You are on page 1of 9

Thus the plan: Prior to implementation of the affirmative plan the United States Federal Government must enter

into binding consultation with Kanye West.

E. If Kanye West does not write music then the world will be very unhappy laeding to nuclear war and extinction. Consulting Kanye West solves for more awesome music. bring you to his house. Net Benefits: Kanye West not killing you.A. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. agriculture is only a small sector in the US economy.S. Kanye West is consulted first. US Agriculture Without Farm Support] While the United States is one of the largest agricultural producers in the world. though the plan is passed through the United States Federal Government. agriculture accounts for around 2 per cent of the . Not consulting leads to Kanye West finding. And then Kanye West will kill you with his bare hands. Agriculture is a small economic sector McDonald. Solvency: Consulting Kanye West solves for you not getting killed.T.ABARE-‘6 [Donald. D. If so then you know that Kanye West has connections and those connections will find you. South Park 09 Remember the episode of South Park where everyone thought that Kanye West loved fish dicks. and killing you. 10 Consulting Kanye West leads to him being happier and more in the mood for him writing music. As indicated earlier. and increase in hegemony. And then every other country will like the U.S. awesome music. Hip Hop Association 09 Consulting Kanye West leads to him being happier and writing more music. B. B. better because that is where Kanye West lives. The world loves Kanye West’s music and if he is making more music then that leads to a happy. C. This is a topical counterplan. Consulting Kanye West increases hegemony for the U. peaceful world. South Park 09 As previously stated not consulting leads to Kanye West finding and killing you.

a highly diversified economy in the 21st century. states today cannot translate great ¶ asymmetries of power into effective territorial control. and now Iraq have demonstrated).that reduce the likelihood of severe conflict ¶ while creating strong imperatives for cooperative problem solving. Indeed.S. thickening institutions. online From a systemic perspective. The agricultural labor force in the United States reached a peak of approximately 13. they can hope for loose ¶ hegemonic relationships that require them to give something in return. but about one-tenth during the Cold War . ¶ Most important. professor of political science at John Hopkins. senior advisor at Time to End Big Sugar's Sweet Deal] But the U. the ¶ most striking features of the contemporary international landscape are the intensification of ¶ economic globalization. to take one of the most plausible cases of a future interstate war.5 percent ¶ in World War II. and John Ikenberry.5 percent in World War I and 2.S. professor of international affairs at Princeton.4 percent of total U. March 2008. Vietnam. warfare among these ¶ states has truly become an option of last resort. With all of the great powers possessing ¶ nuclear weapons and ample means to rapidly expand their deterrent forces.foreignaffairs. nuclear deterrence suppressed the level of violence associated with ¶ major power competition: wartime fatalities consumed 2 percent of the world’s population in the ¶ 1600s and 1700s. Clark Murdock. Agriculture not key to the economy or jobs Smith-fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute-6 [http://cei. The prospect of such great losses has instilled in ¶ the great powers a level of caution and restraint that effectively precludes major revisionist ¶ efforts.S. [___] Empirics prove deterrence solves nuclear escalation Murdock 8. today the density of trade. GDP. the diffusion of small arms and the near universality of nationalism have ¶ severely limited the ability of great powers to conquer and occupy territory inhabited by resisting ¶ populations (as Algeria. ¶ would pose for the Chinese communist regime daunting economic costs. Interdependence checks war Deudney et al ‘9 (Daniel. Unlike during ¶ the days of empire building in the nineteenth century. employment in 2001. and production networks across ¶ international borders raises even more the costs of war.” CSIS. and only 0. contrary to what the revivalists describe. nuclear weapons have transformed great-power war from a routine feature of ¶ international politics into an exercise in national suicide.” http://www. “the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Mission in the 21st Century.5 million in 1910 and declined to around 3 million in 2000. Foreign Affairs. Furthermore. investment. about 1 percent in the 1800s. ¶ Compared to older orders.of pushes and pulls -. at most. Today. With the U.S. Also unlike in the ¶ nineteenth century. and shared problems of interdependence. Taken together.US labor force. “The Myth of Autocratic Revival. farming accounted for only 1. The ¶ overall structure of the international system today is quite unlike that of the nine teenth century. both domestic and ¶ international.7 percent of U. these changes in the economy of violence mean that the ¶ international system is far more primed for peace than the autocratic revivalists This bleak outlook is based on an exaggeration of recent developments and ignores ¶ powerful countervailing factors and forces. about 1. employing substantially fewer people. Afghanistan. the contemporary liberal-centered international order provides a set of ¶ constraints and opportunities -. very large and highly mechanized farms predominate. ¶ A Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Those invoking the ¶ nineteenth century as a model for the twenty-first also fail to acknowledge the extent to which war as a path to conflict resolution and great-power expansion has become largely obsolete. agricultural sector has changed radically since the 1930s.

