factors.

500 US troops in the last four years because of massive deployments to remote combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan." But in the United States. 8-31-05. availability of food. “And they're moving from one town to another. But a more virulent form of the disease also attacks organs and can be fatal if left untreated. “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.” Military conflicts spread fatal diseases globally Boston Globe 07 [Boston Globe 05-07. involvement in the war. Joseph Malone. Leishmaniasis . Conflict impacts disease in other ways.an estimated 20 to 40 million people died from the epidemic. 144 . say public health officials. or legs. hands. which is transmitted through the bite of the tiny sand fly . “Spread of disease tied to U. “Poverty and Conflict Contribute the Spread of Infectious Diseases”. arms. military officials said.S.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 144 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease T/ War helps the spread of disease VOA News. too. usually shows up in the form of reddish skin ulcers on the face. director of the U. This has led to a rapid spread of AIDS in many war-torn African countries.voanews. http://www. the disease has become so commonplace that troops call it the "Baghdad boil. “Basic services such as clean water. Where there are soldiers and conflict. and the troop movements back and forth created a great vector for infection. 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. 05 (Voice of America News. as well as the pursuit of adventure travel and far-flung business opportunities in the developing world.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. Parkinson adds. Garcia U. 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.cfm) says war also spreads disease because it often creates large populations of refugees.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-31-voa23. health officials say. 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.S.” The epidemic itself killed more people than died in the entire war -. In some US hospitals in Iraq.” Mr.boston. 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. Navy's program to track emerging global infections. combat deployments” http://www. said Dr. there are also prostitutes and rape.S.

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

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

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

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

much of the area in and around Chelyabinsk. which can contaminate air. Russia.both during and preparing for war Levy and Sidel. 2007) Finally. and the more than 600 oil-well fires in Kuwait that were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops in 1991.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 149 /414 Nelson <tournament> 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. 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. destruction of urban environments by aerial carpet bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan during World War II. For example.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. 149 .Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. war and the preparation for war have profound impacts on the physical environment (see Chapter 5). site of a major nuclear weapons production facility. Victor Sidel. has been determined to be highly radioactive. Less obvious are the environmental impacts of the preparation for war. soil. Edition 2. 7 (Barry Levy. leading to evacuation of local residents (see chapter 10). and both surface water and groundwater. The disastrous consequences of war for the environment are often clear. War and Public Health.

they had absorbed already crucial features of conventional authoritarianism (not least the leader’s monopoly of power) into their general worldview. First. No. but which affected the evolution of inter-war fascism in two ways. 1979). 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. In intellectual terms. pp. 64-87 Published by: New German Critique Stable URL: http://www. it completed the ideological–political expropriation of fascism by the Right. Kallis ‘Consensus’ Ideological Production. 04 (Aristotle.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 150 /414 Nelson <tournament> Fascism War desensitizes culture and politics to fascist authoritarian structures Kallis. Yet. transcendental type of communication between nation and charismatic leader. this means that a categorical distinction between the regime-variant of fascism and conservative authoritarianism is meaningless. However. 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. even though it generally occurs in the blindest fashion.org/stable/487877 Accessed: 22/07/2009 12:32) XII. 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. in spite of its oppositional convergence with radical forms of conservatism.67It advocated instead a more direct. the thrust of these resolutions will have been consistent with the general direction of the existing homogeneity. at the end of a movement that excludes all subversion. Compared to this (more conventional) type of rule. Studying Inter-war Fascism 31 Fascism requires social homogenization Bataille et al. as well as a collective representation and negotiation of sectional interests within the framework of the party and its various societal extensions. not violently revolutionary. Once in power. 34. fascism offered a populist solution to the problem of generating social support and ensuring active societal unity through the ritualization of controlled mass participation. 150 . developed heterogeneous forces dispose of the means of coercion necessary to resolve the differences that had arisen between previously irreconcilable elements. 79 (The Psychological Structure of Fascism Author(s): Georges Bataille and Carl R. Further. 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. The Fundamental Conditions of Fascism. in so far as fascism accepted an institutional. namely. Kallis. 16 (Winter. with the interests of the capitalists. In analytical terms. Lovitt Source: New German Critique. DOI: 10. 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.jstor. Second.1177/0265691404040007 2004. As has already been indicated. the development of heterogeneous forces necessarily comes to signify a solution to the problem posed by the contradictions of homogeneity. it can be stated that. 9 European History Quarterly Aristotle A. in contrast to its initially mixed (or at least not exclusively right-wing) intellectual roots and active revolutionary anti-system spirit. 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. fascism had very little to do with conservative notions of authoritarianism. But it goes without saying that.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. approach to its own political emancipation from the mainstream Right — and thus could never fully eliminate continuities between ‘new’ and ‘old’ Right.

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

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

a core element of U. Would Americans revert to protectionist or mercantilist policies in an effort to perpetuate their hegemony. This idea. Henry Nau.S. or stick with free trade at the risk of experiencing relative decline? This is what Stein called "the hegemon's dilemma. Pigman describes a hegemon's principal function as underwriting a liberal international trading system that is beneficial to the hegemon but.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. in his introduction to a useful and original chapter in Two Hegemonies on agricultural trade liberalization in the 1990s. the United States must be able to deal with challenges to its interests in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. and Joseph Nye. 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. strategy has been maintaining a military capable of deterring and.S. if necessary.benefiting from precisely the liberal economic order made possible by U. but the United States was still too inhibited by protectionism and isolationism to take over the role. Military: Under Strain and at Risk”. naval. If the Army were ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today. Today. the United Kingdom was too weakened by war to remain an effective hegemon. Paul Kennedy drew a similar parallel in his influential The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. as "hegemonic stability theory. which describes a kind of "hegemonic interregnum. however. Foreign Affairs) Yet another. the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operations. The National Security Advisory Group. paradoxically. Susan Strange." and it appeared to him to be essentially the same problem faced by the United Kingdom before 1914. the Army “continues to accept risk” in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. 153 . defeating aggression in more than one theater at a time. War causes overstretch reducing hegemony. even more beneficial to its potential rivals. Kindleberger suggested. September/October 2003. somewhat inelegantly. “Hegemony or Empire?”. Perry. William J. the visible overextension of our ground forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to some contingencies. which became known. January 2006. Chair) In the meantime.S. In this literature. the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies." was later applied to the post-1945 period by authors such as Arthur Stein. and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression. As stated rather blandly in one DoD presentation. As a global power with global interests.began to catch up with it. the fundamental question was how far and for how long the United States would remain committed to free trade once other economies -. narrower definition is offered by Geoffrey Pigman. hegemony -. Although the United States can still deploy air. Pigman traces this now widely used definition of the word back to the economic historian Charles Kindleberger's seminal work on the interwar economy. 03 (Niall.UK proves Ferguson." After 1918. 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.

Throughout American history there has been high incidence of homelessness among veterans. “In one two-month period in 1943. Every war that the United States has been involved in.263. however. In New York City. and many had suffered physical injuries and trauma during the war. absent a dramatic change in Federal policies. or on the railroads. In contrast. A 1997 154 . In New York City. Patrick. In 1874 the number of reported vagrants in Boston was 98. also left many veterans recovering from physical and mental disabilities and confronting homelessness. unable to find work after being discharged. As Kusmer writes. Patrick. however. As the early 1870s recession deepened.org/FileLib/PDFs/war_and_homelessness.’ as applied to the homeless. Many of the new nomads riding the rails and congregating in cities were Civil War veterans. many cities responded by creating new antivagrancy legislation.pdf) The post-Civil War era witnessed a much more significant growth in homelessness nationwide. while another 200 acquired jobs in hospitals. mostly in their 20s and 30s and disproportionately black or Hispanic. 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. since the Civil War there have been no sustained military battles fought on United States territory.”7 By the late 1970s. and by the 1870s “vagrancy” was recognized as a national issue.Senior Policy Analyst for Coalition for the Homeless.3 One reason was the enormous economic dislocation generated by the war and the succeeding economic recession. when modern homelessness fully emerged.pdf) It is axiomatic that wars create homelessness in the territories where combat occurs. so most Americans have no first-hand contact with the immediate impact of homelessness resulting from war. From 1874 to 1878 the number of vagrancy arrests in New York City rose by half.org/FileLib/PDFs/war_and_homelessness. Many were Vietnam veterans. more than three times the number just two years earlier. “Only a few years after the end of the war…anew wave of homeless persons. homelessness re-emerged as a significant problem in many cities. War leaves veterans unemployed and homeless Markee 03 (Markee.4 The homelessness crisis of the Great Depression. began to appear on city street corners. has at least temporarily displaced populations and destroyed the homes of civilians. Indeed.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 154 /414 Nelson <tournament> Homelessness Wars create homelessness Markee 03 (Markee.coalitionforthehomeless. “even the words ‘tramp’ and ‘bum. asKusmer notes. Bill. 3-27-03 http://www. With the advent of the Vietnam War. substance abuse disorders. our armed forces veterans do have first-hand experience with homelessness that is a direct consequence of American military and domestic policies.coalitionforthehomeless. demand for emergency shelter rose in the late 1940s. in Latin America and elsewhere .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. which affected many World War I veterans. restaurants. can be traced to the Civil War era. produced hundreds of thousands of refugees and uprooted rural and urban populations. However. 3-27-03 http://www. Even the “undeclared” wars that the United States has sponsored and supported.”5 With the end of World War II. and physical disabilities caused by their experiences in combat. This briefing paper provides an overview of the impact of homelessness on armed forces veterans.I. according to Kusmer. 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. 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. The paper concludes that. both historically and currently.Senior Policy Analyst for Coalition for the Homeless. the link between homelessness and military veterans finally came to the attention of the general public. 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. the last major conventional war involving the United States military. 100 Bowery residents joined the armed forces. the war on Iraq will create a new generation of homeless veterans. from the Revolutionary War to Desert Storm. Many veterans suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The 1991 Gulf War.

homeless service providers also reported assisting significant numbers of Desert Storm veterans. 8 In New York City.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. 155 .

