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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for our democratic friends. the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s. just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. Both will now be constricted. when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt.com/article/SB122455074012352571. 8 (Aaron Friedberg-professor of politics and international relations at the Woodrow Wilson School. Russian adventurism. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile. and the stability of our economy. 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. Japan faces similar challenges. http://online.wsj. made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits. its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The Dangers of a Diminished America. now driven down by the global slowdown. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia. the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth. The Wall Street Journal. and American isolationism Friedberg and Schenfeld. traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. Despite its past dynamism. Afghanistan collapse. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage. and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices. inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 25 /414 Nelson <tournament> Econ Collapse Bad Global economic collapse results in nuclear war – causes North Korean aggression. For decades now. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. our continuing commitment to Europe. p. 10/21/2008. The worldwide use of the dollar. among other things. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths. 25 . sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. and Gabriel Schoenfeld-visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. China is perhaps even more fragile.

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

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

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

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.helpful to the US dollar. 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. 29 . 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. Americans have realized that a little savings can go a long way.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. The irony is that just as the world would welcome the US consumer going back to old habits of spending and consuming.

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

up 2. New Zealand Herald 07 The New Zealand Herald. ''Globalisation makes decoupling from such a concentrated growth dynamic especially difficult. Taiwan. other countries rely on Asia's second-largest economy. Lexis The ability of other countries to emerge from the US economy's long shadow may reflect more wishful thinking than logic.5 percent in 2005. economy stumbles or tires The US is key to the global economy. In dollar terms. 20 percent in the U.S. chief economist at Morgan Stanley in New York. we need only follow Margaret Thatcher’s wise hectoring to “do the math. have asked me to address the question: Is the United States still the growth engine for the world? The answer is yes. The math tells us we would add $440 billion in incremental activity—in a single year. Every year. 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. Key to Global Economy The US is essential to the global economy – no other country is close to US production.S. To understand what this kind of growth means. Lady Thatcher would like it—and assume that in 2006 we grow at last year’s preliminary rate of 3.3 billion in 2006. is equivalent to surges of 16 percent in Germany. South Korea and commodity producers such as Russia.2 percent in 2004. In January. Australia. Unemployment stood at a four-year low of 4. and California produces roughly the same output as China. Fisher. the expansion in economic activity appears solid. To the extent there is weakness in the U. whose trade deficit was $765. it is in the Northeast and North Central states.'' As the US economy faltered in early 2001. We have weathered hurricanes’ fury and record-high energy prices while continuing to grow and keep inflation under control. 84% of Canada's. Growth advanced briskly at 4. 2/6/06. the US and China combined contributed an average of 43% to global growth. Let me explain why. Texas produces 20 percent more than India. a significant portion of which is fed by imports. Of course. many Wall Street gurus predicted that Europe would outpace the US. especially as some of the bigger emerging countries mature. European Vulnerability ''It didn't happen _ a lesson 31 .S. No doubt. Right now.6 trillion a year in goods and services. Again.” This is especially true in what I call the “growth rim”—an arc of population centers with favorable demographics that begins in Virginia. The American economy has been on an upswing for more than four years.4 percent for Europe and even higher rates for some of the continent’s major economies. New Zealand. That is a big number. the United States is the growth engine for the world economy. the consensus of most economic forecasters is that growth in the first quarter will rebound to a rate well above 4 percent. which compares with the latest reading of 8. The statement the Federal Open Market Committee released Tuesday quite summed up our current situation succinctly: “Although recent economic data have been uneven.6 million people. The global economy is too dependent on exports to the US. the total effects could be larger than 60%. then through the megastate of Texas and on to the uberstate of California and up to Seattle. the U.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 31 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – U. President of the federal reserve bank. Netting all this out. our growth is driven by consumption. And it is important that it remain so because no other country appears poised to pick up the torch if the U. yes. President of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas.” The United States produces $12.S. runs down the southeastern seaboard through Georgia to Florida. From 2001 through 2006. 26 percent in China and 70 percent in India. So. What we add in new economic activity in a given year exceeds the entire output of all but 15 other countries. So a US slowdown that hurts China will reverberate in Japan. “Can world weather slow down in US?” p. 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. Mr Roach says. says Stephen Roach. economy. Canada and Brazil.S.2 million in a year. Just as China is dependent on the US.5 percent in the U. In dollar terms..7 percent. Britain and France.'' he says. It slowed to a still solid 3. 3-20-2007.5 percent. it will eventually happen. Be conservative—once again. according to Mr Roach. “The United States: Still the Growth Engine for the World Economy?” My kind hosts. 06 Richard W. the world still needs the US consumer. although I would not be surprised if GDP were revised upward when we take a more definitive look at the fourth quarter. we create the economic equivalent of a Sweden—or two Irelands or three Argentinas. 86% of Mexico's and about 40% of China's. I use “mega” and “uber” to describe the two largest states for a reason: to illustrate the depth and breadth of our economy.K. And there may be more fallout from a US decline. economy employed 134. while Asia and Europe lack sufficient domestic demand to offset reduced US spending on overseas goods. measured on the basis of purchasing-power parity. Fisher. a growth rate of 3. ''Allowing for trade linkages. Germany. China's Reverberations The US accounts for 24% of Japan's total exports. which totaled $2 trillion last year.

Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 32 /414 Nelson <tournament> investors should bear in mind today. Europe is vulnerable to a US slowdown through its businesses abroad.'' Mr Quinlan says 32 . French and Dutch enterprises resulted in reduced orders. euro-area growth shrank to 1. After expanding 3.'' says Joseph Quinlan.9% in 2002 and 0. Europe will sink or swim with the US in 2007. The earnings of European companies' US units plunged 64% in 2001. Those declines in the biggest and most-profitable market for many German. lower profit.9% in 2000. ''As the US economy decelerates and as the dollar continues its slide. 0.8% in 2003. UK. slower job growth and weak business confidence.9% in 2001. according to Mr Quinlan. chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management in New York. Even though only about 8% of European exports go to the US.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech. ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17. are growing in number. service economy. among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. At the extremes. "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period. but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy.freetrade." By the way. with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. "War declining worldwide. 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. the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free. significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable. Peacemaking missions. Dr." In 2006. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. 4/20/2007. wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other. Through econometric analysis. those nations have more to lose should war break out. 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. Trade. "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home.000 in 1951 during the Korean War." as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government. In short. director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. he found that. 7 (Daniel. First. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy.000 to 100. Erik Gartzke. financial assets. a professor of political science at Columbia University. As economies develop. Thanks in part to globalization.org/node/681) A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported. Far from stoking a "World on Fire.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 43 /414 Nelson <tournament> Impacts – Econ Solves War Economic interdependence prevents war Griswold. dipping below 20. Since the early 1990s. growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy. and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. and human capital. meanwhile. studies say. and from a peak of 700. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. say oil or timber or farm products. Dr.000 a year by one measure." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40. In contrast. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom. almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. http://www. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. 43 . globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. as I argued a moment ago.000 in the 1990s. The death toll from war has also been falling. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy. Democracy and Peace. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. 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. it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. including the freedom to trade. According to the Associated Press report. In short. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. If people need resources outside their national borders. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. As national economies become more intertwined with each other.

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

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

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

and now it is the United States' turn to step up and get that going. According to Jeffrey Sachs. the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. TB and AIDS is essential to the economic development of poor nations. a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. which has fallen behind on its pledged commitments." Keeping up the fight against killer diseases like malaria. They were simply calling on donor nations to make good on their pledges. which he says. "For Africa to be a full trading partner. Peter Chernin is one of a number of business leaders who've supported a $100 million campaign to fight the malaria pandemic in Africa. VOA “Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS. Gupta says. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS. leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment. 47 ." Those monies could not "for one moment balance the lives that are at stake. He says he and other health and business leaders who attended the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases. one that could be picking up the slack by buying our goods and being a full productive part of the world economy. Malaria” 04 February 2009. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. that led to the creation of the Global Fund in the first place. 9 (Rosanne. http://www. TB and malaria. "And [with] just a fraction of that investment. including the humanitarian and security aspects. Gupta says. we can end malaria deaths and remove a major obstacle to economic development.voanews. Every year since 2001. He says the disease has cost industry on the continent about $12 billion in lost worker productivity. TB and malaria must be sustained. AIDS Economic downturns divert funds from disease treatment Skirble. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans. prevention and research programs in poor countries. [it] requires that these diseases be brought under control. "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. he believes. He believes that if the U. "puts at risk the malaria control effort. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. two-thirds of tuberculosis funding and three-fourths of malaria funding. the Global Fund has been forced by the recession-pinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. Switzerland were not asking for a bailout." Global Fund Board Chairman Rajat Gupta agrees that the United States could do more to help the fund out of its financial crisis. to improve the world's prosperity and its health. For example. malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years.S. could make a significant dent in the fund's $5 billon shortfall if it so chose.reporter for the Voice of America. "That was at least one of the many aspects. TB. other nations would follow." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life. Malaria.cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6) As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis.. the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS. Tuberculosis and Malaria supplies one-quarter of all AIDS funding.com/english/archive/2009-02/200902-04-voa23." Sachs argues that the United States. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission. which currently contributes about one third of the Global Fund's resources. could save nearly two million additional lives in the coming years. to cut long-term investments in development for near-term savings." Gupta says the Global Fund's progress in the fight against AIDS. And it's just bad economic policy." he says.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 47 /414 Nelson <tournament> Economic decline turns TB. says Sachs. "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. were to take on more of a leadership role. That continued support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within and between societies. 4 (United Nations News Center.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 68 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environment turns war/economy Environmental degradation increases war." 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. 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. instability.org/apps/news/story. Mr. 68 . threatening water supplies. "These scars. and strengthening cooperation between the different countries' ministries and institutions may hold the key to building trust. “Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability” November 5. and hurts the economy UN. understanding and more stable relations. http://www. 2004. 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. agreements and treaties to better share resources such as rivers and forests.un. "Joint projects to clean up sites." he added." said the UNEP chief.