5 percent). there have been steadily fewer armed conflicts worldwide. after the terrible years of World Wars I and II. Sir ¶ Michael Quinlan. “Wow. In religious terms. Due to the equalizing threats of ¶ mutually assured destruction. “EXPLAINING 15 YEARS OF DIMINISHING VIOLENCE — The End of War?”. nearly uninterrupted decline beginning in 1991. But here is something you would never guess from watching the news: War has entered a cycle of decline. France.¶ Five years ago. the fact remains: nuclear weapons ¶ kept the superpower competition from becoming a war. They also found a steady global rise since the mid-’80s in factors that reduce armed conflict — economic prosperity. In fact.”¶ 17¶ Despite the close calls and the now almost ¶ inexplicable buildup of nuclear weapons by the superpowers. stable central governments. aptly observed: “Better a world with nuclear weapons but no major war. because this went against political expectations. But this was followed by a steady. since our distant forebears realized that a tree limb could be used as a club. perhaps. ¶ The violence-suppressive effect of nuclear weapons has not gone away with the end of the Cold ¶ War. A leading practitioner of the art of nuclear deterrence. it is possible that a person’s chance of dying because of war has. they found. 2001 was the year .wordpress. Somehow. Pakistan and Israel. massacres in Sudan.¶ 19 [___] 15 years of data prove a consistent statistical decrease in war Easterbrook 5 senior fellow at The New Republic. research director at the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University. despite all the “irrationalities” ascribed to each new member. India.” I expected that evidence of a decline in war would trigger a sensation. for the Center for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland [reports avaiable here]. Instead it received almost no notice. more “peacemaking institutions. I remember reading that report and thinking. two academics — Monty Marshall.(minus the Korean War. a global increase in war from the 1960s through the mid-’] Daily explosions in Iraq. the logic ¶ of nuclear deterrence holds fast.” and increased international engagement. 05 *Greg. the Pentagon’s favorite ¶ futurist) that (1) no state that has developed nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by another ¶ state and (2) no state armed with nuclear weapons has ever attacked another state similarly ¶ armed. ¶ Thus we have survived the democratic bomb and the totalitarian bomb. along with Deepa Khosla. the Confucian and Hindu bombs and the Islamic and Jewish bombs. a professor of government at the University of Maryland — spent months compiling all available data on the frequency and death toll of twentieth-century combat. which ¶ pushed fatalities up to 0. Instead. http://democraticpeace.” Marshall says. Barnett observes that the United States and the Soviet Union ¶ learned ¶ that nuclear weapons are for having and not using. a Hobbesian war of all against all in eastern Congo — combat plagues human society as it has. Noted Cold War deterrent theorist and Nobel economics laureate Thomas Schelling told a ¶ recent World Economic Forum retreat (according to Thomas Barnett. expecting to find an ever-worsening ledger of blood and destruction. as well as the ¶ capitalist bomb and the communist bomb. and Ted Robert Gurr. Marshall and Gurr. China.¶ 18¶ With his characteristic flair. At the time. They could not believe war was declining. ¶ The same logic has held—all these decades—for powers as diverse as the United ¶ Kingdom. Of course. become the lowest in human history. Peace and Conflict.¶ “After the first report came out. these devices cannot win wars but only prevent them. for about 15 years. in the last decade or more. we have survived the ¶ Christian and atheist bombs. this is one of the hottest things I have ever held in my hands. but everyone at the United Nations just laughed at us. with North Korea stepping up to the ¶ plate and Iran on deck. better communication. published their results as a 2001 report. the Koreas staring at each other through artillery barrels. we wanted to brief some United Nations officials. than ¶ one with major war but no nuclear weapons. Combat in Iraq and in a few other places is an exception to a significant global trend that has gone nearly unnoticed — namely that. free elections.