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

with an opposite trend in cities. army and air force. 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. and with little hope of employment.5 per cent of front-line forces. and various medical and pension benefits. Vietnam and the first Gulf War. These non-citizen members of the military have a limited number of Military Occupational Specialties to choose from when enlisting. Wash Post.S. and worst-trained troops. median. The US Government's interest in recruiting Latinos is hardly surprising since they make up about 12. according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. the Bush Administration has tightened immigration procedures and cut public spending in a number of areas such as housing and education. November 4. themselves victims of the very 'war on terror' they were recruited to vanquish. The USFG recruits Hispanics to high fatality posts in the military Hil. a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code. Washington Post Staff Writer. This has meant that many young Latinos feel they have little choice but to pursue the inducements offered by the US military. This recruitment campaign is driven by an executive order signed in July 2002 by President Bush. More than 44 percent of U. Pentagon figures show. or desperate recruits of the US Government's 'poverty draft'. Dominicans. Ann Scott Tyson. such troops die or are injured in disproportionate numbers. In contrast. New Internationalist) They have been variously described as 'working class mercenaries'. They are the huge contingent of Hispanic personnel who--for personal and economic reasons--have been recruited into the ranks of the US military. 157 . 14 percent come from major cities. Not surprisingly. the call to arms clearly holds some attraction.000 of them. Central Americans and Ecuadorians are also well represented. 2005 (Richard May “Life lottery: US military targets poor Hispanics for frontline service in Iraq”. scholarships. Over 120 were Latinos--about 70 of them Mexican. the various promises made by the Government frequently fail to materialize when Latino service personnel return home. by February 2005 there were 110. with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households.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. poorest-paid. Many of these troops--especially those who are injured--find they are in worse circumstances than when they left for Iraq. Many of today's recruits are financially strapped. Page A01) As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force. Hispanic troops make up about 17. 'green card troops'. Va. Regionally. 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. According to the Pew Hispanic Center. Are Drawn To Military. 2005. they are prime candidates for US Military Occupational Specialists hungry for recruits. Significantly.5 per cent of the US population: one in seven 18-year-olds are of Hispanic origin. of the first 1. Yet as the advocacy organization Latinos against the Iraq War has pointed out.S. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes. and 16 were non-metropolitan. rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war. newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed. decent housing and education. According to US journalist Jim Ross. Marine Corps. Friday.S. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army. according to the National Priorities Project. Recruits' Job Worries Outweigh War Fears.000 and 37. Since 11 September 2001.. post-service employment. the overwhelming majority was among the lowest-ranked. 12 had higher poverty rates. military recruits come from rural areas. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U. 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. With few prospects of gaining US citizenship through the usual channels. The biggest single contingent of such troops is made up of Mexicans and Mexican descendants. Since the start of the war about a third of the US forces stationed in Iraq--between 31. 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. Puerto Ricans.000 troops out of a total of about 130.000 US deaths in Iraq. that supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. noncitizens are over-represented in some of the most dangerous field operations.000--were non-US citizens serving in the navy. Such patterns are pronounced in such counties as Martinsville. most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent). 'non-citizen' armies. 05 (Ann Scott Youths in Rural U. As a consequence. Invariably poor and jobless.

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

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

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

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

University of London. Many more people die from wars as a result of lack of basic medical services. the destruction of rural life and transport and collapse of the state. 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. societal warfare. duration and phase of the conflict. than from direct battlefield deaths. 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. and the lack of development perpetually chase one another’’ (Gurr et al.pikpotsdam. warlord type conflicts characterized by the systematic and deliberate violation of individual and group rights. 2001. But the indirect costs are likely to have a more significant impact on IGT poverty. 10 162 . This particularly applies to collapsed state. disablement and displacement have long-term costs for societies.pdf) Research studies on the costs of conflict show that although the effects of war vary––according to the nature. (b) Macro effects of conflict Conflict has direct and indirect costs.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 162 /414 Nelson <tournament> Poverty Conflict causes chronic poverty Goodhand 03 (Johnathan Goodhand.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.. In such conflicts the deliberate impoverishment of the population may be used as a weapon of war. humanitarian crises. 2003 http://www. Chronic poverty is likely to increase due to higher dependency ratios caused by an increased proportion of the old. School of Oriental and African Studies. p. 13). women and disabled in the population. The direct impacts including battlefield deaths.

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

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

police stations and camps all over the country. Rape has long been tolerated as one of the spoils of war. they are killed. The sexual abuse of women in war is nothing new. 165 .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. 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. 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’. Muslim and Croatian – as well as some Serbian – women are being raped in their homes.org/issue244/rape. and on the whole community’. According to a recent report by European Community investigators. Though all figures must be treated with caution in a war so plagued by propaganda. in schools. Often brothers or fathers of these women are forced to rape them as well. 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’. If they refuse. 06-93 http://www. an inevitable feature of military conflict like pillage and looting.htm) No-one will ever know the exact number of women and girls raped during the conflict in former Yugoslavia. these witnesses tell of the organized and systematic rape of at least 20. their families. rapes are being committed in ‘particularly sadistic ways to inflict maximum humiliation on victims.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. Women and girls aged anything between 6 and 70 are being held in camps throughout the country and raped repeatedly by gangs of soldiers.newint.

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

Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. sewage disposal.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. military personnel operate. The technique has been termed "bomb now”.S. Victor Sidel. At the same lime. 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. or any electricity beyond what could he supplied by emergency generators designed to operate only a few hours per day. Without electrical power. In combination with the prolonged application of economic sanctions and the disruption of highways. were rapid. The U. Many reports provide clear and quantitative evidence of violations of the requirements of immunity for civilian populations. especially the use of high-precision bombs. and facilities for refining and distributing fuel by conventional bombing. with clearly foreseeable consequences to human rights of civilians. these actions had severely damaging effects on the health and survival of the civilian population. or transmission lines were operable.S. proportionality. x-ray equipment. these deaths have been the consequence of and explicit military policy. military has never conceded that its policies violated human rights under the Geneva Conventions or the guidelines under which U. antibiotics. as did sewage pumping and treatment. 167 . 7 (Barry Levy. and other essential medications were rapidly depleted. die later. computers. water purification and pumping ceased immediately in all major urban areas. especially infants and children. while avoiding the stigma of direct attack on the bodies and habitats of noncombatants. and all immunization programs increased. The appearance and epidemic spread of infectious diarrheal disease in infants and of waterborne diseases. rockets. 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. Vaccines and medications requiring refrigeration were destroyed.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. Because almost no civilian telephones. bridges.” In contrast to the chaos and social disruption that routinely accompany armed conflicts. Operating rooms. Edition 2. 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. and missile warheads. such as typhoid fever and cholera. 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). and the prevention of unnecessary suffering.S. medical care and public health measures were totally disrupted. They mock the concept of “life integrity rights. Supplies of anesthetics. War and Public Health. Fuel shortages and the disruption of transportation limited civilian access to medical care. and other vital facilities were crippled. the Ministry of Health was effectively immobilized. 2007) Modern military technology. Modern multistory hospitals were left without clean water." U.

numbers that underscore why there is.how much money a country spends on the military versus how much money is expended on non-military. something lacking in the message of most of the Democratic presidential candidates and our party's leadership. 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). while boosting money for defense and homeland security. In what Bush described as the most austere budget of his presidency. February 8.Our Real Economic our_b_60150. farming and low-income housing. http://www. What made me think of this is a set of revealing numbers that jumped out at me the other day -. discretionary spending would grow by 2. @Lexis) President Bush sent Congress a $2. At some basic level. executive director of labor research association ran for senate in NY.less than the projected rate of inflation. Meanwhile.1 percent . 8-13-‘7 (Jonathan . “Guns Versus Butter -. in my opinion. Hardest hit is Medicaid.the first such proposed cut since the Reagan administration . domestic needs. non-defense spending would be cut by nearly 1 percent . which could cost Minnesota as much as $712 million over the next decade.html) Challenge” .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 . numbers bring home the meaning of this equation in stunning fashion. 168 . 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 -. War spending trades off with Medicaid – Bush and the Iraq war proves Star Tribune 5 ("Social programs would bear brunt of deficit reduction".57 trillion budget Monday that would drastically cut or shut down 150 government programs and slash spending on Medicaid.huffingtonpost. To perhaps explain the obvious. sometimes. we all know that those tradeoffs exist but.com/jonathan-tasini/guns-versus-butter- Guns versus butter.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps more importantly. 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. its effects on military readiness are unusually harsh. 4 ( Maureen. so armed forces are faced with the loss of their most senior.5 Eurasia (defined as Russia. is home to five-eighths of the world’s population. World Policy Journal. hardest-to-replace officers. China. 173 . Fall 2004. “Global Public Health Trumps the Nation-State” Volume XXI. http://www. plus Asia).worldpolicy. Since HIV has a relatively long incubation period.member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow of the 21st Century Trust. No 3. and its combined GNP is larger than that of either the United States or Europe.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.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 173 /414 Nelson <tournament> AIDS T/ Readiness Aids kills military readiness Upton.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/Upton. and India—and to thereby alter the global military balance.

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

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

ethnic.pdf) How might these political and economic effects produce violent conflict? Price-Smith offers two possible answers: Disease . and planned genocides. AIDS almost certainly will interact with tribal. the potential for conflict escalates. 2 (winter 2002/3).hasten[s] the erosion of state capacity in seriously affected societies. racial. If these trends persist in states where tribes or ethnic groups are heavily concentrated in particular regions or in rural rather than urban areas.edu/~smpete/files/epidemic.both relative and absolute deprivation and. Price-Smith argues.83 Disease heightens competition among social groups and elites for scarce resources. “Epidemic Disease and National Security” http://people. 3 (Susan. Security Studies 12.84 176 ..the potential for intra-elite violence is also increasingly probable and may carry grave political consequences. the collapse of governance. or it hits certain provinces harder than others.. such as coups. In many parts of Africa today.wm. that .magnif[ies]. or geographic group.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 176 /414 Nelson <tournament> Disease T/ War Disease increases the likelihood of war and genocide Peterson. moreover. no. 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.associate professor of Government at the College of William & Mary. and in extreme cases it may accelerate the processes that lead to state failure. Thus. When the debilitating and deadly effects of IDs like AIDS are concentrated among a particular socio-economic. AIDS strikes rural areas at higher rates than urban areas. ethnic.

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

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

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 179 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ecodestruction T/ War Environmental degradation increases war. 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).asp? NewsID=12460&Cr=conflict&Cr1=environment. “Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability” November 5. Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within and between societies." he added. "These scars. threatening water supplies." 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.un. Mr. 179 . and hurts the economy UN. instability.org/apps/news/story. 2004. 4 (United Nations News Center. It also points out that the addressing environmental problems can foster trust among communities and neighbouring countries. the fertility of the land and the cleanliness of the air are recipes for instability between communities and neighbouring countries.

problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas. infested with pests. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt. logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6.51 For developing countries during the 1980s.utoronto.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 180 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ecodestruction T/ Agriculture Environmental degradation destroys cropland Homer-Dixon. In addition.Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto. but nearly all the best land has already been exploited. salinization. More importantly.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. which includes both current and potential cropland. and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity. others are not yet visible anywhere. 54 Taken together.26 percent a year. estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion. erosion. range from 3. and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods.9 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.2 to 3. he concludes.47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers. who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage. 91 (Thomas.library. 52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries.55 180 . given the current rate of world population growth. waterlogging. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact. less than half the rate of the 1970s. cropland grew at just 0. about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification. perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization. For example. http://www. changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change.17 hectares by the year 2025. experts expect that the world average of 0. International Security“ On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict” 199. 53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet.4 billion hectares. the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36. The geographer Vaclav Smil.49 Across the archipelago. the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000. What is left is either less fertile.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land.48 Moreover.8-7. or harder to clear and work. when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan.5 billion hectares. Currently. These factors may seriously affect crop production. and compacting. acidification. logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2. nutrient depletion. total global cropland amounts to about 1. which can be traced out in the figure. in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1. not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable.6 million hectares. Since the Second World War.

