Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

GT Nuclear Power Affirmative
GT Nuclear Power Affirmative.............................................................................................................................1 ***TOPICALITY***............................................................................................................................................6 2AC AT: AE not Nuclear ......................................................................................................................................7 1AR EXT: AE not Nukes.......................................................................................................................................8 2AC AT: T Renewable...........................................................................................................................................9 1AR AT: Prefer Govt Def....................................................................................................................................10 2AC AT: ISPEC....................................................................................................................................................11 ***COUNTERPLANS***..................................................................................................................................12 2AC AT: States CP...............................................................................................................................................13 #1 EXT: Fed Licensing Key................................................................................................................................17 2AC AT: Fed + State CP......................................................................................................................................18 1AR EXT – Fed + State Fiat Illegit....................................................................................................................22 2AC AT: Efficiency + Plutonium Immobilization CP.......................................................................................25 2AC AT: Plutonium Immobilization CP............................................................................................................27 2AC AT: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CP...................................................................................................28 #2 EXT: Perm.......................................................................................................................................................34 #3 EXT: Can’t Solve Prolif..................................................................................................................................35 #3 EXT: Kills National Security.........................................................................................................................37 #9 EXT: Inequalities............................................................................................................................................38 CTBT Readiness DA (1/1)...................................................................................................................................39 EXT: CTBT Kills Safety......................................................................................................................................40 2AC AT PSI CP (1/2)............................................................................................................................................41 2AC AT PSI CP (2/2)............................................................................................................................................42 AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency.................................................................................................................43 AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Legality (1/2)......................................................................................44 AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Legality (2/2)......................................................................................45 AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Infrastructure.....................................................................................46 AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Support...............................................................................................47 2AC AT: IAEA CP................................................................................................................................................49 ***DISADS***.....................................................................................................................................................51 ***GENERIC DA ANSWERS............................................................................................................................52
1

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT Link Uniqueness – Nuke Licensing Now...........................................................................................................53 Link Uniqueness – Nuke Incentives Now..........................................................................................................54 Link Uniqueness – AE Incentives Now..............................................................................................................56 Link Uniqueness – Federal Spending Now........................................................................................................59 Nuke Energy Inevitable.......................................................................................................................................60 ***ELECTIONS..................................................................................................................................................61 2AC AT: McCain Good.......................................................................................................................................62 #2 EXT: Nuclear McCain.................................................................................................................................65 #2 EXT: McCain Linked to Nuclear..................................................................................................................67 #3 EXT: Nuclear Popular – Voters.....................................................................................................................68 Popular – Pennsylvania.......................................................................................................................................70 Popular – Michigan..............................................................................................................................................71 #4 EXT: Not Divisive...........................................................................................................................................72 2AC AT: Elections - Obama Good......................................................................................................................73 1AR EXT – Obama Good....................................................................................................................................78 #1 EXT: Not Divisive...........................................................................................................................................81 Unpopular – Nevada............................................................................................................................................82 CO, NV, NM Key..................................................................................................................................................83 Nuclear Obama.................................................................................................................................................84 ***AGENDA POLITICS....................................................................................................................................85 2AC AT: OCS Bad................................................................................................................................................86 2AC AT: OCS Good.............................................................................................................................................89 2AC AT: COFTA Bad..........................................................................................................................................93 2AC AT: COFTA Good........................................................................................................................................97 Popular - Bipartisan..........................................................................................................................................100 Popular – Republicans.......................................................................................................................................102 Popular – Democrats.........................................................................................................................................103 Unpopular – Democrats....................................................................................................................................105 Unpopular – Pelosi.............................................................................................................................................107 Yucca Unpopular – Reid....................................................................................................................................108 ***ECONOMY..................................................................................................................................................109 2AC AT: Fiscal Discipline DA...........................................................................................................................110
2

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 2AC AT: Fiscal Discipline DA (If No Econ Adv).............................................................................................112 1AR EXT: Fiscal Discipline DA (If No Econ Adv)..........................................................................................115 ***TRADE..........................................................................................................................................................118 2AC AT: WTO DA.............................................................................................................................................119 ***FOSSIL FUELS............................................................................................................................................122 2AC AT: Natural Gas – Russia DA...................................................................................................................123 Natural Gas - Indonesia.....................................................................................................................................127 2AC AT: Railroads DA......................................................................................................................................129 2AC AT: Australian Relations DA....................................................................................................................132 2AC AT: Clean Coal DA....................................................................................................................................135 ***RENEWABLES............................................................................................................................................137 2AC AT: Renewables Good (1/2)......................................................................................................................138 2AC AT: Renewables Good (2/2)......................................................................................................................139 ***KRITIKS***................................................................................................................................................140 2AC: Plan Focus Good......................................................................................................................................141 2AC AT: Heidegger............................................................................................................................................142 1AR EXT: Heidegger.........................................................................................................................................146 2AC AT: Security K...........................................................................................................................................148 2AC: Eco-Managerialism..................................................................................................................................151 #4 EXT: Perm.....................................................................................................................................................153 #5 EXT: Science Key..........................................................................................................................................155 Aff Turns K.........................................................................................................................................................156 Enviro Action Key..............................................................................................................................................158 2AC AT: Prolif K................................................................................................................................................159 Alt Can’t Solve – Nukes Inevitable..................................................................................................................161 Alt Homogenizes.................................................................................................................................................163 Alt Securitization............................................................................................................................................164 AT Prolif K Case Turn (1/1)..............................................................................................................................165 Reps Focus Kills Reform...................................................................................................................................166 ***2AC ADD-ONS***.......................................................................................................................................167 US-Russian Relations........................................................................................................................................168 Recycling ↓ Prolif and ↑ Leadership................................................................................................................169
3

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT Nucs ↑ Russia-US Relations ............................................................................................................................170 Shared Goals US-Russia Relations...............................................................................................................171 Biz Con................................................................................................................................................................173 Competitiveness..................................................................................................................................................175 ***CASE***.......................................................................................................................................................179 ***Econ...............................................................................................................................................................180 AT: Expensive.....................................................................................................................................................181 AT: Market Solves..............................................................................................................................................182 AT: Econ Resilient..............................................................................................................................................183 AT: No Impact....................................................................................................................................................184 ***Prolif..............................................................................................................................................................185 AT Waste Disposal Prolif...............................................................................................................................186 EXT: GT-MHRs Solve.......................................................................................................................................187 AT NRC Strain  Prolif (1/1)..........................................................................................................................188 AT Unilateral Approach Solves (1/1)................................................................................................................189 AT Unilateral Approach Solves Extensions – International Cooperation....................................................190 AT Unilateral Approach Solves Extensions –Arms Control..........................................................................191 AT Nuclear Power = Cover for Nukes (1/1).....................................................................................................192 AT Terrorism Turns Case (1/1).........................................................................................................................193 AT No Impact to Prolif (1/1).............................................................................................................................194 US Nuke Power Key - Prolif..............................................................................................................................195 ***NPT................................................................................................................................................................196 2AC AT: Israel DA.............................................................................................................................................197 2AC AT: Bioweapons.........................................................................................................................................199 2AC AT: Opaque Prolif.....................................................................................................................................200 AT Opaque Proliferation Turn (1/2).................................................................................................................200 AT Opaque Proliferation Turn (2/2).................................................................................................................201 AT NPT Strong now (1/1)..................................................................................................................................202 AT NPT Strong now Extensions.......................................................................................................................203 AT US Commitment High (1/1)........................................................................................................................204 AT US Commitment doesn’t solve (1/1)...........................................................................................................205 AT Other Treaties Key (1/1)..............................................................................................................................206
4

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT AT Other Treaties Key Extensions ..................................................................................................................207 AT Inspector Overstretch (1/1).........................................................................................................................208 AT Inspections Fail Now....................................................................................................................................209 AT NPT  Prolif (1/2).......................................................................................................................................211 AT NPT  Prolif (2/2).......................................................................................................................................212 AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to nonprolif (1/2)............................................................................213 AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to nonprolif (2/2)............................................................................214 AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to security.......................................................................................215 AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to norms..........................................................................................216 .............................................................................................................................................................................216 AT Article Six Commitment Key (1/2).............................................................................................................217 AT Article Six Commitment Key (2/2).............................................................................................................218 AT Proliferation Inevitable (1/1).......................................................................................................................219 AT Security more important than norms (1/1)................................................................................................220 AT Security more important than norms extensions......................................................................................221 AT NPT Discriminatory (1/2)............................................................................................................................222 AT NPT Discriminatory (2/2)............................................................................................................................223 ***GNEP?..........................................................................................................................................................224 GNEP FYI...........................................................................................................................................................225 AT: GNEP Bad/Unnecessary.............................................................................................................................226 AT: GNEP Exclusionary....................................................................................................................................227 ***Waste Disposal..............................................................................................................................................229 Burial solves........................................................................................................................................................230 Sea disposal – solves ..........................................................................................................................................231 Storage solves – water & soil.............................................................................................................................233 Storage solves & carbon waste is worse ..........................................................................................................234 Storage solves – safety ......................................................................................................................................235 ***Solvency........................................................................................................................................................236 AT Earthquakes.................................................................................................................................................237

5

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***TOPICALITY***

6

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: AE not Nuclear
1. Not exclusive- their card says alternative energy includes wind and solar, its not an exhaustive list – it has no intent to define, its talking about RPS legislation 2. The USFG says alternative energy includes nuclear power Winter 07 (Drew, EJ Magazine, “Nuclear Renaissance”, http://www.ejmagazine.com/2007b/pdfs/nuclear.pdf) The reason for the sudden interest in nuclear power is due largely to a streamlined licensing process and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The act, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., grants numerous subsidies to utilities building nuclear power plants. These plants are listed as an alternative energy source along with wind, solar and other so-called green options. Subsidies include up to $125 million in annual tax credit, an 80 percent loan on construction costs and other benefits for reactors using new technology.

3. Alternative energy is anything different from fossil fuels. Henderson, 06 - University of Baltimore (Lenneal, “Alternative Energy: Public Policy Dynamics,” Delivered at the Conference on Alternative
Energy, Auburn University at Montgomery, October 24, 2006, http://www.eng.auburn.edu/altenergy/ppt/Henderson-Public.ppt) •Alternative energy: any alternative to conventional fossil fuel use •Includes fuel source: active, passive, photovoltaic solar; wind; geothermal; biomass; biofuels (switchgrass, biodiesel, ethanol, etc.); nuclear

4. Prefer our interpretation A. Brightline –anything that uses fossil fuels is un-topical—decreases judge intervention. The negatives interpretation is arbitrary – it includes anything but nuclear power, making the topic limitless. B. Limits – the negative’s interpretation limits out nuclear power –the core of the topic. Adding nuclear power doesn’t explode the topic—only adds one more case and we’re limited to cases with good federal key warrants C. Predictability – nuclear power is the most predictable source of alternative energy – it’s been around for the longest and has the biggest literature base. Their definition refers to alternative energy facilities, which are different from forms of alternative energy. D. Education – learning about nuclear power is key to resolve the global warming crisis. Coal produces the most greenhouse gases of any fossil fuel and nuclear power can directly solve coal usage. 5. Competing interpretations bad: They lead to a race to the bottom, which turns education – default to reasonability 6. Potential abuse is not a voter – it’s like voting on a potential DA

7

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

1AR EXT: AE not Nukes
No unlimiting- there are already many areas of alternative energy, no impact to adding nuke power Its predictable- the Energy Policy Act and a congressional committee consider nuke power as alternative energy – that’s Winter Mechanism debate inevitable- they already have to prep incentives and licensing Still get DA’s- the plan gives incentives- spending and tradeoff links apply State Counterplan - few cases will have defenses of the USFG being key, this limits the topic Our Offense Arbitrary- they have no basis for excluding nuke power, this hurts aff preparation and justifies counter interpretation only our case is topical, predictable definitions are key- their card has no intent to define and isn’t exclusive, this outweighs neg ground Education- excluding nuclear power impoverishes our understanding of key alternative energies, and stops cases that are essential to core education on the topic Good is good enough- if they can’t prove a meaningful loss of ground vote aff, competing interpretations is a bad framework- unfairly advantages the neg, causes substance trade off, discourages research and innovation

8

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: T Renewable
1. Their evidence just says alternative energy is not fossil fuels – means we meet 2. Nuclear energy is renewable – mathematically proven
Bernard L. Cohen, prof- physics, University of Pittsburgh, 1983. “Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source”

http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf

If we were to withdraw uranium at a rate R, the differential equation for Q would become dQ/dt = S – R – Q, 0 0leading to an equilibrium Q = (S – R)/ = Q(1 – R/S), where Q is the present value of Q. This equilibrium would be approached with a time constant of 140 000 yr. The cost of uranium extraction should be approximately inversely proportional to Q, so if we allow the cost to double, R = S/2 = 1.6×10 tonne/yr. We thus can4 withdraw 16 000 tonne/yr of uranium from seawater continuously for hundreds of millions of years. This is enough to produce 16 000 GWe or 480 quadrillion BTU per year, which is 25 times the world’s present electricity usage, and twice the world’s present total energy consumption. In view of the geological cycles of erosion, subduction, and uplift, this process could continue until a large fraction of the uranium in the Earth’s crust, 6.5×10 tonne, is consumed. If we assume that half of that quantity, 3.2×10 tonne, is to be consumed over the remaining 5×10 years of the existence of life on Earth, the9 annual usage could be 6500 tonne/yr. This is enough to produce 6500 GWe, or 200 quadrillion BTU/yr, which is approximately 10 times the world’s present electricity consumption, and approximately equal to the world’s present total energy consumption. Note that at this consumption rate, R = 6500 tonne/yr, R/S = 6500/3.2× 10 = 0.2, and 4 0 0Q = Q(1 – R/S) = 0.8 Q, so the concentration of uranium in the seas would decrease by only 25%. If one used the exact same extraction plant and procedures, one would end up with 80% as much product, so the price of uranium would rise by 25%. Actually one would reoptimize the plant and procedures, so the price would rise by less than 25%. We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining 5×10 yr of existence of life on Earth could be9 provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in which that term is generally used. 3. Counter-interpretation - alternative energy is anything different from fossil fuels – this includes nuclear Henderson, 06 - University of Baltimore (Lenneal, “Alternative Energy: Public Policy Dynamics,” Delivered at the Conference on Alternative Energy, Auburn University at Montgomery, October 24, 2006, http://www.eng.auburn.edu/altenergy/ppt/HendersonPublic.ppt) •Alternative energy: any alternative to conventional fossil fuel use •Includes fuel source: active, passive, photovoltaic solar; wind; geothermal; biomass; biofuels (switchgrass, biodiesel, ethanol, etc.); nuclear 4. Brightline – the counter-interpretation has a clear brightline between what’s topical and what’s not topical – anything that uses fossil fuels is un-topical. The negative’s interpretation is arbitrary and creates an artificial limit on the topic which leads to unfair debate 5. Limits – The neg interpretation just limits out nuclear power, allowing fossil fuel cases to be run. Adding nuclear power doesn’t explode the topic, it’s just one more case and we’re limited to incentives with good federal key warrants 6. Double bind – either no case meets because even windmills use up natural resources and the sun will eventually run out – OR we meet because uranium lasts for a long time and nuclear power doesn’t emit any carbon 7. Competing interpretations bad: They lead to a race to the bottom, which turns education – default to reasonability 8. Potential abuse is not a voter – it’s like voting on a potential DA

9

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

1AR AT: Prefer Govt Def Government definitions are bad because it includes conventional energy like natural gas, hydrogen, or fusion. National Energy Policy Development Group, 01 - chaired by Dick Cheney and composed of Bush’s cabinet (“Increasing America’s Use of Renewable and Alternative Energy”, Chapter 6, “Nature’s Power”, May, http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Chapter6.pdf)\\TM
Alternative energy includes: alternative fuels that are transportation fuels other than gasoline and diesel, even when the type of energy, such as natural gas, is traditional; the use of traditional energy sources, such as natural gas, in untraditional ways, such as for distributed energy at the point of use through microturbines or fuel cells; and future energy sources, such as hydrogen and fusion.

10

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: ISPEC 1. We meet: We specify POSTIVE financial aid 2. Counter interpretation: The affirmative must specify all incentive—solves their limits argument. 3. CX and the 1AC checks: Our plan specifies a breadbasket of financial incentives. No abuse because we can’t shift away from the incentives concretely described in the 1AC. 4. Prefer our interpretation a. Ground: Allows the neg to run a more diverse set of arguments rather than making a counterplan focused on the type of positive financial incentive. Also allows other b. Limits: Specifying not only financial incentives increases specificity of the debate. c. Education: Reading the plan increase education on how the specific financial incentives function in context with the affirmative.

11

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***COUNTERPLANS***

12

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: States CP
1. Federal licensing key – ONLY the federal government can implement the streamlined licensing process which is key to the construction of new plants – incentives alone fail – that’s Ferguson and Squassoni 2. Federal licensing overcomes investor doubt
Department Of Energy 1/10/05 ( “MOVING FORWARD WITH NUCLEAR POWER: ISSUES AND KEY FACTORS ,” Final Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Nuclear Energy Task Force http://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/NETF_Final_Draft_0105.pdf) It is highly unlikely that there will be new nuclear plants constructed in the United States unless there is effective leadership in dealing with our national energy needs over the next few years. Although there is strong justification for moving forward with nuclear power, and although a streamlined regulatory and legal framework for such construction is largely in place, nothing constructive will happen without strong leadership in a number of areas. The information provided to the NETF has confirmed that there is an interest in the private sector in new plant construction, although some additional government actions must take place before the first plants will be constructed. In this connection, the electricity industry must clarify its needs and prioritize its requests. In particular, the nuclear industry must also convey information to Federal policy makers in clear, sharply defined terms with specific recommendations for dealing with both the problems and the opportunities presented. The industry must recognize that the Federal government should not and cannot eliminate all the risks and vagaries of the energy markets for them. The utilities must develop a reasonable consensus position and present those needs clearly to the Administration and Congress for action. In this connection, we believe the most critical needs include some assistance to offset the higher capital costs associated with the first few nuclear plants, and establishment of regulatory and economic conditions that will make the first few projects viable and attractive to potential investors in both the equity and the debt markets, along with conditions that allow participants in those markets to finance the plants. These issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and Appendix A. The providers of electrical energy to the nation’s homes and industry (i.e., the generating companies) are providing some of the critical initiative for moving forward. But their vision and commitment must be conveyed beyond corporate boardroom and trade association meetings and must also impact the public arena. The nuclear industry must undertake a vigorous and continuing communications program to make the case to the American public that nuclear power is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective part of our energy network and must continue to be a significant part of the growth of our energy supply. Of course, any such program must be based on a continued commitment to safe, reliable, and secure operations. The principal contribution that government can make to the process is to provide, maintain, and support a regulatory and legal environment that eliminates needless uncertainty and delay from initiation of construction through plant startup. Much has already been accomplished in this direction over recent years, but it is becoming apparent that some additional action is required. Leadership from the Administration and Congress is necessary to encourage investment in new construction. Although there is bipartisan support for nuclear power within the membership of both the House and Senate, there is some conflict within the leadership ranks. Consideration of energy supply issues should serve as a stimulus to resolve these differences. In this time of concern about energy security, it is imperative that the President, the key members of the Administration, and Congressional leaders, come together to create an effective national program and a plan for its legislative implementation. We urge that the President identify this as a critical priority for the nation and that the Congress take the necessary steps to meet this priority. The following key areas must be addressed by the policy leaders. • A clear commitment to a national energy policy that includes recognition that nuclear power provides a reliable, stable contribution to energy availability and energy security without adverse environmental consequences. • Resolution of current issues associated with the disposition of spent fuel. • A reasonable level of Federal involvement to enable private-sector engagement in new construction. As discussed above, this would involve Federal policies to reduce fears that there might be devastating delays imposed by the legal process in the completion or startup of new plants, to address the higher costs of first units that are constructed, and to level the playing field for nuclear power with respect to other non-carbon-dioxide-emitting sources.

13

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 3. Courts will strike down – violates commerce clause Steven Ferrey, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, and in 2003 was Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, March 2006, “Renewable Orphans: Adopting Legal Renewable Standards at the State Level.” The Electricity Journal, 19:2.
There are serious Constitutional trip-wires lurking before some of innovative state initiatives. While the many varied state programs create wonderful laboratories for experimentation, only by fostering renewable energy without Constitutional violations can the energy future be founded on a sustainable base. Some of the states through these initiatives treat interstate power sales as a piggy bank to subsidize in-state enterprises, while beggaring their neighbors. The U.S. Supreme Court consistently strikes down as unconstitutional similar programs involving interstate goods taxed by states so as to provide local subsidy. This article parses which of the key state renewable energy initiatives commit Constitutional violations and are not legally sustainable, and how to remedy this so that these renewable programs aren’t orphaned by legal challenge.

4. Can’t solve prolif – the federal government needs to build the plants in order to gain the understanding necessary for ensuring that other countries are not misusing the technology AND states can’t access NPT cred only federal spending can send a big enough signal 5. Perm – do both - Gets double solvency and solves the link to politics
Adler 07, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, (Jonathan H., “WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ACTION ON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION”, 31 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 67, Lexis) Third, policy-makers are, to some extent, utility maximizers such that, all else equal, they will invest in policies that provide the greatest benefits and lowest costs to them. n139 Insofar as state policy-makers "share" responsibility for some environmental concerns with their federal counterparts, it may be difficult for them to secure the benefits of their efforts. n140 Relatedly, information about the relative activities of the federal and state governments and their relative merits is costly to the average voter where both the state and federal governments are active. As a result, it may be difficult for policy-makers to get credit for all of the policies they promote or implement. n141 This is one reason why some argue that cooperative federalism undermines accountability. When both the federal government and the states are involved, it is more difficult for a voter to know who to credit or blame for a given policy. n142 Because it is easier for a state policy-maker [*105] to get credit for a policy when the state does not compete with the federal government in the provision of that policy goal, all else being equal, a state policy-maker will prefer to legislate where the federal government is less active.

6. Perm – do the plan and have every state but California fund

14

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 7. California’s budget is on the brink of collapse – increased spending devastates regulations San Jose Mercury News 7-11-2008 (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9848677)
If nothing else, the California budget imbroglio has brought the Capitol's stark ideological conflict - very liberal Democrats vs. very conservative Republicans and no more than a handful of even semi-moderates - into razor-sharp focus. With the Democrats now insisting on more than $8 billion in new taxes, mostly on business and the affluent, to cover much of the state's whopping budget deficit, and Republicans rejecting them as damaging to the state's struggling economy, the stage is set for a cage fight. And that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The ideological warriors have been sparring for years, but each year have avoided a toe-to-toe slugfest over taxes and permanent spending cuts by conjuring up new accounting gimmicks or ways to borrow money. 'Line in the sand' However, this year, with the structural deficit magnified by recession, the dueling factions seem poised to settle it once and for all. "We don't want another temporary fix," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said Wednesday as he and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass described their budget, financed largely with new taxes, as a "line in the sand." "We can't cut any more," Bass said. "This budget defines what Democrats say we need to do to keep California on an even keel." The Democratic budget not only raises taxes by $8.2 billion a year, mostly by adding higher income tax rates for upper-income taxpayers, but it restores many of the spending reductions that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed in May. And that, Republicans say, makes the Democratic budget a nonstarter - which is no idle threat since at least some GOP votes would be needed to pass both the budget and any new taxes. Assemblyman Roger Niello of Sacramento, a Republican point man on the budget, described it as "a massive tax increase in a very weak economy" and "a dysfunctional solution." But he and other GOP lawmakers haven't been willing to get specific on their spending cuts. And where's the governor? This vague reaction implies that he's wandering in no-man's land as legislators prepare for political war: "You have to be open-minded, and that's the only way we can get a compromise done. So, I'm open-minded, but I'm against tax increases." Without a budget, California will run out of cash in another month or so, unable to pay the bills it could legally pay and probably forced to float a short-term, high-interest loan. But despite the hoopla, the lack of a budget is less important than bringing this perpetual, tiresome wrangle to at least a semi-permanent conclusion, no matter how long it takes. Democrats contend their budget does that with billions of dollars in permanent new taxes. But if enacted, it could spawn even worse problems because it increases the state's reliance on volatile income taxes on the affluent. Under fixed spending formulas, especially for education, an economic recovery could send revenues soaring in a few years, locking in higher levels of spending that could not be sustained when the economy cooled again.