Mueller believes.+ One reason the Soviet Union was about to collapse.¶ In his prescient 1989 book. Combat is not an inevitable result of international discord and human malevolence. this theory has been right on the money. China. In such an atmosphere. perhaps scholars should ask why anyone should believe that it could not. shows that. from science and medicine to philosophy and religion. Rather than ask how major war could have grown obsolete. ethnic combat. pp. This even as the global population keeps rising. . nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented and (at least at this point) no foolproof defense against their use seems to be on the horizon. rather. the Philippines. which argues that fighting below the level of great-power conflict — small-state wars. in addition to predicting that the Soviet Union was about to collapse — the Berlin Wall fell just after the book was published — declared that great-nation war had become “obsolete” and might never occur again. spends relatively little on its military. and no society with war as its organizing principle can endure any longer.of September 11. is “merely an idea” — and a really bad idea. “A Revolution in International Relation Theory: Or What if Mueller Is Right?” International Studies Review. are the lone area of human interaction immune to fundamental evolution and that. due to these immutable and eternal rules. it is not difficult to imagine that attitudes toward the venerable institution of war may also have experienced rapid evolution and that its obsolescence could become plausible. and elsewhere that were ignited by Islamist terrorism and the West’s response. Retreat from Doomsday and The Remnants of War are brilliantly original and urgent books. showed the total number of wars and armed conflicts continued to decline. like dueling or slavery. War. civil wars. Mueller wrote. *A related article by Mueller is here. though prone to making threatening statements about Taiwan. strategist for two year at the US Naval War College. and clashes among private armies — is also waning. It is worth noting that the first emerging great power of the new century. The combination of forces that may have brought major war to an end seems to be unlikely to allow its return. all these proposed explanations have one important point in common: they all imply that change will be permanent. The complexity of economic interdependence is deepening as time goes on and going at a quicker pace. war will always be with us. [___] Permanent psychological evolution checks major war Fettweis 2006. A third edition of the study. The Remnants of War. Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at Tulane University. published in 2003. obviously. perhaps even probable. And.¶ Last year Mueller published a follow-up book. was that its leaders had structured Soviet society around the eighteenth-century assumption of endless great-power fighting. the overall decline of war continues. But. but great-power war had become archaic. a second edition of Peace and Conflict. Retreat from Doomsday. for instance. Ohio State University political scientist John Mueller. despite the battles in Afghanistan. which might be expected to lead to more war. for slavery or dueling to return in this century. 2006 (Christopher J. including the rules of war. published last week. not less. 677-697) Almost as significant. So far. in spite of thousands of years of violent precedent. The burden of proof would seem to be on those who maintain that the "rules of the game" of international politics. despite the invasion of Iraq and other outbreaks of fighting.. Normative/ideational evolution is typically unidirectional—few would argue that it is likely. The twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented pace of evolution in all areas of human endeavor.