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

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’ . [“Every Shark East of Suez: Great Power Interests. http://www. 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.com/pentagon/Russia-2000-assessment-SSI. Central Asia is the most likely scenario for a global nuclear war Stephen Blank. For instance. Precisely because Turkey is a Nato members but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia or if it could. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their proxies and protégés . all of whom might find it easier to project and sustain power into the area (or use proxies for that purpose) than we could. In such a case we would also quite likely be opposed by one or more of the key neighboring states.pdf) Central Asia’s physical infrastructure might charitably be called “Third World” and the region is highly diverse ethnically and politically. Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. 182 . China. 1999 Central Asian Survey (18. 95 Sadly. 2000 (Dr. or Russia. 2). Iran. 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. in 1993 Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case.. Research Professional of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. Thus we might quickly end up on the wrong side of a Central Asian ethnic conflict.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. would conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’ s declared nuclear strategies). Research Professional of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College June. Director of Strategic Studies Institute at US Army War College. 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. 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. many such causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian. pg.milnet. 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. Stephen J Blank.

he assumes that. which like Great Britain in the 19th century occupies the leading economic and military position in the world. Kristof. "the latter's experience should remind us of the difficulty that the world has had accommodating newly powerful nations. "Such a ruler unfortunately may be tempted to promote Chinese nationalism as a unifying force and ideology. "The risk is that Deng's successor will be less talented and more aggressive--a Chinese version of Wilhelm II." For all the differences between China and Wilhelmine Germany. http://www.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 183 /414 Nelson <tournament> China-US US China war goes nuclear Hadar. the contest between America and China will remain "cold" and not escalate into a "hot" war." writes Kristof. The Sweet and Sour Sino-American Relationship. including Nicholas D.(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).cato.html) Some analysts. 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. like the confrontation with the Soviet Union but unlike the British-German rivalry.org/pubs/pas/pa-248. former Beijing chief of the New York Times. to replace the carcass of communism. 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. That optimism is crucial. 183 .American relationship. for example." warns Kristof. it is the Cold War with the Soviet Union that is apparently seen as the model for the future Sino. given the similar authoritarian and insecure nature of the regimes in post-Bismarck Germany the post-Deng China. 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. 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. a country growing too big and too strong for the continent it finds itself on."(67) Since Krauthammer and other analysts use the term "containment" to describe the policy they urge Washington to adopt toward China. contending that China is "like late 19th-century Germany. They suggest that. However. China could emerge as a leading anti-status quo player. ‘96 (Louis Hadar .(66) Charles Krauthammer echoes that point. 1/23/96. adjunct scholar at Cato. Strategist Graham Fuller predicts. challenging the dominant position of the United States. recalling that Germany's jockeying for a place in the front rank of nations resulted in World War I.

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

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

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

and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. it is not clear whether Iran would target Israel in a retaliatory strike but it is certainly possible. global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. 4/10/2k8 http://www. It will not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country. Third. Professor of physics @ the University of California @ San Diego. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons. or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. 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. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon. First. 187 . as I believe is very likely. it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world. the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist. any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. In the past. and of course a Shiite uprising in Iraq against American occupiers. 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. There could be popular uprisings in other countries in the region like Pakistan. .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 the US will become a pariah state. Iranian military forces and militias are likely to storm into southern Iraq and the US may be forced to use nuclear weapons against them. and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons. the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. Israel may attempt to stay out of the conflict. causing large scale casualties and inflaming the Muslim world.ca/index.globalresearch.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. Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed. If the US attack includes nuclear weapons use against Iranian facilities.

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

com/02spring/okamoto. 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. commitment to human rights are impediments to the U. In recent years. “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance. Japan can contribute to a U.S. 2.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. 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. are strained. http://www. No. with a few exceptions. 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. Muslim oil-producing states. 189 .S.S.pdf] Recent events have focused international attention on relations between the United States and Islamic countries. China. and the nations of Central Asia.twq. or Indonesia. which.” spring 2002. 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. Vol. 25. goal of stemming the rise of terrorism in the Islamic world.

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

S. Eighth Army and the ROK armed forces at the incipient stage. DPRK government still refuses to retreat to its place on the ash heap of history.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.com/02spring/okamoto. 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.S. The firepower the USFJ can bring to bear upon the Korean Peninsula within a matter of hours makes the U. “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance. but they know that launching a military strike against the ROK will expose them to a strong and final counterstrike from U. Army troops are stationed near Seoul . some 30.S. Most military experts admit that the army troops serve a largely symbolic function. The DPRK’s immense stock of weapons includes large numbers of Nodong missiles capable Despite its years of famine. No.000 U. 191 . In addition. Vol. inhumane society.-Japan alliance the Damoclean sword hanging over the DPRK.twq. 25. Despite the poverty of of striking Japan’s western coastal regions and probably longer-range missiles capable of hitting every major Japanese city. if an actual war were to erupt. 2.” spring 2002. a massive North Korean artillery bombardment could pin down both the U.pdf] the the people. The United States has two combat aircraft wings in the ROK. and its choking.S. http://www. forces in Japan. The DPRK leaders are masters of deception and manipulation. its evaporating industrial and energy infrastructure. in Osan and Kunsan.

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

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

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

what would exhaust Russia's armament completely. 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). In the long run. Such a war would be more horrible than the World War II.html) Russia may face the "wonderful" prospect of combating the Chinese army. head of the institute for political and military analysis. whereas the general forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. It would require from our state maximal tension. (Alexander Sharavin.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. 195 . if full mobilization is called. even if the aggression would be stopped after the majority of the Chinese are killed. which. 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. is comparable in size with Russia's entire population. 10/1/2001 The Third Threat http://www. up to the last tank or a plane.cdi. We have not got another set of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based missiles. but this does not guarantee success either).org/russia/johnson/5470. our country would be absolutely unprotected against the "Chechen" and the "Balkan" variants both. and even against the first frost of a possible nuclear winter. in a single direction (we would have to forget such "trifles" like Talebs and Basaev.

the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. He did not.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. No one would make such an absurd claim. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran.renewamerica. 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. The president said that the Shia extremists in Iran are "second only to al Qaeda" among the enemies we face. it would like saying that the Nazis and the Japanese were indistinguishable merely because they both wanted to rule the world. 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. Trade is one of the last things that is affected by war. Business is business. “Media: Bush’s ‘flawed’ portrayal of ‘the enemy’ in the State of the Union” http://www. 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. Using WWII as an example again. 11. however. it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America. paper "arguably" chooses sides with Europe's interests over that of America. as the Post seems to be claiming. Under Bush's rubric. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. advisors and thousands of IEDs into Iraq to attack us since the first day Saddam's hold over the country ended.S. Just as both Shia and Sunni extremism today threatens our interests and our way of life. 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.us/columns/huston/070124) Once again. Not to mention the constant threat and rhetoric against us emanating from the president of Iran. Yet both threatened our extinction. after all." Bush said. Perhaps no one let the Washington Post in on the badly kept secret that Iran has been sending weapons. Here is what Bush actually said: In recent times. recently appeared 1/24/2007. the Post seems to see no threat from Iran in particular and Shia extremism in general. The Post's simple-minded efforts to make Bush himself look simple minded only makes the Post out to be practicing partisan political demagogy. 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. attacks. say they were one and the same. referring to the different branches of the Muslim religion. a National U. manpower. Further Bush did not "lump together" al-Qaeda and Iran as if they were indistinguishable. 2001. Unfortunately. 196 . Correspondent for Renew America. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. for instance. and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah — a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken. Even the USA was still trading with the Confederacy after the Civil War had already begun.

is not an existential risk. 197 .transhumanist. Professor of Philosophy at Yale. 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. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange.com/volume9/risks. either accidentally or deliberately. 2002 (Nick. since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. between India and Pakistan for instance .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. “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation. www.html) A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. 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.” 2002.

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

The Nation. a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. forwarddeployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect. seek information that is useful only in an imminent battle. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China. deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory. They are inherently provocative and inappropriate when used to monitor a country with which we are at peace. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted. Taiwan. President of the Japan Policy Research Institute.mhtml?i=20010514&c=1&s=Johnson) China is another matter.com/doc. 2001 (Chalmers Johnson. remains the most dangerous place on earth.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. The United States itself maintains a 200-mile area off its coasts in which it intercepts any aircraft attempting similar reconnaissance.thenation. Such a war would bankrupt the United States. 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. 5/14/2k1 http://www. 199 . it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. like the one that was forced down off Hainan Island. More seriously. 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. whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war.000 US warheads). Since any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally would be viewed as a challenge to China's sovereignty. The United States uses satellites to observe changes in China's basic military capabilities. But the coastal surveillance flights by our twelve (now eleven) EP-3E Aries II spy planes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

where an estimated two hundred blue plastic barrels containing uranium oxide were stolen. which occurred after U. and taint water and food supplies. [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.[23] In addition to stolen radiological materials. It is worth noting that uranium oxide can be refined with the proper machinery and expertise in order to produce enriched uranium. has offered another blow to social and environmental security in the region. thus making the critical problem increasingly widespread.S. 206 . Extra barrels were sold to other villages or used to transport milk to distanced regions.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. radiological weapons such as “dirty bombs” and possibly even weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could be produced. poverty-stricken residents used the containers for storing basic amenities like water. computers and important documents have also gone missing. Toxic substances seep into the ground (rendering the soil unsafe).[22] The mishandling of the radioactive material has profound effects on the environment and on the people and animals that depend on it.html) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in 2003.[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.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment. Iraq’s national nuclear inspector has forecasted that over a thousand people could die of leukemia.sierraclub. The most troubling of cases concerns the Tuwaitha nuclear plant. cooking oil and tomatoes. references 2003 in the past tense. After dumping the radioactive contents and rinsing out the barrels in the rivers. led forces entered the country. located 48 kilometres south of Baghdad.[24] Given the right mix of technology and materials. 2003 (No publish date. disperse through the air (spreading wide-scale pollution). a key ingredient in a nuclear bomb. http://www.

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

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

The effect on tropical plants and creatures would be even more profound and biologists have concluded that many species will become extinct.ac. When merged together these clouds will effectively block out all sunlight plunging the sky into darkness for at least several weeks after. rivers would freeze over and many animals would die of cold and hunger.uk/~samp/nuclearage/lonterm. Within a few months all the fish would die off .compsoc. the population decline for many species would be irreversible. Along the continent this could be as much as a 40°c drop. professor of effects of nuclear war. 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.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 . 2001. 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.man. “Climate Conditions” http://www. 01 (Simon Perkins. Fortunately for us small islands like the UK will have a less dramatic temperature decrease due tot he warming effect of the oceans. During this period the temperature will fall dramatically. The lack of light would disrupt the food chain of microscopic creatures dependent of photoplankton (algae). Looking at some past examples of volcanic eruptions can give us some idea of biological effects. the severe cold would destroy most crops. May 22. professor in the effects of nuclear war.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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. may be severe. and they tend to calm our fear and to reduce our sense of urgency. Therefore. the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. humanly speaking. the global effects in the ozone and elsewhere. we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. 82 Jonathan Fate of the Earth. and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. 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. although. and with more being added every day. We are left with uncertainty. To employ a mathematician's analogy. that the global effects. our wonder should make us humble. the game will be over. that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known. If we wish to act to save our species. may be moderate. of course. In weighing the fate of the earth and. with it. These are all substantial reasons for supposing that mankind will not be extinguished in a nuclear holocaust. If they do use all their weapons. and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. be a misrepresentation – just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that extinction can be ruled out. the stake is. 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. there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it. extinction would shatter the frame. morally they are the same. the ecosphere may prove resilient enough to withstand them without breaking down catastrophically. with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence. In the shadow of this power. that the adversaries may use all their weapons. because if we lose. the earth. including effects of which we as yet unaware. In other words. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder. we stand before a mystery. To begin with. our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution. In that sense. If one does occur. infinite. We are in deep ignorance. and that our species may be extinguished. 215 . the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand. 93-96 1982 To say that human extinction is a certainty would. we have entered into the zone of uncertainty. or will have crossed. and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. or even that extinction in a holocaust is unlikely. and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. our own fate. But it is clear that at present. Yet at the same time we are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust. pp. and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated. Up to now. every risk has been contained within the framework of life. ready to be used at any second. At just what point the species crossed.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 have no right to place the possibility of this limitless. scientifically speaking. On the other hand. once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble. the adversaries may not use all their weapons. which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. 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. 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. we know that a holocaust may not occur at all. And if the effects are not moderate but extreme. we have to muster our resolve in spite of our awareness that the life of the species may not now in fact be jeopardized. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from. and are forced to make our decisions in a state of uncertainty. we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional. is not precisely knowable.