8. California is key to the US economy Ray Haynes, California Assembly member representing Riverside and Temecula, 9-2-2003; “Who’s Dragging Down Who?”,
http://theamericashow.net/archives/Columns/Haynes/20030902HaynesDragging.html I think it is important people know what is happening in California government. One in seven people who live in the United States live in California. California constitutes ten per cent of the entire national economy, and it is the fifth (or sixth or seventh or eighth) largest economy in the world (our ranking shrinks each year Davis stays in office). When California’s economy hiccups, it causes a national economic earthquake. A large, diverse, and powerful economic actor is important not just to those of us who live here, but to those who walk the halls of Washington power as well. Government at any level can’t do much to help the economy. The economy is driven by people’s needs and the endless effort of private companies to meet those needs. Government, however, can screw it up. Using tax and regulatory policy, and government subsidies, government impacts individual preferences by increasing the price of one product or service (or decreasing another), and shifting limited social resources to government-preferred activities. If these preferred activities aren’t beneficial to the economy as a whole, government causes the economy to falter. Jobs are lost, people are hurt, and the economy shrinks. Given these facts, it would be important to cover any government function that affects ten per cent of the economy. Sacramento should be the focus of a lot of media attention.

15

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 9. 50 State Fiat is illegitimate and a voting issue for the following reasons: 1. Not real world – the 50 states have no method of uniform policy action. It’s object fiat. 2. Their education claims are false: a. No policymaker can choose between USFG and state action b. Process debates detract from topic-specific education c. Federalism disads and state-specific turns solve their claims 3. No literature basis – there’s no evidence for or against the states acting together – and they’ll always have more specific state-key warrants 4. Infinitely regressive – justifies regional, local, and individual counterplans 5. Counter-interpretation – reciprocity – they can use the USFG or a part thereof to enact a policy – still gives them alternate agent ground

16

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#1 EXT: Fed Licensing Key
Cost support and licensing is key to nuclear expansion
Jim Dawson, writer for physics today, May 2005, Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force, Physics today, Volume 58, Issue 5, page 28, http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/28_1.shtml [Barber] Citing economics, climate change, and the projected growth in global energy demand, a US Department of Energy (DOE) task force cochaired by former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chairman Richard Meserve and former New Hampshire Governor John H. Sununu has recommended that the federal government help revitalize the US nuclear power industry by sharing the up-front costs of the first few of a new generation of nuclear power plants. After citing three decades of increasing efficiency, decreasing operating costs, and solid safety records at the 103 existing US nuclear power plants, the task force noted that "despite this . . . achievement, and the fact that nuclear power generation does not result in greenhouse gas emissions, no new US nuclear power plants have been ordered and subsequently built since 1973." Economic case To restart the nuclear industry, the authors of the report--the nuclear energy task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB)--say "there should be government-supported demonstration programs and financial incentives to overcome the uncertainties and economic hurdles that would otherwise prevent the first few new plants from being built." Their key recommendation is a cost-sharing program for "first-of-a-kind engineering" (FOAKE) costs "inherent in building the first facility of a new design." The task force recommended fifty-fifty cost sharing up to a maximum of $200 million in government money "for each of three major competing design types, with the secretary of energy being given discretion to select the types to be supported." While the report does not call the cost-sharing program a government loan to industry, it does say that much of the money could be repaid from the profits of future nuclear power plants built using the designs. Although the report is essentially a document making an economic case for government subsidies to restart the US civilian nuclear power industry, task force member C. Paul Robinson, the former director of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said the economic arguments "are just becoming very timely in terms of electrical needs. We have looked at all the alternatives and certainly if you believe in the threats of greenhouse gases, then it is important to have something that can produce electricity with good efficiency and cost, and be emission free." Another task force member, physicist Burton Richter, former director of SLAC, said that the FOAKE recommendation for cost sharing came because it "looks very much as if, once you get past the extra costs of a first-of-a-kind plant, then the costs of nuclear power are competitive with coal. That's a surprise to most people. If you can replace coal, you do good for air pollution, the economy, energy supply, and competitiveness." Richter noted that the US, along with the rest of the globe, is "due for a big expansion in electricity de8mand, and we're better off for environmental and other reasons if we do it with nuclear power instead of coal. Government should lead industry to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing." In addition to urging legislative support and funding for FOAKE, the task force made two other recommendations to help rejuvenate the nuclear power industry: * Early site permit and combined construction and operating license demonstration programs jointly funded by DOE and industry. In the past, one of the more significant barriers to new nuclear power plant construction was the two-step licensing process. The NRC issued a construction permit, and only after construction was substantially completed was an operating permit issued. Outside parties had numerous opportunities to intervene and delay or halt a project, which made the process of building a nuclear power plant a risky, high-stakes affair. The NRC has established a streamlined combined licensing procedure that significantly cuts the financial risk of building a nuclear plant, but the procedure has never been tested. The report recommends that DOE share the licensing costs with early applicants so that a real-world model can be developed.

17

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Fed + State CP
1. No Net Benefit – They still use the federal government that’s what their links are predicated off 2. Courts will strike down – violates commerce clause Steven Ferrey, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, and in 2003 was Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, March 2006, “Renewable Orphans: Adopting Legal Renewable Standards at the State Level.” The Electricity Journal, 19:2.
There are serious Constitutional trip-wires lurking before some of innovative state initiatives. While the many varied state programs create wonderful laboratories for experimentation, only by fostering renewable energy without Constitutional violations can the energy future be founded on a sustainable base. Some of the states through these initiatives treat interstate power sales as a piggy bank to subsidize in-state enterprises, while beggaring their neighbors. The U.S. Supreme Court consistently strikes down as unconstitutional similar programs involving interstate goods taxed by states so as to provide local subsidy. This article parses which of the key state renewable energy initiatives commit Constitutional violations and are not legally sustainable, and how to remedy this so that these renewable programs aren’t orphaned by legal challenge.

3. Can’t solve prolif – the federal government needs to build the plants in order to gain the understanding necessary for ensuring that other countries are not misusing the technology AND states can’t access NPT cred only federal spending can send a big enough signal 4. Perm: do both. Gets double solvency and solves the link to tix
Adler 07, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, (Jonathan H., “WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ACTION ON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION”, 31 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 67, Lexis) Third, policy-makers are, to some extent, utility maximizers such that, all else equal, they will invest in policies that provide the greatest benefits and lowest costs to them. n139 Insofar as state policy-makers "share" responsibility for some environmental concerns with their federal counterparts, it may be difficult for them to secure the benefits of their efforts. n140 Relatedly, information about the relative activities of the federal and state governments and their relative merits is costly to the average voter where both the state and federal governments are active. As a result, it may be difficult for policy-makers to get credit for all of the policies they promote or implement. n141 This is one reason why some argue that cooperative federalism undermines accountability. When both the federal government and the states are involved, it is more difficult for a voter to know who to credit or blame for a given policy. n142 Because it is easier for a state policy-maker [*105] to get credit for a policy when the state does not compete with the federal government in the provision of that policy goal, all else being equal, a state policy-maker will prefer to legislate where the federal government is less active.

18

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 5. State loans are insured by low yields, prevents lenders from building nuclear power plants – tanks solvency
EIA 07 (Energy Information Administration, Loan Guarantees and the Economics of Electricity Generating Technologies, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/eegt.html) In the electric power sector, the loan guarantee program could substantially affect the economics of new power plants, for three reasons. First, Federal loan guarantees would allow lenders to be reimbursed in cases of default, but only for certain electric power sector technologies. Consequently, they would be willing to provide loans for power plant construction at lower interest rates, which would reduce borrowing costs. For example, a number of private companies guarantee loans made by State and local governments. Such insured loans typically are rated AAA (very low risk) and therefore have relatively low yields. Indeed, municipalities purchase such insurance because the decrease in interest rate is greater than the insurance premiums. Second, firms typically finance construction projects by using a capital structure that consists of a mix of debt (loans) and equity (funds supplied from the owners of the firm). Debt financing usually is less expensive than equity financing, and up to some point, the average cost of capital (the weighted average cost of debt and equity financing) can be reduced by substituting debt for equity financing. (The substitution of debt for equity is called leveraging.) After that point, however, projects financed with large amounts of debt can be very risky, and additional debt financing can increase the average cost of capital rather than lower it. Thus, there are constraints on the use of leverage. In many industries, capital structures tend to include 40 to 60 percent debt. With loan guarantees, however, the risks of highly leveraged projects are shifted to the guarantor, and more leveraging can be used to reduce the average cost of capital for construction projects. Federal loan guarantees also can allow potential sponsors to participate in one or more major projects while avoiding the risk of possible failure, which might be caused by factors such as construction cost overruns or lower than expected electricity prices and, potentially, could threaten the financial viability of the sponsoring firm. To avoid this problem, beginning in the 1990s, many firms used project financing to build electric power plants, including a number of merchant natural-gas-fired plants that were built in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Under project financing, a power plant under construction is treated as if it were owned by a separate entity whose sole asset is that new power plant. Thus, the loan is secured only by the new plant. This is also referred to as non-recourse financing. Because lenders for the plant’s construction have claims only on the power plant in case of default, the project’s risk is quarantined. That is, the lenders have no claims on the firm’s other assets in case of default, and the project’s failure will have only limited effect on the firm’s creditworthiness and overall financial health. From the firm’s perspective, there are clear advantages to using project financing. From the lender’s perspective, however, project (non-recourse) financing can be very risky, especially if the project is highly leveraged. If the project fails and the firm defaults on its loans, the power plant will be sold; but if market electricity prices and thus the value of the asset are depressed at the time of the sale, the lender may not be able to recover all its costs. In addition, the administrative costs associated with bond default can be substantial. Consequently, given the inherent risk of large-scale projects, it could be very difficult to obtain project financing for a multi-billion-dollar power plant at a cost that would allow the project to remain economical. Federal loan guarantees would thus provide an incentive program for potential lenders.

19

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 6. Perm: do the plan and have every country but California fund 7. California’s budget is on the brink of collapse – increased spending devastates regulations San Jose Mercury News 7-11-2008 (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9848677)
If nothing else, the California budget imbroglio has brought the Capitol's stark ideological conflict - very liberal Democrats vs. very conservative Republicans and no more than a handful of even semi-moderates - into razor-sharp focus. With the Democrats now insisting on more than $8 billion in new taxes, mostly on business and the affluent, to cover much of the state's whopping budget deficit, and Republicans rejecting them as damaging to the state's struggling economy, the stage is set for a cage fight. And that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The ideological warriors have been sparring for years, but each year have avoided a toe-to-toe slugfest over taxes and permanent spending cuts by conjuring up new accounting gimmicks or ways to borrow money. 'Line in the sand' However, this year, with the structural deficit magnified by recession, the dueling factions seem poised to settle it once and for all. "We don't want another temporary fix," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said Wednesday as he and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass described their budget, financed largely with new taxes, as a "line in the sand." "We can't cut any more," Bass said. "This budget defines what Democrats say we need to do to keep California on an even keel." The Democratic budget not only raises taxes by $8.2 billion a year, mostly by adding higher income tax rates for upper-income taxpayers, but it restores many of the spending reductions that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed in May. And that, Republicans say, makes the Democratic budget a nonstarter - which is no idle threat since at least some GOP votes would be needed to pass both the budget and any new taxes. Assemblyman Roger Niello of Sacramento, a Republican point man on the budget, described it as "a massive tax increase in a very weak economy" and "a dysfunctional solution." But he and other GOP lawmakers haven't been willing to get specific on their spending cuts. And where's the governor? This vague reaction implies that he's wandering in no-man's land as legislators prepare for political war: "You have to be open-minded, and that's the only way we can get a compromise done. So, I'm open-minded, but I'm against tax increases." Without a budget, California will run out of cash in another month or so, unable to pay the bills it could legally pay and probably forced to float a short-term, high-interest loan. But despite the hoopla, the lack of a budget is less important than bringing this perpetual, tiresome wrangle to at least a semi-permanent conclusion, no matter how long it takes. Democrats contend their budget does that with billions of dollars in permanent new taxes. But if enacted, it could spawn even worse problems because it increases the state's reliance on volatile income taxes on the affluent. Under fixed spending formulas, especially for education, an economic recovery could send revenues soaring in a few years, locking in higher levels of spending that could not be sustained when the economy cooled again.

8. California is key to the US economy Ray Haynes, California Assembly member representing Riverside and Temecula, 9-2-2003; “Who’s Dragging Down Who?”,
http://theamericashow.net/archives/Columns/Haynes/20030902HaynesDragging.html I think it is important people know what is happening in California government. One in seven people who live in the United States live in California. California constitutes ten per cent of the entire national economy, and it is the fifth (or sixth or seventh or eighth) largest economy in the world (our ranking shrinks each year Davis stays in office). When California’s economy hiccups, it causes a national economic earthquake. A large, diverse, and powerful economic actor is important not just to those of us who live here, but to those who walk the halls of Washington power as well. Government at any level can’t do much to help the economy. The economy is driven by people’s needs and the endless effort of private companies to meet those needs. Government, however, can screw it up. Using tax and regulatory policy, and government subsidies, government impacts individual preferences by increasing the price of one product or service (or decreasing another), and shifting limited social resources to government-preferred activities. If these preferred activities aren’t beneficial to the economy as a whole, government causes the economy to falter. Jobs are lost, people are hurt, and the economy shrinks. Given these facts, it would be important to cover any government function that affects ten per cent of the economy. Sacramento should be the focus of a lot of media attention.

20

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 9. Federal + State Fiat Bad A. Abusive fiat- the federal government doesn’t hand out licenses to states and states have never built nuclear plants before B. Not reciprocal – there’s no lit on the federal government giving out free nuke licenses, AND THEN all the states doing the same thing at the same time – if the aff needs evidence to prove the solvency of their process, the neg should too – key to fairness C. Destroys aff offense- our best offense against the states counterplan is federal rollbacks- they can spike out of all of our good offense and force us to go for theory and generic perms D. Using multiple actors, one of which is ours, kills fairness – we shouldn’t be forced to debate against ourselves to prove a solvency deficit to the CP E. Its a voting issue to ensure competitive equity and education

21

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

1AR EXT – Fed + State Fiat Illegit
Overview - Federal and State government fiat is uniquely abusive – there’s no literature base for the Federal government giving to all 50 states licensing rights, followed by the states doing the exact same plan at the same time – this is an unfair and non-reciprocal amount of neg fiat which makes it too difficult for the affirmative to win – the neg can get out of all our key solvency takeouts like rollback because they fiat the Federal government loves the states doing the plan AND it forces the aff to debate against federal government action to prove no solvency – it’s a voter for competitive equity and education AT: Counter-Interpretation Their interpretation is completely arbitrary – they have no reason why this CP is uniquely key to learning about the states. Our interpretation for debate allows them to have 50 state fiat, as long as they don’t combine it with fiating the courts. This allows for state-specific education while maintaining competitive equity AT: Neg Ground 1. The word “Federal” doesn’t justify because states CPs solve – they can still test Federal government action without exploiting neg fiat 2. Steals aff ground – the neg can claim all of our reasons why the Federal government would be a good idea – allows the neg to fiat Federal government funds states AT: Topic-specific Education CP kills topic specific education: 1. shifts the focus of debate from alternative energy incentives to federalism - there’s a reason the resolution specifies alternative energy, not supreme court devolution to states 2. Our interpretation solves - they could just run an agent or states CP, still accesses education about Federal vs. state governments 3. Just because actors work together in the real world doesn’t mean the aff should have to prepare for every possible combination of actors – this would make it impossible for the aff to win external offense AT: Best policy option 1. Abusive fiat means that neg will always win best policy option – CP can claim all aff solvency by fiating no Federal roll-back PLUS the federalism NB, so the CP will always outweigh and solve case 2. Best policy option should have a literature base – the neg will always win if they’re allowed to fiat any utopian CP while the aff is bound to literature on their solvency – fairness is key to education – when debate becomes nothing but a coin flip, there’s no incentive to research AT: No ground loss
22

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT -they give the aff literally ONLY the federalism bad argument – all others they can fiat out of – kills education, debates will just be about federalism good-bad, not alternative energy AT: 2AC add-ons check -2ac add-ons don’t check – Federal-state fiat justifies CPs like federal government funds the plan – means they’re able to access all of the add-ons specific to federal action – so they don’t leave us with any good 2ac add-ons that we’ll be able to win

23

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT AT: It’s reciprocal -not reciprocal - the neg avoids more than just rollback arguments – they could get out of stateFederal conflict args by saying that Federal devolution means the Federal government will support state action – the aff still has to defend state reactions to plan action AT: No abuse -weighing the plan against the cp doesn’t solve - it’s impossible for the aff to outweigh the CP when they can fiat out of all of our solvency deficit arguments – means that their federalism net benefit can always outweigh AT: Reject the argument, not the team -Reject the team - Competitive equity outweighs their standard of education - competitive equity is what is key to dividing ground and having good, in-depth, fair debates -Err aff on theory- neg gets to determine the different focuses of the debate per the 1NC, determine the last two speeches and has a 13 minute block while the aff has 5 minutes to respond

24

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Efficiency + Plutonium Immobilization CP
1. Can’t access prolif – plutonium immobilization could solve proliferation in the US, but tech know-how and NPT credibility are key to solving prolif globally – other countries that want to make nuclear weapons aren’t going to use plutonium immobilization 2. Energy efficiency discourages R & D (don’t read if you’re reading renewables turns) Jerry Taylor, The CATO Institute, 10/20/99, energy efficiency no silver bullet for warming, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa356.pdf
In other words, the individual energy sector savings are not necessarily additive. As an example, some policies encourage the development and deployment of more energy-efficient and/or less carbon-intensive technologies for electricity generation. If current policies encourage energy efficiency in the end-use demand sectors and reduce the demand for electricity, however, there may be less opportunity for the generation sector to grow and invest in the new generation technologies. . . . In this analysis, however, the individual impacts of the CCTI programs are projected to be relatively small, and it is unlikely that an integrated evaluation would provide additional information.8

3. CP links to coal da – efficiency would still decrease coal demand 4. Perm: do both 5. Efficiency measures actually increase energy consumption – interpreted as a tax cut
Reuters, 11/27/07. “Energy efficiency fails to cut consumption: study,” http://www.enn.com/energy/article/25983 TORONTO (Reuters) - American consumers are driving bigger gas-guzzling cars and buying more air conditioners and refrigerators as the overall energy efficiency of such products improves, a report released on Tuesday found. In what the study calls "the efficiency paradox," consumers have taken money saved from greater energy efficiency and spent it on more and bigger appliances and vehicles, consuming even more energy in the process. This irony isn't just restricted to the United States, though. "The paradox is true for every developed country," said Benjamin Tal, senior economist at CIBC World Markets, which conducted the study. The study concludes that stricter energy efficiency regulations aren't the answer to concerns over climate change and the depletion of oil supplies because consumers treat greater energy efficiencies as a tax cut. "Because you get a 'tax cut,' you drive more," Tal said. The study found that energy use increased by 40 percent from 1975 to 2005 while energy efficiency improved in the same period. The sectors with the greatest increases in energy use -- transportation and residential -- are also the areas where the U.S. government is promoting energy efficiency the most.

6. Perm – do the plan and fund plutonium immobilization

25

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

7. Perm – do the plan and energy efficiency Only the perm solves in both the short term and the long term The Boston Globe, 11/19/07, “The Road to Energy Conservation”. Lexis Nexis
The goal of Congress to pass meaningful energy legislation by Christmas is paralyzed by lawmakers' inability to reconcile different House and Senate bills, even as President Bush threatens to veto any bill including a repeal of oil industry tax incentives - a perfect storm of failure. This gridlock must be replaced with political leadership that will enact sustainable energy policies putting conservation first while longer-term solutions such as renewable alternatives, solar, wind, carbon sequestration, and other efficiencies are realized. The technology exists to double national fuel efficiency. Congress should do that now as a first step and enact policies that encourage making environmentally sustainable long-term energy supplies profitably available. Then let markets deliver the results. Right now, we have it backward.

26

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Plutonium Immobilization CP
1. Perm: Do both Not mutually exclusive—we don’t reprocess and even if the building of GT-MHRs leads to reprocessing we can both put plutonium in containers and reprocess the waste 2. Prefer our solvency a. The MegaWatts to Megatons program is much more preferable to the Russian government in terms of decreasing the amount of nuclear waste that would fall into the hands of terrorists because it REMOVES the waste from the earth completely. WILLIAM H. MILLER, professor with the Nuclear Science & Engineering Institute at the University of Missour, 7/29/08, Nuclear conversion program is a success, http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/jun/20080629comm008.asp [SD]
Established 15 years ago by the U.S. and Russian governments, the megatons to megawatts accord has a single goal: It calls for the conversion of 500 metric tons of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium to be used at U.S. nuclear power plants to produce electricity. The program has succeeded beyond all expectations. To date, 327 metric tons of Russia’s highly enriched uranium has been turned into nuclear fuel for use in U.S. commercial reactors, according to USEC, the corporation that is the agent for the U.S. government in the program. The conversion of that bomb-grade uranium is equivalent to the destruction of nearly 13,100 nuclear warheads that were aimed at obliterating U.S. cities. By 2013, when the program is scheduled to be completed, the equivalent of 20,000 Russian warheads will have been recycled into fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants. Fifty percent of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear plants to generate electricity comes from Russian nuclear warheads. Use of this converted fuel has extended available uranium supplies and reduced the need to open new uranium mines. As a result, it has made nuclear power more competitive economically and helped to ensure its long-term viability.

b. Our evidence is from this year as opposed to almost a decade ago—the most updated evidence on nuclear warfare gives the best time frame for which program can solve for terrorism most efficiently. c. GT-MHRs are crazy safe and solve for terrorism—preventing the scenario they described because of reprocessing. Cross apply Pennera et al 07.