'Nuclear Winter' never existed outside of a computer except as air-brushed animation commissioned by the a PR firm .500 hectares or larger . Fortunately . but history is full of prophets of doom who fail to deliver. I'm also . not all are without honor in their own land. Their past mastery of semantic agression cannot spare the authors of "Nuclear Winter Lite " direct comparison of their new results and their old. Today he edits Science . Los Angeles..Porter Novelli Inc. http://adamant. I'm also a member of the National Association of Science Writers. Despite decades of progress in modeling atmospheric chemistry . stratospheric smoke injections arise but once in a blue moon.¶ Below. a case illustrating the mid-range of the ~. Science's news coverage of the new results fails to graphically compare them with the old ones Editor Kennedy and other recent executives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. where though every month sees forest fires burning areas the size of cities .¶ Dark smoke clouds in the lower atmosphere don't last long enough to spread across the globe. soot from software materializes in midair by the megaton . They're worth comparing. Yet Sagan predicted "the extinction of the human species " as temperatures plummeted 35 degrees C and the world froze in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust.grey skies do not a Ragnarok make . This is not physics.[___] Models disprove nuclear war theory -. But the Cold War is history in more ways than one." Among the authors was Stanford President Donald Kennedy. Cloud droplets and rainfall remove them. I've written a few books and numerous technical articles.¶ The new studies like the old suffer from the disconnect between a desire to paint the sky black and the vicissitudes of natural history.not even a single degree of cooling results when soot is released at lower elevations in he models . because the range of soot concentrations in the new models overlaps with cases assumed to have dire climatic consequences in the widely publicized 1983 scenarios -. “The' Nuclear Winter ' Meltdown Photoshopping the Apocalypse”. but i the real one remains a very different place. and created the Skeptoid podcast. there is none in this computer simulation.3 degrees of average cooling. by sparing it from realistic attrition by rainout in the lower atmosphere." wrote Sagan in Foreign Affairs . It is a credit to post-modern computer climate simulations that they do not reproduce the apocalyptic results of what Sagan oxymoronically termed "a sophisticated one dimensional model.their evidence is falsfied Seitz 6 – former associate of the John M. don't bet on it. ¶ But the real world is subject to Murphy's lesser known second law. In 2006 as in 1983 firestorms and forest fires that send smoke into the stratosphere rise to alien prominence in the modelers re-imagined world . claiming it prudent to assume the worst. As with many exercise in worst case models both at invoke rare phenomena as commonplace. Sagan's cohort tried to reanimate the ghost in a machine anti-nuclear activists invoked in the depths of the Cold War. gospel out' parameter forcing designed to maximize and extend the cooling an aeosol can generate. The 1983 'Nuclear Winter " papers in Science were so politicized that even the eminently liberal President of The Council for a Liveable World called "The worst example ofthe misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory. 1983 ." The subzero 'baseline case' has melted down into a tepid 1.2. I decided to put this experience to good use. My only academic credential that bears any scrutiny is in Writing for Film and Television from University of California.7 to ~1. Last year.pressure altitudes of 300 millibar and higher .html) All that remains of Sagan's Big Chill are curves such as this . and ignoring photochemistry further extends its impact. Once again. Real world weather brings down particles much as soot is scrubbed out of power plant smoke by the water sprays in smoke stack scrubbers Robock acknowledges this. But that "evidence" was never forthcoming. By profession I am a computer scientist. flying higher than Mount Everest .if everything must go wrong. once proudly co-authored and helped to publicize."Apocalyptic predictions require. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs (Russell. rapidly washing them out of the sky in a matter of days to weeks. The workaround is to inject the imaginary aerosol at truly Himalayan elevations .¶ You can't say they didn't try to reproduce this Cold War icon. to be taken seriously. both as a Silicon Valley CTO and as a consulting engineer.not long enough to sustain a global pall. where the computer model's vertical transport function modules pass it off to their even higher neighbors in the stratosphere . but a crude exercise in ' garbage in. Winter 1983 -84. the nation's major arbiter of climate science--and policy.6 degree C maximum cooling the 2006 studies suggest is superimposed in color on the Blackly Apocalyptic predictions published in Science Vol. the history of science is as hard to erase as it is easy to ignore. So how come these neo-nuclear winter models feature so much smoke so far aloft for so long? [___] Hiroshima and large-scale volcanic eruptions prove smoke will dissipate after hours and the effect won’t be global Dunning 11 (Brian.typepad. by re-running equally arbitrary scenarios on a modern interactive Global Circulation Model. I also have a credential that doesn't bear any scrutiny — and you'll find it at Thunderwood College.¶ It is hard to exaggerate how seriously " nuclear winter "was once taken by policy analysts who ought to have known better. where it does not rain and particles linger. higher standards of evidence than do assertions on other matters where the stakes are not as great. Many were taken aback by the sheer force of Sagan's rhetoric ¶ Remarkably. 222. What remains is just not the stuff that End of the World myths are made