or harder to clear and work.6 million hectares. 91 (Thomas.54 Taken together. problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. acidification. but nearly all the best land has already been exploited. For example.53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment. experts expect that the world average of 0.library.26 percent a year. no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas. logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6. total global cropland amounts to about 1.4 billion hectares. What is left is either less fertile. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact.2 to 3. when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 69 /414 Nelson <tournament> Environmental destruction turns agriculture Environmental degradation destroys cropland Homer-Dixon. waterlogging. and compacting. cropland grew at just 0. which includes both current and potential cropland.48 Moreover. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2.51 For developing countries during the 1980s. who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage. salinization. and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity. perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0. Since the Second World War.9 percent a year. erosion. which can be traced out in the figure. More importantly.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change. infested with pests. range from 3.52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries. The geographer Vaclav Smil. about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification. in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1. not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable.utoronto.55 69 . estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion.5 billion hectares. changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests. nutrient depletion. Currently.47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers. the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000.49 Across the archipelago. logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion.Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto. less than half the rate of the 1970s.8-7.17 hectares by the year 2025. others are not yet visible anywhere. These factors may seriously affect crop production. In addition. and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet. he concludes. International Security“ On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict” 199.000 hectares of irrigated farmland projected within the Plan for 2007 will actually be irrigable because of the hydrological effects of decreases in forest cover. the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36. http://www. given the current rate of world population growth.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 19. Bush appointed former Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe to head NASA in late 2001. The taxpayers will fund the technology investment program. The military will create the space weapons systems to ensure free corporate access to the space highways of the future. Permanent. 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." This meant that every NASA space launch would be both military and civilian at the same time. 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. 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. 92 . When George W. But the growing influence of the military industrial complex has rubbed out the line between civilian and military programs. Originally slated to cost the taxpayers $10 billion. 2009 http://www. the project has now grown to $100 billion and is not yet finished.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 92 /414 Nelson <tournament> Space Weaponization: NASA Key NASA KEY TO SPACE WEAPONIZATION [Bruce K. NASA would expand space nuclear power systems to help create new designs for weapons propulsion. and then be ready to turn everything over to private corporate interests once the technology has been sorted out. The aerospace industry is already making record profits from the ever-escalating cost of space technology systems. Virtually every system now under development is well over budget. the new space agency director announced that all NASA missions in the future would be "dual use. The international competition for resource extraction in space (helium-3 on the moon) is now full on. NASA's job is to do the research and development.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5971 6/27/09 RFF NASA was created as a civilian agency with a mission to do peaceful space exploration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and their impact on the human race. the toll amounts to approximately US$1 billion each year. This will only later result in demographic changes such as reduced fertility and ageing populations. Countries with a severe malaria burden grew 1. AIDS/HIV also creates an enormous burden for the global economy. diseases challenge democratic developments and transitions. In addition. in 1999 (WHO. can easily spread to richer parts of the world. 36.8 million deaths to date.4 million patients yearly according to the most recent WHO estimates (Kim et al. If each DALY is valued at three times the per capita income. more than 75% of which are among African children. a vicious spiral will develop between infectious diseases and poverty. the relationship between humans and infectious diseases. In slowing down social and economic development. the economic value of lost life years in 1999 caused by AIDS represents 11. According to the WHO Macroeconomics Report. 102 . The burden of infectious disease already weakens the military capabilities of various countries and international peace-keeping efforts.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa) and three million people died (2. In the year 2000. Microbial resistance will continue to increase faster than the pace of drug and vaccine development. there is an additional deficit of US$11 billion. compared with those without. Every 12 months TB therefore causes roughly US$12 billion to disappear from the global economy. and the success of global and national efforts to create effective systems of surveillance and response. and a gradual socioeconomic improvement in most countries. and contribute to civil conflicts. the losses represent 35.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 102 /414 Nelson <tournament> of TB in economic terms can therefore be easily calculated: given 8. 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. By contrast. According to this scenario.3% less per year. which face the majority of the problem. 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. and assuming a 30% decline in average productivity. on average. The good news is that infectious . 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. infectious diseases n general.7% of the GNP. Emerging and re-emerging diseases. and AIDS has caused 21. and families spend up to 25% of their income on treatment. and hinder global commerce to the greater detriment of poor countries. Children suffer cognitive damage and anaemia. . trade embargoes or restrictions on travel and immigration owing to i . especially with regard to improving the basic quality of life for the poorest people.1 million people were living with AIDS (25 million of whom were in sub-Saharan Africa).3 million people were infected (3. as major health challenges. the majority of whom are potential wage-earners. which represented more than 15% of the GDP. Assuming that each DALY is valued at the per capita income. Persistent poverty in the least-developed countries will create conditions that sustain reservoirs of infectious diseases.6 DALYs lost. Each year there are between 400 and 900 million febrile infections owing to malaria (0. 2008). the economic burden of AIDS on sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 72 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY). outbreaks of infectious disease will cause more friction between developing and developed countries. with new and effective drugs and vaccines made affordable. in particular from HIV/AIDS.7–2. Gallup & Sachs estimated the aggregate loss owing to the disease in some 25 countries at approximately US$73 billion in 1987. This has a heavy economic impact on society. a 50% reduction in TB-related deaths would cost US$900 million per year. the pessimist scenario of steady deterioration foresees little or no progress in countering infectious diseases in the future. the future of developing and transitional economies. TB or malaria. socioeconomic advances. By contrast. The social cost of the lost productivity further increases the burden on society. 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. The threat. with an average loss of 15 years of income per death.1% of the GNP. Finally.7 million deaths). and less than 20% of these malaria cases ever see a doctor for treatment. 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. 2003). 16 million deaths averted and US$6 billion saved.4 million in sub-Saharan Africa). Annual deaths are estimated at two million and. could take one of the following pathways. 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 optimistic scenario foresees steady improvement whereby ageing populations and declining fertility. 5. Pregnant women have a higher risk of dying from the infection or of having children with low birth weight. many of which are likely to appear in poorer countries first. heart disease and cancer. This will contribute further to political destabilization in the hardest-hit parts of the world. but the return on investment by 2010 would be 22 million people cured. especially those that can cause an epidemic continue to make costly disruptions to trade and commerce in every region of the world (Table 3). Depending on these variables.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. 2007) War often creates a cycle of violence. War and Public Health. War teaches people that violence is an acceptable method for settling conflicts. there have been instances of men murdering their wives on return from battlefield. 7 (Barry Levy. Victor Sidel. increasing domestic and community violence in the countries engaged in war. Teenage gangs may mirror the activity of military forces Men. commit acts of violence against women. 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. 132 .Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College.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. Edition 2. sometimes former military servicemen who have been trained to use violence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

opednews.1. Spending on contractor services can expand massively within the context of war. an increase of 102. there are new opportunities for corruption. This is not to say these services come cheap. The difference. laundry and logistics provided. an increase of 86%. These expenditures represent a unique new source of revenue and profit for American business. PhD Economist . is profit. The result is a river of profit with little economic gain for the nation. The Chicago Tribune reports ongoing investigations of Kellogg Brown and Root and various of their sub-contractors for gross violations and fraud. All of this is symptomatic of deeper problems. private contractors' collections for the Department of Defense increased from $133 billion to $279 billion annually.gov/story.asp?ID=1071) With these tasks shifting to private contractors. an in so doing. “The Privatization of War” http://www. effectively making them indentured servants.htm Since 2000. Conscription can more easily be avoided along. The Center for Public Integrity (www. we have reduced the populace's natural resistance to war and increased its profitability.4 billion to $377. 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. a greater portion of military spending flows as profit to American businesses. Third World contract workers have reported their employers withholding their passports. What was once a relatively minor expense to taxpayers in the form of Army pay for soldiers performing kitchen duties. www. Government investigators report literally billions of dollars have gone missing with no accounting for who received them or what was done with the money. With privatization. 139 . We have privatized war. They just don't pay the workers who perform these tasks much. fueling a stronger capitalism Ferguson 08 Francis Ferguson.com/articles/opedne_francis__080320_the_privatization_of.story.5 billion.publicintegrity. Wartime allows emergency measures and expenditures which can proceed without customary bidding or oversight.3%. as can the political backlash from potential draftees and their relatives.chicagotribune. Contractors such as Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) charge handsomely for the meals. professional military. In addition to new opportunities for profit in a war theater. This means the conflicts can be more easily handled with a voluntary. (source http://oversight.house.com/news/nationworld/chi-kbr-war-profiteers-feb21. workers can be hired in low wage nations such and put to work doing menial labor for the troops. 3-22-08. there has been a huge increase in private contracts let by the US government. They do not. 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”.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 139 /414 Nelson <tournament> Cap War has become privatized. 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. With contracting.5231766. of course. Over this same period.org/wow/bio. Spending on private contractors has risen from $174. our military can be smaller. because much of what it being purchased are services which would previously have been done by military personnel.