27

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CP
1. Cant solve economy and warming – nuclear energy is key to providing reliable baseload energy and stabilizing prices. And nuclear energy reduces global emission and replaces bad sources like coal and oil 2. Perm: Do Both – doubles solvency for nonproliferation iniatives 3. US Ratification of the CTBT kills national security, deterrence, and nonproliferation Robert R. Monroe is a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, December 4, 2007, “Nuclear Testing Realities” (LN) [Benjamin Lopez] Reality No. 1 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would do unbelievably grave damage to U.S. national security. Nuclear weapons exist - tens of thousands of them. More states now have them than ever before, and they're being improved. A whole world of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is just around the corner. More than half the world's population lives in states that have nuclear weapons, and other states and terrorist organizations are striving to acquire them, and use them. The U.S. will continue to face serious nuclear weapon threats for generations to come. Our very lives will depend upon our ability to develop new nuclear weapon strategies and advanced nuclear weapons to deter these threats. Our survival will depend on our nuclear technology being superior to that of anyone else in the world, decade after decade. This will certainly require testing, which the CTBT would deny. * Reality No. 2 is that we are now 16 years late in starting to transform our nuclear deterrence strategy and our weapons. Our arsenal is still composed of aging Cold War "massive retaliation" weapons, with moderate accuracy, very high yields, and "dirty" radiation outputs. They are virtually irrelevant today for deterring our proliferating adversaries. These rogue states have buried their nuclear weapons facilities deep underground, frequently locating them near deliberately exposed civilian populations. Any U.S. nuclear weapons that do not have high accuracy, very low yields, reduced collateral damage, and reduced residual radiation will not be credible of use, and our attempted deterrence will fail. To be effective deterrents, these new weapons also need tailored outputs (earth penetration, neutralization of chem-bio agents, etc.). All these new capabilities will require nuclear testing. * Reality No. 3 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would increase proliferation. Some 30 states (e.g., Japan, Germany) depend upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella rather than having their own nuclear forces. If we ratify the CTBT, denying ourselves the ability to transform our arsenal, the failure of our once-credible deterrent will force our allies and friends to develop their own nuclear weapons.

28

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 4. Turn – CTBT ratification would lead to proliferation by 30 states Robert R. Monroe, retired U.S. Navy vice admiral and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, 12/4/07 (“Nuclear testing realities” Washington Times. Lexis) * Reality No. 2 is that we are now 16 years late in starting to transform our nuclear deterrence strategy and our weapons. Our arsenal is still composed of aging Cold War "massive retaliation" weapons, with moderate accuracy, very high yields, and "dirty" radiation outputs. They are virtually irrelevant today for deterring our proliferating adversaries. These rogue states have buried their nuclear weapons facilities deep underground, frequently locating them near deliberately exposed civilian populations. Any U.S. nuclear weapons that do not have high accuracy, very low yields, reduced collateral damage, and reduced residual radiation will not be credible of use, and our attempted deterrence will fail. To be effective deterrents, these new weapons also need tailored outputs (earth penetration, neutralization of chem-bio agents, etc.). All these new capabilities will require nuclear testing. * Reality No. 3 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would increase proliferation. Some 30 states (e.g., Japan, Germany) depend upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella rather than having their own nuclear forces. If we ratify the CTBT, denying ourselves the ability to transform our arsenal, the failure of our oncecredible deterrent will force our allies and friends to develop their own nuclear weapons. * Reality No. 4 is that nonproliferation requires enforcement. Historically, negotiation on major, contentious issues has always required a background threat of force. Today this can be done effectively only by one or more of the NPTapproved nuclear weapon states. U.S. testing of new-design, credible nuclear weapons, to back up our conventional forces in deterring determined proliferators, is the only way to save the world's dying nonproliferation regime.

29

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 5. Turn: CTBT kills Indian relations Embassy of India 10/10/99 “Time for India, U.S. to look beyond CTBT” < http://www.indianembassy.org/press/New_Delhi_Press/October_1999/India_US_%20beyond_CTBT_Oct_11_1 999.htm> As the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty becomes a victim of American domestic politics, the time has come for the United States and India to delink their plans to build a new bilateral relationship from the uncertain fate of one particular instrument of arms control. Having failed to convince his own Senate to ratify the CTBT, the moral authority of the President, Mr. Bill Clinton, to persuade others to observe the treaty may have begun to diminish. India, on the other hand, should resist the temptation to gloat over the deep discomfiture of the Clinton Administration on the CTBT. Both the U.S. and India have made heavy weather of the CTBT. Mr. Clinton has been led up the garden path by the liberal internationalists and the non-proliferation fundamentalists in his administration into investing far too much of his personal prestige into the CTBT. The Indian political leadership, on the other hand, having failed to take an early decision on testing its own nuclear weapons, began to demonise the CTBT. But once it conducted an adequate number of tests in May 1998, India began to adopt a more sensible attitude towards the CTBT and identify the conditions under which it could join. In the last year and a half of nuclear dialogue between India and the U.S., India's accession to the CTBT has become a key benchmark. And now as preparations begin for Mr. Clinton's historic trip to India early next year, the question of India's approach to the CTBT looms large. Although senior officials of the U.S. administration have insisted that Mr. Clinton's visit is not tied to New Delhi's signature on the CTBT, they suggest India's decision to do so could significantly transform the context of Indo-U.S. relations. The Indian Government has decided it does not need to conduct any more tests, and by observing a moratorium on further tests, New Delhi has been in conformity with the basic provision of the CTBT. New Delhi has also been promising the world in the last few months that once a new government is in place, all efforts would be made for building a national consensus on joining the CTBT. However, as Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee gets ready to begin his next term as Prime Minister, Mr. Clinton's difficulties at home with the CTBT now come as a new complication. Where do India and the U.S. go from here? It will be wise for the two sides to reduce the salience of the CTBT in the crafting of a new partnership. It makes little sense for the U.S. to hold its future relationship with India hostage to just one treaty. The recent dialogue between the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, and the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Strobe Talbott, has generated a new American appreciation of India's nuclear interests and a stronger Indian acknowledgement of the global non-proliferation imperative. India and the U.S. must continue to build on this understanding, without making too much of any one specific benchmark on arms control. New Delhi and Washington must indeed deepen their nuclear dialogue, but it is equally important for them not to overdetermine the weight of nuclear issues in bilateral relationship. As they begin to consider a broader agenda for their imminent partnership, both the countries must shed their recent obsession with the CTBT.

30

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 6. Relations prevent Indo-Pak Nuclear War Dugger 02 (Celia, The New York Times, “Wider Military Ties With India Offer U.S. Diplomatic Leverage,” June 10, p. 1) Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. 11, with a burst of navy, air force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of highlevel visits by generals and admirals. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. "We can hope this translates into some influence and trust, though I don't want to overstate it," a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. "I don't want to predict this guarantees success." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take steps to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months -- and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed insurgency there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism. India itself made an unstinting offer of support to the United States after Sept. 11, and Washington responded by ending the sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased. India, for decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some influential officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power was seen as a potential strategic threat. But since Sept. 11, the priority has been terrorism. The United States is hoping its deeper military and political ties with India will give it some measure of leverage to prevent a war between India and Pakistan that could lead to a nuclear holocaust and would play havoc with the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

31

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 7. Turn – Nuclear testing is key to deterrence – that’s key to heg and survival Robert R. Monroe, retired U.S. Navy vice admiral and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, 12/4/07 (“Nuclear testing realities” Washington Times. Lexis) * Reality No. 1 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would do unbelievably grave damage to U.S. national security. Nuclear weapons exist - tens of thousands of them. More states now have them than ever before, and they're being improved. A whole world of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is just around the corner. More than half the world's population lives in states that have nuclear weapons, and other states and terrorist organizations are striving to acquire them, and use them. The U.S. will continue to face serious nuclear weapon threats for generations to come. Our very lives will depend upon our ability to develop new nuclear weapon strategies and advanced nuclear weapons to deter these threats. Our survival will depend on our nuclear technology being superior to that of anyone else in the world, decade after decade. This will certainly require testing, which the CTBT would deny. 8. US hegemony is key to preventing proliferation and global nuclear war. Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND and current US Ambassador to Iraq, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," The Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. Lexis) Under the third option, 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. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

32

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 9. Turn: The CTBT reinforces the inequalities that the plan solves – the US and it’s closest allies have developed and shared the technology for computer testing Rajesh Gopalan, Software Engineer at GXS, May 1997, India and the CTBT, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ipsg/ctbt.htm [Benjamin Lopez] The most glaring flaw in the present CTBT text is that it will essentially mean in terms of today's technology what the atmospheric test ban treaty meant back in 1963. The US has itself conducted over 1,000 underground tests over the last 40 years - more than any other country, and is clearly in a position where it no longer requires such testing. In its place, there exists a wide variety of high-tech nuclear tests that can bypass the need for underground tests - and that have been developed specifically to circumvent an underground test ban like the CTBT. These "virtual" test explosions have been developed primarily in the US and France, and include sub-critical testing, advanced computer simulation testing (using data from previous explosions) and the new applications of laser ignition. For example, in April 1997, more than six months after signing the CTBT, the US revealed that it was launching two sub-critical nuclear tests during 1997, to be followed by four more in 1998 and on through at least 1999. These tests were initially to be conducted in 1996, but were postponed because of their potential negative impact on the CTBT negotiations. In the absence of full-blown nuclear testing, such tests provide data to be used in supercomputer simulations at US nuclear weapons laboratories. US Energy Secretary Frederico Pena defended the tests as part of American policy to maintain "test readiness", and confidently pointed out that they were not in violation of the CTBT. Even newer techniques are reportedly being developed today. Billion dollar projects, such as the US National Ignition Facility in Los Alamos and France's megajoule laser facility in Bordeaux have come about specifically in anticipation of the CTBT In the murky diplomacy and secret negotiations that overshadowed the Geneva conference, it is understood that the US agreed to share non- explosive test technology with the French and British.

33

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#2 EXT: Perm
The NPT and CTBT can work together to accomplish eventual disarmament
David S. Jonas, General Counsel, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Summer 2007, “The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Current Legal Status In The United States And The Implications Of A Nuclear Test Explosion” (LN) [Benjamin Lopez] A treaty ostensibly designed to prevent nuclear testing would logically have that goal as its object and purpose. However, the NPT presaged the CTBT, noting in the preamble that states are "to seek to achieve" the cessation of nuclear testing - though the treaty contains no operative provision in that regard. The twin goals of the NPT are nonproliferation and eventual nuclear disarmament in the context of general and complete disarmament. Because a comprehensive test ban has been identified historically (and implicitly in the NPT) as a key element leading to eventual nuclear disarmament, this could arguably be an object and purpose of the CTBT as well. Therefore, the dual object and purpose of the CTBT may be to ban nuclear testing and promote nuclear disarmament.

34

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#3 EXT: Can’t Solve Prolif
CTBT would be even less effective at stopping prolif than the NPT
David S. Jonas, General Counsel, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Summer 2007, “The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Current Legal Status In The United States And The Implications Of A Nuclear Test Explosion” (LN) [Benjamin Lopez] Finally, opponents argued that the CTBT would not stop nuclear proliferation as promised for two reasons. First, the NPT already obliged NNWS not to pursue nuclear weapons programs. Therefore, NNWS would be pledging not to test nuclear weapons that they were not supposed to develop in the first place. Second, even if rogue states adhered to the CTBT mandates, the United States would not be safer because rogue states, which could presumably only develop crude nuclear weapons, would likely choose not to test before deployment. South Africa, while hardly a rogue state, developed and manufactured six nuclear weapons (all of which were subsequently declared and dismantled) without conducting any nuclear tests.

CTBT cant prevent proliferation by rogue states – NPT credibility key Robert R. Monroe, retired U.S. Navy vice admiral and former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, 12/4/07 (“Nuclear testing realities” Washington Times. Lexis) Efforts of North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear weapons have again impelled the supporters of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to dust off that discredited document and have another go at ratification. In 1999 the Senate, by a wide margin, voted against ratification. The record of that debate shows clearly the strong arguments that carried the day against ratification, and the wisdom of the senators who refused to damage America so gravely. Now, eight years later, CTBT supporters claim that things have changed, that ratification is necessary. They're right that the world has changed, but they're dead wrong that these changes turn a bad treaty into a good one. One way to illustrate this is to list a few myths and realities about the CTBT. * Myth No. 1 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT will aid nonproliferation. It will have no such effect. Does anyone believe North Korea or Iran (or Syria?) will roll back their nuclear ambitions if we sign a paper? Belligerent or irresponsible states acquire nuclear weapons to serve their own ends. Other states may go nuclear to protect themselves from aggressive neighbors. U.S. CTBT nonratification has not been a factor in any case of proliferation, nor will it be in the future. * Myth No. 2 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT is a step toward "a world free of nuclear weapons." This noble objective is absolutely unachievable. A world without nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible states would be a world of unimaginable nuclear horror and chaos; we would be at the mercy of every rogue, terrorist, criminal, aggressor or disaffected individual. Also, there is no way that zero can be verified. If the U.S. dismantled its entire nuclear arsenal, and Russia and China reported the same, we might learn too late that Russia still had 500 nuclear weapons in underground bunkers, and China had 100. * Myth No. 3 is that the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), cornerstone of the world's nonproliferation efforts, obligates the United States to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. Absolutely untrue. The NPT approves the U.S. as a "nuclear weapons state." It places no restrictions at all on our continuing to design, test and produce new-design nuclear weapons. * Myth No. 4 is that the NPT and the CTBT are mutually reinforcing. No way. The NPT's objective is nonproliferation, an absolutely vital goal of U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy. The CTBT's goal is nuclear disarmament, which is unattainable.

35

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
The CTBT cannot stop proliferation – multiple reasons Stephen Cambone is director of research for the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, The Washington Quarterly 23.2 (2000) An Inherent Lesson in Arms Control, Muse [Benjamin Lopez] Because nuclear weapons can be developed without testing, opponents of the CTBT were not persuaded it would have had a substantial effect on proliferation. Nor were they convinced that the Cold War-era techniques for monitoring and verifying the treaty were adequate to detect cheating and resolve ambiguity related to actual testing. Verification capabilities and the compliance standards associated with them were the source of fierce disagreement surrounding Soviet compliance with Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, the ABM Treaty, and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. The disagreement over the U.S. capacity to monitor and verify nuclear testing were especially contentious in the past, particularly during debates over the Threshold Test Ban Treaty's limit of 150 kilotons of explosive yield. Proponents argued that the CTBT was, as a whole, "effectively verifiable" due to the combination of a ban on nuclear-explosive testing with the monitoring, verification, and inspection provisions of the treaty. That is, the CTBT's benefits outweighed the military risk that could be gained by surreptitious testing. Treaty proponents pointed to its requirement for 331 international monitoring stations to collect relevant data, including both natural and man-made seismic and acoustic events, to establish a data center where all collected information is available to all signatories, and to create an onsite inspection regime. But here, too, recent experience and advances in science and engineering undermined confidence in the CTBT's monitoring and verification regime. We know, as noted above, that testing is not needed to develop a first-generation nuclear weapon. The techniques for spoofing sensors or concealing tests (e.g., through decoupling the explosion from the surrounding earth) [End Page 211] are also well known. They are not sophisticated techniques; aspiring nuclear weapon states can employ them. Those members of the regime who are looking to use such techniques have the advantage of knowing a great deal about its monitoring, verification, and inspection because that knowledge is open to all members. That means monitoring and verification in the end depends less on the treaty's provisions than on the national technical means of signatories, particularly the United States.

36

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#3 EXT: Kills National Security
Ratifying the CTBT risks puts US survival at risk
The Heritage Foundation, June 29, 2007, Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea Today, http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/wm1533.cfm [Benjamin Lopez] Conclusion. For both procedural and substantive reasons, the Senate should oppose ratification of the CTBT. The Senate rejected ratification in 1999 for good reasons, and those reasons are still pertinent today. Further, the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrence posture has declined in recent years for reasons of atrophy within the weapons complex and changing international circumstances. The United States has no margin for error in maintaining its national security in the context of its nuclear deterrent. Senate consent to the ratification of the CTBT entails nothing less than gambling with the survival of the United States.

The CTBT endangers US national security
Chintamani Mahapatra, 2000, CTBT, the US and India, isq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/37/4/339 [Benjamin Lopez] However, opposition to CTBT ratification was not confined to arguments based on the nuclear programmes of India, Pakistan, China and Russia. Some felt strongly that a CTBT could actually promote proliferation instead of stopping it. Such beliefs were founded on the understanding that some of the American allies, while retaining the potential to go nuclear on short notice, did not do so due to their faith in the American nuclear umbrella. If the US nuclear stockpiles became unreliable and "the umbrella appear weak", NATO members like Germany and Italy and East Asian allies like Japan and South Korea were "likely to reconsider their own nuclear options". Even otherwise, the CTBT could not combat nuclear proliferation, as nations did not need nuclear testing to build a nuclear arsenal. After all, the US used an untested nuclear bomb on Japan! These critics spoke of the possibility of a leaking American nuclear umbrella on account of their lack of faith in the Administration's contention that the Stockpile Stewardship Programme would guarantee safety and reliability of the US nuclear arsenal. Kathleen Bailey, an analyst at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, felt that key portions of the programme entailed complex unproven technologies and facilities that would take a decade or more to build.25 Some of the top scientists, involved in the stewardship programme argued that the success of the programme was not guaranteed. 26 Bailey went a step forward and argued that, since nuclear testing was necessary for safety upgrade as well as for new weapon design, the CTBT could put America's future national security requirements in jeopardy.27 Former Secretary of Defence James Schlesinger maintained that a test ban could undermine American security starting around 2020, when the US might not be able to stay on the top in the field of conventional military capability and new players on the world stage could threaten US national security. If the US military was locked into a permanent test ban, he feared, then its security options would be "dangerously limited".

37

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#9 EXT: Inequalities
No Solvency – the CTBT only perpetuates inequality in arms control
Rajesh Gopalan, Software Engineer at GXS, May 1997,India and the CTBT, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ipsg/ctbt.htm [Benjamin Lopez] But regardless of whether the current text ever comes into force or not, the controversy it stirred internationally helped to expose some of its cleverly hidden subterfuge. Many well-intentioned advocates still support the CTBT as an incremental, though flawed step towards a "nuclear-free world". But if anything, the sheer brazenness and duplicity with which the NPT and CTBT were passed (for the price of a few tongue-in-cheek "commitments" to disarmament) can have only further emboldened the nuclear states and reinforced their belief that their global eminence exists by virtue of their ability to threaten everyone with nuclear annihilation. And in spite of Bill Clinton's assurances to the contrary, the world cannot possibly be a "safer place" if most of its peoples continue to live under the menace his "smart-nukes". Ultimately, the CTBT itself is a reflection of the extremely unequal and undemocratic nature of international relations today - a situation that is even enshrined for example, in the membership of the Security Council. What the CTBT controversy that erupted last summer demonstrates is that fundamental changes to this situation will not arrive through the chance interventions of those who cry foul only when they feel they have been cheated of their fair share of the spoils.

38

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

CTBT Readiness DA (1/1)

A. Ratifying the CTBT leads to neglecting of nuclear stockpile, which kills military readiness
The Heritage Foundation, June 29, 2007, Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea Today, http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/wm1533.cfm [Benjamin Lopez] A Papering Over of Problems in the Stockpile. A treaty-based ban on the explosive testing of nuclear weapons creates a perverse incentive to refrain from fixing problems with the stockpile.4 Technicians responsible for maintaining a safe, reliable, and militarily effective arsenal and stockpile will feel immense pressure not to take any steps that are inconsistent with the treaty. Policymakers will demand that the technicians never find a need to conduct an explosive test, but rather just withdraw and dismantle the questionable weapons. However, testing is the most effective way to address problems with the stockpile. Specifically, testing is the best way to ensure that fixes to weapons have resolved any known problems. Further, testing is the only way to develop new militarily effective weapons to meet new requirements and missions.

B. Readiness is key to heg – signal deters hostile nations. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 9/15/2K, “The Facts about military readiness”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1394
Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.

C. Nuclear War
Khalilzad 95 Zalmay, , Washington Quarterly, Spring Under the third option, 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. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

39

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

EXT: CTBT Kills Safety
CTBT remains as unacceptable a solution as it was in 1999
The Heritage Foundation, June 29, 2007, Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea Today, http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/wm1533.cfm [Benjamin Lopez] Substantively, the shortcomings of the CTBT that the Senate found in 1999 persist today. The requirements of the treaty have not changed in any way since 1999, and the United States’ security continues to require a nuclear arsenal that is safe, reliable, and militarily effective. Such an arsenal depends on preserving the option to conduct explosive tests of the weapons already in the arsenal for the purpose of developing new weapons to meet new requirements. CTBT ratification by the United States and its entry into force would lead to the same unacceptable outcomes that caused the Senate to reject the treaty in 1999. They are: • Irreversible Nuclear Disarmament. Permanently forgoing explosive tests of nuclear weapons will lead to U.S. nuclear disarmament.3 While the disarmament process will take an undetermined amount time, it is inevitable for two reasons. First, testing prohibition will foreclose the modernization steps necessary to keep the deterrent effective under changing circumstances. Proliferation is already changing these circumstances significantly; the U.S. arsenal, meanwhile, is designed to deter the former Soviet Union. The United States will eventually retire the weapons that are no longer suited to current purposes, with nothing to replace them.

The CTBT would decrease nuclear safety
David S. Jonas, General Counsel, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Summer 2007, “The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Current Legal Status In The United States And The Implications Of A Nuclear Test Explosion” (LN) [Benjamin Lopez] Indeed, given the relative novelty of nuclear weapons, the United States (and all other NWS) lacks experience in predicting the effects of aging on nuclear weapons, most of which were designed to have a shelf life of about twenty years. Some argue that many of the "pits" in U.S. nuclear weapons were designed to last only thirty-five years and are therefore becoming less reliable over time. However, it is difficult to demonstrate that they will work as effectively as their predecessors without nuclear testing. Another concern raised by opponents of the CTBT is the safety of weapons in the absence of testing. The Senate was also concerned with treaty enforcement and verifiability. Meaningful verification is generally accepted to mean that the treaty would provide a high level of confidence that militarily significant treaty derogation would be detected shortly after it occurred. The likelihood of detection, of course, is an effective deterrent to cheating.

40

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT PSI CP (1/2)
1. Turn: PSI fails and leads to increased nuclear confrontation
Andrew Prosser, and Herbert Scoville, Jr., Peace Fellow, June 16, 2004 The Proliferation Security Initiative in Perspective www.cdi.org/pdfs/psi.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] Overall, the PSI’s current status raises many questions about the extent to which the initiative will rein in illicit transfers of WMD, delivery systems and related materials. Separate funding requests to support PSI exercises have not generally been pursued by national governments. One wonders how an initiative that is so heavily marketed as an instrument of counterproliferation will actually perform up to expectations absent any mention in participants’ respective national budgets. It should also be considered whether, absent any codification in U.S. or other participant countries’ national laws, the PSI will simply disintegrate as elections replace those governments and officials who most strongly back the initiative. In addition, it must be asked whether the PSI might contribute to an armed confrontation or diminish the international prohibition on the use of force, all the while misleading observers to believe that the PSI provides a comprehensive defense against the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

2. No Solvency – The PSI is destined to fail – even one failed interdiction could bring the program down
Daniel Joyner University of Warwick, UK, 2006, Non Proliferation Export Controls: Origins, Challenges, and Proposals for Strengthening Pg. 208 [Benjamin Lopez] Serious policy failures could undermine current support for the PSI. Just a couple of spectacular interdiction failures could erode support quickly, within the US and among PSI supporters as a whole. An interdiction that finds nothing illicit, thereby halting purely legitimate traffic at considerable expense to the shipping company and the owners of the contents of thousands of containers, would certainly undercut the initiative. Cargo lines, compared with more itinerant tramp operators, make their profit on providing regular and dependable service on specific routes, which any maritime interdiction disrupts. If the PSI generates a number of `false positives', serious questions and complaints about the costs and benefits of the initiative will arise. Worse, an interdiction that found something but, as with the So San, could not legitimately prevent the shipment from continuing on to its destination, coupled with a few false positive interdictions, could inflict a mortal wound on the initiative. Given the many highly public failures of intelligence related to WMD in recent years, governments cannot discount these potential miscues.