¶ But what about the two cases when atomic weapons were used on real-life cities. The smaller individual smoke plumes. leaving over 8 square kilometers destroyed. a layer of clay found all around the world. when all the variables are at their least favorable.¶ Other cataclysmic events have proven that the nuclear winter scenario is not at all far-fetched. According to the worst-case estimates in the TTAPS papers. even though theoretically enough smoke was produced. The United States' conventional capability is now so good that it can effectively destroy an entire nation's ability to wage large-scale war overnight. Secondary fires were widespread. Times continue to change. it's much less clear that any superpower would necessarily have anyone to shoot back at. Carl Sagan discussed this error in his book The Demon-Haunted World. But Nagasaki's geography meant that there were far fewer fires than in Hiroshima. bringing Mutually Assured Destruction into play. while the nuclear winter scenario is a good prediction of the effects of a worst-case scenario.¶ When the Iraqi army set 700 of Kuwait's oil wells on fire when they retreated in 1991. using only conventional weapons. about one million tons of smoke would be expected from the fires resulting from each nuclear strike. The eruption of Mt. non-superpower nations are building nuclear stockpiles. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Discussion of the subsequent fires in both cities are hard to come by. Smaller regional nuclear wars remain a very real possibility.¶ Pinatubo was only a blip compared the the K-T extinction event of some 65 million years ago. Let's look at what we know from history. Nuclear tests are not performed in cities filled with tens of thousands of combustible buildings. And these smaller regional nuclear combats are expected to use about 50 nuclear weapons (compare this to 150 nuclear weapons for a broader global nuclear war). will affect the climate and for how long. This temperature drop did not. and Nagasaki firefighters had to cope with a damaged water system. but the effect remained localized. also in 1991. and the fire was almost completely out. The TTAPS team predicted global climate change effects. lighting virtually the entire world on fire. It took several days to get the many small structure fires controlled or burned out. Israel's foes might surprise it with nuclear weapons. nearly everything combustible within a one-and-a-half kilometer radius had been consumed. We know with pretty good certainty how a given amount of smoke in the atmosphere. they happen way out in the desert or over the ocean. threw some 17 million tons of particulates into the upper atmosphere that caused global temperatures to drop by about a degree for several months. lofting about a million tons of smoke into the atmosphere. today's most likely nuclear scenario would be expected to produce climate effects similar to three Pinatubo events. but what we can only guess at is how much smoke is produced when a city burns after a nuke. when a theorized asteroid hit us with one hundred million megatons of destructive force. which caused a massive cascading extinction of species from plants to herbivores to carnivores. Sunlight dropped by 10%. In none of them were any harmful smoke-induced environmental effects produced. as they were not really what people were focusing on. and later research discovered the reason. spread over a wide area. but it seems likely that several hundred or thousand small fires continued for the better part of 24 hours. however. somewhat less than half of which were in the atmosphere and are comparable to what would be used in a war.000 nuclear bombs have been detonated. Again. Nations no longer stockpile the megaton class weapons popular in the 1950s and 1960s. according to the worst estimates. Descriptions of residual and secondary fires outside the radius of the firestorm are rare and hard to find. including the nature of warfare.¶ Increasingly. distributed a certain way. did not generate sufficient uplift to get the smoke into the upper atmosphere. “Nuclear War and Nuclear Winter. typical yields now are a fraction of a megaton. Pinatubo in the Philippines. Six hours after the explosion. But that doesn't mean the nuclear forces are no longer needed. Our guesses are educated. and still many orders of magnitude less than the K-T extinction. have any long-term effect on agriculture. Photographs taken of Hiroshima over the next few days do not show any significant evidence of vast amounts of smoke. Hiroshima developed a firestorm — where it builds into a single large fire with a central heat core that draws in oxygen with a powerful wind from all around — that peaked two to three hours after the explosion.