" The Bush administration's willingness to use military power based on unconfirmed intelligence and defectors' fairy tales. [2]. The fact that Iran has been declared in noncompliance [. and who thus provide the administration with a strong argument for the use of nuclear weapons to defend them. 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. @ Univ. Dec." which allows the president "to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States" without consulting Congress. [2]. which "allows" the president to attack anybody in the "global war on terror.. and the War Powers Resolution [. 2005.D. Crouch II. Robert Joseph. and its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. professor of physics at Cal. 216 . to use nuclear weapons against Iran. which makes it "legal" for the U.php?articleid=8263] The nuclear hitmen: Stephen Hadley. William Schneider Jr. “Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran” http://www.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. member of the American Physical Society. The course of action followed by the Bush administration with respect to Iran's drive for nuclear technology.S. whose lives are at risk if a military confrontation with Iran erupts. of Chicago.pdf] with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. which promises to respond to a WMD threat with nuclear weapons. Senate Joint Resolution 23. J. [2] .com/orig/hirsch.pdf]. and the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (NSPD 17). and John Bolton are nuclear-weapons enthusiasts who advocate aggressive policies and occupy key positions in the top echelons of the Bush administration.000 American soldiers in Iraq.antiwar.D. Ph. 150. The Israel factor [1]. Hirsch 05 [Jorge. 16. Linton Brooks. Stephen Cambone. 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. a society of physicists opposed to the use of nuclear weapons." The doctrine of preemptive attack adopted by the Bush administration and already put into practice in Iraq. "Authorization for Use of Military Force. The allegations of involvement of Iran in terrorist activities around the world [1]. The determination of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that Iran has connections with al-Qaeda. including acts against America [1]. which can only lead to a diplomatic impasse.

a. 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. the Cold War had entered a new phase. an unchallenged economy. In short: Whoever shoots first. MAD. This fact was officially accepted in a military doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction. and a trusted Imperial President to direct his incredible power against the Soviets. Russian forces achieved nuclear equality. strong alliances. dies second.a. Nuclear Files 2009. 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. In the old cold war Americans had enjoyed superior nuclear force.nuclearfiles. 217 . (“Mutually Assured Destruction.k. Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Project.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/coldwar/strategy/strategy-mutual-assured-destruction. Each side could destroy the other many times. In the new cold war.htm) When the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the United States. however. Mutual Assured Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration.” http://www.

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

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

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

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

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

html The most important benefit of these features today is that they give the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order. The fact that the United States. no longer a mechanism of historical change. greatpower war is. thankfully. and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the existing order.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. In the age of nuclear deterrence. 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.foreignaffairs. China. War-driven change has been abolished as a historical process. 223 .org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/the-rise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west.

Christopher Fettweiss. Beliefs. a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war could possibly bring. claim. Today. while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational exercise. encapsulated in the “globalization” metaphor so fashionable in the media and business communities. because nuclear threats are not credible in the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers. are very often forces themselves. 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.32 The economic incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been. April prof security studies – naval war college. quite unlike their less-developed neighbors. Mackinder and his contemporaries a century ago would hardly recognize the rules by which the world is run today—most significantly. a recasting of patriotic ideals. In Edward Luttwak’s terminology. unlike their era. in Michael Mandelbaum’s words.”34 The third and final argument of Angell’s successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has occurred.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced Angell’s warnings.”33 Just as advances in weaponry have increased the cost of fighting. there is reason to believe that this normative calculation may have changed. major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each other. and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences. that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state interaction. 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.”25 Geopolitical and geo-strategic analysis has not yet come to terms with what may be the central.” where “the methods of commerce are displacing military methods—with disposable capital in lieu of firepower. “a major independent variable. For these states. a revolution of ideas. reach. nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of the would-be aggressor.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments supporting this revolutionary. it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily 224 . and ideas are often. geopolitics is slowly being replaced by “geoeconomics.26 John Mueller has been the most visible. As John Keegan has argued. not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . most significant trend of international politics: great power war. where World War III is. Second. but by no means the only. and ideological trends have changed. the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make today’s great powers shy away from direct conflict. After the war. divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest. military. Others have argued that. it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than power. seem to have reached the revolutionary conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige. and therefore power.30 For millennia. . Indeed. at least in the last few decades. The idea of war was still appealing —the normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of fighting. ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed. “somewhere between impossible and unlikely. has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national wealth is accumulated. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world. analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next century are next to nil. territory was the main object of war because it was directly related to national prestige and power. rather than military. but he was not able to convince his contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war.35 “Ideas.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 224 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely – International System The international system prevents war—economic. . and that proved to be the more important factor. Comparative Strategy 22.” which we ignore at our peril. are no longer directly related to territorial control.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. modern military technology has made major war too expensive to contemplate. First. and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases. it is hard to see how nuclear war could be considered “an extension of politics by other means”—at the very least.31 The intervening years have served only to strengthen the argument that the major industrial powers. ideologies. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated. National wealth and prestige. Angell noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were “surrendering of certain dominations. and most obviously. is now obsolete. Increasingly. As early as 1986 Richard Rosecrance recognized that “two worlds of international relations” were emerging. and clearly controversial. as Dahl notes. civilian innovation in lieu of military–technical advancement.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been dramatic. It is unlikely that a game of nuclear “chicken” would lead to the outbreak of a major war. and a new system of incentives which all but remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient exercise.” added John Mueller. wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in economic. especially now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher. 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.

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

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

personality problems.2 In terms of physical security.000 individuals from the SPD’s security division and from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI). b) personnel reliability programs. Pakistan operates an analog to the U. Pakistan operates a layered concept of concentric tiers of armed forces personnel to guard nuclear weapons facilities. With respect to personnel reliability. and d) deception and secrecy. 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. under personnel reliability programs. 3 The army uses staff rotation and also operates a “two-person” rule under which no action.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. the reasons for their removal.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 227 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely – Pakistan Nuclear Power plants have excellent security CTC Sentinel.ctc. and it also uses a rudimentary Permissive Action Link (PAL) type system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons. these measures provide confidence that the Pakistan Army can fully protect its nuclear weapons against the internal terrorist threat.S. drug use. The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational and research institution based in the Department of Social Sciences at the West Point. Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) that screens individuals for Islamist sympathies. to its nuclear weapons infrastructure. against its main adversary India. These have been based on copying U.usma.000 and 10. 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. aspects of the nuclear command and control arrangements. This includes the precise location of some of the storage facilities for nuclear core and detonation components.6 Finally. procedures and technologies. 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 uses deception—such as dummy missiles—to complicate the calculus of adversaries and is likely to have extended this practice Taken together. or activity involving a nuclear weapon can be undertaken by fewer than two persons. c) technical and procedural safeguards. Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau agencies are involved in the security clearance and monitoring of those with nuclear weapons duties. 2009 (CTC Sentinel. July 2009 http://www. and comprise: a) physical security. in practice the Pakistan Army has complete control over the country’s nuclear weapons. and the storage of the components in protected underground sites.S. practices. In total.pdf) Pakistan has established a robust set of measures to assure the security of its nuclear weapons. 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. Significant elements of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons infrastructure are kept a closely guarded secret. the use of physical barriers and intrusion detectors to secure nuclear weapons facilities. the physical separation of warhead cores from their detonation components. 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. Pakistan makes extensive use of secrecy and deception. between 8. In addition. and how often authenticating and enabling (PAL-type) codes are changed). The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent educational and research institution based in the Department of Social Sciences at the West Point.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. 227 . inappropriate external affiliations. It operates a tightly controlled identification system to assure the identity of those involved in the nuclear chain of command.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel-Vol2Iss7. decision. the location of preconfigured nuclear weapons crisis deployment sites. and sexual deviancy.

(Scott W. airline crashes are not the only way for a terrorist to attack a nuclear power plant.”. 2004) But. nuclear power plant has a trained armed security force who is authorized to use deadly force to protect the plant. That is not to say these wackos are afraid to die. Battelle Press. a nuclear power plant would be a tough nut to crack. one would assume that they do want to have a reasonable chance of successfully completing their vile mission. 228 . they have demonstrated that they are not.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. of course. Clearly. managed by Battelle 2004.S. managed by Battelle. Not wanting to give any terrorists alternative ideas. It turns out that nuclear power plants are one of the few facilities in our national infrastructure that does consider these things. Every U. In that regard. Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. it would not be a tough choice. However. “A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity. Truck bombs and armed attacks are certainly something to consider. 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.

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

essentially that “we have not been thinking at all about the next use of nuclear weapons. If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken. Naval War College Review.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (2/6) [Continues from previous page: No text omitted] Similarly. and so different. that it simply made no sense to think of even acquiring them. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. to repeat. 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.. of the non-use of such weapons. 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.nwc. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. refusing to think about a very real danger. Yet. or the United States might support the worry that people around the world have simply been repressing an unpleasant reality. If a nuclear weapon was use countries would rally against the nation preventing retaliation Quester. Japan. That would be the case if the world did not retreat in the face of such use but rallied to punish it. Ordinary people and even military professionals in many countries were coming to assume that nuclear weapons were so horrible.” Such responses in Israel. since Nagasaki. But analysts and ordinary citizens around the world to whom the author has put these odds typically dismiss themas too optimistic.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 230 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation . since analysis of the likely consequences of nuclear escalation might stimulate governments and publics to head it off. 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. 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. 2005 (George Quester. but we think that you are too optimistic about such use being avoided. Sweden.navy. Spring 2005. 230 . https://portal. Indeed.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 . the response has often been a bit bizarre.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005. 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. pessimism may not be necessary.

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

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

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

as the relation between the power to harm and the power to modify the behavior of others is not linear (Jervis 1984.Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (6/6) A nuclear victory would have to many consequences for their use Paul. Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security. December 1995.V. 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. spatially and temporally (Lee 1993. It also implies that after a certain point. 18). There exists no guarantee that aftereffects such as the spread of radioactive debris could be confined to the target state's territory. 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. Professor of international relations at McGill University and Director of University of Montreal-McGill Research Group in International Security. Neighboring states that may be neutral or aligned with the nuclear state could be the victims of a nuclear attack as well. 234 . Nuclear Taboo and War Initiation in Regional Conflicts. Additionally. nuclear terror could escape meaningful political and military control and physical limitation may have influenced decision makers' choices in this regard. JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION. politically.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 234 /414 Nelson <tournament> No Escalation . Paul. the capacity to destroy may not be useful. the effects of nuclear attack may be beyond the local area of attack but could have wider effects. 39 No. Vol. 1995 (T. 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. 21). 23). The fear that. once unleashed.