41

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT PSI CP (2/2)
3. The PSI increases the probability of Opaque Proliferation Chatham House (2005), The Proliferation Security Initiative: Is It Legal? Are We More Secure?',
www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/iIJILP250205.pdt [Benjamin Lopez] One speaker commented that PSI had to be seen in context as part of a multi-faceted initiative in which timely and efficient exchange of information was probably the key activity. Interdiction at sea or in the air was very much a last resort. The main objective was to prevent any transfer taking place and, even if it did, it might make more sense to track and monitor that transfer rather then interdict. It was pointed out that there was a risk that PSI could drive transfers “underground”, encouraging greater secrecy on the part of proliferators who might choose to use unregulated shippers or less traceable land routes. This could make it easier for terrorists to interdict state to state shipments. Alternatively, PSI might have the effect of encouraging greater secrecy in trans-shipment, perhaps using even more unregulated, blackmarket shippers or other, less secure trans-shipment nets. A further possibility was that providers would stop using the sea or air at all, with unintended consequences for the abilities of intelligence to track shipments, that transport by land provided less information than transport by sea or air.

4. PSI Fails to prevent WMD transfer
Andrew Prosser, and Herbert Scoville, Jr., Peace Fellow, June 16, 2004 The Proliferation Security Initiative in Perspective www.cdi.org/pdfs/psi.pdf [Benjamin Lopez]

The legal constraints on PSI actions are far from the entire story. Among the foremost impediments to the PSI’s goal of interdicting weapons shipments are an inadequacy of resources, intelligence information and geographical coverage among participants’ armed forces and coast guards to stop most WMD and missile-related trafficking of proliferation concern. Optimistic observers have brazenly claimed that the U.S. wields the “ability to track anything going in or out of North Korean waters.”33 However, such an assessment is likely faulty; moreover, even if such an argument were true, the same could not be claimed for the entirety of the world’s seas, airspace, and land territory. Terrorists could be expected to smuggle small amounts of radiological materials or extremely small nuclear devices whose reliable detection and interception would require an incredibly consistent and exceptional level of intelligence collection and analysis. Brookings expert Michael Levi has warned of the near impossibility of detecting a grapefruit-size amount of plutonium, the quantity necessary for a basic nuclear weapon.34 Although PSI countries like Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Australia do possess some of the most extensive maritime and air surveillance and interdiction capabilities in the world, a significant proportion of illicit WMD traffickers can be expected to defeat any interdiction strategy.

5. Their solvency evidence assumes the status quo – post plan the NPT will be stronger and will be able to deter aggression better – that’s Bengelsdorf ‘07

6. Perm – do both

42

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency
PSI is weak – low support, legally questionable, and cannot prevent spread of missiles
Michael Richardson, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006 The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): An Assessment of its Strengths & Weaknesses,With Some Proposals for Shaping its Future, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/tr32006.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] However, the efficacy of PSI is still limited by several major weaknesses. The first weakness is its restricted authority under international law. This implies that interceptions by PSI coastal states of vessels exercising the right of transit passage through busy shipping straits, or innocent passage through national waters, could raise contentious legal issues. While the sea is a major focus of the PSI, the programme is also intended to disrupt and deter air and land shipments. This can be difficult to do if it involves forcing a suspect plane to land. 5. A second weakness of the PSI relates to the grey areas in which it may apply. The spread of nuclear weapons and related technology, and trade in chemical and biological substances to create weapons, are prohibited by specific international conventions. But there is no treaty banning the shipment of ballistic, cruise and other missiles that could be used to deliver WMD. This could make the interception of ships suspected of carrying WMD delivery systems a legal grey area for the PSI. 6. A third weakness of the PSI is that membership and political support remain limited. While the 20 core members include some of the world’s strongest states, emerging powers like China, India, Indonesia and Brazil have not publicly endorsed its activities. Open support for the PSI is also relatively weak in the Asia-Pacific region as many Asian countries remain reluctant to be openly associated with a US-sponsored program like the PSI.

The PSI fails – it doesn’t fit into the world’s set of norms
Daniel Joyner University of Warwick, UK, 2006, Non Proliferation Export Controls: Origins, Challenges, and Proposals for Strengthening Pg. 207 [Benjamin Lopez] The PSI also fits uneasily into emerging models of global governance (Kahler and Lake 2004). Rosenau (2002), for example, identifies six major types of global governance, including the traditional state system, but none of these appear to include informal, top-down, state-led structure. The PSI does not - purposefully - even follow the more traditional yet informal forms of the supplier organizations, such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group or the Missile Technology Control Regime. The PSI does not, for example, use the decision-making principle of consensus and eschews high-level meetings of policymakers. Instead, the PSI relies on mini-coalitions of the willing functioning within a larger set of like-minded countries, and emphasizes operational action rather than information sharing and policy coordination.

43

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Legality (1/2)
PSI’s legal grey areas make solvency impossible
Michael Richardson, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006 The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): An Assessment of its Strengths & Weaknesses,With Some Proposals for Shaping its Future, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/tr32006.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] Grey Areas - 2) A second major weakness of the PSI are the grey areas in which it may apply. Interception of ships suspected of carrying WMD delivery systems is one of these areas. The spread of nuclear weapons and related technology by states is forbidden by the NPT. Trade in substances that could be used to make chemical arms is banned or tightly regulated by the Chemical Weapons Convention, while circulation of biological agents is outlawed by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. There is, however, no international treaty preventing the shipment of ballistic, cruise and other missiles that could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction.19 The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), for example, is a voluntary arrangement that falls well short of a mandatory international treaty. China has expressed concern that the PSI could be used as a pretext to seize legal Chinese missile and arms exports. Missiles of various kinds are an increasingly important part of national defence systems and form a significant sector of the global arms trade. Teal Group analysts estimated recently that just over 6,200 surface-tosurface missiles worth $US9.8 billion will be built between 2006 and 2015. Their forecast also says that in the same period, over 48,000 air defence missiles will be built at a cost of just over $US24 billion. Many of these air defense missiles will guard against incoming ballistic and cruise missiles.20 Missiles will remain a problem area for PSI interceptions on the high seas at least until recent amendments to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation are ratified by enough states to bring them into force. More on this later.

The PSI is weak – the activities it targets have ambiguous legality Chatham House (2005), `The Proliferation Security Initiative: Is It Legal? Are We More Secure?',
www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/iIJILP250205.pdt [Benjamin Lopez] It was noted that the question of legality was complicated by the fact that PSI contemplated interdictions in a wide range of locations from airports and harbours to territorial waters and the high seas. One speaker questioned the value of PSI making efforts to justify interdictions of vessels thought to be carrying WMD-related items instead of efforts to make the activity itself, ie the transfer of such items, illegal. This put the cart before the horse. The problem with PSI is that the target activity may not, in itself, be illegal. The vagueness of the formal non-proliferation instruments means that, in practice, there is often uncertainty as to substantive illegality both as regards transfer and possession of the items concerned. The only rules which have achieved some specificity in this area are those contained in multilateral export control regimes, but these are non binding under international law. It is notable that Article 110 of the Law of the Sea Convention limits interdiction to vessels engaged in only five possible “activities”, all of which are, in themselves, substantively illegal eg drug trafficking on the high seas which is made an illegal activity under the 1988 Vienna Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the absence of an objectively verifiable law on the possession and transfer of WMD-related items, to what extent could PSI interdictions legally take place, given that international law all but prohibited such interdiction on the high seas without consent or in the limited circumstances envisaged in Article 110? Another speaker referred to UN Security Council Resolution 1540 which obliges member states to take a wide range of steps aimed at preventing the proliferation of WMD, their delivery systems and related materials. Might this not have a bearing on the illegality of the activity targeted by PSI?

44

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Legality (2/2)
Michael Richardson, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006 The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): An Assessment of its Strengths & Weaknesses,With Some Proposals for Shaping its Future, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/tr32006.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] Limited Legal Authority - 1) First, the PSI has restricted authority under international law. At sea, national authority extends no more than 12 nautical miles from the coast. Beyond this, in international waters, the state whose flag a merchant ship flies must expressly consent before foreign warships can legally halt it - except in the case of a few “universal crimes” such as piracy and slavery. Interceptions by PSI coastal states of vessels exercising the right of transit passage through busy shipping straits, or innocent passage through national waters, could raise contentious legal issues.14 So could interdictions in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of some countries, or in the archipelagic waters of island-nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines, unless the governments of those countries agree. EEZs extend 200 nautical miles from the coast.

45

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Infrastructure
The PSI cannot accomplish it’s goals – the infrastructure needs cannot be met
Michael Richardson, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006 The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): An Assessment of its Strengths & Weaknesses,With Some Proposals for Shaping its Future, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/tr32006.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] Another problem area for the PSI concerns illegal WMD trade by land and air. While the sea is a major focus of the PSI, the programme is also intended to disrupt and deter air and land shipments. The former can be difficult to do if it involves forcing a suspect plane to land. North Korea, for example, is reported to have sent missile parts by air, as well as sea, to Pakistan and Iran, while there are said to have been reciprocal flights by Iran to North Korea.16 These flights are believed to have used Chinese and Central Asian airspace beyond the reach of the PSI. In addition, some WMD overland shipments in Asia and the Middle East may pass entirely through the national territory of countries that do not support the PSI. The US government says that in October 2005 it secured the agreement of almost all Central Asian states to support the PSI and take action to ensure that their airspace will not be abused by proliferators.17 However, any such agreements may be easier to agree in principle than enforce in practice. The exercise to be hosted by Australia around Darwin in April 2006 will focus on testing air interdiction scenarios. It will be the first PSI air interception exercise in the Asia-Pacific region. The training will also include extensive ground-based activities.18

PSI will fail due to low infrastructure
Daniel Joyner University of Warwick, UK, 2006, Non Proliferation Export Controls: Origins, Challenges, and Proposals for Strengthening Pg. 207 [Benjamin Lopez] Squassoni (2005, 3) succinctly states the issue facing the Bush Administration and other political actors: PSI has no international secretariat, no offices in federal agencies established to support it, no database or reports of successes or failures, and no established funding. Many consider the lack of formal mechanisms an advantage .... Others, however, question the seriousness of the Administration's effort as well as its sustainability, as long as no formal mechanisms are created.' The current configuration holds nothing particularly to bind PSI adherents to this cooperative endeavor. Will the PSI play out as a fad, one solely dependent on US interest? If so, then new priorities will arise that will attract the attention, time and resources of the government, and the PSI, as with the adage about old soldiers, will fade away.

46

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

AT PSI CP Extensions – No solvency – Support
The PSI can’t prevent proliferation – support is weak
Michael Richardson, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006 The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): An Assessment of its Strengths & Weaknesses,With Some Proposals for Shaping its Future, http://www.iseas.edu.sg/tr32006.pdf [Benjamin Lopez]

Limited Support - 3) A third major weakness of the PSI is that membership and political support remain limited, although they have become much more extensive since it was formed over two and half years ago. The 20 core members include some of the world’s leading military and economic powers. But China and India are not in this group. Nor are emerging powers like Indonesia and Brazil. Nor is Malaysia, which along with Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand flanks the Malacca and Singapore straits. However, the US and other leading PSI participants say that a total of more than 70 of the 191 UN member states have signalled that they support the aims of the PSI and are ready to take part in interdiction efforts on a case-by-case basis.21 Open support for the PSI is relatively weak in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia was an enthusiastic backer from the start; New Zealand became an adherent somewhat later. But only two Asian countries, Japan and Singapore, have so far publicly endorsed the PSI state of principles and hosted some of its exercises.

47

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

48

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: IAEA CP
1. Condo bad
A. Moving target—the neg doesn’t have to defend a concrete policy position. This allows the neg to simply drop arguments, teaching fallacious reasoning and killing any hope of in depth debate. B. Time skew— 1. We have to make double the arguments against the status quo and the counterplan destroying any hope of adequate coverage 2. They could come up and kick the counterplan, wasting all the time i spent reading answers in the 2ac C. Reciprocity—confining the negative to one world is necessary to prevent digression into obscene amounts of advocacies— justifies advocating the plan and a perm D. Kills game values – leads to irresponsible argumentation. They will simply kick what we are winning. Kills fairness because the aff has to stick to it’s plan so the neg should have to stick to theirs E. Voting issue for fairness and education

2. They can’t solve warming. Extend that warming is occurring now – that’s UNEP. The U.S. is the largest emitter of CO2 in the world – the plan is key to stop climate oscillations and extinction from starvation – that’s Milbrath and UPI. The IAEA does nothing to decrease US CO2 emissions. 3. They don’t solve prolif – none of their evidence says other countries will agree to IAEA regulations. Countries like North Korea aren’t going to just surrender their nukes. U.S. leadership is uniquely key to promote worldwide peaceful use of nuclear energy and to check prolif – that’s Buckner and Sanders. 4. IAEA regulations don’t solve prolif
Moniz et al., 3 – Physics @ MIT, Director of Energy Studies, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (Professor Ernest J, Professor John Deutch, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor Emeritus Michael Driscoll, Professor Paul E Gray, Professor John P Holdren, Professor Paul L Joskow, Professor Richard K Lester, Professor Neil E. Todreas, and Eric S Beckjord, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003, pg. 75) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has responsibility for verifying NPT compliance with respect to fuel cycle facilities through its negotiated safeguards agreements with NPT signatories. The IAEA’s safeguard efforts, however, are seriously constrained by the scope of their authorities (as evidenced in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea during the last decade), by their allocation of resources, and by the growing divergence between responsibilities and funding. The United Nations Security Council has not yet established a procedure or shown a willingness to impose sanctions when IAEA safeguards agreements are violated. A variety of multilateral agreements, such as the Nuclear Supplier Group guidelines for export control, aim to restrict the spread of proliferation- enabling nuclear and dual-use technology. European centrifuge enrichment technology, however, is known to have contributed to weapons development elsewhere, and the US and Russia have a continuing dispute over transfer of Russian fuel cycle technologies to Iran (a NPT signatory). This is not to say that the safeguards regime has failed to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons; it almost certainly has. Nevertheless, its shortcomings raise significant questions about the wisdom of a global growth scenario that envisions a major increase in the scale and geographical distribution of nuclear power.

5. Timeframe deficit – A fuel bank would take forever to set up – there’s no existing infrastructure for it. The plan would solve immediately – giving financial incentives doesn’t require any infrastructure. Means the plan solves the impacts better.
49

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

50

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***DISADS***

51

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***GENERIC DA ANSWERS

52

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Link Uniqueness – Nuke Licensing Now
The NRC has recently licensed 3 new nuclear plants NRC, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 5/5/08. “Remarks Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein,” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2008/s-08-019.html In the area of enrichment, Louisiana Energy Services received a license from the NRC in June of 2006 to build and operate a major gas centrifuge facility, called the National Enrichment Facility, in New Mexico. In addition, a second license was issued in 2007 to USEC Inc. for their facility, known as the American Centrifuge Plant, which will be located in Ohio. Construction is now under way on both facilities, and when complete, the facilities are expected to annually produce approximately one-half of the current U.S. enrichment services demand. In May 2007, the NRC granted a 10-year license renewal to the Honeywell Metropolis Conversion Plant, which is the only U.S. facility for producing uranium hexafluoride. In addition, we are expecting to receive two more applications for major uranium enrichment facilities in 2008. The US has just awarded its first nuclear license in 30 years The Guardian, 4/10/08. “Westinghouse wins first US nuclear deal in 30 years,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower Westinghouse Electric, the nuclear design and build firm sold by the British government two years ago, has won its first contracts in America for 30 years. The move underlines the worldwide renaissance of atomic power generation as a source of low-carbon energy. The Pittsburgh-based group, which has sought approval for its reactor design to be accepted in Britain, has won a deal from Georgia Power to build two AP1000 nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle site near Waynesboro, Georgia, for an estimated $13bn (£7bn). Westinghouse, which won the contract with its partner, the Shaw Group, said the project moves the country's nuclear revival "beyond the planning stage" and into a new era. The NRC is issuing new work authorizations for the construction of nuclear plants NRC, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 4/13/07. “NRC ISSUES FINAL RULES ON LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATIONS, WORKER FATIGUE/DRUG-TESTING PROVISION,” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2007/07-049.html The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the issuance of amended regulations regarding the issuance of limited work authorizations (LWA) for construction related to new nuclear power plants. The Commission also approved the issuance of updated “fitness-for-duty” requirements, such as work hour limits and drug and alcohol testing, at nuclear power plants. The rules will become effective following publication in the Federal Register later this year. The new work authorization regulation defines “construction” that requires either an LWA, a Part 50 construction permit or a combined license. Under the final rule, no LWA, permit or license is required for activities such as site clearing, transmission line routing, excavation, road building and erecting construction-related support buildings or service facilities. An LWA, construction permit or license is required, however, for activities including pile-driving and foundation work for structures, systems or components with high importance to safe operation and security at a nuclear power plant. Activities beyond these, however, would require a full construction permit or combined license.

53

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Link Uniqueness – Nuke Incentives Now
Congress just appropriated just increased funds for nuclear power reactors – non uniques your links Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires, 3-10-08, “US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-NRC”, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG). Bush proposed a $25 billion for nuclear programs – kills perception link Elaine Hiruo and Daniel Horner, writers Nucleonics Week, 2-7-08, “FY-09 DOE budget request reflects push for nuclear expansion”, l/n The Bush administration unveiled a $25 billion, nuclear-friendly budget request for DOE February 4 that would nearly double spending in fiscal 2009 on the near-term deployment of new reactors and add two years to the department's loan guarantee program, giving potential nuclear applicants the time they will need to be considered for federal loan guarantees. Top nuclear executives told Platts' Nuclear Conference February 5 that loan guarantees are the single most crucial element to their proceeding with new plant orders. The spending blueprint is the final budget President George W. Bush will send to Congress before he completes his eight years in the White House. It reflects, in part, the priority the administration has placed on expansion of emissions-free nuclear power, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at DOE's budget briefing. "It is important we bring new nuclear power generating capacity online as quickly as possible," Bodman said. Congress just voted to spend $1 billion on new nuclear programs The Daily News, Washington State Newspaper, 7/15/08. “Yucca Mountain stalling only delays inevitable nuclear power push,” http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/16/editorial/doc487bd23399ca7163372651.txt An emerging political consensus on the need to control greenhouse gas emissions and concern about the nation’s dependence on costly foreign oil have prompted the Bush administration and Congress to give nuclear energy a new look. President Bush made the construction of new nuclear power plants a priority of his second term and, more recently, Congress voted to provide almost $1 billion for various nuclear energy programs.

54

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
The federal government has been incentivising and licensing nuclear energy since 2005 Ray Torok et al, President of United States Pipe and Foundry Company, 2/1/07. “Nuclear Power Plant Construction Returns,” [coauthored by Joseph Naser, Layla Sandell, and Tony Harris] http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=article_index1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5 9178 The Energy Bill of 2005 offers key financial incentives for new nuclear power plant construction in three forms, including loan guarantees, production tax credits, and standby support-risk insurance to cover cost associated with delays that are beyond the control of plant sponsors. Regulatory barriers are lessening what with efforts to demonstrate the new plant licensing process. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, a U.S. government agency) has certified four plant designs, one design application is currently under review, and four other designs have started their pre-application review. The NRC is also reviewing three utility Early Site Permit applications. Several individual utilities and consortia (groups of utility companies and vendors) are planning to submit Combined Construction & Operating License (COL) applications in 2007-2008, including consortia that have received Department of Energy cofunding to demonstrate the licensing process. Technical barriers are under the scope of industry research including significant work managed by Electric Power and Research Institute (EPRI). Specifically, in the instrumentation and control (I&C) area, an industry initiative for new plants was recently started that will identify and prioritize large generic issues, establish resolution paths and schedules, and identify the roles of various stakeholders, including utility companies, EPRI, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), vendors, and the NRC. The initiative addresses I&C issues for both existing and new plants. Here are some key I&C related technical and regulatory issues and their implications for new plants. The federal government currently provides $2billion in risk insurance to nuclear power plants – Energy Policy Act of 2005 Occupational Health and Safety, magazine aimed at preventing workplace injuries and illnesses in Alberta, 9/27/07. “Federal Risk Insurance Available for Nuclear Plant Construction,” http://www.ohsonline.com/articles/50635/ Companies building new nuclear power plants can qualify for $2 billion in federal risk insurance because of a Conditional Agreement released Sept. 25 by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The insurance covers costs associated with certain regulatory or litigation-related delays that are no fault of the company and stall the start-up of these plants. Only the first six companies granted a Construction and Operating License by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and begin construction are eligible for a risk insurance contract with DOE. Separately, DOE announced it is plugging $19 million into research projects to develop better, cheaper batteries for hybrid electric vehicles, pending congressional approval. 3M (St. Paul, Minn.), A123Systems (Watertown, Mass.), Compact Power Inc. (Troy, Mich.), EnerDel, Inc. (Indianapolis), and Johnson Controls -– Saft Advanced Power Solutions (Milwaukee). The University of Michigan's Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute will receive nearly $2 million to coordinate efforts among DOE and its Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and DTE Energy to conduct a two-year study on plugin hybrid vehicles. "To meet the world's growing demand for electricity and confront climate change, safe and emissions-free nuclear energy must play an integral role in our energy mix," Bodman said in a Chicago speech to the World Association of Nuclear Operators and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry. "Conditional Agreements pave the way for risk insurance contracts that will provide the first project sponsors constructing new nuclear power plants with assistance if they face delays in expanding the use of nuclear energy across the nation." Federal risk insurance is authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In August 2006, DOE issued a final rule that outlines a two-step process to apply for risk insurance coverage, which requires entering into a Conditional Agreement first and, if eligible, then a risk insurance contract.