So far as I can judge.8 Of course there are perils in using a purely relative standard. Peacetime civil liberties are a luxury that nations engaged in wars of survival do not believe they can afford. Rev.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 -.than the United States. which was far less endangered. EXECUTIVE DETENTION IN TIME OF WAR . The administration of Regulation 18B caused hardships and. Oxford: Clarendon. Pp. to most of the rest. 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. in hindsight at least. IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE ODIOUS: DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN WARTIME BRITAIN. Brian Simpson. L. 1679 1993-1994. $62. 1992. By A. 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. Press. the answer to this question is more temperately . W. 422) and should not be refusing access. I am sure this observation is right. but it makes for rather a tepid ending to the book. but whether it reacted more or less temperately than other nations in comparable circumstances would do or have done.92 Mich. x. seems not to have contributed materially to Britain's survival or to have shortened the war. they ought to be drawn. 453. for example. But the only lesson Simpson draws is that Britain should not have destroyed "about 99 per cent of public records dealing with detention. which is in line with general practice" (p. half a century later. The absence of a comparative dimension is a closely related source of Simpson's disparagement of his country's response to national emergency. 140 . 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. much of the area in and around Chelyabinsk. 7 (Barry Levy. has been determined to be highly radioactive. and both surface water and groundwater. Russia. The disastrous consequences of war for the environment are often clear. site of a major nuclear weapons production facility.both during and preparing for war Levy and Sidel. Edition 2. War and Public Health. Victor Sidel. 149 . leading to evacuation of local residents (see chapter 10). 2007) Finally.Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine. which had a devastating effect on the ecology of the affected areas and caused acute respiratory symptoms among those exposed. For example. which can contaminate air. soil. war and the preparation for war have profound impacts on the physical environment (see Chapter 5). 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. destruction of urban environments by aerial carpet bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan during World War II. Examples include bomb craters in Vietnam that have filled with water and provide breeding sites for mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases.Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College. Less obvious are the environmental impacts of the preparation for war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hispanic troops make up about 17. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army. Many of today's recruits are financially strapped. According to US journalist Jim Ross. that supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. 12 had higher poverty rates. 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. 2005 (Richard May “Life lottery: US military targets poor Hispanics for frontline service in Iraq”. New Internationalist) They have been variously described as 'working class mercenaries'. and various medical and pension benefits. newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed. the overwhelming majority was among the lowest-ranked. Wash Post. Are Drawn To Military. These non-citizen members of the military have a limited number of Military Occupational Specialties to choose from when enlisting.S. army and air force.5 per cent of the US population: one in seven 18-year-olds are of Hispanic origin. 'green card troops'.000 and 37. 2005. of the first 1. Regionally. Many of these troops--especially those who are injured--find they are in worse circumstances than when they left for Iraq.. most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent). The biggest single contingent of such troops is made up of Mexicans and Mexican descendants. by February 2005 there were 110. Vietnam and the first Gulf War. the Bush Administration has tightened immigration procedures and cut public spending in a number of areas such as housing and education. Following the widespread insurgency in early 2004 the US Government has gone on a nationwide recruitment drive that has targeted young Hispanics with promises of green cards. The US Government's interest in recruiting Latinos is hardly surprising since they make up about 12. The USFG recruits Hispanics to high fatality posts in the military Hil. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U. 157 . Pentagon figures show. scholarships. November 4. Significantly.000 US deaths in Iraq. noncitizens are over-represented in some of the most dangerous field operations. 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. This recruitment campaign is driven by an executive order signed in July 2002 by President Bush. 14 percent come from major cities. and worst-trained troops. themselves victims of the very 'war on terror' they were recruited to vanquish. Marine Corps. a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code.S. and 16 were non-metropolitan. Not surprisingly. Over 120 were Latinos--about 70 of them Mexican. rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war. Ann Scott Tyson. poorest-paid. Dominicans. Washington Post Staff Writer. decent housing and education. Since 11 September 2001. the call to arms clearly holds some attraction. Central Americans and Ecuadorians are also well represented. Yet as the advocacy organization Latinos against the Iraq War has pointed out. 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.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.000 of them. In contrast. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes. the various promises made by the Government frequently fail to materialize when Latino service personnel return home. median. according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. according to the National Priorities Project. Since the start of the war about a third of the US forces stationed in Iraq--between 31.000--were non-US citizens serving in the navy. with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households.S. As a consequence. Such patterns are pronounced in such counties as Martinsville. post-service employment. they are prime candidates for US Military Occupational Specialists hungry for recruits. Friday.5 per cent of front-line forces. Invariably poor and jobless. They are the huge contingent of Hispanic personnel who--for personal and economic reasons--have been recruited into the ranks of the US military. Page A01) As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force. Recruits' Job Worries Outweigh War Fears. with an opposite trend in cities. Va. military recruits come from rural areas. and with little hope of employment. such troops die or are injured in disproportionate numbers. 05 (Ann Scott Youths in Rural U. With few prospects of gaining US citizenship through the usual channels. This has meant that many young Latinos feel they have little choice but to pursue the inducements offered by the US military. 'non-citizen' armies. More than 44 percent of U.000 troops out of a total of about 130. or desperate recruits of the US Government's 'poverty draft'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sexual abuse of women in war is nothing new. these witnesses tell of the organized and systematic rape of at least 20. 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’. 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’. 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. police stations and camps all over the country. Though all figures must be treated with caution in a war so plagued by propaganda.000 women and girls by the Serbian military and the murder of many of the victims. Muslim and Croatian – as well as some Serbian – women are being raped in their homes. an inevitable feature of military conflict like pillage and looting. Rape has long been tolerated as one of the spoils of war. they are killed. their families. Often brothers or fathers of these women are forced to rape them as well. rapes are being committed in ‘particularly sadistic ways to inflict maximum humiliation on victims. If they refuse.newint. According to a recent report by European Community investigators. and on the whole community’.org/issue244/rape. 06-93 http://www. has a Master's degree in African Literature and is an award winning writer. 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. Women and girls aged anything between 6 and 70 are being held in camps throughout the country and raped repeatedly by gangs of soldiers.htm) No-one will ever know the exact number of women and girls raped during the conflict in former Yugoslavia. in schools.