¶ And so. However the reason for this is quite simple. the wells burned for eight So here we get into the meat of the question. Should a superpower strike first against the United States with nuclear weapons. Nagasaki is irregularly shaped among hills and valleys. But what about a small nation striking first? What about nukes in the trunks of cars parked in major cities? In the modern era. the post-nuke photographs don't show vast atmospheric plumes of smoke.” http://skeptoid. the response would more than likely be nuclear. Thus. Temperatures did drop over the Persian Gulf. but its geography spared it a firestorm.¶ ¶ Nagasaki was hit with a larger bomb. and cleft by a large harbor. and no subsequent fires are created. Who knows what North Korea and Iran might do. ¶ An obvious question to ask is whether these effects have been seen with any of the nuclear tests that many nations have conducted. Cities also vary wildly in just about every relevant aspect.¶ ¶ But we shouldn't expect anything like this to happen from a nuclear war. India and Pakistan might get into it with one another. Whereas Hiroshima is centered in a large flat plain. that fortunately failed to materialize. Some 2. but they're all over the of the featured bloggers on SkepticBlog. the strongest . The evidence of this is called the K-T boundary. Sunlight was reduced by 10-20% for ten years. the official blog of the prospective TV series The Skeptologists which I host.

we have that they are a hugely abusive team repeatedly talking out of turn. and even those effects depend strongly on variables like whether the war happens during the growing season. which is clearly a worse impact than theirs of extinction. It’s not part of their plan. until it actually happens. when aff drops any argument. which is what we are currently trying to do. as a long-time debater as yourself will know. it is simply abusive to not allow us to run the multiple worlds argument. while a bomb in the mountains of Pakistan might create no fires at all. the only way they have tried to take it out has been by telling us our authors are bad. they didn’t answer that argu ment. They are being abusive by running a consultation CP and at the same time claiming that we have to answer why consultation CPs aren’t bad. Multiple worlds-it was an answer to their argument how we advocate extinction in their plan and not our counterplan. we need to go extinct for the better good of the world.. . and we have our own impact of destruction of the universe.probabilities favor a much less catastrophic nuclear autumn. They can’t run an argument on us that they can’t answer themselves. ands. not just humans above others. We also never said that unintelligent life would be valued-only intelligent. we are an entirely prejudiced species. Otherwise. we have only our own authoritative sources to listen to. The simple fact is that there are too many unpredictable variables to know what kind of climate effects the smoke following nuclear fires will produce. IF anything. they need to as well. While they may have impacts still standing. Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" Case We don’t need MTS-we clearly have enough trade already established to prevent the wars that they are advocating. without providing their own authors. and as you know. and if it ever happens. We did answer their theory-you can’t vote them up because they simply say we didn’t answer. Can’t perm CP-you can’t simply add an addendum to your plan during the round. Obviously we're all very mindful of the many terrible implications of nuclear combat. Our disad still stands. Also. We answered that it wasn’t abusive because it is entirely necessary for own survival. Without being able to run multiple worlds. we still have a CP. the negative loses far too much ground and far too many arguments. Disad-they still can’t simply tell us our authors are bad without providing their own authors. A bomb in Los Angeles might result in history's worst firestorm. we have our clearly superior theory. but I quite despair of setting the public record straight. it is necessary for the negative to be able to attack their plan on as many fronts asd possible. IT’s a wholy abusive argument forcing us to create new arguments against their new arguments that didn’t exist in their 1AC. the prospect of a nuclear autumn will likely be among the least of our concerns. No ifs. and we deserve the extinction impacts that are coming our way. We don’t need more trade to prevent something that is already prevented with the status quo. they simply lose. Not only is it a completely fair argument. If we need to answer why consultation CPs.. Not only is it not abusive to allow us to run this. they can’t simply take our arguments for their own to have in the round. The physicist Freeman Dyson perhaps described it best when he said "(TTAPS is) an absolutely atrocious piece of science. Without opposing authors. or buts-and that is what has happened. One way or another. and we need to value it all equally.