55

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Link Uniqueness – AE Incentives Now
Alternative energy incentives increasing now – federal tax and financial incentives Mike Lobash, Executive Editor – Trade Press Publishing Corp, 2008. “Alternative Energy: Green Incentives and Options Are On the Rise,” http://www.facilitiesnet.com/bom/article.asp?id=3177 Interest in building, operating and maintaining facilities in ways that minimize environmental impact has skyrocketed in recent years. A growing number of green product labels, a rise in the number of government bodies requiring public buildings to be LEED-certified, and the expansion of carpet, wood and other building material recycling programs are all evidence facility executives are paying heed to the environment. Meanwhile, other areas ripe with opportunity for a more environmentally responsible approach have languished. The thought of using alternative energy sources to power facilities, for example, has remained, for most, just a thought. Alternative energy sources account for less than 10 percent of the total energy consumed in the country, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Still, proponents see promise in the numbers. Although the amount of energy produced by alternative sources is small compared to the electricity that coal, natural gas and nuclear plants produce, facility executives and others are adopting the new power technologies at an increasing rate. The Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technology program, for example, sees the use of solar power growing at a rate of 20 percent annually, while industry watchers say that 25 percent annual growth is possible. That growth is happening for good reason. Organizations that use alternative energy sources to power their facilities achieve greater energy independence, reduce monthly energy expenses and earn appreciation from their customers for placing importance on sustainable facility practices. “A wind turbine is a sign of action that a company takes the environment seriously,” says Heather Rhoads-Weaver, a wind energy consultant to the American Wind Energy Association. In addition to finding that projecting an environmental image helps win customers, facility executives who use alternative power technologies discover the cost can be less than expected. A bevy of financial incentives exist to help organizations take some of the burn out of purchasing wind, solar and other alternative power technologies. Utilities offer rebates. States offer grants. The federal government offers tax incentives. Federal alternative energy incentives exist in the status quo – biodiesel tax credits prove Alternative Energy HQ, Alternative Energy News, 12/24/06. “Getting bucks back for your biodiesel production - government incentives – biodiesel,” http://www.alternativeenergyhq.com/bio-diesel/getting-bucks-back-for-your-biodiesel-productiongovernment-incentives-biodiesel Biodiesel production, distribution, and use, as with many emerging alternative energies, has been aided in large part by recent government incentives making biodiesel fuel production and distribution more attractive. These tax incentives put money back in the pockets of biodiesel producers who, presumably, pass the benefits on to you, the consumer, with lower biodiesel prices. Not just any biodiesel is eligible for tax incentives. The definition of biodiesel fuel, as its used for tax purposes, is 'monoalkyl esters of long chain fatty acids'. Biodiesel production companies seeking any of these credits must ensure that they are making biodiesel fuel that meets the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for registration of fuels and fuel additives as described in the Clean Air Act, as well as requirements put forth by the American Society of Testing and Materials. All companies, whether a biodiesel production company or not, that are selling or using biodiesel may qualify for the Biodiesel and Ethanol (VEETC) Tax Credit, on their income taxes. There are two such types of credit. * the Straight Biodiesel Credit (considered a 'general business credit' by the IRS) - the biodiesel in question must not have been mixed with any petroleum-based diesel fuel, and the company itself must be the biodiesel production company making it; * the Biodiesel Mixture Credit - the biodiesel in question must contain only biodiesel fuel and petroleum-based diesel, with absolutely no kerosene added, and the company itself must be the biodiesel production company making it. Additionally, for either tax credit on biodiesel cost, one of the following criteria must also be met; the biodiesel production company actually uses the biodiesel itself as a fuel; the biodiesel production company sells the biodiesel retail which is then used in the fuel tank of the buyer. The tax credits on Straight Biodiesel are equal to $1 per gallon of agri-biodiesel and $0.50 per gallon of waste grease biodiesel. The tax credits on Biodiesel Mixtures are $0.01 (a penny) per percentage point of agri-biodiesel and $0.005 (half-a-cent) per percentage point of waste grease biodiesel. That is, unless the amount of credit approved to taxpaying biodiesel companies applying for the credit in a given year exceeds the annual cap of $1.5 million, in which case the Department of Revenue will prorate credits to biodiesel production companies accordingly. These tax credits, however, are currently temporary, and set to expire in 2008 - an added incentive to get started now on that biodiesel production company of your own that youve been dreaming about. Theres literally no time to waste. Another Federal Tax Credit, the Small Agri-Biodiesel Producer Credit (Section 1345: Energy Policy Act of 2005), grants $0.10 per gallon on up to 15 million gallons to small agri-biodiesel production facilities producing less than 60 million gallons per year.

56

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

57

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
Federal renewable energy incentives now – EPAct of 2005 subsidizes renewable energy use in buildings DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 2007. “Federal Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency: U.S. Federal Government - Green Power Purchasing Goal,” Executive Order 13123, issued in 1999, required federal agencies to increase their use of renewable energy to a percentage determined by the secretary of energy. It also called for 20,000 federal solar roofs by 2010. In 2000, the secretary of energy directed federal agencies to obtain the equivalent of 2.5% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2005. Executive Order 13123 was intended to improve the federal government's energy management "in order to save taxpayer dollars and reduce emissions that contribute to air pollution and global climate change." The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) reestablished and extended several earlier goals and standards to reduce energy use in existing and new federal buildings. Section 203 of EPAct 2005 requires that, to the extent it is economically feasible and technically practicable, the total amount of renewable electric energy consumed by the federal government during any fiscal year shall not be less than the following: * 3% in FY 2007-2009 * 5% in FY 2010-2012 * 7.5% in FY 2013 thereafter The amount of renewable-energy credits is doubled for electricity produced and used on-site at a federal facility, produced on federal lands and used at a federal facility, or if it is produced on Indian land as defined in title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and used at a federal facility. Renewable electrical energy technologies defined in this section include solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid waste, and new hydroelectric generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new capacity at an existing hydroelectric project. Executive Order 13423, signed in January 2007, now requires at least half of the required renewable energy consumed by an agency in a fiscal year to come from sources placed in service since 1999. Section 204 of EPAct 2005 establishes a photovoltaic (PV) energy commercialization program for the procurement and installation of PV systems in public and federal buildings. It requires the installation of 20,000 solar-energy systems on federal buildings by 2010, as contained in the federal Million Solar Roof Initiative of 1997. The commercialization program has been appropriated $50 million annually for fiscal years 2006–2010, until funds are expended. An evaluation program has been appropriated $10 million annually for fiscal years 2006-2010, until funds are expended. Alternative fuel tax credits now – 10 cents per gallon on biofuels DoE, US Department of Energy, 2008 (last modified), “The Energy Policy Act of 2005,” http://www.doe.gov/taxbreaks.htm Small producer biodiesel and ethanol credit. This credit will benefitsmall agri-biodiesel producers by giving them a 10 cent per gallon tax credit for up to 15 million gallons of agri-biodiesel produced. In addition, the limit on production capacity for small ethanol producers increased from 30 million to 60 million gallons. This is effective until the end of 2008. Credit for installing alternative fuel refueling property. Fueling stations are eligible to claim a 30% credit for the cost of installing clean-fuel vehicle refueling equipment, (e.g. E85 ethanol pumping stations). Under the provision, a clean fuel is any fuel that consists of at least 85% ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen and any mixture of diesel fuel and biodiesel containing at least 20% biodiesel. This is effective through December 31, 2010.

58

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Link Uniqueness – Federal Spending Now
This year’s budget deficit is forecasted to be almost half a trillion, not including war spending or bail-out of mortgage firms BBC News, 7/28/08. “Record deficit for next president,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7529372.stm The next US president is expected to face a record federal budget deficit of almost half a trillion dollars. The White House has lifted its deficit forecast for 2009 to $482bn (£242bn) up from $407bn. The budget deficit measures how much more the government is spending than it is raising through taxes. The slowing economy is reducing the tax take and the government has launched a stimulus plan by making payments to 130 million households to boost spending. The forecast figure excludes about $80bn of war costs. The budget deficit is measured from the beginning of October to the end of September. It is possible that the deficit for 2008 will also break the record of $413bn, which was set in 2004. A $482bn deficit would represent about 3% of the total output of the US economy, which is well below some of the deficits seen in the 1980s and 1990s in percentage terms. Nonetheless, whoever turns out to be the next US president may be reluctant to enact any further tax cuts or increases in spending that would raise the deficit. The deficit figure also is flattered by including the surpluses that are currently being accumulated by the social security trust fund, but that will soon turn into deficits in the next decade. And it takes no account of the potential costs of a full-scale Federal bail-out of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who have been given a Federal guarantee in the housing bill that has just passed Congress.

59

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Nuke Energy Inevitable
Nuclear expansion inevitable – causes prolif Thomas E. Blejwas, Thomas L. Sanders, Robert J. Eagan, and Arnold B. Baker, 2000, employees of Sandia Laboratories, a research and engineering lab that specializes in technology, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/751168-gOzGzK/webviewable/751168.pdf Creating an economic and/or environmental level playing field for nuclear power may be possible, but the aspects that nuclear shares with nuclear weapons can never be level with other fuel sources.  A common misconception is that eliminating nuclear energy would help our proliferation problems by eliminating the generation of tons of plutonium-containing spent fuel. But as a practical matter, if the U.S. abandoned nuclear energy, the use of nuclear energy outside the U.S. still would continue, and the U.S. would weaken seriously its ability to deal with proliferation issues. The proliferation threat of U.S. spent nuclear fuel is insignificant compared to the real risk of loss of control of separated fissile materials in the former Soviet Union, for example. As noted in the GNMM report, another real threat is the loss of nuclear infrastructure and any kind of leadership position for things nuclear. Also, as noted above, future nuclear fuel cycles give the U.S. the potential to burn or otherwise reduce fissile materials. Therefore, we must find ways to help U.S. policy makers support development of an integrated U.S. nuclear policy, despite the complexity of the issue and the complexity of our political system. Such an integrated politically acceptable policy is the only way to achieve the potential energy, economic and environmental benefits from nuclear power and the protection from nuclear weapons and materials that the world demands.

60

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***ELECTIONS

61

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: McCain Good
1. Their link evidence goes our way – Horsley says that energy is the one place McCain is not associated with Bush – means that the plan will help him distance himself 2. Plan makes McCain win - he will pounce on a new energy policy to revitalize the GOP brand (Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc/ investment advisor in the United States and Canada, 6-17-08,
“Theo Caldwell: If the Republicans promise to cut fuel costs, 2008 could be their year”, http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/06/17/theo-caldwell-if-the-republicans-promise-to-cut-fuel-costs2008-could-be-their-year.aspx, [Ian Miller]) But the religious environmental zealotry of much of the Democrats’ base makes them the party of windmills and stern lectures, not practical solutions. Congressional Democrats have contented themselves with browbeating today’s most politically correct villains, oil executives, while reflexively voting down any proposed energy solution, from domestic drilling to nuclear power. The Democrats’ presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, has suggested that high energy costs might carry the benefit of forcing America to change its gluttonous ways, recently chiding his countrymen: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” Americans did not win the Cold War so they would have to consult Sweden before setting their thermostats. This kind of thinking is anathema to the Land of the Free, and it opens the door for the GOP to capitalize on the energy issue. In 1994, Gingrich’s Republicans achieved a majority in Congress through a simple, common sense platform known as the Contract with America. A one-page roster of eight reforms and 10 proposed Acts, the Contract neatly answered voters’ principal questions of those who seek to govern. To wit, who are you, what do you hope to accomplish, and how will you do it? In 2008, with energy prices fixing to become the top election issue, combining foreign and domestic policy concerns into a monstrous hybrid of a problem, an understandable and workable proposal could help the GOP again. If every Republican running for office, from freshman House candidates to their presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, spoke with a single, sensible voice on this issue, they could snatch victory from defeat. A first draft might read: “We are Americans too, and we know that energy prices have gotten out of hand. We want to reduce fuel costs for all of us, and cut the number of dollars we send to hostile, oil-producing countries in the Middle East and South America. If you elect us, we will do the following three things: We will begin to tap America’s vast oil reserves, using technological drilling advances that protect the environment. We will also promote alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power, to move us away from an oil-based economy. Finally, we will eliminate barriers to the import of cheaper, more efficient automotive systems that have been successful in other parts of the world.” If the Republicans agree on such a platform, 2008 could be their year after all.

3. Their Pethokoukis evidence says that the public likes nuclear power because it lowers energy prices – helps McCain win

62

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 4. Nuclear power doesn’t affect the elections – polls prove, voters don’t care [quals added]
NPR, National Public Radio, 7/21/08. “Nuclear Power A Thorny Issue For Candidates,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92690120 Nuclear power doesn't usually make for an applause line in a stump speech, but it has come up on the campaign trail. Both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain see it as a way to combat climate change, though they've sometimes chosen their words with care. Of the two, McCain is the most comfortable with the topic. As a Navy pilot, he landed on aircraft carriers, which today are essentially floating nuclear-powered cities. McCain calls nuclear "one of the cleanest, safest and most reliable energy sources on Earth." "If we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful, powerful ally in that cause," he said in a May speech. McCain's enthusiasm for nuclear has put him in unusual territory for a Republican: He's been praising the French, who generate 80 percent of their power from nuclear. Obama's position is also somewhat unusual for a Democrat: He thinks nuclear power might be a good idea. The question came up during an early Democratic primary debate. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards went first, saying he did not favor nuclear power. Obama went next. "I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the mix," he said, before pivoting to solar energy, a much safer topic. When asked about his position early on by a New Hampshire newspaper, Obama said he was open to the idea if certain problems could be solved. And it was a long list of issues, including safety, waste storage, vulnerability to terrorist attack and concerns about weapons proliferation. But if those are solvable? "Why not?" Obama said. "I don't think there is anything we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up ... and irradiate us ... and kill us!" His questioners laughed. But Obama has since polished his response to that question. Obama's home state of Illinois has more reactors than any state in the country. And he has some ties to the company that operates those reactors. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees at Exelon have given Obama more than $180,000 in campaign contributions. Two spokespeople for the company declined requests for an interview, saying a chairman of an electricity distribution company it owns had run an Obama fundraising event. Obama seems happy to keep his distance as well. He recently used nuclear power to paint McCain in a negative light. After criticizing McCain for wanting to open up more land for oil drilling, Obama added, "That makes about as much sense as his plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan for the waste, other than put it — guess where? — right here in Nevada, at Yucca Mountain." Obama, like other Democratic presidential candidates before him, says he's opposed to sending the waste to Nevada. The waste issue even seems to have gotten to McCain. In the Senate, McCain voted to send waste to Yucca Mountain. But on the campaign trail, he seems to be softening his stand. McCain has proposed building an international repository, primarily to keep used reactor fuel out of the wrong hands, but maybe with a second purpose. "It is even possible," McCain said, "that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada." Eric Herzik, chair of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno, says he was surprised to hear McCain say that. "His voting record is very clear," Herzik said. "He has backed the Yucca Mountain repository and made no apologies for it, until about two months ago, (when) he came to Nevada and kind of gave this mixed signal." Herzik has studied the politics of nuclear energy for 20 years. And he says whoever is elected won't be able to just talk their way out of the nuclear waste problem. The government has spent billions of dollars researching Yucca Mountain and millions fighting court battles. Finding another site abroad or at home will not be easy and could take decades. "To say, 'Well, we'll just find some magic beans and plant them in the ground and a repository site will grow where everybody wants it' — we've never been able to find that," Herzik said. The irony is that for all the trouble nuclear power and waste gives the candidates, Herzik [chair of the political science department at the University of Nevada] says there's little evidence it actually affects how people vote for the president. He and his colleagues have done some polling, and even in Nevada, when voters are asked to rank nuclear waste with other issues, it comes out at the bottom of the list.

5. Link empirically denied – Congress just voted to spend $1 billion on new nuclear programs
The Daily News, Washington State Newspaper, 7/15/08. “Yucca Mountain stalling only delays inevitable nuclear power push,” http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/16/editorial/doc487bd23399ca7163372651.txt An emerging political consensus on the need to control greenhouse gas emissions and concern about the nation’s dependence on costly foreign oil have prompted the Bush administration and Congress to give nuclear energy a new look. President Bush made the construction of new nuclear power plants a priority of his second term and, more recently, Congress voted to provide almost $1 billion for various nuclear energy programs.

63

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 6. Obama wins – other candidates, dissatisfaction with Bush administration, economic issues CTV 7-16-08 “Obama leads McCain in new election poll”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/us_poll_080716/20080716?hub=TopStories A new poll suggests Barack Obama has a seven-point lead over John McCain in the race to the White House, but nearly 10 per cent of voters have yet to make up their minds. The Zogby poll, released Wednesday, also suggests independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr would draw votes away from McCain, thereby extending Obama's lead even further. When respondents were asked who they would vote for if only given the choice between Obama, McCain and "someone else," most said they would support the Democratic candidate: Obama: 47 per cent McCain: 40.3 per cent Other: 2.9 per cent Undecided: 9.8 per cent However, when the same question was repeated with the names of Nader and Barr added, McCain lost support. Obama: 46.3 per cent McCain: 36.3 per cent Nader: 3.3 per cent Barr: 3.4 per cent Other: 1.1 per cent Undecided: 9.6 per cent "The key thing here, in this poll anyway, is that Obama is doing better among fellow Democrats than McCain is with fellow Republicans," pollster John Zogby told CTV's Canada AM on Wednesday. The poll also suggests McCain faces an uphill battle in the election because of voter dissatisfaction with the current Republican government. More than two thirds of voters -- 72.9 per cent -- said the U.S. was on the "wrong track." Also, only 12 per cent of respondents felt that McCain's main campaign issue -- the Iraq war -- would be a deciding factor in who to vote for. The economy was by far the top issue, with 47.1 per cent saying it would determine who got their support. The poll suggested that 43.6 per cent of voters felt that Obama was better able to handle economic issues, compared to 40.3 per cent for McCain.

7. Their uniqueness evidence doesn’t say McCain will win – just ahead on energy issues

64

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#2 EXT: Nuclear McCain
Plan means McCain wins – voters support nuclear power LA Times, 7/27/08. “CAMPAIGN '08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE;Obama's next stop: the home front; Analysts from both parties agree his trip was a success, but a good week does not make a campaign.” Lexis Polls conducted while Obama was on the road produced conflicting results. As of Saturday, the Gallup daily tracking poll found that the Illinois senator had gained a few points and led Arizona Sen. John McCain, Enhanced Coverage Linking Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, nationwide, 48% to 41%. A Fox News Fox News Poll released Thursday found that Obama had slipped a few points and had a statistically insignificant edge over McCain, 41% to 40%. Neither poll suggested a change in the problem Obama's trip sought to address: Though most voters prefer the Democrat's positions on the economy and other domestic issues, most believe McCain is more qualified to be president, especially as a leader on national security. Obamaaides said they intend to turn their campaign's focus back toward the domestic economy beginning Monday. On the plane trip back to the U.S., the candidate told reporters that he is planning a meeting that day that will include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and investor Warren Buffett. The candidate plans to spend today in his hometown of Chicago after his roughly 16,000-mile journey and later in the week visit Missouri, Iowa and Florida. The economy is still "paramount," Axelrod said Friday at Paris' Elysee Palace, the French president's residence. McCain, too, is seeking to build an advantage on a domestic issue: energy. Polls show that most voters agree with McCain's positions in favor of increased drilling for offshore oil and building nuclear power plants. On Saturday, McCain criticized Obama for opposing both.

Plan makes McCain win – voters want nuclear power because of high energy prices The Washington Times, 7/25/08. “Push for drilling benefits McCain,” Lexis Sen.John McCain's efforts to tap voter discontent over soaring energy prices have helped produce his first poll lead in Colorado, a near dead-heat in Michigan and improving numbers in two other states. The Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday showed Mr. McCain topping Democratic presidential opponent Sen.Barack Obama 46 percent to 44 percent in Colorado, after trailing by five percentage points a month ago. The results surprised politicos in the state, many of whom were predicting that Mr. Obama would win Colorado as part of the Democratic Party's recent successes here. "We'd gotten into this mind-set that 2008 would be a good year for the Democrats," said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli. "What this shows is that issues still matter." The fortunes are changing as Mr. McCain and Republicans on Capitol Hill make a concerted effort to overcome Democratic hurdles to expand U.S. areas open to drilling and as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama focuses on foreign relations in a trip overseas. "The results show increased support for additional drilling, which McCain supports and Obama opposes," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Conn., which conducted the survey with the Wall Street Journal and Washingtonpost.com. "Roughly one in 10 voters say they have changed their minds and now favor drilling because of the jump in energy prices," he said. "They support Obama, but with voters saying that the energy issue is now more important to their presidential vote than is the war in Iraq, this group represents an opportunity for the Republican." In Colorado, Republicans have had to hand Democrats control of both legislative houses, the governor's office and a U.S. Senate seat since 2004. Still, Republicans consider it essential for Mr. McCain to win a state that supported President Bush in 2004. Campaign ads here tout Mr. McCain's support for a portfolio of energy strategies, including wind and solar power, as well as expanded drilling offshore. The Republican candidate continues to oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. "John McCain has presented a plan for more domestic oil drilling, a gas tax suspension, more nuclear power, and Barack Obama has been stubbornly opposed. Voters know that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said. Mr. Obama has called for energy alternatives, conservation and restrictions on speculation. "The energy issue was working for the Democrats until April, when gas prices hit $4 [per gallon], and then people began looking at traditional sources like oil, which Republicans dominate," said Mr. Ciruli. "When you're paying $4 and looking at $5, you start to get very realistic about your energy sources."

65

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
Nuclear power is winning supporters for McCain in battleground states – voters want lower energy prices T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol reporter, 7/28/08. “CAPITOL VIEWS: Republicans may be saying right things to voters weary of high energy prices,” http://hometownsource.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5833&Itemid=29 Republicans may be saying the right things to voters weary of high energy prices. Last week a Quinnipiac University/Wall Street Journal/washingtonpost.com poll showed that Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain had closed the gap between himself and Sen. Barack Obama in four battleground states — capturing a lead in Colorado. In Minnesota the poll, which is generally credited as valid, shows Obama and McCain basically tied. The pollsters opined that McCain’s traction might be the result of his energy policies — he has argued for a federal gas tax “holiday” or temporary suspension, for one thing. They reported that in Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin and Michigan, voters viewed energy policy as more important than the Iraq War and supported expanded oil drilling offshore and in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. It might be wondered, assuming the pollsters are correct, to what degree the Energy as King mentality is impacting other races. For instance, 6th Congressional District Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, RStillwater, recently returned from an energy tour she took with other Republican freshman that had her admiring the caribou as they huddled around oil pipes in Alaska. Bachmann is gung ho on expanding drilling onto the outer continental shelf, drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge, building more nuclear power plants, developing wind and solar power — the latter two she views as the future of energy. Eyes Alaskan oil fields She’s fond of pointing to the remoteness of the distant Alaskan oil fields, saying for several months of the years the region is cloaked in darkness. No one will see the drilling anyway, perhaps. In what may cause some of the old congressional bulls to perk up their ears, Bachmann blames Congress for the country’s energy woes. With public’s approval of Congress abysmally low, it’s not likely she meets too many people who say she’s wrong, wrong, wrong, on that. This may not hold true with other views. Bachmann’s proposing legislation to speed up the application process for energy exploration and even proposed a special court to handle lawsuits arising from disputes over the Alaskan oil fields. She’s not interested in Congress requiring automobile manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency standards, arguing Congress should not play a role in the decision. Democrats use similar language as Republicans when talking energy. Still, they don’t necessarily give the impression they have the kids in the backyard sniffing around the hostas for the scent of oil. Sixth Congressional District DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg like other Democrats talks of full exploration of existing leased lands before expanding the hunt for oil and gas to new areas. He styled Bachmann’s proposal for expediting the approval process for permits as unMinnesotan — power slamming things through before the locals can have a say. Franken reserves judgment U.S. Senate DFL candidate Al Franken, asked by a reporter not long ago about building additional nuclear power plants, Franken indicated he wanted to reserve judgment. He expressed concern over the storage of nuclear waste. “I would like to see us make more progress on the issue of storage — I really would,” said Franken. McCain, for one, harbors no such doubts. He wants America to build 45 new nuclear power plants — the waste can be handled, he argues. U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-St. Paul, also has indicated supports for additional nuclear power plants. Democrats like depicting “Big Oil” as oozing renegade profits and filling the campaign chests of Republicans with dollars reeking of the need for something — the furnace, anyway — to be cleaned. But the Quinnipiac University poll suggests that Republicans might be telling a more compelling energy story than at least Sen. Obama in four key battleground states. Voters may be looking for an energy policy matching the way many Midwesterners seem to like to drive — floor it.

66

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#2 EXT: McCain Linked to Nuclear
McCain is a very vocal supporter of nuclear power – wants to build 100 new plants Market Watch, Wall Street News Econ News, 7/24/08. “Nuclear power wins support on the campaign trail,” http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclear-power-wins-support-campaign/story.aspx?guid=%7B4C4C7CA5-E406-4E17AA8C-55E59DBD68CE%7D&dist=msr_4 Republican McCain is a loud proponent of nuclear power. In speeches and on his web site, the Arizona senator touts it as "a proven, zero-emission source of energy," and calls for building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. McCain ultimately aims to build 100 new plants. "It is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power," McCain's web site declares. McCain is also supportive of a proposed, controversial storage facility for nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. He also says it's critical that the U.S. build the components for the plants and reactors domestically "so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times."