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

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

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

In the African conflicts of Mozambique. social. these countries also lack skilled agricultural. and to general food security. After decades of civil war.. households. Communities in many cases must be re-formed. University of Michigan. and market-places destroyed in the wars. and communities must regain access to land. and Sierra Leone. They require agricultural.D. educational. Liberia. water. and economic services to rebuild societies. Production and markets must be re-established. with no other schooling.unu. 169 . especially where areas have experienced complete or selective depopulation. During prolonged warfare. These grown youths now need sustenance. transport and communication lines. and health professionals to speed recovery.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 169 /414 Nelson <tournament> Starvation War causes starvation Messer 96 (Ellen Messer. health. http://www. Ph. 1996. if they are to contribute to a peacetime economy and society. 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 basic and specialty education. destruction of kinship units was a deliberate military strategy to remove intergenerational ties and community bonds and create new loyalties to the military. so that goods can flow and livelihoods rebound. whole generations may be conscripted into the military.htm) After the wars. as well as physical infrastructure such as agricultural works. and other sources of livelihood. Individuals. communities decimated and depopulated by physical and human losses can remain underproductive and hungry for years.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu22we/uu22we0j. they must later be socialized into peacetime occupations if they are not to revert to violence and brigandage as a source of entitlements. and human resources and social infrastructure must somehow recover.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns.49 Across the archipelago.48 Moreover.26 percent a year. http://www. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt.library. when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan. perhaps twice as much land goes to urbanization. estimates that two to three million hectares of cropland are lost annually to erosion. the planet will lose about 100 million hectares of arable land between 1985 and 2000. 54 Taken together. cropland grew at just 0. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet.51 For developing countries during the 1980s. logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6. experts expect that the world average of 0. 53 Large tracts are being lost each year to urban encroachment. not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable.55 180 . who is generally very conservative in his assessments of environmental damage. range from 3. and at least one million hectares are abandoned because of excessive salinity. 91 (Thomas. Currently. and compacting.2 to 3.8-7. others are not yet visible anywhere. More importantly.4 billion hectares. 52 In the absence of a major increase in arable land in developing countries.Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto. salinization.17 hectares by the year 2025. the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36. acidification. International Security“ On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict” 199. which can be traced out in the figure. For example. problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests. and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods. The geographer Vaclav Smil.utoronto.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change. infested with pests.6 million hectares. total global cropland amounts to about 1.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2. which includes both current and potential cropland.5 billion hectares.28 hectares of cropland per capita will decline to 0. in these countries arable land per capita dropped by 1. less than half the rate of the 1970s. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact. logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion. Since the Second World War. he concludes. no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas. given the current rate of world population growth. In addition.50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land. nutrient depletion. These factors may seriously affect crop production. but nearly all the best land has already been exploited. waterlogging. erosion.9 percent a year. about one-fifth of the world's cropland is suffering from some degree of desertification. What is left is either less fertile.47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers.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.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 180 /414 Nelson <tournament> Ecodestruction T/ Agriculture Environmental degradation destroys cropland Homer-Dixon. or harder to clear and work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S.-Islamic dialogue by asserting its view that vast disparities in income and an inconsistent U. and the nations of Central Asia. which.S. In recent years. and the absence of a strong tie to Israel. or Indonesia. China. 2. goal of stemming the rise of terrorism in the Islamic world.com/02spring/okamoto.twq.S. commitment to human rights are impediments to the U. Vol. 189 .” spring 2002. 25. 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. http://www. with a few exceptions.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. 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. “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance. are strained.pdf] Recent events have focused international attention on relations between the United States and Islamic countries. Japan can contribute to a U. No. 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. Muslim oil-producing states. its relatively more flexible stance on human rights policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

either accidentally or deliberately.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 197 /414 Nelson <tournament> Russia-US Russia-US conflict guarantees nuclear Armageddon – nuclear stockpiles Bostrom Professor of philosophy at Yale.transhumanist. www. Professor of Philosophy at Yale. 2002 (Nick. 197 . is not an existential risk.” 2002. since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. 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. 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.html) A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange. “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards. between India and Pakistan for instance .com/volume9/risks.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation.

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

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

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

Washington Times. Unlike their historical counterparts. Why are the United States and Israel.g. 2001. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. double standards of morality. 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. that on September 11. Likewise. chemical. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. 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. Israel and its citizens. It is not surprising. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. weak punishment of terrorists. Alexander Prof and Director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies 3 (Yonah. the religionization of politics. nuclear and cyber) with its serious implications concerning national. regional and global security concerns. biological. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism (e. therefore. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 201 /414 Nelson <tournament> Terror = Extinction Terrorist attack risks extinction. despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago. Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. radiological. 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). Terrorism Myths and Realities. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism. thus far at least. 201 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rivers would freeze over and many animals would die of cold and hunger.ac.compsoc. 01 (Simon Perkins. the population decline for many species would be irreversible. “Climate Conditions” http://www.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. 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. Fortunately for us small islands like the UK will have a less dramatic temperature decrease due tot he warming effect of the oceans.uk/~samp/nuclearage/lonterm.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. During this period the temperature will fall dramatically. May 22. 2001. Within a few months all the fish would die off . 209 . Looking at some past examples of volcanic eruptions can give us some idea of biological effects. 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. For counties along the Northern Hemisphere this is enough produce an Arctic winter. The effect on tropical plants and creatures would be even more profound and biologists have concluded that many species will become extinct. professor of effects of nuclear war. The lack of light would disrupt the food chain of microscopic creatures dependent of photoplankton (algae). When merged together these clouds will effectively block out all sunlight plunging the sky into darkness for at least several weeks after. Along the continent this could be as much as a 40°c drop. professor in the effects of nuclear war. the severe cold would destroy most crops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mitpressjournals. welldispersed nuclear arsenals that neither state could entirely destroy the other’s nuclear forces in a ªrst strike.7) For nearly half a century. the Chinese nuclear force is so vulnerable that it could be destroyed even if it were alerted during a crisis. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Many scholars believe that the nuclear stalemate helped prevent conºict between the superpowers during the Cold War. Furthermore. the US could disarm any nuclear opponent before they could retaliate Liber.1162/isec. the victim would always be able to retaliate and destroy the aggressor. is waning. The End of Mad The Nuclear dimension of US Primacy http://www.30. it could conceivably disarm the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a nuclear first strike. the world’s most powerful nuclear-armed countries have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). Whether the scenario was a preemptive strike during a crisis.2006.1 The age of MAD. A preemptive strike on an alerted Russian arsenal would still likely fail. the United States and the Soviet Union possessed such large. 220 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 220 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely Nuclear war won’t escalate.4. Today the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy vis-à-vis its plausible great power adversaries. and that it remains a powerful force for great power peace today. By the early 1960s.org/doi/pdf/10. but a surprise attack at peacetime alert levels would have a reasonable chance of success. Spring 2006. however. International Security. Nuclear war was therefore tantamount to mutual suicide. or a bolt-from-the-blue surprise attack. and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania 2006 (Keir Liber. and Press Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. For the frst time in decades.

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

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

html The most important benefit of these features today is that they give the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising powers. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University “The Rise of China and the Future of the West” Foreign Affairs January/February 2008 http://www.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. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order. War-driven change has been abolished as a historical process.foreignaffairs. The fact that the United States.org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/the-rise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west. greatpower war is. no longer a mechanism of historical change. thankfully. In the age of nuclear deterrence. 223 . and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the existing order. China.

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. civilian innovation in lieu of military–technical advancement. as Dahl notes. and that proved to be the more important factor. “a major independent variable. In Edward Luttwak’s terminology. and therefore power.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced Angell’s warnings. Increasingly. and a new system of incentives which all but remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient exercise. and most obviously. in Michael Mandelbaum’s words. . analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next century are next to nil. military. Indeed.26 John Mueller has been the most visible. has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national wealth is accumulated. April prof security studies – naval war college.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 224 /414 Nelson <tournament> Nuke War Not Likely – International System The international system prevents war—economic. because nuclear threats are not credible in the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers. claim. it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than power. Second. rather than military.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments supporting this revolutionary. As John Keegan has argued.”33 Just as advances in weaponry have increased the cost of fighting. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated. most significant trend of international politics: great power war.” which we ignore at our peril.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. major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each other. but by no means the only. First. Mackinder and his contemporaries a century ago would hardly recognize the rules by which the world is run today—most significantly. geopolitics is slowly being replaced by “geoeconomics. it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily 224 . a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war could possibly bring. Others have argued that. As early as 1986 Richard Rosecrance recognized that “two worlds of international relations” were emerging. Today. The idea of war was still appealing —the normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of fighting. For these states. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world. seem to have reached the revolutionary conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige. a revolution of ideas. nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of the would-be aggressor.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been dramatic. Angell noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were “surrendering of certain dominations. It is unlikely that a game of nuclear “chicken” would lead to the outbreak of a major war. especially now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher. encapsulated in the “globalization” metaphor so fashionable in the media and business communities. modern military technology has made major war too expensive to contemplate. and ideological trends have changed. wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in economic. at least in the last few decades. it is hard to see how nuclear war could be considered “an extension of politics by other means”—at the very least.”34 The third and final argument of Angell’s successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has occurred. . reach.” where “the methods of commerce are displacing military methods—with disposable capital in lieu of firepower. ideologies. and clearly controversial. and ideas are often. and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences.32 The economic incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been. the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make today’s great powers shy away from direct conflict. After the war. Comparative Strategy 22.30 For millennia.35 “Ideas. “somewhere between impossible and unlikely. where World War III is. that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state interaction.31 The intervening years have served only to strengthen the argument that the major industrial powers. are very often forces themselves. is now obsolete. National wealth and prestige. 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. 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. ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed. but he was not able to convince his contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war. there is reason to believe that this normative calculation may have changed. while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational exercise. Christopher Fettweiss. territory was the main object of war because it was directly related to national prestige and power. Beliefs. quite unlike their less-developed neighbors. divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest. not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases. a recasting of patriotic ideals. are no longer directly related to territorial control.” added John Mueller. unlike their era.

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

If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken. or even the United States. 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. 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. 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. This use could come in the form of a North Korean nuclear attack against Japan. Naval War College Review.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005. South Korea.navy. but therewould be many complications should Pyongyang use such weapons against either. Spring 2005. https://portal. 226 . to many complications Quester.3 The nearest targets for a North Korean nuclearweaponwould be South Korea and Japan. 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. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.pdf) history of successful nuclear deterrence suggests that nations have indeed been in awe of nuclear weapons. even while they were intent on deterring their adversaries as well. 2005 (George Quester.