Schell has the courage of his conviction to realize where his positions will take him.g. however. But. are reached. pp. 226). Vol. it has served as the catalyst of the antinuclear movement. but the nation-state itself. His examples of a thermonuclear holocaust are no more graphic. The fundamental culprit to Schell's way of thinking is not Zuckerman's dedicated nuclear engineer nor Ivan the Targeteer. Schell's proposal. the task is nothing less than to reinvent politics" (p. 181-189 http://www. is why this book warrants careful attention. Whether Schell is right or wrong in assuming his high moral ground is the normative prerogative and judgment of the individual reader. for in many ways. for any life.. in spite of his grandiose style of writing. Some (e. at the very worst. 1983). the extant scientific knowledge would always allow a nation to reconstruct this ultimate weapon. nor is his litany of secondary effects (e. 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. We are asked to replace the mechanism by which the political decisions.. whatever they may be. the effects on the food chain and the possible depletion of the earth's ozone layer) any more convincing. to rely on conventional weapons to preserve national sovereignty is to invite a nation to cheat. he argues. And this. 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.g. Similarly. he avers. But it is also the most important. probably the most pretentious (witness its title) and flawed of these books. Schell forces the reader to confront these issues directly. to build clandestine nuclear weapons and thus begin the nuclear arms race towards extinction once again.jstor. He admits that the nuclear weapons demon cannot be put back in the bottle. that even with a nuclear disarmament treaty. In sum. 1982) have claimed that Schell has no right to impose his set of values on the body politic. 27. given his "evidence" and logic. Schell does not actually say "better red than dead. the abandonment of national sovereignty and perhaps individual liberties as a means of retreating from the nuclear precipice.although better written-than are those of other authors.. is better than no life.pdf Lastly.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. is some form of functioning world government. 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. past an immediate nuclear freeze. Perhaps. can relieve us of that burden. Kinsley. 235 . No cause." but he surely could not disavow such a position. that is. 1 (Mar.org/stable/pdfplus/173847. No. one turns to Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth. Schell probably does not expect to have his thesis accepted uncritically. he admits his data are open to wide variation and interpretation.

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

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

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

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

can all foster unrealism in appraising negativities. 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.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 247 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts Exaggerated (1/2) The threat of huge impacts is often exaggerated Rescher.tend to be overestimated. People frequently tend to inflate “extreme” outcomes -. Hazards involving threats that are particularly striking or dramatic -. say. etc. ~ 247 . Our psychological capacity for imagination may run riot. And such psychological tendencies as are involved with familiarity. while risks of a commonplace. undramatic nature whose eventuations are no less serious tend to be underestimated. 83 Nicholas Rescher. dread. “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. it is clear that when these go too far there also arises a significant prospect of impropriety and exaggeration. understanding.exaggerating the badness of the bad and the goodness of the good. The tendency to overestimate the dramatic comes into play with outcome-evaluation. rather than mere debility. Prof. or likely to take more rather then fewer lives -. University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy.leading to death. The perceived value of an outcome may prove to be widely off the mark of any realistic estimate of its actual value. of Philosophy. Our perception of the magnitude of risks tends to be distorted by the structure of our anxieties.

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

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. heart attack. or another such failure occurs. depending on what you ate. the frame gives way. “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983 A probability is a number between zero and one. as the old precept has it: there is no need to bother with trifles. Your cereal with milk may have been contaminated by mold toxins. The former take the line that small numbers are small numbers and must be taken into account as such.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 249 /414 Nelson <tournament> Prob. (De minimis non curat lex. these worst possible outcomes are wildly improbable (and sometimes do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former National Security Council Member “The Ultimate Terrorists” 1999 http://www. including the deadly aflatoxin found in peanuts. chemical.edu/features/steult/excerpt. then. the FDA would probably ban it as a cancercausing substance. Evaluated First (1/2) Probability should be evaluated before magnitude Rescher. and milk. Most people are more worried about the risks of nuclear power plants than the risks of driving to work. Although both margarine and butter appear to contribute to heart disease. 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. The worst threat is certainly something to be borne in mind and taken into account. Experts tend to focus on probabilities and outcomes. 99 Jessica Stern.harvard. A picture of a mushroom cloud probably stays long in viewers' consciousness as an image of fear. Your breakfast increased your risk of cancer. but public perception of risk seems to depend on other variables: there is little correlation between objective risk and public dread. corn. If you breakfasted on grains (even organic ones). so it is held. The latter tend to take the view that small probabilities represent extremely remote prospects and can be written off." Cicero referred to poisoning as "an atrocity. 1/N will grow very. and more alarmed by the prospect of terrorists with chemical weapons than by swimming in a pool. Livy called poisonings of enemies "secret crimes." considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. and biological weapons fills us with dread. of Philosophy. another known carcinogen. 249 . 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. Fellow at CFR. Any action could potentially have devastating impacts. we can pretty well forget about it as worthy of concern. Disasters and catastrophes stay disproportionately rooted in the public consciousness. Prof. and evoke disproportionate fear. Examining possible reasons for this discrepancy will help us understand why the thought of terrorists with access to nuclear. And your eggs may have contained benzene. very small. where we may well be prepared "to take our chances. and many of these are more harmful than synthetic pesticide residues. What. often as not. University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy. or malnutrition.) When something is about as probable as it is that a thousand fair dice when tossed a thousand times will all come up sixes. Your risk of suffering a lethal accident in your bathtub or shower was one in a million.html Poisons have always been seen as unacceptably cruel. obesity." But why do poisons evoke such dread? This question has long puzzled political scientists and historians. but we don’t evaluate them because of the low probability Stern.hup. then. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing that. Now numbers between zero and one can get to be very small indeed: As N gets bigger. The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about risk in real-life situations. a new theory suggests that low-fat diets make you fat. you were exposed to serious risks at nearly every stage of your progression from bed to the office. When you got up this morning. but it is emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard. People tend to exaggerate the likelihood of events that are easy to imagine or recall. 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. Your cup of coffee included twenty-six compounds known to be mutagenic: if coffee were synthesized in the laboratory. you exposed yourself to dangerous toxins: plants produce their own natural pesticides to fight off fungi and herbivores. 83 Nicholas Rescher.

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

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

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

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

the notion of accounting for the data actually lends support to practical equilibrium.edu/~utile/unpub/pe. are never justified. 2002 Department of Philosophy University of Kansa Practical Equilibrium: A New Approach to Moral Theory Selection http://web. but that the theory explains the fact that we have those intuitions. though. The data do not include that certain acts are wrong. the data include only our regarding certain acts as wrong— for this latter phenomenon. that the notion of accounting for the data can be seen to provide such support only when clouded by a pair of misunderstandings. 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 . When it comes to our moral intuitions.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 254 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Rescher Rescher’s theories are flawed. that these intuitions that we are aware of having are correct. 13 So the notion of accounting for the data is often regarded as providing support for reflective equilibrium. It says that a moral theory must explain the truth of the intuitions that we have. such as our observation that it seems to us that punishing the innocent is never justified. p. our own judgment of the matter. not among the data to be accounted for. The two misunderstandings concern what the data to be accounted for actually are. p.pdf The language of “data” to be accounted for recurs even more frequently in papers published in the wake of Rawls’s book. . is all that we can really detect in any instance of moral appraisal. vi). What I have in mind is that we need to say that what a moral theory is supposed to do. is not to explain our having certain intuitions. 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. we might think that our data are that acts of certain kinds. Normally. It is a further claim. Singer writes that “The reflective equilibrium conception of moral philosophy . Others have offered similar characterizations. lead[s] us to think of our particular moral judgmentsas data against which moral theories are to be tested” (1974. as far as its accounting for anything is concerned. . . and how a moral theory accounts for whatever data it accounts for. First. consider what the data actually are. . but to endorse our having those intuitions. this one has to do with what it means for a moral theory to account for data. 155). such as acts of punishing the innocent. 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. and that when these two misunderstandings are removed. Whereas the first adjustment had to do with what the data are. But actually this overstates our data: in fact our data are just our observations of our own intuitions. 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. p. 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. cf. 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. when actually the only data there are are that we have those intuitions. 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. or giving instructions. and Nicholas Rescher writes that our intuitions “are the data .ku. I wish to argue.using predictions for data is key Eggleston 02 Ben Eggleston January 12. 517. 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to strive for farsightedness in light of the aforementioned crisis of conventional paradigms of historical analysis. If. contra scientistic futurism. 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. then the abyss of chronological inscrutability supposedly opens up at our feet. 11. 4) When engaging in the labor of preventive foresight. 263 . The future appears to be unknowable. 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. While this argument has the merit of underscoring the fallibilistic nature of all predictive schemes. of course. or endpoint to be discovered through human reason. prospective trends cannot be predicted without error. from a normative point of view. trying to anticipate and prepare for possible and avoidable sources of harm to our successors. nor can it be sloughed off to pure randomness. No. It becomes. Therefore. The future no longer appears to be a metaphysical creature of destiny or of the cunning of reason. an outcome of chance. history has no intrinsic meaning. direction. a result of human action shaped by decisions in the present – including. let us be content to formulate ad hoc responses to emergencies as they arise. would lead us to believe that it is pointless. A radically postmodern line of thinking. In addition. for instance. Associate Professor of Sociology at York University. 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 (Constellations. contra teleological models. Vol.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. and if. instead. rather than embarking upon grandiose speculation about what may occur. 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). perhaps even harmful. In fact. we should adopt a pragmatism that abandons itself to the twists and turns of history. it conflates the necessary recognition of the contingency of history with unwarranted assertions about the latter’s total opacity and indeterminacy.

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

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

extinction would shatter the frame. Therefore. scientifically speaking. In the shadow of this power. 82 Jonathan Schell. and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. the stake is. and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. every risk has been contained within the framework of life. is not precisely knowable. which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. the game will be over. and with more being added every day. 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. we stand before a mystery. They knew that the path of nuclear armament was a dead end for mankind. We are in deep ignorance. 93-96 1982 On the other hand. we have entered into the zone of uncertainty. They also realized that in the absence of international agreements preventing it an arms race would probably occur. ready to be used at any second. In other words. Up to now. 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. our own fate. morally they are the same. with it. In weighing the fate of the earth and. the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated. and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. the earth. Fate of the Earth. once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble. Visiting Fellow at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. and immeasurably greater than that of any other risk and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from. 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. infinite. 266 . although. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purpose would be drowned for all time. But it is clear that at present. with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence. At just what point the species crossed. Evaluated First (1/3) Nuclear war and extinction outweighs all impacts – a fraction of infinity is still infinity Schell. humanly speaking. the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand. our wonder should make us humble.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 266 /414 Nelson <tournament> Mag. we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional. if we wish to ignore the peril. 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. 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. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder. we have to admit that we do so in the knowledge that the species may be in danger of imminent self-destruction. the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. When the existence of nuclear weapons was made known. because if we lose. pp. there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it. and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. To employ a mathematician's analogy. In that sense. our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution. or will have crossed.