Plan linked to McCain - he actively supports the expansion of nuclear power – creates new jobs The Times-Tribune, Scranton, Pa, 7/24/08. “McCain Touts Energy Policies,” http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2432549&title=McCain_Touts_Energy.html Mr. McCain didn't shy away from touting proposals sure to draw fire: nuclear energy and clean-coal technology. While he favors wind and solar power as alternative energy sources, Mr. McCain said building 45 new nuclear power plants could create 700,000 new jobs. He promised to invest $2 billion a year in clean-coal technology -- the conversion of coal into diesel gasoline or other fuels -- because the nation has the largest untapped coal reserve in the world. A clean-coal plant is proposed in Schuylkill County. Environmentalists criticize both technologies as potentially harmful, but Mr. McCain said the nation's military has been powering its submarines with nuclear fuel for 60 years without an accident. "Eighty percent of French electricity is generated by nuclear power. We always want to imitate the French," he joked, alluding to some Americans' distaste for France's opposition to the war in Iraq.

67

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#3 EXT: Nuclear Popular – Voters
Voters like nuclear power – high energy prices Market Watch, 7/24/08. “Nuclear power wins support on the campaign trail,” http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclearpower-wins-support-campaign/story.aspx?guid=%7B4C4C7CA5-E406-4E17-AA8C-55E59DBD68CE%7D&dist=msr_4 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- As the soaring cost of fossil fuels grabs both voters' and the candidates' attention, alternatives including nuclear power are enjoying a renaissance on the campaign trail. But while both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama embrace nuclear power as a viable form of energy, hurdles remain to ramping up production, including the cost of building plants, where to store the related waste and how to transport it. Moreover, politicians will have to overcome jitters about building new plants in local communities. With 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S., nuclear energy currently produces about 20% of U.S. power and is mostly used to make electricity. Experts say that the public is warming up to nuclear energy despite long-held reservations. So expect nuclear power to be on the table no matter who is elected president.

70% of Americans support nuclear energy – a record high because of environmental awareneness Nucleonics Week, 9/28/06. “Public support of nuclear power remains high, says industry poll,” Lexis For the second consecutive year, nearly 70% of Americans said they favor nuclear energy, according to a new poll commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute. But support from those in the South ? where most new nuclear reactors are proposed ? slipped slightly from last year. There have been public announcements from companies planning to submit applications to NRC in the next couple of years requesting permission to construct 17 or more units in the South, which far exceeds expansion plans in any other region in the US. No company is talking about building new plants in the West or Midwest, but there might be a few proposals in the Northeast. The survey, released this week, showed that 68% of respondents had favorable views on nuclear energy, which is virtually the same as the opinions expressed in a May 2005 survey. The results of last year's survey were touted as a record high for public support of nuclear power. The new poll found that 70% of respondents in the Northeast and Midwest favored nuclear energy, while 67% in the South and 66% in the West were supportive. In last year's survey, 69% in the Northeast, 73% in the Midwest, and 65% in the West said they supported nuclear energy. The largest change was in the South, where last year 72% of those polled, or about 5% more than this year, said they favored the use of nuclear energy. Ann Bisconti, president of Bisconti Research Inc., said the views reflected in the latest survey marked a "high plateau." She told Platts she did not see any statistically significant changes, based on a three percentage point margin of error. Bisconti Research, with the assistance of the company GfK NOP, conducted the poll for NEI through telephone interviews with 1,000 adults across the US. Bisconti said that in recent years an increasing number of people have expressed an awareness of the benefits of nuclear energy. She attributed the increase to the concentration of stories appearing in the media on global warming and clean air issues. In the September survey, 58% of the respondents said they had heard or read information about the importance of nuclear energy; 49% said they recalled seeing a report about the need to build more nuclear power plants in the US; 47% said they heard or read about the clean air benefits of nuclear power; and 44% said they had come across a report stating that nuclear energy was one way to fight global warming and climate change. Bisconti also said that the "perception gap" has been changing in recent years. That references the difference between a respondent's view on nuclear energy and his or her perception of others' views on the subject. In the latest survey, 68% of the respondents said they favored nuclear energy but only 33% said they believed most of the public favored nuclear energy. In a May 2003 survey, 17% of respondents said they believed most Americans favored the use of nuclear energy, she said. Participants in industry-sponsored focus groups have attributed the gap between their views and the perception of the public's views to having more education on the topic, Bisconti said. She said that participants also believe others might have formed their views based on exposure to negative news about nuclear energy. The newest survey found 63% of Americans believed more nuclear plants should "definitely" be built in the future, up from 58% in last year's survey. The poll also found that 27% opposed the use of nuclear power, up slightly from about 24% who said they opposed it in last year's survey. According to this month's poll, 72% of the respondents believe the federal government should continue to develop the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site as a high-level waste repository, as long as it meets NRC regulations. In the May 2005 survey, 71% of respondents said they favored that course of action. Last year's study preceded the question with the statement: "Scientific study by more than 3,000 scientists demonstrates that the proposed Yucca Mountain site for a national disposal facility for nuclear waste is safe." The survey also found that 65% of Americans believe that spent fuel can be safely stored at a plant site until it is moved to a repository. This question was not included in past industry surveys. 2/3 of the public support nuclear energy – safe, environmentally-friendly and good for the economy St. Petersburg Times (Florida), 7/7/08. “ADVOCATE GOES FROM NATURE TO NUCLEAR,” Lexis 68

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
Polls are pretty clear that about two-thirds of the people support nuclear energy and think it should be part of the future. The closer people live to the nuclear plants the more supportive they are of nuclear energy. There's about 80 percent support within 10 miles of the plant. There are three reasons for that. One, they know it's safe because they live there and it's never hurt them. Two, the air is clean and compared to living near a coal plant they know it's not causing any environmental damage. And third, it's a huge economic generator. They employ about twice as many people as a coal plant and they employ higher-skilled and higher-paid people than a coal plant.

69

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Popular – Pennsylvania
Pennsylvanians support nuclear power more than ever – even after 3 mile island Christian Science Monitor, 7/31/08. “McCain gains ground in three battleground states,” http://features.csmonitor.com/monitorbreakfast/2008/07/31/mccain-gains-ground-in-three-battleground-states/ For decades, the three states polled – Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida – have together formed a critical bellwether for presidential elections. No one has been elected since John Kennedy without carrying two of the three. Odds are that will be the case this year, but the pollsters don’t rule out that Obama could lose two of the three but make up the electoral votes by carrying newly competitive states in the Mountain West, such as Colorado and New Mexico. In the latest Quinnipiac Swing State poll, McCain’s progress came among white, working-class voters, the demographic where Obama’s main primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was stronger and which has proved difficult for Obama to win over. The poll also showed that energy could be a winning issue for McCain. Among all the economic issues weighing heavily on voters’ minds, energy and gasoline prices rank No. 1. In Pennsylvania, 60 percent of residents favor offshore drilling, which is McCain’s position. And almost 30 years after the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident, near Harrisburg, Penn., Pennsylvanians are increasingly amenable to the building of new nuclear power plants. “Pennsylvania residents now favor building new nuclear power plants 58 to 32, and that includes a shift of about 8 percent of the people who used to oppose nuclear plants,” said Clay Richards, another associate director of the poll.

70

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Popular – Michigan
Michigan voters support nuclear power plants – high gas prices Detroit News, Lansing Bureau, 7/23/08. “Mich. voters back offshore drilling, nukes,” http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/POLITICS01/807230381/1022 Discouraged Michiganians, who believe the sputtering U.S. economy is worsening, say gas prices are cutting into their lifestyles and they're willing to embrace a broad array of solutions, including offshore drilling, to bring fuel costs down, according to a Detroit News/WXYZ-Action News poll. Seven in 10 voters said soaring fuel costs -- at $4.09 a gallon for regular this week -- are having a significant or major impact on their lives and are swaying two-thirds of residents to back offshore drilling in Florida, California and other states with ocean shorelines. Nearly half said they'd even favor drilling for oil and gas along the Great Lakes. "Offshore oil drilling is something that should be done. We should have gone into that small area of Alaska to get the oil there," said survey participant Pat McGoldrick, 44, a robotics engineer from Waterford. Also, 60 percent of poll respondents support additional nuclear plants to provide electricity. The U.S. hasn't licensed a new nuclear power plant in three decades. John Sally, a 53-year-old Internal Revenue Service agent from Wyandotte, agrees that the nation has to think nuclear. "Nuclear power is comparatively safe and should be considered as an alternative. It's nice to say let's stick with coal, but look at the hazards associated with coal," said Sally, whose father, uncle and grandfather died of black lung disease after working in the coal mines in Pennsylvania. Michigan voters support nuclear power - agree with McCain’s nuclear program Detroit News, 7/22/08. “Michigan voters say high gas prices cramp their style, favor more drilling,” http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/METRO/807220422/1361 Discouraged Michiganians, who believe the sputtering U.S. economy is worsening, say gas prices are cutting into their lifestyles and they're willing to embrace a broad array of solutions including offshore drilling to bring fuel costs down, according to a Detroit News/WXYZ-Action News poll. Seven in 10 voters said soaring fuel costs -- at $4.09 a gallon for regular this week -- are having a significant or major impact on their lives and are swaying two-thirds of residents to back offshore drilling in Florida, California and other states with ocean shorelines. Nearly half said they'd even favor drilling for oil and gas along the Great Lakes. "Offshore oil drilling is something that should be done. We should have gone into that small area of Alaska to get the oil there," said survey participant Pat McGoldrick, 44, a robotics engineer from Waterford. Also, 60 percent of poll respondents support additional nuclear plants to provide electricity. The U.S. hasn't licensed a new nuclear power plant in three decades. John Sally, a 53-year-old Internal Revenue Service agent from Wyandotte, agrees that the nation has to think nuclear. "Nuclear power is comparatively safe and should be considered as an alternative. It's nice to say let's stick with coal, but look at the hazards associated with coal," said Sally, whose father, uncle and grandfather died of black lung disease after working in the coal mines in Pennsylvania. President Bush this month called on Congress to lift a moratorium that has blocked drilling in the country's coastal waters and the Alaska wildlife refuge to step up domestic oil supply. However, experts say it could take years for production to begin. Michiganians believe Democrat Barack Obama, by a 42-35 spread, is better able to handle rising energy prices than Republican John McCain. But they generally agree with McCain's positions to allow offshore drilling and push for 45 more nuclear power plants to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Obama opposes offshore drilling and said nuclear plant safety would have to be addressed before building new plants.

71

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#4 EXT: Not Divisive
Nuclear power not an issue – both candidates support LA Times, 7/13/08. “CAMPAIGN '08; Some voters see it as win-win,” Lexis Both McCain and Obama favor combating global warming with a "cap and trade" system. Under this plan, the government would set limits on emissions. Companies and others who emit gases below those limits would be able to sell credits to those unable to meet the targets. On the future of nuclear power, the candidates are in the same neighborhood. McCain has laid out a plan to build 45 nuclear power plants. Obama has offered more general support, along with the caveat that a nuclear power expansion be coupled with a resolution on how to safely dispose of waste. Both McCain and Obama support nuclear power – co-sponsored a nuclear bill in congress Global Power Report, 1/18/07. “Senators offer plan for trading of GHGs; would give incentives for nuclear generators,” Lexis Two senators have reintroduced a plan to create an economy-wide domestic greenhouse gas trading program with market incentives for nuclear power. Senators John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent, last week unveiled the legislation, dubbed the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, for the third consecutive year. The bill now has two potential presidential hopefuls as cosponsors, McCain and Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat. Obama's support for the legislation is not surprising given the plan's incentives for expanding the country's fleet of nuclear power plants. Illinois has 11 commercial nuclear reactors, more than any other state. Under the plan, the Environmental Protection Agency would oversee the GHG trading program in consultation with the Department of Energy. The legislation, S. 280, aims to cut GHGs to 33% below 2000 levels by 2050. In prior versions, the plan proposed to cap emissions at 2000 levels. The bill also directs EPA to determine emissions caps on power plants, oil refineries, motor vehicles and any industrial facility that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of CO2-equivalent/year. The legislation also says EPA must require industrial facilities to submit one allowance for every metric ton of emissions. Among incentives for nuclear plants is the auction of emissions allowances to fund the government's 50% share of the costs of a public-private program to ensure that nuclear plants have no net emissions from generating power or transporting reactor fuel. The plan caps the federal contribution to the nuclear reactor program at $200 million.

72

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Elections - Obama Good
1. Voters don’t care about nuclear power – polls prove, both candidates support nuclear power [quals added]
NPR, National Public Radio, 7/21/08. “Nuclear Power A Thorny Issue For Candidates,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92690120 Nuclear power doesn't usually make for an applause line in a stump speech, but it has come up on the campaign trail. Both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain see it as a way to combat climate change, though they've sometimes chosen their words with care. Of the two, McCain is the most comfortable with the topic. As a Navy pilot, he landed on aircraft carriers, which today are essentially floating nuclear-powered cities. McCain calls nuclear "one of the cleanest, safest and most reliable energy sources on Earth." "If we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful, powerful ally in that cause," he said in a May speech. McCain's enthusiasm for nuclear has put him in unusual territory for a Republican: He's been praising the French, who generate 80 percent of their power from nuclear. Obama's position is also somewhat unusual for a Democrat: He thinks nuclear power might be a good idea. The question came up during an early Democratic primary debate. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards went first, saying he did not favor nuclear power. Obama went next. "I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the mix," he said, before pivoting to solar energy, a much safer topic. When asked about his position early on by a New Hampshire newspaper, Obama said he was open
to the idea if certain problems could be solved. And it was a long list of issues, including safety, waste storage, vulnerability to terrorist attack and concerns about weapons proliferation. But if those are solvable? "Why not?" Obama said. "I don't think there is anything we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up ... and irradiate us ... and kill us!" His questioners laughed. But Obama has since polished his response to that question. Obama's home state of Illinois has more reactors than any state in the country. And he has some ties to the company that operates those reactors. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees at Exelon have given Obama more than $180,000 in campaign contributions. Two spokespeople for the company declined requests for an interview, saying a chairman of an electricity distribution company it owns had run an Obama fundraising event. Obama seems happy to keep his distance as well. He recently used nuclear power to paint McCain in a negative light. After criticizing McCain for wanting to open up more land for oil drilling, Obama added, "That makes about as much sense as his plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan for the waste, other than put it — guess where? — right here in Nevada, at Yucca Mountain." Obama, like other Democratic presidential candidates before him, says he's opposed to sending the waste to Nevada. The waste issue even seems to have gotten to McCain. In the Senate, McCain voted to send waste to Yucca Mountain. But on the campaign trail, he seems to be softening his stand. McCain has proposed building an international repository, primarily to keep used reactor fuel out of the wrong hands, but maybe with a second purpose. "It is even possible," McCain said, "that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada." Eric Herzik, chair of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno, says he was surprised to hear McCain say that. "His voting record is very clear," Herzik said. "He has backed the Yucca Mountain repository and made no apologies for it, until about two months ago, (when) he came to Nevada and kind of gave this mixed signal." Herzik has studied the politics of nuclear energy for 20 years. And he says whoever is elected won't be able to just talk their way out of the nuclear waste problem. The government has spent billions of dollars researching Yucca Mountain and millions fighting court battles. Finding another site abroad or at home will not be easy and could take decades. "To say, 'Well, we'll just find some magic beans and plant them in the ground and a repository site will grow where everybody wants it' — we've never been able to find that," Herzik said. The irony is that for all the trouble nuclear power and waste gives the

candidates, Herzik [chair of the political science department at the University of Nevada] says there's little evidence it actually affects how people vote for the president. He and his colleagues have done some polling, and even in Nevada, when voters are asked to rank nuclear waste with other issues, it comes out at the bottom of the list.

73

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 2. McCain winning now a. Widespread support from Hispanics
BETH REINHARD, staff writer, 6- 23, 2008 “Poll: Obama leads in South Florida” Miami Herald http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/580609.html 'When Hispanic voters have an opportunity to focus on McCain's record on issues like education, economic development, free trade and immigration, the candidate who best represents the Hispanic community is McCain,'' said Ana Carbonell, a Miami member of the McCain campaign's steering committee. ``The campaign plans an aggressive effort to reach out to Hispanic voters, especially in Florida.'' But Democrats point to signs that the Hispanic community's political stripes are changing. A protest Saturday outside Obama's speech in Miami drew only about three dozen people, mostly older Cuban-Americans. The group attacked Obama for surrounding himself with two high-level advisors who helped send Cuban rafter Elián González back to his father in Cuba. When the custody battle raged eight years ago, Cuban-Americans rose up in droves. ''We understand the Elián González issue is something that passed, and that it was not Obama's fault,'' said Ramón Saúl Sánchez of the Miami-based Democracy Movement, who tussled with the federal agents who seized Elián from his relatives' home in Little Havana. ``People are giving more weight to other issues, like lifting the travel ban.'' Carbonell said younger Cuban-Americans may not have attended the protest but were buzzing about Obama's advisors on Spanish-language blogs. Of the Cuban-Americans in the Herald poll, a majority support McCain. Obama has called for lifting the Bush administration's restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit family on the island. McCain has criticized Obama for wanting to ease sanctions and for his willingness to meet with the Cuban government in the hope of sparking democratic reform. ''A lot of Cuban Americans are very disappointed with President Bush,'' Sanchez said. ``If McCain says he's going to follow the same policies as Bush, that says a lot.''

b. Latino vote key to the election
Dante Chinni, Staff Writer, 07.15.2008 The Christian Science Monitor, “McCain and Obama court Latinos, carefully” http://www.csmonitor.com/patchworknation/csmstaff/2008/0715/mccain-and-obama-court-latinos-carefully/ It was also very necessary. Latinos are the largest and fastest growing minority group in America. They make up about 15 percent of the population and about 9 percent of eligible voters. Some key battleground states in the West and the South have large Hispanic populations. For instance, in New Mexico, 37 percent of the population is Hispanic. In Florida, the figure is 14 percent. In both Colorado and Nevada, it’s 12 percent. In Patchwork Nation, counties with a large number of Hispanics and recent immigrants are classified as “Immigration Nation.” In many states, such counties are scattered around the country where the vote could be close, including Iowa and Missouri. But courting the Latino vote also means wandering into the issue thicket that is immigration in the United States. The Republican Party learned this last year when a White House-backed proposal for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which included a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, sparked a firestorm. Conservatives attacked it as “amnesty.”

3. No link – none of their evidence draws a distinction between the plan and other alternative energy policies. No reason McCain would uniquely latch onto the plan.

74

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

4. Obama gets credit for the plan – a. He’s the only one who can vote for it – he’s a senator b. Obama would jump on board Emi Kolawole; 7-9-08; Newsweek Report, http://www.newsweek.com/id/145160
A new ad from the Republican National Committee claims Barack Obama proposes "no new solutions" for the energy and climate crises. In fact, the Illinois senator has proposed $150 billion in spending over 10 years for biofuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and the rapid commercialization of other new, clean energy technologies. The ad also recycles the misleading claim that Obama has said "no" to nuclear. Obama said he is open to nuclear if it is clean and safe. And while the ad correctly says that Obama is against lifting the gas tax and against more production "here at home" (read: lifting the federal ban on more offshore oil drilling), neither of those steps is likely to be a "solution" for the problems at hand. The ad's most misleading claim is that Obama proposes "no new solutions" to the intertwined climate change and energy crises. In fact, Obama has an entire Web page dedicated to his proposals for the future of energy policy. One is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan that would go toward clean coal technology; further development of plug-in hybrid cars; and commercialization of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. The RNC and McCain may not like all of Obama's ideas, just as Obama may not support all of McCain's, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. While McCain recently proposed The Lexington Project, which includes spending $2 billion annually toward clean coal technology advancement, McCain doesn't have a plan comparable to Obama's in scale of spending. In addition, Obama's spending proposal predates McCain's Lexington Project by over six months.s

5. Plan won’t spill over to elections – a. The election is in 3 months – voters won’t remember McCain’s advocacy of the plan b. Other more important issues like the economy will cloud McCain’s support for the plan in the meantime

75

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 6. McCain won’t strike Iran – doesn’t want taint his image by continuing Bush’s go-it-alone approach Michael Shear 3/27/08 (Washington Post staff writer, “McCain outlines foreign policy; In Speech He vows collaborative approach”, lexis)
Sen. John McCain on Wednesday promised a collaborative foreign policy that would seek the input of allies abroad and would contrast sharply with the go-it-alone approach of the Bush administration. McCain (Ariz.) also refused to give ground on Iraq to his Democratic rivals, declaring that the continued U.S. presence there is a "moral responsibility" and that a "reckless" withdrawal would be an "unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation." In his first extensive policy speech since securing the delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination, McCain delivered an impassioned argument that achieving democracy in Iraq is necessary for a peaceful world. "Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war already lost in Iraq," he said, without naming Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. "Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight al-Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake." But even as McCain offered a defense of President Bush 's current war policy, he outlined a sharp critique of the administration's dealings with foreign allies. In a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, McCain called himself a "realistic idealist" and outlined a worldview mirroring that of some Bush administration critics, who say the first task of the next president must be to repair relations around the world. "Today we are not alone," McCain said. "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed." The speech drew a quick response from Obama spokesman Bill Burton. He castigated McCain for being "determined to carry out four more years of George Bush 's failed policies, including an open-ended war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars while making us less safe." In a statement, Clinton said: "While there is much to praise in Senator McCain 's speech, he and I continue to have a fundamental disagreement on Iraq." Clinton said that McCain, like Bush, opposes "a swift and responsible withdrawal from Iraq" and wants to "keep us tied to another country's civil war." Despite McCain's support for the Iraq war, he said the United States should take a different approach to future conflicts. In the speech, McCain renewed his call for a "global compact -- a League of Democracies" that would unite the world's free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he played down unilateral action and stressed cooperation on global warming, torture of prisoners and trade. "We need to listen -- we need to listen -- to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said. "When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them." Bush's foreign policy approach has moderated significantly in his second term, with greater outreach to European allies and a willingness to strike deals with countries such as North Korea. In essence, McCain suggested he would embrace Bush's policies on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan while extending his willingness to meet allies halfway. At the same time, McCain indicated he would sharply break with Bush's efforts to accommodate Russia, saying he would push to eject it from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers. Part of the opening of McCain's speech echoed the opening of an opinion piece he wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2001 in support of the administration's anti-terrorism efforts. In both instances, the lengthy passage says that in war "the lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed" and "commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged," among other nearly identical lines. McCain is often portrayed in the news media as a global John Wayne who would tread on the world stage with a Navy veteran's swagger and talk tough toward unfriendly governments in Iran and North Korea. But his record on foreign policy during two decades in the Senate is more nuanced. A skeptic about foreign interventions when he arrived in Congress in 1983, McCain later became a vocal advocate for unilateral U.S. action in Kosovo and the Middle East. In 1983, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan and others in his party, McCain argued for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon. But in 1999, he supported the use of ground troops to stop "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. And his full-throated backing of the Iraq war in 2002 is well known. McCain's rhetoric as he courted Republican voters in primaries was often laced with incendiary language. On Iran, he hinted at an eagerness to take military action, saying the only thing worse would be a "nuclear-armed Iran." But since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain has rarely used the language of the neoconservatives in Washington who pushed Bush to adopt a policy of preemptive strikes against foreign enemies. Instead, McCain has sounded more like the foreign policy "realists" who advised Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.