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

managed by Battelle 2004. 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. It turns out that nuclear power plants are one of the few facilities in our national infrastructure that does consider these things. airline crashes are not the only way for a terrorist to attack a nuclear power plant. 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 .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. Every U. (Scott W. Truck bombs and armed attacks are certainly something to consider. they have demonstrated that they are not. Clearly.”. 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. “A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity. Heaberlin Head of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Not wanting to give any terrorists alternative ideas. 2004) But.S. managed by Battelle. However. In that regard. of course. it would not be a tough choice.

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

Yet the possibility remains that the relative inattention is not simply a repression of reality but rather a manifestation of the unthinkableness of nuclear weapons use One could also introduce another wedge of hope. That would be the case if the world did not retreat in the face of such use but rallied to punish it. of the non-use of such weapons. Spring 2005. essentially that “we have not been thinking at all about the next use of nuclear weapons. and so different. pessimism may not be necessary. Indeed. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. 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.” Such responses in Israel. Sweden. since Nagasaki. https://portal. that it simply made no sense to think of even acquiring them.nwc..Nuclear Taboo Won’t Be Broken (2/6) [Continues from previous page: No text omitted] Similarly. If the Nuclear Taboo gets broken. 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. 2005 (George Quester. 230 .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 . Japan. since analysis of the likely consequences of nuclear escalation might stimulate governments and publics to head it off. but we think that you are too optimistic about such use being avoided. If a nuclear weapon was use countries would rally against the nation preventing retaliation Quester. Yet. Professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. Naval War College Review. 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. 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 . or the United States might support the worry that people around the world have simply been repressing an unpleasant reality.navy. to repeat.mil/press/Naval%20War%20College %20Review/2005/Article%20by%20Quester%20Spring%202005. the world’s resistance to the proliferation of nuclear weapons has at times seemed to be mobilizing a widespread popular feeling that a taboo or “customary international law”was developing on proliferation as well. refusing to think about a very real danger. the response has often been a bit bizarre. Ordinary people and even military professionals in many countries were coming to assume that nuclear weapons were so horrible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1988. illuminates the critical relationship of self interest to that goal.e. the basement is flooded and destroyed. 296 .Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 296 /414 Nelson <tournament> Util Inevitable Utilitarianism inevitable Ratner. and the buyer spends $20. Carnegie Mellon University. 1984 Hofstra Law Journal.people are inherently utilitarians Gino et al 2008 [Francesca Gino Kenan-Flagler Business School.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. Max H. 1988). After reading about identical decision processes. Mitchell & Kalb. Extending prior work on the effect of outcome severity on judgments (Berg-Cross." In the context of the information provided by biology. Both sellers were similarly unethical. and were asked to rate the quality of the No Foul 4 surgeon’s decision to operate.. 1975. their research found that people information into judge the wisdom and competence of decision makers based on the nature of the outcomes they obtain. Now consider the same behavior on the part of a second seller. Mackie. 1984). professor of law at USC. Stokes & Leary. no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments” http://www. A few months after the closing. and Evolution” HeinOnline) utilitarianism reconciles autonomy and reciprocity.hbs. so the buyer never faces a flooded basement. 1Utilitarianism is inevitable .” The description confirms that process as arbiter of the tension between individual welfare and group welfare (i. Don Moore Tepper Business School. For instance. 1981. 1996). yet their behavior produced different results. that in the final analysis all of us are personal utilitarians and most of us are social utilitarians. In this paper. “The Utilitarian Imperative: Autonomy. Reciprocity. Ratner p. When the patient died. participants learned either that the patient lived or died. professor of law at USC. between autonomy and reciprocity)*° and suggests a utilitarian imperative: that utilitarianism is unavoidable. except that it is followed by a long drought. participants decided it was a mistake to have operated in the first place. Bozman Harvard Business School. 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. The surgeon knew the probability of success. and discloses the trial-and-error process of accommodation and priority assignment that implements it . Allison. in one study participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario of a surgeon deciding whether or not to perform a risky operation (Baron & Hershey. and other disciplines. & Messick. that morality rests ultimately on utilitarian self interest. economics. and fails to reveal it in the negotiation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1984 (Leonard G. Harvard University “No harm.727. and exposes the utilitarian underpinning of a priori rights. despite the fact that their behavior was the same? And if so. Most people would agree that the seller’s unethical behavior deserves to be punished. Baron and Hershey (1988) labeled this tendency as the outcome bias. 1989. we seek to answer the question: Do people judge the ethicality of the two sellers differently.edu/research/pdf/08-080.000 in repairs. a functional description of evolutionary utilitarianism identities enhanced per capita need/want fulfillment as the long-term utilitarian-majoritarian goal. Lipshitz. anthropology. surmounts the strident intuitionist attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of course. rather. part of the basic structure of moral theory. 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. but that one may not be violated – even to minimize the total number of such violations). 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. Thus rights (the obverse of constraints) have value. ‘A right is an agent-relative. For.91). which makes this consequence morally intelligible?’ (p. p. therefore. is intrinsically valuable. Hence there are rights. Thus we concur with Hooker (1994). The claim is not. of course.89. 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. p. That status is one of being inviolable (which is not.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 314 /414 Nelson <tournament> Deontology O/W Util Deontology precludes util. not an agentneutral. we are inviolable because 314 . to say that one will not be violated. Ratio.89). issue 11. ‘not only is it an evil for a person to be harmed in certain ways.88). 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). Louis. So there is a sense in which we are better off if there are rights (they are a ‘kind of generally disseminated intrinsic good’ (p.the 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. and are. A system of morality that includes inviolability encapsulates a good that its rivals cannot capture. and then seeks to show that deontology is such a system. In short. “On Defending Deontology”. then. The answer ‘focuses on the status conferred on all human beings by the design of a morality which includes agent-relative constraints’ (p. our emphasis – note the presumption inherent in the question). Nagel argues that an agent relative morality. qua moral system. says Nagel (1995. that agent-relative reasons rest directly on considerations of value in a manner obviously susceptible to the CVC. value’.93)). pace Howard-Snyder (1993). but for it to be permissible to harm the person in those ways is an additional and independent evil’ (p. that rule consequentialism is not a 'rubber duck'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and out of respect for. 2003.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. 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. Robert. Princeton University Press. says Rawls.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. in other words. which may be unduly influenced by the “contingencies and accidents of the world. . 503). reveals what the person is.” to those principles we would choose as members of the intelligible realm—our reasonableness. Pg 12. whose actions are determined by the laws of nature rather than the moral law (p. emphasis added). 323 . Princeton University Press. professor of philosophy @ Princeton.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. 503. 225). . 2003. 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. our independence from natural and social contingencies. the moral law. p. Taylor. is emblematic of our autonomy. or the capacity for a sense of justice. 447). Project MUSE. Reasonableness. No. No. In Kant’s terms. When we act reasonably. . Just as reasonableness is a key facet of our autonomy. 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. 86 of Theory: “the sense of justice . Pg 13. 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.. we demonstrate an ability to subordinate the pursuit of our own good. . 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. Taylor. 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. Moral law outweighs other considerations – integral to human nature. 3. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction.e. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. 3. i. The tight connection between reasonableness and autonomy is explained by Rawls in sec. Robert. 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. . Project MUSE. A person who acts reasonably acts according to a principle of reciprocity: he seeks to give “justice to those who can give justice in return” (p. to 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). beings able to act in conformity with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