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

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

since there clearly are other moral objectives than preventing terminal global disaster. March. it is nonetheless arguable that because the negative utility of an existential disaster is so enormous. 269 . 02 Nick Bostrom. 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.”)[26]. 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. this is a rule of thumb. is different from Maximin (“Choose the action that has the best worstcase outcome. rather than a principle of absolute validity. At best. In other words.com/existential/risks.nickbostrom.html Previous sections have argued that the combined probability of the existential risks is very substantial. where an “okay outcome” is any outcome that avoids existential disaster. maximin implies that we should all start partying as if there were no tomorrow. vol 9] http://www. PhD and Professor at Oxford University.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. It may be useful to adopt the following rule of thumb for moral action. it seems best to acknowledge that there just might be a tomorrow. 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. 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. This suggests an offshoot moral project. Since the goal is somewhat abstract and since existential risks don’t currently cause suffering in any living creature[25]. While that option is indisputably attractive. a kind of satisficing rule. Its usefulness consists in helping us to get our priorities straight. a prima facie suggestion. there is less of a feelgood dividend to be derived from efforts that seek to reduce them. especially if we play our cards right. Although there is still a fairly broad range of differing estimates that responsible thinkers could make. Maxipok. 2002 [Journal of Evolution and Technology. we can call it Maxipok: Maximize the probability of an okay outcome. the objective of reducing existential risks should be a dominant consideration when acting out of concern for humankind as a whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cass R Sunstein. but because read for all its worth.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 281 /414 Nelson <tournament> Precautionary Principle Bad. inaction. the central claim of this chapter.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. 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. it leads in no direction at all. it purports to give guidance. The principle threatens to be paralyzing. is conceptual. forbidding regulation. I therefore aim to challenge the Precautionary Principle not because it leads in bad directions. because it condemns the very steps that it requires. 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. but it fails to do so. 281 . “Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle” p3-4 2005 My larger point. The regulation that the principle requires always gives rise to risks of its own – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously mandates. 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

” 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. 1984 (Leonard G. Rejection of those costs is perhaps being accommodated with the intolerable survival costs of nuclear warfare by payment of more immediate nuclear-deterrence costs. but when the survival costs of capitulation are perceived as exceeding them. While the accommodation holds. Passive resistance to a Hitler has survival costs that are acceptable to few communities. “The Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy. professor of law at USC. 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. and Evolution” HeinOnline) Without effective reciprocity. Reciprocity. The survival costs of nonnuclear warfare of course continue to be high.mains the survival remedy pending a reciprocity solution.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 295 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Good – Prevents Nuke War Utilitarianism prevents nuclear war Ratner. nonnuclear self defense re. professor of law at USC. self-defense is the only survival remedy. 1984 Hofstra Law Journal. so may the evolutionary process. each is impelled to increase its nuclear weapons as protection against an undetected increase by the other. 295 .758. If that accommodation fails. But each may also be impelled to refrain from their use.

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

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

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

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

239-254 http://www. by very nature. 14-16. the interest or happiness of some few persons. pp. and his greater opportunities of gratifying them.google. This means that agents are morally required to make their largest possible contribution to the overall good-no matter what the sacrifice to them. 300 . Vol. Yale. No.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 300 /414 Nelson <tournament> Consequentialism Fails Consequentialism.jstor. So an agent produces maximum good per unit of activity by focusing his efforts on those he is closest to.pdf) Consequentialism claims that an act is morally permissible if and only if it has better consequences than those of any available alternative act. Princeton. 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. Second. prof social thoughts and ethics. 84 (Philosophy and Public Affairs. but rather to the long-term advantages of having psychologically healthy agents who are efficient producers of the good. Kagan. 11/24/94. p.’ Consequentialism is based on the greater good. Two sorts of considerations are typically appealed to in support of this view. including himself. prof philosophy. http://books. 94 (Samuel Scheffler. will fail in public policy to improve the well-being of others Scheffler. 1984). First. it is said that human nature being what it is.’ Mill. 13. 3 (Summer. Here the appeal is no longer to the immediate consequantialist advantages of promoting one’s own well-being. Consequentialists often argue that a differential attention to one’s own concerns will in most actual circumstances have the best overall results. and on these occasions alone is he called on to consider public utility. from his more intimate knowledge of his own desires and needs. 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. Yale.selves might involve (remembering only that their own well-being counts too).’ 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’. in every other case. is all he has to attend to. 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. prof social thoughts and ethics. in the same vein.org/stable/pdfplus/2265413. 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 that such differential treatment of oneself is therefore required on consequentialist grounds. There is no limit to the sacrifices that morality can require. The Rejection of Consequentialism. To avoid confusion. and agents are never permitted to favor their own interests at the expense of the greater good. 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. prof philosophy. 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. But first it is necessary to give fuller characterization of a plausible prerogative of this kind. Princeton. private utility.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. not on self-interests Kagan.

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

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

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

Nevertheless. has no logical stopping place short of collectivism. http://www. 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. Utilitarianism is used to justify mass murder by governments Cleveland. Among them. “Utilitarianism.. 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. Edmund Opitz has rightly observed that utilitarianism with its “greatest happiness principle” completely neglects the spiritual dimension of human life. this is precisely what has happened. The failure of utilitarianism at this point is extremely important for a whole host of policy issues. But then. However.asp?id=1602) Indeed. The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy. property rights are essential in securing a free market order. http://www. All of this is not to say that matters of utility are unimportant in policy decisions. Indeed. 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. Professor of Business Administration and Economics 2002 (Cleveland 2002 Paul A. This is precisely the view that was taken by communist revolutionaries as they implemented their grand schemes of remaking society . Rather. The Journal of Private Enterprise. 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. 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. In this case. However. the collective interest does not coincide with the sum of the individual interests. As a result . In democratic countries the destruction of human liberty that has taken place in the past hundred years has occurred primarily for this reason.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.” To put the matter simply. That means property rights may be violated if it is assumed to promote the utilitarian end. The common good is not necessarily the sum of the interests of individuals. Professor of Business Administration and Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. what happens to individual human rights? Are they not sacrificed and set aside as unimportant? In fact. Regrettably. The result is a legislative and economic dilemma.. will likely be willing to decide in favor of the supposed collective interest over and against that of the individual. individuals prone to political action. 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.” [2] But.independent. The Journal of Private Enterprise. Ekelund and Hebert provide a well-conceived example to demonstrate this problem. as Opitz shows.”[3] If morality is ultimately had by making the individual’s happiness subservient to the organic whole of society. For instance.org/publications/article. 304 .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 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. then the human rights of the individual may be violated.independent. A History of Economic Theory and Method. 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. and held under the sway of utilitarian ethics. Professor of Business Administration and Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. in short. kind of action will be justified as that which is most socially expedient in order to reach the assumed ethical end. The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy. the issue of the government’s provision of public goods is worth our consideration. this perspective gives rise to a serious problem. the rent seeking behavior that is spawned as a result of this mind set will prove detrimental to the economy . this labor saving device. but merely to assert that utilitarian ethics will have the tendency of promoting collectivist policies. utilitarianism can then be used to justify some heinous government actions.org/publications/article. which is what Bentham’s utilitarianism asserts. In addition.

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

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

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

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

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

yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its lethal effects are everywhere on display. despotism. 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.cross-x. this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Hourseman of the Apocalypse. http://64.com/vb/archive/index. or natual calamity on record -.and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. scientist and professor 83 Ashley Montagu. Its more conventional name." 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. That road leads to chaos. Ask Solzhenitsyn. and Floyd Matson. plague. tyranny. Esteemed Scientist and Writer. pg.187.233." Thus.html+montagu+matson+dehumanization&hl=en The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine (psychiatry aside). is dehumanization. and the end of all human aspiration .104/search?q=cache:hnDfqSFkJJwJ:www. In sum. 4801) However. Ask Milovan Djilas. 310 . Sylvester Petro. University of Toledo Law Review.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. one may still insist. yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war. It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent physical harm. if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and the Proper ordering. echoing Ernest Hemingway . then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.php/t939595. Prof of Law @ Wake Forest U. famine. of course."I believe in only one thing: liberty. principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare. Professor of American Studies at University of Hawaii The dehumanization of man. Dehumanization outweighs every other impact Montagu and Matson. For that reason.

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

not an agentneutral. that rule consequentialism is not a 'rubber duck'. 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. of course. that agent-relative reasons rest directly on considerations of value in a manner obviously susceptible to the CVC.91). pace Howard-Snyder (1993). ‘not only is it an evil for a person to be harmed in certain ways. our emphasis – note the presumption inherent in the question). and are. part of the basic structure of moral theory. Thus we concur with Hooker (1994). Nagel argues that an agent relative morality. p. but that one may not be violated – even to minimize the total number of such violations). Hence there are rights. qua moral system. 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. of course. “On Defending Deontology”. is intrinsically valuable. to say that one will not be violated.93)). we are inviolable because 312 . In short.89. 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).89). value’. ‘A right is an agent-relative. 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. says Nagel (1995. then. Ratio. therefore. 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. rather. but for it to be permissible to harm the person in those ways is an additional and independent evil’ (p.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 312 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology precludes util. The answer ‘focuses on the status conferred on all human beings by the design of a morality which includes agent-relative constraints’ (p. That status is one of being inviolable (which is not. issue 11. p.88). Louis. For. A system of morality that includes inviolability encapsulates a good that its rivals cannot capture. The claim is not. Thus rights (the obverse of constraints) have value. and then seeks to show that deontology is such a system.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.

inviolability is intrinsically valuable. When results occur. If any worthwhile end can justify the means to attain it. If that were so. Americans in the eighteenth century could justify slavery on the basis that it provided a good consequence for a majority of Americans.probe. Second. we must still ask whether they are good or bad results. Anderson. But at best we can only guess at the future. A third problem with utilitarianism is predicting the consequences. If morality is based on results. 313 .org/theology-and-philosophy/worldview-philosophy/utilitarianism-the-greatest-good-for-thegreatest-number. Certainly the majority benefited from cheap slave labor even though the lives of black slaves were much worse. The means must be judged by some objective and consistent standard of morality. the means must justify themselves – utilitarianism justifies the Holocaust. Stalin could justify his slaughter of millions because he was trying to achieve a communist utopia. A particular act cannot be judged as good simply because it may lead to a good consequence. The means must justify themselves. utilitarianism cannot protect the rights of minorities if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. 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. Probe Ministries “Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” http://www. The end never justifies the means. A fourth problem with utilitarianism is that consequences themselves must be judged. then Hitler could justify the Holocaust because the end was to purify the human race. and often these educated guesses are wrong.html) One problem with utilitarianism is that it leads to an "end justifies the means" mentality. a true ethical foundation is lost. But we all know that the end does not justify the means. . 2004 (Kerby Anderson is the National Director of Probe Ministries International.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 313 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology comes first.

then. not an agentneutral. to say that one will not be violated. 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). 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.89. value’. Ratio. that agent-relative reasons rest directly on considerations of value in a manner obviously susceptible to the CVC. ‘A right is an agent-relative. In short. p.91).89). that rule consequentialism is not a 'rubber duck'. p. ‘not only is it an evil for a person to be harmed in certain ways. 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. A system of morality that includes inviolability encapsulates a good that its rivals cannot capture. 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. is intrinsically valuable. says Nagel (1995.88). That status is one of being inviolable (which is not. qua moral system. part of the basic structure of moral theory.93)). and are. but that one may not be violated – even to minimize the total number of such violations).Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 314 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology precludes util. which makes this consequence morally intelligible?’ (p. Thus rights (the obverse of constraints) have value.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. therefore. we are inviolable because 314 . Louis. of course. issue 11. and then seeks to show that deontology is such a system. Hence there are rights. Thus we concur with Hooker (1994). “On Defending Deontology”. our emphasis – note the presumption inherent in the question). Nagel argues that an agent relative morality. 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. The answer ‘focuses on the status conferred on all human beings by the design of a morality which includes agent-relative constraints’ (p. rather. For. but for it to be permissible to harm the person in those ways is an additional and independent evil’ (p. The claim is not. pace Howard-Snyder (1993). of course.

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

1994: 52). 316 . it would always be morally wrong to torture an innocent person. Consequently. he would perhaps concede that to torture an individual to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb. Consequently. theories of rights quite simply consider respect for rights to be the primary consideration in the course of social deliberation. Bentley graduate of the Department of government at the University of Manchester. 1992: 196). Conversely. 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. Brandt states: “There is a fundamental incompatibility between utilitarianism and human rights. 1994: 53).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. accessing the same things as util Bentley No Date [ Kristina A. As Richard B. “Suggesting A ‘Separate’ Approach To Utility and Rights: Deontological Specification and Teleogical Enforcement of Human Rights” http://www.abdn. the opponents of this view hold that rights constitute an area which is beyond the reach of such calculations. Most utilitarians of course have not thought there is such an incompatibility” (Brandt.uk/pir/postgrad/vol1_issue3/issue3_article1. assertions that these conceptions of justice are incompatible are not always acknowledged by exponents of consequentialism. This roughly reflects Dworkin’s notion of “Rights as Trumps” which override. 1994: 53).ac. according to the rights-based account. 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. in this instance. or supersede ordinary notions of well-being. such that if thousands of lives would be saved by the torture. 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. while utilitarians consider the ultimate “good” or “utility” on the balance to be the correct goal to pursue. may be justified. as it would be pointless if rights could be “set aside in a mere calculus of competing preferences” (Jones. while a utilitarian approach would weigh up the evidence. even if this would result in a large increase in aggregate utility in such a society. as it does not rule out rights being overridden by such considerations when other fundamental rights are threatened (Jones. trump the right of an individual not to be tortured. The difference however is that Dworkin’s theory occupies some middle ground. to refer back to Gewirth’s example. Dworkin’s formulation again places the domain of rights beyond the reach of ordinary considerations of utility. 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. However. as is the case in Gewirth’s example. then it ought to be done.

as argued by Robbins? I am not questioning whether the quantification of economic relationships is important. when he states that "claims of welfare economics to be scientific are highly dubious. 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. by how much. General Sessions. and can or should the losers be compensated. as implied by Stigler.] Economists seldom address ethical questions as they infringe on economic theory or economic behavior. and Schmitz). It is. 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. 01DEC-05. context. the socalled new welfare economics (which is no longer new) was a step toward more relevancy for policy makers (Just. as suggested by Gilbert (p. However. much of which can be described only in qualitative terms. 317 . 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. The predictive ability is likely to be low and. and ethical considerations. who loses. as a consequence. whose main concerns are who gains. Neither will they be relevant for solving real world problems. Does that make us less scientific. xvi). ignoring social ethics and." But if Aristotle saw economics as a branch of ethics and Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. But are we trading off scientific validity for relevancy? Robbins (p. But not at the expense of reality. In the case of food policy analysis. Hueth. replace ethics with precision and objectivity? Or. the outcome may be different from what was expecte. American Journal of Agricultural Economics Ebsco Host. [Ethics and economic policy for the food system.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. Another major step toward relevancy was made by the more recent emphasis on political economy and institutional economics. when did 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. is the precision and objectivity just an illusion? Are we in fact being normative when we claim to be positive or are we. 9) seems to think so. it is critically important that the causal relationship between policy options and expected impact on the population groups of interest is quantitatively estimated . if the results are used by policy makers. They (and I) find this subject complex and elusive in comparison with the relative precision and objectivity of economic analysis. in which both quantitative and qualitative variables are taken into account? I believe we are. if ethics is influencing our analyses but ignored. 2005.

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

or human nature. despite the fact that they had a critical place in shaping the world in which we live today. within their rational framework they are indisputably right. Surely. regardless of its condition. "Is this. I had. My point here. it is to love both the fact and idea of life itself. 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. Director of the Hastings Institute. 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. there is an inherent conflict between humanitarianism and rationalism." My beginning with the past is no accident. fmr. is indicative of the muddle created when one calls for an abandonment of rationality in favor of something more Illuminating. and god knows what else. 1974)." Dec. author of The Tyranny of Survival & Senior Fellow at Yale. Prof." Going on. 75 DANIEL CALLAHAN. I am far more fearful of a deliberate abandonment of reason than of the evils which can be done in its name. tribalism. Only some fundamental revelatory experience-to wit. as an American. author of the much-acclaimed book." Heilbroner queries. that of "the transcendent importance of posterity for them. 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. It is because their position reveals the limitations-worse. http://www. or ethics. by every rational consideration. In "What has Posterity Ever Done for Me?" (New York Times Magazine. 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. Indeed." I find Heilbroner's despair at finding a rational basis to care about posterity. 1975). Heilbroner. If a case is to be made for caring about the fate of posterity. Poke around a bit under the facade of carefully-honed rationality and precise logical moves and what does one usually discover? Pure mush. or the distant past. The issue at stake is "humanitarianism" and the future of altruism. utterly unanalyzed assumptions about politics. depressing state of the world. neither of which will be saved if they must be defended on the narrow base of reason and logic. ended her letter with a complaint. made up of irrational self-interest. is not to make the rational case for obligations 319 . As an unreconstructed rationalist. To love and believe in life at all is not just to love one's own life.jstor.org/stable/3560956 A RECENT correspondent. the worst forms of sentimentality (or pure cruelty). A recent article by Robert L. Indeed. February 1975. to begin with the past. Those vast. she implied. We have in the twentieth century been subjected to endless wars. But this is not because the economist's arguments are 'wrong'-indeed. fallen into a fatal trap by trying to argue with Hardin’s thesis on "rationalistic rounds. 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. The fault with the latter form of attacking "reason" is that it takes those arguing in its name too much at their own word. meaningless and terrible-in which case. however. "an outrageous position? I must confess it outrages me. Director of the Hastings Institute. intricate edifices rest on a bowl of porridge. "Why. war and the like-will bring people back to what is an essentially "religious" insight.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. Heilbroner quotes an anonymous "Distinguished Younger Economist" who has concluded that he really doesn't "care" whether mankind survives or not. None of that has much if anything to do with reason. 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." It is intriguing to see the way Heilbroner develops his case. 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. Fmr. I balk at admitting such a dualism. unless one has decided that human life is. And surely. after praising the position I took in opposition to Garrett Hardin's "Life-boat Ethic" ("Doing Good by Doing Well. ills and disasters carried out in the name of somebody or other's impeccable logic and assertedly rational deliberations." he asks. including the life of those yet to be born. One can well understand how rationality has come to have a bad name. famine. particularly when such positions are advanced in the name of no-nonsense rational calculation. just as (also for better or worse) still earlier generations had worried about their descendants. 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. she seemed to be saying. simply startling. precisely the opposite answer is thrust upon us with irresistible force. No argument based on reason will lead me to care for posterity or to lift a finger in its behalf. An Inquiry Into the Human Prospect. More deeply. "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. For all that. January 19.

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

Given the failure of the extreme positions. Callahan argues for the development of a public morality. 75 Harold Moore. 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. http://www.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 321 /414 Nelson <tournament> Callahan Ext We replace survival as the sole aspect of decision making Moore. If survival is the only value..jstor. then contemporary society needs a new basis for analyzing the moral problems precipitated by recent technological developments. one that is capable of integrating values other than mere survival. The "survival only" thesis fails by overemphasizing one value. life or kind of life) is at stake. then indeed just about anything is permitted. 37. 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.org/stable/1406214 If the solution does not lie in the development of more efficient technology. 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. The Review of Politics. Vol. 321 . Cambridge University Press. No. 1975). He very effectively points out that there is almost nothing people won't do once they are convinced that survival (of a group. 3 (Jul.

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

225). 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. Moral law outweighs other considerations – integral to human nature. Robert. says Rawls. . 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). 503. 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. . . 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. i. In Kant’s terms. our independence from natural and social contingencies.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. 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. reveals what the person is. 3. Robert. Pg 12. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. 2003. Project MUSE.” to those principles we would choose as members of the intelligible realm—our reasonableness. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. Reasonableness. 86 of Theory: “the sense of justice .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 323 /414 Nelson <tournament> Moral Justice First Moral justice vital – sets us apart from animalistic tendencies. 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.e. 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. is emblematic of our autonomy. beings able to act in conformity with.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. Taylor. Pg 13. . 2003. 3. Just as reasonableness is a key facet of our autonomy. the moral law. emphasis added). . whose actions are determined by the laws of nature rather than the moral law (p. and out of respect for. 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. When we act reasonably. No. Project MUSE. Princeton University Press. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. in other words. This sentiment cannot be fulfilled if it is compromised and balanced against other ends as but one desire among the rest (TJ. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. 447). or the capacity for a sense of justice. 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. 323 . The tight connection between reasonableness and autonomy is explained by Rawls in sec. Taylor. 503). p. we demonstrate an ability to subordinate the pursuit of our own good. which may be unduly influenced by the “contingencies and accidents of the world.. Princeton University Press. No.

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

it includes saintly and heroic actions whose moral merit surpasses what is strictly required of agents. Gewirth. The principle requires respect for the rights of all persons to the necessary conditions of human action. What is supererogatory is not merely good or right but goes beyond these in various ways. “Are There Any Absolute Rights?” Absolutism and its Consequentialist Critics. 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. the concept appropriate to it is not merely 'wrong' but such others as 'despicable'. To inflict such extreme harm on one' s mother would be an ultimate act of betrayal. This is but another way of saying that the rights it would violate must remain absolute. 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. In parallel fashion. 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. Just as the supererogatory is superlatively good. 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 base. the basic presupposition s of morality itself. In the scale of moral modalities . such concepts function as the contrary extremes of concepts like the supererogatory . 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. 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. prof of philosophy @ U Chicago. 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 the despicable is superlatively evil and diabolic. all stemming from the supreme principle of morality. For this reason . The principle hence prohibits using any person merely as a means to the well-being of other persons. dishonourabte. It is absolute . as would any attempt by others to force such an action . 'dishonorable".' A mother' s right not to be tortured to death by her own son is beyond any compromise. 1994. 'monstrous'. 325 . This absoluteness may be analyzed in several different interrelated dimensions.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. 'base'. and its moral wrongness is so rotten that a morally decent person will not even consider doing it. Joram Graf Haber.

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

Taylor. 131–32). 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. 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. Project MUSE. 476]). Even small restrictions on these basic liberties would threaten our highest order interest. 493). and thereby failing to express their nature as autonomous beings (p. Pg 16. 53). as well as the right to personal property and immunity from arbitrary arrest and seizure. we would be unable to make informed decisions about our conception of the good. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. Princeton University Press. it justifies such priority because the basic liberties are necessary conditions for the exercise of rationality. are necessary to create a stable and safe personal space for purposes of reflection and communication. In order to advance the reconstruction of the Hierarchy Argument. however slightly. Freedom of the person (including psychological and bodily integrity). professor of philosophy @ Princeton. as called for by the Priority of Liberty? In short. 3. and such a threat is disallowed given the absolute priority of this interest over other concerns. A brief examination of the basic liberties enumerated by Rawls will indicate why they are necessary conditions for the exercise of rationality (p. which is why parties in the Original Position “give first priority to preserving their liberty in these matters” (pp. Note also that lexical priority can be justified here for all of the basic liberties. liberty of conscience. 2003. Robert. No.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 327 /414 Nelson <tournament> Rights/Liberty K2 Rationality Rights and basic liberties are a prerequisite of rational decisionmaking. The freedoms of speech and assembly.14 327 .” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. without which rationality would be compromised if not crippled. they would be sacrificing their highest-order interest in rationality and its preconditions. not merely a subset of them (as was the case with the strains-of-commitment interpretation of the Equal Liberty of Conscience Argument). 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.

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. Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. 1986. McCloskey. the right to moral autonomy and integrity. Many of these conflicts are to be resolved without reference . 328 . in which the rights create obligations and claims that collide with one another and with the moral demands created by other values. many of which are rights of recipience. viewed as a right of recipience. HJ. professor of philosophy. Pg 133. When the consequences do enter seriously into the resolution of the conflicts. the solution arrived at is often very different from that which would be dictated by utilitarian con siderations. or with only negative reference. 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. to consequences. The theory of prima facie human rights that is outlined here is one in terms of prima facie rights.and values such as pleasure and happiness.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. and the absence of pain and suffering.

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

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

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. our body appertains to us as persons. barbarous forms of punishment such as chopping off hands. a leg. G. causing needless suffering. Deliberately to harm the health of persons is to violate their personhood. our body is ours to care for and maintain as the vehicle of our personhood. professor of philosophy. Ill health and mutilation of the body need not threaten life.” R. 331 . 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. and still be the same person. like the right to bodily integrity. 1984 HJ. is related to but not whol1y based on the right to life. as with compulsory sterilization. McCloskey. an eye. In a real sense. “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. impairing capacities. disease a person? So to act is to violate a right. So too with violation of bodily integrity. The right to health. Utility and Rights. blinding. overriding wills. removing the tongue. Although it is true that we can lose an organ. How can another have the right to injure. The negative aspect of the case for the rights to health and bodily integrity is evidently strong. infect. A very powerful moral justification would be necessary for such an act not to constitute a grave end illegitimate violation of a right. Frey.

org/News/Press/docs/2006/gasm380. the world has a moral and strategic obligation to fight poverty and to address the human rights concerns of the most vulnerable. education and housing.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 332 /414 Nelson <tournament> Poverty Moral Obligation Humanity has a moral obligation to alleviate poverty. President of the General Assembly. observed 10 December: This year. such as discrimination and social exclusion. discrimination or other forms of persecution.un. such as health care. on the occasion of Human Rights Day. It is because human rights. such as health care. History is littered with well-meaning. but failed solutions. the world has a moral and strategic obligation to fight poverty and to address the human rights concerns of the most vulnerable. If we are to eradicate poverty and promote human rights. President of the General Assembly 8 December 2006 http://www. If we are to eradicate poverty and promote human rights. but failed solutions. poverty reduction and the empowerment of the poor go hand in hand that we all have a moral duty to take action. United Nations“WORLD HAS MORAL OBLIGATION TO FIGHT POVERTY. 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. 332 . Poverty is above all about having no power and no voice. Being poor makes it harder to find a job and get access to basic services.doc.doc.un. we need to take action to empower the poor and address the root causes of poverty. Poverty is above all about having no power and no voice. It is because human rights. We have a moral obligation to solve poverty Al Khalifa. PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS OF MOST VULNERABLE. History is littered with well-meaning. 06 Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa ( Bahrain). When poverty is so immediate and the suffering so intense. President of the General Assembly. poverty reduction and the empowerment of the poor go hand in hand that we all have a moral duty to take action.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gasm380. such as discriminateon and social exclusion. SAYS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT IN HUMAN RIGHTS DAY MESSAGE” 2006 www. The poorest are more likely to experience human rights violations. The poorest are more likely to experience human rights violations. UN General Assembly Press Release. discrimination or other forms of persecution. Being poor makes it harder to find a job and get access to basic services.htm Following is the message by Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa ( Bahrain). education and housing.htm When poverty is so immediate and the suffering so intense. December 2006.

Vol. Mar 2001. though less explicit and developed. Moreover. according to Wollaston. Kamm claims. rather it is a claim about his status. involves a reflective awareness of ourselves in relation to others. echoed by Kamm. The claim that “you’re really something” is a not a claim about a person’s empirical or psychological state. 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. Wollaston’s conception of action seems to presuppose a moral psychology which is different from Cumberland’s. The exercise of human agency. conceived as a realm of status relations. the results of an action are never as important as the action itself. the world to which action relates us descriptively is not the utilitarian’s world of natural causes and effects. While Wollaston would not deny that every action involves an exercise of efficient causality. Thus Wollaston’s view. 25p Ebsco] Kamm’s view of action. Indeed his conception implies that in addition to a causal element.19 Similarly. An action in accordance with moral constraints. states that another person has or lacks value as a matter of fact. his view suggests that our ultimate practical concern is not for the effects we can produce. “Three Conceptions of Action in Moral Theory” Ous. shares this propositional orientation. That end is the faithful representation of the interpersonal order of which we are members.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 333 /414 Nelson <tournament> Action Key – End Result Irrelevant People are not a means to a result. action contains a reflexive element. 35 Issue 1. 333 . this awareness determines an ultimate end of action which is not an effect to be brought about. And since there is such a fact of the matter.18 And yet on both Wollaston’s and Kamm’s accounts. Schapiro 2001 [Tamar Schapiro is professor of philosophy at Stanford. actions can succeed or fail to express the truth.20 Action expresses a conception of “where we stand” in relation to the other constituents of the world. the examples Wollaston invokes to illustrate his theory of action all involve claims about the status of an agent in relation to others. p93.

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

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

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

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

It does not explain. he has focused exclusively on their equal provision. 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. No. the Self-Respect Argument makes a strong case for assigning the basic liberties a high priority: otherwise. 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. 3. economic and social inequalities might reemerge as the primary determinants of status and therefore of self-respect. Rawls has said nothing about the priority of the basic liberties. 478).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. Pg 5. Taylor. Robert. would very small restrictions on the basic liberties threaten the social basis of self-respect.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. rather. so long as they were equally applied to all citizens? Such restrictions would involve no subordination and. it is essential that the priority of liberty be firmly maintained (p. being very small. for example. the precedence of the equal liberties becomes all the more necessary.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. would be unlikely to jeopardize the central importance of equal citizenship as a determinant of status. Project MUSE. Why. Without question. Up to this point. however. Princeton University Press. 2003. an interest in securing self-respect for all citizens. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. why lexical priority is needed. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. 338 .

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

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

1994. 3. or Justice as Fairness more generally (PL. No. 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. is at least equally important. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. Princeton University Press. 2003. the Priority of Liberty would be one competitor idea among many in an overlapping consensus. prof of philosophy @ U Chicago. 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. the mother also does not have a right that their equally important rights be violated in order to protect hers. for by the principle of the intervening action. Alan. 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. 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. Justice as Fairness might not be alone among the liberal conceptions in endorsing the Priority of Liberty: a reasonable comprehensive doctrine might. Joram Graf Haber. Moreover.” leading through the procedures of political constructivism to a liberal conception of justice that endorsed the Priority of Liberty but rejected. say.principle of intervening actions means that government is not held responsible for death of others. 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. it is not he who is causally or morally responsible for their deaths . the many other residents do not have a right that the mother' s right to life be violated for their sakes . Hence. Is such acceptance likely? Consider the important example of the adherents of utilitarian reasonable comprehensive doctrines. Would a utilitarian be able to endorse a Kantian conception of free persons. To be sure . but rejected by others. according to the criterion of degrees of necessity for action. 170). Project MUSE. But here too it must be emphasized that in protecting his mother's right the son does not violate the rights of the others. Pgs 143. No justification for violation of rights to prevent external loss . 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”). the Difference Principle. for example. For rights cannot be justifiably protected by violating another right which. Robert.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. support a Kantian conception of free persons but not Rawls’s particular interpretation of society as a “fair system of cooperation. Thus. “Are There Any Absolute Rights?” Absolutism and its Consequentialist Critics.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. Taylor. He may be said to intend the many deaths obliquely. But he is not responsible for that side-effect because of the terrorist s' intervening action. p. 341 . endorsed by both adherents of Kantian comprehensive doctrines and their fellow travelers. Gewirth.” but he never suggests that they would choose the Priority of Liberty. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. Hence too he is not treating them as mere means to his or his mother's ends. Pg 24. in that they are a foreseen but unwanted side-effect of his refusal . Thus.

Now in rights-judgments. to justify that attribution. 81. Gewirth. Reason and Morality. in his statement making this attribution. there is assumed some reason or ground that is held. figure as a subordinate clause wherein the attribution of rights to the subject is only conditional. be some moral or legal code. and he upholds the judgment not merely conditionally or tentatively but in an unqualified way. Moreover. Pg 65. Rather. Because of this necessity. a rights-judgment need not be set forth independently. but need not.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. 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.' the subject of the rights is the agent himself. 'I have rights to freedom and well-being. at least tentatively. professor of philosophy. as knowing what conditions must be fulfilled if he is to be a purposive agent. of course. In all cases. 342 . In the present case. however. so that without his having these conditions his engaging in purposive action would be futile or impossible. be adduced as constituting the justifying ground for the attribution of the generic rights to the agent. The object of the rights is these same necessary goods. In the agent's statement. the same person for whom freedom and well-being are necessary goods. such a principle cannot. it may. 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. Alan. the agent who is the subject of the generic rights is assumed to set forth or uphold the rights-judgment himself.fulfilling actions. where what is at issue is the justification of a moral principle. This reason may. instead.

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

here. then. let us consider the argument that engaging in a self-contradictory action could be impossibly problematic for any agent. But to say that X does Y on "pain of self contradiction" is to say only that if X does Y. in the following statement about his rational agent: "It is to be noted that the criterion of "rational' here is a minimal deductive one. it seems important to question whatever we can assume that human beings are necessarily rational actors who behave as Gewirth outlines or. It is not to say that if X does Y. for nowhere does Gewirth actually make a case for why we may not engage quite comfortably in self-contradiction. instead. Assistant Professor. a bundle of desires engaged in continual struggle. It is important to note that the problem of contradiction seems simply to be implied. we might wonder. And yet. 344 . 2005. ''67 It seems.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 344 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Gewirth Gewirth’s study of contradiction fails. then X contradicts itself. in a footnote dealing with Millard Schumaker's multiple objections to the PGC. Duke University Contemporary Political Science 05 Ari Kohen. http://www.springerlink. Beyleveld points out that quite the opposite is the case: "The error lies in Schumaker's reading of "incurring the pain of sellcontradiction. especially after looking at the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan. then that self-contradiction is not necessarily painful for the agent.com/content/8crjwyet6g6mr9fh/fulltext. 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. then X contradicts itself and that this state of affairs causes X to suffer anguish.D. "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. Ph. March 17.' 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. what reason is there for avoiding it. If it is not. "68 The assumption. is that all agents have a meta-desire for consistency upon which all of their rational decisions are built. 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.pdf To begin. In fact. he never isolates where negative consequences come from Kohen.

in my estimation. March 17. One such objection is that of Donald E. 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 . are arguments like the one made by N.pdf While this Lacanian critique is an interesting one.' because there is no determinate criterion of relevant similarity. it certainly seems to be more often the ease that people can and do. 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. as noted above. who are not superior PPAs. ''74 More interesting. however. Because a PPA logically must claim the generic rights. ''73 This sounds remarkably similar to Gewirth's own objection to the formal principle. it is not the strongest argument against Gewirth on the question of contradiction. Of course. he puts forward the ASA: that being a PPA is both the necessary and sufficient justificatory reason for having the generic rights. Beyleveld deals with multiple versions of this objection in the fortieth through forty-fifth objections to the PGC. 2005. ''72 By way of a response. yet refuse to grant these rights to other PPAs. Geels. nor has it gone far enough to suit me . Fotion.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 345 /414 Nelson <tournament> AT: Gewirth Gewirth ignores the fundamental differences between peoples Kohen.com/content/8crjwyet6g6mr9fh/fulltext. 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. What Gewirth fails to consider properly. As Beyleveld points out.D. This answer seems not to have placated Gewirth's detractors. is the ability that people have to rationalize their actions in an effort to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with self-contradiction. described above. "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 the property of be/ng a PPA that is logically required to be the criterion of relevant similarities. as Lacan argues.springerlink. that "a 'fanatic' (read 'elitist') can grant itself rights on the grounds that it is a superior PPA. Ph. Though it might be the case that people are unable to rationally order their preferences. http://www. however. without contradiction. He clearly recognizes the p