76

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 7. Iran doesn’t have nukes – a strike couldn’t escalate
(The New York Times, December 3 07, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cndiran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin, “U.S. says Iran ended atomic arms work”) WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb. The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates. But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

8. We outweigh – a. Probability – models indicate fossil fuel emissions are causing warming now, leading to climate oscillations and extinction from starvation – the probability of extinction via warming is 100%. b. Timeframe – 30 nuclear weapons states are on the horizon – that’s Stares. The plan is key to check prolif and prevent an imminent nuke war. The impacts won’t happen before January when McCain would be inaugurated.

77

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

1AR EXT – Obama Good 2AC #1: Voters rank nuclear energy last in importance to them in the elections – means the plan won’t have any effect on who wins – that’s NPR 2AC #2: Extend our Reinhard evidence – McCain is winning now – has the Hispanic vote. Extend Chinni – the Latino vote is key to the election because they’re 9% of eligible voters. More evidence in favor of McCain – economy –
James Pethokoukis, Staff Writer, 7-15, 2008 US News and World Report “4 Reasons the Weak Economy Is Now Helping
McCain” http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/7/15/4-reasons-the-weak-economy-is-now-helping-mccain.html But I think we may now be at the point where this economic mess has started working in McCain's favor. The dynamic no
longer seems to be a linear phenomenon in which a bad economy is good for Obama and a worse economy is even better. Rather, the situation has become chaotic and almost impossible to predict in view of all the emerging variables. But within the range of realistic possibilities, McCain may now have a roughly fifty-fifty shot at victory. Here's why: 1) Gas prices. Polls show the public wants lower

gas prices and thinks oil drilling can help get them. And McCain and the Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of more energy and lower prices. They want to drill, and they want to build more nuclear plants. But instead of
opening up new areas to drilling, Democrats want to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And who can forget Obama's response when asked what he thought of higher gas prices: "I would have preferred a gradual adjustment." One problem may be that Obama fashioned his energy plan when oil was a mere $60 a barrel. McCain seems to be smartly tweaking his policies on the fly—drilling, the gas tax moratorium—to appeal to voters furious about higher prices at the pump. 2) Stale Obamanomics. Like his energy policy, Obama's economic policy was crafted when the economy was clearly expanding, unemployment was below 5 percent, and the budget deficit was plunging. Now growth is sporadic at best, unemployment is rising sharply, and the deficit is likely to top a record $500 billion. Yet Obama still wants to raise investment, income, and payroll taxes while expanding spending. McCain, on the other hand, is talking about pro-growth tax cuts

and balancing the budget by the end of his first term. Just as Obama's Iraq policy seems stuck in the past, so does his economic policy.3) The Fannie and Freddie fiasco. Up until the announcement of the Paulson-Bernanke bailout, the mortgage mess and
credit crunch looked to many like examples of free-market failure. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are creations of a federal government trying to promote a specific economic policy—greater homeownership. And the artificial existence of these quasi-corporate creatures has contributed mightily to the housing mess, explains economist Brian Wesbury, by dominating the mortgage market "using subsidized credit" and pushing "private firms toward the fringes of the securitization process and into territory which included subprime and Alt-A loans." In any event, the Fannie-Freddie mess could be used by Team McCain to vividly display the incompetency of big government at the exact time Obama is arguing for more government involvement in healthcare and energy. 4) A skeptical public. America doesn't think too much of its government right now. Approval ratings of President Bush and Congress are minuscule. Indeed, pollsters will tell you that bad economies make voters skeptical of government rather than pushing them to embrace it. A recent Zogby poll showed that 46 percent of Democrats favored corporate taxes over taxpayer-funded federal programs as the best way to spur economic growth. Recall that a big corporate tax cut is at the heart of the McCain economic program. A big risk for Obama is that

he will mistake a dislike of the GOP for a love of bigger government and overreach on policy and rhetoric.

2AC #3: Extend the no link arg – they don’t read a single piece of evidence distinguishing the plan from other alt energy bills – plan doesn’t uniquely tip the election.

78

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC #4: Extend Horsley – the plan helps Obama. McCain only wins if he distances himself from Bush’s policies, like the plan, and creates a “change” narrative. 2AC #5: Extend only Obama gets credit for the plan because he can vote on it. McCain can’t ride the bill’s coattails – no political involvement. Our Kolawole evidence says Obama would jump on board. Prefer it – it’s specific to nuke energy. 2AC #6: Extend the Shear evidence – McCain won’t strike Iran – he doesn’t want to continue Bush Administration’s unsuccessful “go it alone” legacy. 2AC #7: Extend the New York Times evidence – Iran doesn’t have nukes, means no retaliation and global escalation. And, Iran wouldn’t nuke the US –
George Perkovich with Silvia Manzanero (Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Paralegal at Stetson U and Carnegie Junior Fellow), October 2005, GETTING READY FOR A NUCLEAR-READY IRAN, www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub629.pdf Finally, although this paper assesses the challenge of reversing Iran’s proliferation, it also would be wise to consider the alternative strategy of adaptation to a nuclear Iran. If Iran effectively resisted roll back, the United States and others would shift to a strategy of deterring Iran from “using” its nuclear capability as an instrument of coercive diplomacy (nuclear blackmail) or military aggression (using a nuclear umbrella to shield low-intensity conflict in other states). A shift from roll back to a strategy of deterrence and containment would come early if Iran indicated it is deterrable and desired nuclear weapons only to protect its own autonomy, not to alter the status quo in the Gulf and Middle East. Iran’s more pragmatic international policy since 1997 suggests that it is moving toward a more status quo orientation and would not wield nuclear weapons provocatively. If this were to prove true, the United States would find it extremely difficult to sustain international cooperation in seeking to coerce Iranian roll back. This paper, however, does not explore the adaptive strategy of deterrence and containment because such a strategy would not be nearly so difficult for the United States to execute as would be the strategy of rallying international cooperation in roll back.

2AC #8: Extend that we outweigh for 3 reasons – Subpoint A is probability. Our United Nations and Milbreth evidence both indicate that warming is happening now – there’s a 100% chance that a world absent the plan would worsen the problem, causing the collapse of the food chain and extinction – that’s UPI.

79

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Subpoint B is timeframe. In the imminent future, thirty nations have the potential to become nuclear weapons states. Prefer the Stares evidence here – action now is key to ensure global safety. And, subpoint C is magnitude. U.S.-Russia relations are the biggest impact in the debate, because negative sentiment between the superpowers would result in the launching of over 3,200 warheads. Such a conflict would kill billions in a ghastly nuclear holocaust.

80

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

#1 EXT: Not Divisive
Nuclear power not an issue – both candidates support LA Times, 7/13/08. “CAMPAIGN '08; Some voters see it as win-win,” Lexis Both McCain and Obama favor combating global warming with a "cap and trade" system. Under this plan, the government would set limits on emissions. Companies and others who emit gases below those limits would be able to sell credits to those unable to meet the targets. On the future of nuclear power, the candidates are in the same neighborhood. McCain has laid out a plan to build 45 nuclear power plants. Obama has offered more general support, along with the caveat that a nuclear power expansion be coupled with a resolution on how to safely dispose of waste. Yucca has very little effect on how Nevadans will vote – although those who are affected will vote for Obama Las Vegas Review-Journal, 6/15/08. “Nuclear waste deal opposed,” Lexis In a related question in this month's poll, 45 percent of the respondents said a presidential candidate's stance on Yucca Mountain will have no influence on how they vote in November's election. Only 14 percent said a presidential candidate's stance on the nuclear waste issue would have a major influence on their voting, while 38 percent said it would have some influence. Coker said other issues such as a candidate's stand on the economy, the war in Iraq, gasoline prices and national security and terrorism prevail in most voter's minds over a localized environmental issue such as the Yucca Mountain Project. "Obama voters are going to vote for Obama for reasons other than Yucca Mountain and same for McCain," Coker said, referring to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. "There's not going to be a big number of voters who are going to be influenced in a major way (by Yucca Mountain), but there will be some. At the end of the day, it could be a net positive for Obama" among Nevada voters, Coker said . Results from a Review-Journal poll that were released a month before President Bush was re-elected in 2004 showed only 3 percent of respondents thought Yucca Mountain was the most important issue in deciding their presidential vote. "Yucca Mountain wasn't a big enough issue that didn't cost Bush the state," Coker said. "It didn't prevent him from carrying Nevada in 2004, and they didn't take it out on any of the Republicans who ran in 2004." Former Nevada Gov. Robert List, who was a former consultant to the pro-Yucca Nuclear Energy Institute and who now represents four rural counties in the licensing matter, said the voter influence survey "is a very telling question." "This is not a major mover of voters. For most people today, the issues of economy and jobs and home foreclosures, education and crime and water and a whole array of issues ... are far more significant" than Yucca Mountain. In the latest poll, most of the respondents who favored fighting Yucca Mountain were Democrats, 74 percent, or were women, 69 percent, or were from Clark County, 63 percent.

81

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Unpopular – Nevada
Plan makes McCain lose Nevada, a critical swing state – voters opposed to Yucca mountain Jason Leopold, Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire, 6/18/08. “McCain's Nuclear Power Policy Identical to Bush Administration's,” The Public Record, http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&amp;id=144%3Amccains-nuclear-powerpolicy-identical-to-bush-administrations&amp;option=com_content&amp;Itemid=16 The Department of Energy, the agency largely responsible for monitoring nuclear waste, submitted an application to the NRC to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, the site of a former nuclear testing ground in Nevada, where the agency has proposed burying the waste deep underground. McCain supports the idea of storing waste in Yucca Mountain, a move opposed by a majority of Nevadans and one that could cost the Arizona Republican a critical swing state.

82

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

CO, NV, NM Key
Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are the key states in the election - independents 9News, Colorado News Station, 6/29/08. “Colo. to be key battleground state in presidential election,” http://www.9news.com/news/politics_govt/article.aspx?storyid=93031&catid=166 During an MSNBC conversation about how close the upcoming 2008 election would be between Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), political reporter Tim Russert issued the words Colorado voters have never heard. "In 2004, I said Ohio, Ohio, Ohio (as the state to determine the race)," Russert said. "In 2008, I really do think it's that strip of New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada." Only twice since World War II have Democratic presidential candidates won Colorado (Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992) and yet, now, more than at any other time in state history, Colorado appears to be a prime presidential battleground heading into November. "It now, I think, rests almost perfectly in the middle," said 9NEWS Political Analyst Floyd Ciruli of Colorado's political mood. "It's held there by a huge number of unaffiliated voters who really have no attachment to the parties." Ciruli says the Rocky Mountain region's growth has brought more traffic, more water issues and more independents who vote for people rather than political parties. Colorado's importance is highlighted by Obama's two visits this year and McCain's three visits. "It's self re-enforcing," said Ciruli. "The candidates talk about it. The senior staff talks about it. The pundits talk about it. Russert talks about it. Everybody realizes it's on everyone's list." Past elections focused on states like Ohio and Florida, but Democrats are quick to point out if their 2004 candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) had won Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, he'd be president now instead of George W. Bush. Colorado's importance will have a significant impact on our lives leading up to the November election. "This attention will translate into endless presidential visits, vice presidential visits, early advertising, and unbelievable late advertising. You will see the national media come in and set up shop. You will see far more polling than you have in the past," Ciruli said. "We will look like the Florida's and the Ohio's in the previous elections."

83

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Nuclear Obama
Turn – Plan causes Obama to win Atlanta Journal Constitution, 7-24-08, Interview w/ Ralph Nader, “Something for those turned off by the conservatism of
Barack Obama”, http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sharedblogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/07/24/something_for_those_turned_off.html Because he’s a corporate Democrat….Look at FISA, look at his back-tracking on Supreme Court decisions, his supporting the credit card industry. No one in Washington associates Barack Obama with a major, serious, energetic agenda to deal with the abuses and exploitations of the lower 100 million Americans on the income ladder. Never mind going into the areas of exploitation in the ghettos — predatory lending and all that. He’s probably said some things on this, but look at Jim Webb. Jim Webb is a freshman senator [from Virginia]. He really did it seriously on veterans’ education. That’s what I mean, you know? I’ve talked to thousands of Obama supporters, obviously, going around the country. Almost none of them associate any major policy initiative with him in Congress. And as a state senator, he even voted to cap pain and suffering damages of medical malpractice victims to $250,000. That’s pretty inexcusable. He’s weak on the civil justice system, which is the principle way defrauded and wrongfully injured people challenge corporate power…. He’s never met a weapons system he didn’t like. He’s not challenged the military-industrial complex at all. And he gets a huge amount of money — more than [Republican John] McCain has got — from corporate interests and corporate attorneys…. For him, nuclear power is still on the table — which is very insensitive, given that some of his major backers are nuclear power executives in Chicago.

84

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***AGENDA POLITICS

85

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: OCS Bad
1. Democrats hate the plan - have been blocking nuclear policies for decades
Donald R. May, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, 7/15/08. “Democrats Keep Oil Prices High,” http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/conservative/2008/07/15/democrats-keep-oil-prices-high/ The Democrats are the primary cause of our massive oil energy dependence on foreign and our lack of clean domestic nuclear power. If it were not for the Democrats, we would have ample domestic power. We would be selling oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuel overseas with billions of additional dollars added to our Gross Nation Product every day and millions of additional American jobs having been created. The extended problem is that Barack Obama and the Democrats also do not want to develop nuclear power. Barack Obama said he favors developing nuclear power only after we figure out how to handle our nuclear waste. Democrats have been blocking any and all solutions to our proper management of nuclear waste since before Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of our spent nuclear fuel rods.

2. Their Teaching Tools evidence just says oil spills may hurt species, but not kill them – and no reason these species are key to human survival 3. Democrats will approve OCS – public support
Energy Washington Week, 7-16-08 (“Pelosi Not Likely To Support Coalition's Bipartisan Move On Drilling” Vol. 5 No. 29, pLn) One Democratic source said that they will even consider expanding the NEED Act to include offshore oil drilling alongside the bill's original call for offshore natural gas drilling. This highlights the goal of the working group, which is to consider as much as possible to reach a compromise and have something to bring to the floor following the August break in September. The working group seeks to bring together the conservation and efficiency approach of the Democrats with the GOP's call for increased drilling, rather than continue a stalemate in having one approach dominate over the other, these sources say. Boehner, for his part, will be touring both DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) later this week, followed by a July 20 visit to Alaska to survey the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), eyed by the GOP for its untapped oil reserves. Boehner would reportedly support a strategy to bolster renewable fuels production alongside increased drilling for fossil fuels as a way to beat back high gasoline prices. Pelosi has stood firm against the push to open ANWR, while also considering the clamor by some in her party for a reexamination of the nation's renewable fuels policy as a link to high food prices. The pressure to reconsider offshore drilling in Congress is steadily rising, in the face of recent public opinion polls that strongly support discussing the idea. At press time, President Bush relinquished the executive ban on OCS drilling, saying it is time for lawmakers to follow suit to lower gasoline and diesel prices. He also called on Congress to move on oil shale. The initial response from Democrats was that they would persist in their opposition to OCS. -- John Siciliano

4. Species go extinct all the time, their impact should have already occurred – and their St. Louis Post evidence just says species loss would be “a tragedy,” not that it would cause human extinction

86

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 5. Concessions have no effect – party loyalty is most important
Smith - Director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy- 7, (Steven S., “Party Influence in Congress,” Pg 56) Before turning to tangible incentives that party leaders can offer as incentives for cooperation, it pays to note a feature of party life in Congress that scholars have recognized as important: Supporting the party appears to be a default voting strategy for most legislators. Scholars Charles O. Jones (Jones 1961) and David Truman (Truman 1959), studying the mid-twentieth century Congress, observed a widespread proclivity to support the party line when other significant pressures were not present, creating a baseline of support for the party. Studies offer at least three distinct stories about the origin of this minimum level of partisanship. First, many arrive in Congress with a strong psychological identification with their parties. Many of them have long experience working for and with their parties in their home states, state legislatures, and elsewhere. This is reinforced in everyday life with their party collegues on Capitol Hill. A disposition to “go along” with the party position, in the absence of other influences, is the product. Identification with party collegues created the opportunity for “peer pressure,” which political scientists may overlook but legislators do not. Barber Conable (R-NY), once the senior Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means, observes that “peer group pressure is of considerably greater significance that presidential blandishments.” Leaders exploit legislators’ predispositions by frequently appealing to party loyalty when soliciting votes (Kingdon 1973; Ripley 1967)

6. DA is not intrinsic – a rational policy maker could pass the plan and not pass OCS No abuse – we’ll only make one logical same-actor intrinsicness argument 7. Congress just appropriated just increased funds for nuclear power reactors – non uniques your links
Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires, 3-10-08, “US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-NRC”, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG).

8. Bush lacks political capital and support to do anything even if it’s a good thing Barry Smith, staff write op ed section JD news, 6-24-08,
http://www.jdnews.com/opinion/president_57709___article.html/oil_energy.html) In fact, I'd love to see the day when I can put a solar cell on my car or we can convert household waste into energy efficiently, and we can tell the Saudis and big oil companies what they can do with their barrels of oil. But that day is not imminent. We need to do something to get more energy resources flowing in the meantime. My only complaint with his speech is that it came a few years later than it should. Better late than never, I guess. I'm not very optimistic that Congress will heed the president's call and allow for the drilling to begin. This is an election year, and the president doesn't have much of the political capital that he boasted about when he was re-elected four years ago left. Some might even say that the president is bankrupt when it comes to political capital. It's really a shame when a president gets near the end of his term and he can't persuade Congress to help out a nation filled with motorists that are hurting every time they pump gasoline into cars. The president will need a lot of help if he's to get Congress to pass anything this year. That help will have to come from a grassroots effort. It won't come from inside the District of Columbia.

87

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 9. Case outweighs! Climate oscillations and CO2 destroy ecosystems which threatens all life on earth– that’s Milbrath and UPI - every increase in temperature and emissions gets us one step closer to catastrophic warming – and climate oscillations kill bizcon because investors are unsure how climate will affect businesses – that’s Milbrath Runaway prolif escalates - As soon as a few states begin proliferating, others will follow, then states will preemptively strike because they feel threatened by states around them – that’s Utgoff Fuel price spikes and blackouts are coming now and send immediate shockwaves through the economy – that’s Carreras and Poruban

88

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: OCS Good
1. Pelosi wont let OCS be voted on
Alexander Mooney, CNN staff writer, 7-17-08 (“Pelosi: Bush 'a total failure'” http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/pelosi.interview/index.html) "What we are saying is, Mr. President, free our oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," Pelosi said. "We're saying, let's take 10 percent of that, which has been paid for by the American taxpayer, and use that to put on the market so that we increase supply, reduce price." "And when the price comes down, we can buy back the oil at a lower price, put it in the SPR, use the spread for renewable energy resources." The House speaker has faced heavy criticism from House Republican leader John Boehner, who is leading a congressional delegation to ANWR this weekend and has said Pelosi's action does not adequately address the problem. He's also said Pelosi is leading the moderate faction of her party "off a cliff" by refusing to allow a vote in the House on offshore drilling. "Just because John Boehner, who is my friend, has my respect, says it doesn't make it so," she responded, reiterating that she will block any vote to allow lifting the ban.

2. They can’t access their econ impact – at best their trucking card gets them to a slight economic slowdown but not economic collapse 3. Pelosi likes nuclear power – despite traditional party lines
Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, “Nuclear power enters global warming debate”, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power05 0907.pdf+nuclear+power+%2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change. Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer — Bay Area Democrats with similar political views — are on opposite sides. Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. "I think it has to be on the table," she said. Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was "trading one problem for another."

89

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

4. Dems have shifted support to nuke power – use it to fight global warming
Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, “Nuclear power enters global warming debate”, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power05 0907.pdf+nuclear+power+%2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up. The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases. Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help "spur the revival of nuclear power." Page 2 And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority. "I've never been a fan of nuclear energy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. "But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it."

5. DA is not intrinsic – a rational policy maker could pass the plan and pass OCS No abuse – we’ll only make one logical same-actor intrinsicness argument

90

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 6. Bush lacks political capital and support to do anything even if it’s a good thing Barry Smith, staff write op ed section JD news, 6-24-08,
http://www.jdnews.com/opinion/president_57709___article.html/oil_energy.html) In fact, I'd love to see the day when I can put a solar cell on my car or we can convert household waste into energy efficiently, and we can tell the Saudis and big oil companies what they can do with their barrels of oil. But that day is not imminent. We need to do something to get more energy resources flowing in the meantime. My only complaint with his speech is that it came a few years later than it should. Better late than never, I guess. I'm not very optimistic that Congress will heed the president's call and allow for the drilling to begin. This is an election year, and the president doesn't have much of the political capital that he boasted about when he was re-elected four years ago left. Some might even say that the president is bankrupt when it comes to political capital. It's really a shame when a president gets near the end of his term and he can't persuade Congress to help out a nation filled with motorists that are hurting every time they pump gasoline into cars. The president will need a lot of help if he's to get Congress to pass anything this year. That help will have to come from a grassroots effort. It won't come from inside the District of Columbia.

7. No threshold – gas prices have been insanely high all year – either the economy should have already crashed or there’s no reason blocking OCS would cause economic collapse 8. Congress just appropriated just increased funds for nuclear power reactors – non uniques your links
Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires, 3-10-08, “US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-NRC”, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG).

9. Case outweighs! Climate oscillations and CO2 destroy ecosystems which threatens all life on earth– that’s Milbrath and UPI - every increase in temperature and emissions gets us one step closer to catastrophic warming – and climate oscillations kill bizcon because investors are unsure how climate will affect businesses – that’s Milbrath Runaway prolif escalates - As soon as a few states begin proliferating, others will follow, then states will preemptively strike because they feel threatened by states around them – that’s Utgoff Fuel price spikes and blackouts are coming now and send immediate shockwaves through the economy – that’s Carreras and Poruban – means we solve the terminal impact to the DA

91

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

92

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: COFTA Bad
1. Bush and Democrats are focusing elsewhere A. Housing legislation Financial Times 7/28/08 (“Bush urged to act now to save homes” < http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a0584bca-5c3d-11dd-9e99000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) Democrats have called on the White House to quickly enact the housing legislation passed by the US Senate over the weekend. The call came after an administration official signalled that it could take as long as a year to implement regulations meant to help some 400,000 homeowners facing possible foreclosures. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate banking committee, called for a meeting on Tuesday with Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary, the Federal Reserve board and the heads of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the department of Housing and Urban Development, to ensure the bill is quickly enacted. "The idea that HUD is just sort of getting together talking about possibly a year before we'd offer any relief for homeowners is totally unacceptable," Mr Dodd said. President George W. Bush is expected to sign the housing legislation into law early this week after it passed the Senate by a 72-13 majority in a rare Saturday vote. The legislation, which Mr Dodd called "the most im-portant piece of housing legislation in a generation" includes provisions to prop up the government-sponsored mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - giving the Treasury the power, if necessary, to inject capital into them - and creates a new regulator for the troubled lenders. The bill will allow the government to guarantee up to $300bn in mortgages refinanced at more affordable rates through the Federal Housing Administration, the housing insurer for low income Americans. B. Iraq AP 7/27/08 (“No 'blank check' for Iraq war, Democrats say” Sen. Jack Reed says America can't afford the Republican strategy of continuing to write blank checks for the Iraq war. "At a time when the war in Iraq costs $10 billion each month, Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, and our economy is struggling, we cannot continue down the path that President Bush and Senator McCain propose: writing blank check after blank check," Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said Saturday in his party's weekly radio address. 2. Pelosi hates nuclear power – has consistently refused votes on it Merle Good, writer and publisher of Good Books, 7/24/08. “Lowering the bar,” Letter to the Editor, Contra Costa Times, http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_9980170 Pelosi appears to be an arrogant, spiteful, condescending woman with all the wit and charm of a gnat. She has not shown a shred of leadership and is more inclined to obstruct the President at every turn rather than try to work with him to find solutions to our nation's problems. As an example she has refused to allow any votes to come to the floor of the House that would allow a vote on offshore drilling or in ANWAR or in allowing alternative energy measures such as exploring nuclear power because she knows these measures would pass. She is, in effect, saying to the American people, "drop dead". Where are people like Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neil when we need them? 3. Democrats oppose Plan – afraid it will undermine warming bill Gail Russell Chaddock, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 6-5-08, “Economic risks imperil climate bill”, l/n Many Democrats are wary of risking the support of some environmental groups over nuclear power. Majority leader Reid, a longtime opponent of a nuclear-waste dump in his state, charged that DOE filed the application with only about 35 percent of the work done to justify it. "Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be," he said on Tuesday. Republicans say they are holding out for a wide-ranging debate over the global-warming bill, including many amendments. Democratic leaders worry that some amendments, including those over nuclear power, could undermine support for the bill.

93

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
4. COFTA will pass Erika Andersen, staff writer for human events, 7-4-08 (“Colombia Free Trade Agreement in Trouble” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27350) Padilla believes the CFTA deserves a swift vote in Congress, which will prove wide bipartisan support for it. He cited last year’s vote to enact the Peru Free Trade Agreement as an example, noting that even Sen. Barack Obama said he would have voted for it had been present. (Obama was absent due to the presidential primary season campaigning.) “The provisions in the Peru free trade agreement that passed the Congress late last year with very heavy bipartisan support -- I think it was 350 votes in the House,” said Padilla. “So, if it’s got identical provisions, I don’t understand why we wouldn’t also seek support for Colombia.”President Bush said Colombia’s President Uribe has expressed that “approving the free trade agreement is the best way for America to demonstrate our support for Colombia.”Bush noted that people are watching to see what America does here and by not passing the CFTA, America would “Not only abandon a brave ally; it would send a signal throughout the region that America cannot be counted on to support its friends.” Republican presidential candidate John McCain this week released an ad supporting the CFTA and bolstered his credentials by featuring the commercial with a Spanish translation. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama does not support the agreement. “I don’t understand how we can say we want to work with the world and then refuse to pass agreements that are in our own interest with allies,” Padilla said.

5. Uniqueness takes out the link – Pelosi wants concessions over workers rights, not nuclear energy 6. Congress just appropriated just increased funds for nuclear power reactors – non uniques your links
Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires, 3-10-08, “US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-NRC”, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG).

7. DA is not intrinsic – a rational policy maker could pass the plan and not pass COFTA No abuse – we’ll only make one logical same-actor intrinsicness argument 8. Bush lacks political capital and support to do anything even if it’s a good thing Barry Smith, staff write op ed section JD news, 6-24-08,
http://www.jdnews.com/opinion/president_57709___article.html/oil_energy.html) In fact, I'd love to see the day when I can put a solar cell on my car or we can convert household waste into energy efficiently, and we can tell the Saudis and big oil companies what they can do with their barrels of oil. But that day is not imminent. We need to do something to get more energy resources flowing in the meantime. My only complaint with his speech is that it came a few years later than it should. Better late than never, I guess. I'm not very optimistic that Congress will heed the president's call and allow for the drilling to begin. This is an election year, and the president doesn't have much of the political capital that he boasted about when he was re-elected four years ago left. Some might even say that the president is bankrupt when it comes to political capital. It's really a shame when a president gets near the end of his term and he can't persuade Congress to help out a nation filled with motorists that are hurting every time they pump gasoline into cars. The president will need a lot of help if he's to get Congress to pass anything this year. That help will have to come from a grassroots effort. It won't come from inside the District of Columbia. 94

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

95

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 9. Case outweighs! Climate oscillations and CO2 destroy ecosystems which threatens all life on earth– that’s Milbrath and UPI - every increase in temperature and emissions gets us one step closer to catastrophic warming – and climate oscillations kill bizcon because investors are unsure how climate will affect businesses – that’s Milbrath Runaway prolif escalates - As soon as a few states begin proliferating, others will follow, then states will preemptively strike because they feel threatened by states around them – that’s Utgoff Fuel price spikes and blackouts are coming now and send immediate shockwaves through the economy – that’s Carreras and Poruban

96

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: COFTA Good

1. Colombia won’t pass because of democratic opposition and Pelosi
Reuters 7-16-08 (“House Republicans push for Colombia pact vote” http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1648117020080716?sp=true) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans pressured U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday to set a vote on a free trade pact with Colombia, which they said would die if Congress does not approve it this year. "If the 110th Congress adjourns without a vote in both the House and the Senate, the agreement will be well and truly dead," senior Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Rules Committee said in a letter to colleagues. The free trade deal with Colombia, one of the United States' staunchest allies in Latin America, has been in limbo since April, when Pelosi rebuffed an effort by President George W. Bush to force a vote on the pact. Bush submitted the agreement under White House trade promotion authority, a law passed in 2002 which required Congress to vote approve or reject trade agreements within 90 days and without making any amendments. However, Pelosi pushed through a rule change allowing her to delay action indefinitely on the pact. She said Bush had ignored her warning that Congress was not ready to vote on agreement, which many Democrats strongly oppose on the grounds that they believe Colombia has not done enough to curb violence against labor groups.

2. Pelosi likes nuclear power – despite traditional party lines
Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, “Nuclear power enters global warming debate”, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power05 0907.pdf+nuclear+power+%2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change. Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer — Bay Area Democrats with similar political views — are on opposite sides. Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. "I think it has to be on the table," she said. Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was "trading one problem for another."

3. Building nuclear power plants creates jobs – means plan is a concession to Pelosi

97

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 4. Dems have shifted support to nuke power – use it to fight global warming
Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, “Nuclear power enters global warming debate”, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up. The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases. Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help "spur the revival of nuclear power." Page 2 And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority. "I've never been a fan of nuclear energy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.), who has called it expensive and risky. "But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it."

5. Congress just appropriated just increased funds for nuclear power reactors – non uniques your links
Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires, 3-10-08, “US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-NRC”, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG).

6. DA is not intrinsic – a rational policy maker could pass the plan and not pass OCS No abuse – we’ll only make one logical same-actor intrinsicness argument 7. Bush lacks political capital and support to do anything even if it’s a good thing Barry Smith, staff write op ed section JD news, 6-24-08,
http://www.jdnews.com/opinion/president_57709___article.html/oil_energy.html) In fact, I'd love to see the day when I can put a solar cell on my car or we can convert household waste into energy efficiently, and we can tell the Saudis and big oil companies what they can do with their barrels of oil. But that day is not imminent. We need to do something to get more energy resources flowing in the meantime. My only complaint with his speech is that it came a few years later than it should. Better late than never, I guess. I'm not very optimistic that Congress will heed the president's call and allow for the drilling to begin. This is an election year, and the president doesn't have much of the political capital that he boasted about when he was re-elected four years ago left. Some might even say that the president is bankrupt when it comes to political capital. It's really a shame when a president gets near the end of his term and he can't persuade Congress to help out a nation filled with motorists that are hurting every time they pump gasoline into cars. The president will need a lot of help if he's to get Congress to pass anything this year. That help will have to come from a grassroots effort. It won't come from inside the District of Columbia.

98

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 8. Case outweighs! Climate oscillations and CO2 destroy ecosystems which threatens all life on earth– that’s Milbrath and UPI - every increase in temperature and emissions gets us one step closer to catastrophic warming – and climate oscillations kill bizcon because investors are unsure how climate will affect businesses – that’s Milbrath Runaway prolif escalates - As soon as a few states begin proliferating, others will follow, then states will preemptively strike because they feel threatened by states around them – that’s Utgoff Fuel price spikes and blackouts are coming now and send immediate shockwaves through the economy – that’s Carreras and Poruban

99

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Popular - Bipartisan
Nuclear power has bipartisan support – climate change is becoming politicized [quals added] CongressNow, 1/31/08. “Former EPA Chief Whitman Sees Political Winds Shifting on Climate Change, Nuclear Power,” Lexis Whitman [first head of the EPA] said the political dynamics of both climate change and nuclear power have changed in recent years, with Republican opposition to greenhouse gas controls easing, and Democrats more open to considering nuclear power, which doesn't emit greenhouse gases. "I think most of them recognize climate change is an issue," she said of GOP lawmakers, while acknowledging that deep-seeded skepticism about global warming persists among some key Members, most notably Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Republican Senators outnumbered Democrats at an EPW briefing Wednesday afternoon, where Dr. R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, discussed the need for global warming controls. Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) attended the meeting, as did Environment Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Whitman said Democratic opposition to nuclear power has eased somewhat as well, although long-time critics aren't rushing to embrace it. "We're certainly seeing a much greater willingness to talk about nuclear," she said.

Nuke power has bipart support – concerns over warming and oil dependency
Edmund L. Andrews and Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times Media Group, 8-1-07, “ Senate bill could help finance nuclear plants”, International Herald Tribune, l/n The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support at least some expansion of nuclear power.

Bipart – nuke power transcends party lines as a solution to carbon emissions
Jenny Weil and Cathy Cash, writers Inside N.R.C., 12-10-07, “Nuclear provisions in climate bill rejected, but could return next year”, l/n A spokeswoman for Isakson said the senator believes "there is tremendous bipartisan support for nuclear power as a solution to the problem of carbon emitting energy" and that he would work with his colleagues "on both sides of the aisle to figure out the best way to expand our nation's nuclear power generation infrastructure."

Nuclear power has bipartisan support – Yucca bill proves The White House Bulletin, 3/6/07. “Energy Department Seeks To Spur Construction Of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Site,” Lexis The Department of Energy and the Bush administration are "very much willing to engage in dialogue with the Hill" about fixing the overdue and over budget Yucca Mountain waste repository, Sproat told reporters this morning. The bill contains few surprises as it's virtually identical to the proposal DOE advanced last year. In short, it asks Congress to change the appropriations rules regarding the Nuclear Waste Fund to expedite funding of Yucca, permanently withdraw land at and around Yucca Mountain from public use, and eliminate the 70,000 metric ton cap on disposal capacity. The Bush administration has long pushed increasing the country's nuclear capacity, which has stalled because of public sentiment in the wake of the near-meltdown at Three Mile Island and the now nearly 20year delay of Yucca Mountain. Proving its desire to move ahead on nuclear, Sproat said while the main points of the bill are viewed as "must have," many of the details are flexible. "Not by any stretch of the imagination is this an all-or-nothing bill," Sproat said. "We think it's very important to start dialogue again ... because we believe it's absolutely necessary to move the program forward." Originally slated to open in 1998, the repository is still at least a decade away from completion, if everything moves forward as planned. That's hardly likely, given Reid's opposition. Asked if Reid's stance spells doom for DOE's latest attempt to move forward on Yucca, Sproat demurred, declaring "strong bipartisan support in both houses for this program." Indeed, many Democrats and Republicans view expanded nuclear power as key to cutting national greenhouse gas emissions. That may put pressure on Reid as the debate over global warming gains steam. Sproat said about $19.5 billion now sits in the Nuclear Waste Fund, but money appropriated from the fund counts against the total budget. The DOE proposal would reverse that. Sproat says that incoming revenue and interest 100

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
generated from the fund would nearly pay for the whole of Yucca Mountain's construction. Last year, Congress appropriated $100 million less than Bush requested, which Sproat says has forced cutbacks at the work site, led to certain parts of an exploratory tunnel being closed, and halted preliminary work on a rail line. "Whether or not that will impact our 2017 [opening] date is not known yet," Sproat says. Sproat goes before Congress tomorrow to testify for Fiscal Year 2008 funding. -- Bulletin exclusive from U.S. News

101

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Popular – Republicans
Senate Republicans love nuclear power – blocked speculation bill in favor of plan Wall Street Journal, 7/26/08. “Senate Energy Speculation Bill is Blocked,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121702679230086263.html?mod=googlenews_wsj WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a vote on legislation to rein in speculation in the energy markets, instead calling for energy votes that would expand domestic petroleum production and more nuclear power development. Democrats, in a 50-43 vote, failed to gain the 60 votes needed to bring the speculation bill forward for consideration on the Senate floor. Now they face another week of energy debate as Republicans threatened to hold the measure up to hammer home their "drill more, use less" policy. Republicans want to expand nuclear power – blocking oil speculation Wall Street Journal, 7/25/08. “US Senate Republicans Block Oil Speculation Bill,” http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20080725709894.html WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--As oil prices continue to trade at economy-damaging levels, U.S. Senate Republicans Friday blocked a vote on legislation to rein in speculation in the energy markets. Instead, the minority is calling for a series of votes that would expand domestic petroleum production and new nuclear power. In a 50-43 vote, Democrats failed to gain enough support to bring the bill forward for consideration on the Senate floor and now face another week of energy debate as Republicans threatened to hold up the measure to hammer home their "drill more, use less" policy. The Democrats' legislation would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to set limits on the amount of speculative trades participants who aren't hedging delivery of the actual commodity can make, including in over-the-counter markets and other exchanges that are exempt from the same oversight as the New York Mercantile Exchange, a unit of Nymex Holdings Inc. (NMX). "There's clearly nothing more important in the country for Congress to deal with...than the price of gas at the pump," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. The Minority Leader said his party would continue to hold up business on the Senate floor until Democrats allowed them to offer a series of amendments on expanded offshore drilling, oil shale development, nuclear power and other energy solutions.

House Republicans love nuclear power – threaten to halt summer adjournment for it Las Vegas Sun, 7/27/08. “No headway on gas prices, but mortgage bill passes,” http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/27/noheadway-gas-prices-mortgage-bill-passes/ House Democrats failed to get the supermajority needed for a bill to release oil from the nation’s strategic reserves. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley and Republican Rep. Jon Porter voted yes; Rep. Dean Heller voted no. Republicans again protested being shut out of the process. Congress will try again this week. In fact, House Republicans promise to try halting summer adjournment unless they get a vote on their latest energy bill, which has new provisions promoting nuclear power. Nevada’s House lawmakers have shown a greater willingness to be part of Washington’s compromise on mortgage relief. The state’s foreclosure crisis is among the worst in the nation.

102

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Popular – Democrats
Dems have shifted support to nuke power – use it to fight global warming
Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, “Nuclear power enters global warming debate”, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up. The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases. Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help "spur the revival of nuclear power." Page 2 And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority. "I've never been a fan of nuclear energy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.), who has called it expensive and risky. "But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it." Democrats support the expansion of nuclear energy – even Reid, who has blocked nuclear bills in the past Inside Energy, 11/13/06. “Chief opponent of Yucca Mt. project to lead Senate, adding to DOE hurdle,” Lexis Reid has been supportive of nuclear energy in the past; he has stated on several occasions that he does not oppose nuclear power expansion. But he vigorously opposes DOE's plan to open the Yucca Mountain repository in his state. One industry lobbyist speculated before it was confirmed Democrats would control the Senate that even if the chamber were split 50-50, Reid's clout as minority leader would be considerable, making passage of nuclear waste legislation difficult. Republicans would have retained control of the Senate under a 50-50 split because Vice President Dick Cheney could have cast tie-breaking votes. Under standard spent fuel disposal contracts DOE signed with nuclear utilities in 1983, the department was to have begun disposing of utilities' spent fuel in 1998. Now, eight years later, the industry and lawmakers are still awaiting DOE's submission of a repository license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOE plans to submit one in 2008 and has targeted 2017 for the start of repository operations. The pending Senate energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal 2007, which began October 1, includes provisions authored by appropriations subcommittee chairman Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Reid that would require DOE to site away-from-reactor spent fuel interim storage facilities in each of the 31 states with operating nuclear power plants. Alternatively, regional storage facilities could be sited, under the bill. Reid has maintained that the irradiated fuel could continue to be stored at the reactor sites, rather than rushed to a repository project that he has asserted that Nevada neither wants nor feels is safe. Another Washington lobbyist said support for nuclear power isn't divided along party lines anymore. Democrats are more supportive than they have been in the past, he said. Democrats support nuclear power – environmentally-friendly energy Ben Cardin, Junior U.S. Senator for Maryland, 6/9/08. “The Local Delegation: Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.),” Washington Post Interview with Ben Cardin, Lexis Sen. Ben Cardin: In regard to nuclear power, I support and many Democrats support the responsible use of it. The legislation that was on the floor last week, that the Republicans killed would have allowed for the development of nuclear power. In regard to oil, we don't have a sufficient reserve of oil in America to make an impact on our energy independence. We still would import the majority of our oil needs. We need to develop an energy policy so that we are energy independent, using green energy that is friendly to our environment.

103

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
Congressional Democrats support nuclear power – environmental issues Inside Energy, 2/26/07. “Nuclear group aims to assure financiers Dems won't stand in way of new plants,” Lexis Wall Street should rest assured that a Congress run by Democrats will not necessarily diminish the potential for the construction of nuclear plants in the United States, the Nuclear Energy Institute said last week. "If the common wisdom holds that a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party is inimical to the interests of the nuclear energy industry, then the common wisdom is wrong," NEI President and CEO Frank "Skip" Bowman said Wednesday in the association's annual briefing for the financial community. While he acknowledged the strong support the industry has enjoyed from Republicans on Capitol Hill and the Bush administration, he observed, "Here's why so many Democrats and environmentalists are coming to support nuclear energy ? because of its huge potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." He cited a remark by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on February 8 saying while she once opposed nuclear energy because of uncertainty over the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, she has a "more open mind now because I think we should look at this technology, and compare it to alternatives on the table." Bowman also said he was encouraged by "realistic positions" taken by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, Democrat-California, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell's the longstanding support for nuclear energy.

104

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Unpopular – Democrats
Democrats dislike nuclear power – federal funding cuts Business Wire, 7/30/08. “A Guide to the Rebirth of Nuclear Power In the United States & its Implications for the Nuclear Waste Industry,” Lexis Not 12 weeks later, however, events were transpiring in the halls of Congress that would provide a sober reminder that - despite the convergence of events that had ripened the nation for a nuclear power revival - powerful political, financial, technological and social realities remained that could hinder, if not cripple, that resurgence. In the final weeks of 2007, congressional Democrats forced such severe cuts in federal funding for the high-level nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain that DoE officials began questioning the viability of the project so critical to the success of nuclear power in this nation. Democrats oppose nuclear waste storage – important Congress members oppose Yucca McClatchy News, third-largest newspaper company in the United States, 12/18/06. “With Democrats in Control, Yucca Project May Be Doomed,” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1218-04.htm A few years ago, the plan to store the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada seemed all but certain. Congress decided that highly radioactive waste from commercial nuclear-power plants, which takes centuries to decay, needed to be stored underground. And it reaffirmed by wide margins in 2002 that Yucca Mountain, 100 miles from Las Vegas, was the place to build such a repository. The repository site, located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada on the edge of the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, was approved by Congress and President George W. Bush in 2002. (Photo courtesy Energy Department) But now that's being rethought, for a variety of reasons. And the Nov. 7 elections, which propelled Democrats into power on Capitol Hill, are likely to accelerate that thinking despite strong bipartisan support for Yucca Mountain in Congress. * The incoming majority leader of the Senate, Nevadan Harry Reid, long has pledged that Yucca Mountain will never open. The incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Californian Barbara Boxer, agrees. Both voted against the Yucca repository. They think that nuclear waste should stay right where it is - at the nation's nuclear power plants - at least until better waste technology comes along. Democrats oppose nuclear energy – prefer conservation and other alternatives Stan Katten, former Research and Development Corp. analyst, 7/28/08. “Future Hinges on Domestic Oil,” http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1499059/future_hinges_on_domestic_oil/ Regardless, liberal Democrats are not unhappy with the high price of fuel and energy or their effects on the economy. They insist conservation is the answer, along with alternatives such as biofuels, wind, solar and thermal power generation. They favor hybrid, electric and fuel-cell vehicles and still oppose clean coal and nuclear energy. They oppose nuclear energy even though France generates 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power and Japan and South Korea derive 40 percent of their power using nuclear. These nations plan to build more plants using standardized designs and have largely solved the nuclear waste problem, long used as the excuse by the opposition, by reprocessing spent fuel rods. Democrats oppose nuclear energy – prefer gas taxes The Tracy Press, Tracy, CA newspaper, 7/22/08. “Democrats' energy plan equals high gas prices,” http://tracypress.com/content/view/15314/2244/ America invented the peaceful use of nuclear power. Yet, modern Democrats usually oppose it as a source of energy. We have never lost a life to nuclear energy production. Even nations such as France derive most of their electricity from nuclear power. Why does the Democrat party routinely oppose nuclear power in America? We need to be less dependent on foreign oil and proactive in seeking a diversity of environmentally safe, technology solutions to fuel America. We should embrace ethanol as a fuel source, as well as sugar cane-derived fuel. We should have new investments in clean-coal technology, because our nation is so rich in sources of coal. Wind, solar, and hydro-electric energy should all be explored in useful ways. Most of the candidates running for office will tout their willingness to follow though with solutions for a plan for energy, but the energy solutions of the Democrats so far have been to increase taxes on gasoline. Drilling for oil here in America is a sensible, short-term solution. Drilling the people with more taxes seems to be the Democratic Party’s only solution.

105

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
Democrats oppose nuclear power – Arizona proves Arizona Capitol Times, 7/26/08. “A dozen square off in Corp. Commission debates,” http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?id=9088 While solar power drew rave reviews from the Democrats, the idea of expanding nuclear power in Arizona was received coolly, as the candidates cited the high cost of building nuclear power plants and concerns about disposal of radioactive waste. George, a top aide to former Secretary of State Richard Mahoney, focused on the negative connotations associated with the word "nuclear." "Do we really want a nuclear Iraq or a nuclear Afghanistan? No. Do we really want a nuclear Arizona? No," he said. The only candidate who said he would consider nuclear power as part of the state's growing energy portfolio was Newman, a Cochise County supervisor and former lawmaker.

Democrats hate the plan - have been blocking nuclear policies for decades Donald R. May, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, 7/15/08. “Democrats Keep Oil Prices High,” http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/conservative/2008/07/15/democrats-keep-oil-prices-high/ The Democrats are the primary cause of our massive oil energy dependence on foreign and our lack of clean domestic nuclear power. If it were not for the Democrats, we would have ample domestic power. We would be selling oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuel overseas with billions of additional dollars added to our Gross Nation Product every day and millions of additional American jobs having been created. The extended problem is that Barack Obama and the Democrats also do not want to develop nuclear power. Barack Obama said he favors developing nuclear power only after we figure out how to handle our nuclear waste. Democrats have been blocking any and all solutions to our proper management of nuclear waste since before Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of our spent nuclear fuel rods.

106

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Unpopular – Pelosi
Pelosi opposed to nuclear power – has consistently refused votes on it Merle Good, writer and publisher of Good Books, 7/24/08. “Lowering the bar,” Letter to the Editor, Contra Costa Times, http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_9980170 Pelosi appears to be an arrogant, spiteful, condescending woman with all the wit and charm of a gnat. She has not shown a shred of leadership and is more inclined to obstruct the President at every turn rather than try to work with him to find solutions to our nation's problems. As an example she has refused to allow any votes to come to the floor of the House that would allow a vote on offshore drilling or in ANWAR or in allowing alternative energy measures such as exploring nuclear power because she knows these measures would pass. She is, in effect, saying to the American people, "drop dead". Where are people like Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neil when we need them?

107

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Yucca Unpopular – Reid
Senate Majority Leader Reid has been blocking Yucca mountain – doesn’t want it opened in his home state The White House Bulletin, 3/6/07. “Energy Department Seeks To Spur Construction Of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Site,” