P. 1
Aff & Neg Nuke Starter

Aff & Neg Nuke Starter

|Views: 49|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less


Oil dependence prevents the transition to democratic governments

Sandalow, 7

David, energy and environment scholar at Brookings institution, “ending oil dependence”

Oil wealth also corrodes democratic institutions. This dynamic is not inevitable, but it is widespread. A growing body
of scholarly work explores this topic, concluding that oil wealth is strongly associated with corruption and authoritarian
A few examples underscore this trend. Bahrain, the Persian Gulf country with the smallest oil reserves, was also the
first to hold free elections.8 As oil prices climbed in recent years, both Vladmir Putin and Hugo Chavez moved away
from democratic institutions and toward more authoritarian rule. In Nigeria, oil abundance contributes to widespread

Failure of global democracy causes nuclear war

Diamond 1995 (Larry- Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Promoting Democracy in the
1990s, 1995)

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. 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, democratic ones. 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
with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for
legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.

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
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.


NU 08-09

p. 36 / 92

Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative

Oil dependence: Shocks module (economy)

Oil Dependence holds the US economy hostage to supply side
crises which make a recession inevitable.

National Commission on Energy Policy, 5

Oil Dependence creates severe national security and economic risks, top officials find at crisis simulation event, July 24th

The dependence of the U.S. on oil creates serious national security vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could result in
widespread economic dislocation and increased global instability, according to former top government officials who
gathered today to examine how the nation might manage an oil supply crisis.
The findings of these leading experts comes amid reports of terrorist threats against oil-rich Nigeria, a state-owned
Chinese company's bid for a major U.S. oil firm, and as Congress considers energy legislation that does little to curb
U.S. oil dependence.
In a scenario confronted by the bipartisan panel of intelligence, military, and energy experts, a series of events over
several months - unrest in Nigeria, an attack on an Alaskan oil facility, and the emergency evacuation of foreign
nationals from Saudi Arabia - drives the price of oil to over $150 per barrel. These events lower expected employment
levels by more than 2 million jobs, embolden countries that are major oil producers and consumers to pressure the U.S.
on key foreign policy concerns, and cause a variety of other significant economic and security challenges.
The scenario removed only 3.5 million barrels of oil from a global market of more than 83 million barrels, resulting in
the following consequences:
* Gasoline prices of $5.74 per gallon;
* Global oil price of $161 per barrel;
* Heating oil prices of $5.14 per gallon;
* Fall of gross domestic product for two consecutive quarters;
* Drop in consumer confidence by 30 percent;
* Spike in the consumer price index to 12.6 percent;
* Ballooning of the current accounts deficit to $1.087 trillion;
* Decline of 28 percent in the S&P 500;
* Aggressive pressure on the U.S. from China to end arm sales to Taiwan, and;
* Demands from Saudi Arabia for changes to U.S. policy regarding the Mid-East peace process.

Participants included:
Robert M. Gates, former Director of Central Intelligence;
Richard N. Haass, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State;
General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant of the Marine Corps, member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Don Nickles, former U.S. Senator;
Carol Browner, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
Gene B. Sperling, former National Economic Advisor;
Linda Stuntz, former Deputy Secretary of Energy;
Frank Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and;
R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence.
Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) served as co-chairs of the Oil ShockWave event.
Other key findings:
# Once oil supply disruptions occur, there is little that can be done in the short term to protect the U.S. economy from
its impacts, including gasoline above $5/ gallon and a sharp decline in economic growth potentially leading into a


NU 08-09

p. 37 / 92

Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative

Oil dependence: Shocks module (economy)

The impact is extinction

T. E. Bearden, Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, June 24, 2000
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the
stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the
arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to
be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan
and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate
China — whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In
addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other
nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few
nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is
almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as
As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD
arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it , and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many


NU 08-09

p. 38 / 92

Nuclear Power Affirmative/Negative

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->