infect.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 331 /414 Nelson <tournament> Right To Health O/W Right to health outweighs – violation of right to life. professor of philosophy. causing needless suffering. Pgs 127-128. Deliberately to harm the health of persons is to violate their personhood. 331 . “Utilitarianism and Natural Human Moral Rights. The negative aspect of the case for the rights to health and bodily integrity is evidently strong. So too with violation of bodily integrity. Although it is true that we can lose an organ. disease a person? So to act is to violate a right. 1984 HJ. and still be the same person. G. overriding wills. a leg. blinding. our body is ours to care for and maintain as the vehicle of our personhood. McCloskey. barbarous forms of punishment such as chopping off hands. as with compulsory sterilization. like the right to bodily integrity. The right to health. Frey. In a real sense. is related to but not whol1y based on the right to life. impairing capacities. an eye. How can another have the right to injure. A very powerful moral justification would be necessary for such an act not to constitute a grave end illegitimate violation of a right. Ill health and mutilation of the body need not threaten life. Utility and Rights. removing the tongue. our body appertains to us as persons. 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.” R.

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

p93. this awareness determines an ultimate end of action which is not an effect to be brought about. 35 Issue 1.18 And yet on both Wollaston’s and Kamm’s accounts. echoed by Kamm. 25p Ebsco] Kamm’s view of action. Mar 2001. Kamm claims. his view suggests that our ultimate practical concern is not for the effects we can produce. Thus Wollaston’s view. Schapiro 2001 [Tamar Schapiro is professor of philosophy at Stanford. And since there is such a fact of the matter. The claim that “you’re really something” is a not a claim about a person’s empirical or psychological state. shares this propositional orientation. That end is the faithful representation of the interpersonal order of which we are members. conceived as a realm of status relations. 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. though less explicit and developed. actions can succeed or fail to express the truth. according to Wollaston. the examples Wollaston invokes to illustrate his theory of action all involve claims about the status of an agent in relation to others. involves a reflective awareness of ourselves in relation to others. the world to which action relates us descriptively is not the utilitarian’s world of natural causes and effects. The exercise of human agency. “Three Conceptions of Action in Moral Theory” Ous. Moreover. rather it is a claim about his status.Dowling Debate 2008-2009 File Name 333 /414 Nelson <tournament> Action Key – End Result Irrelevant People are not a means to a result. the results of an action are never as important as the action itself. Vol. 333 . Wollaston’s conception of action seems to presuppose a moral psychology which is different from Cumberland’s.20 Action expresses a conception of “where we stand” in relation to the other constituents of the world.19 Similarly. An action in accordance with moral constraints. action contains a reflexive element. states that another person has or lacks value as a matter of fact. Indeed his conception implies that in addition to a causal element. While Wollaston would not deny that every action involves an exercise of efficient causality.

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

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

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

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

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

”Taking the second point first. respectively. No. and both their strengths and weaknesses carry over into the new context. is insufficient to justify the lexical priority of the basic liberties that support it—only the lexical priority of stability would do so. 2003.” and he goes on to assert that Justice as Fairness is “the most stable conception of justice .” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31. professor of philosophy @ Princeton. Princeton University Press. . and some types of restrictions (e. Rawls never makes clear why the Priority of Liberty is necessary for stability. Even if we assume. Although Rawls briefly discusses and defends the Priority of Liberty early in Political Liberalism (PL. . sacrificing the basic liberties that make it possible may be worthwhile if such a sacrifice is necessary to advance other highly valued ends. arguments that I will refer to as the Stability Argument and the WellOrdered Society Argument. both of these arguments are further illustrations of the Inference Fallacy. As I will now show. “Rawl’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction.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. Pgs 20-21. and this is the case importantly because of the basic liberties and the priority assigned to them. 41.Respect Argument. The Stability Argument has a structure similar to that of the Self. imposing fines for the advocacy of violent revolution or race hatred) might actually enhance it. Robert. Project MUSE. yet Rawls provides no argument for why stability should be so highly valued. 3. in the lecture entitled “The Basic Liberties and Their Priority.. 339 . 76). . pp. a point to which we will return below. Very small restrictions on the basic liberties would seem unlikely to threaten it. that the Priority of Liberty is necessary for stability. . as opposed to strongly contributory to it. Taylor. The three arguments for the Priority of Liberty that we identified in Theory can also be found in Political Liberalism. 74.18 At least two new arguments can be found. In it.g. stable scheme of cooperation. in other words. Pointing out the high priority of stability. however. 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. Rawls notes the “great advantage to everyone’s conception of the good of a . however. this fact is not enough to justify it: as highly valued as stability is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

one must wonder whether it is acceptable to infringe upon the rights of those who fall within the categories Gewirth lays out.springerlink. but instead that some other PPA is somehow damaged and thereby not worthy of them. a prospective purposive agent. It seems to me that Gewirth's theory is essentially a theory of the rights of PPAs. If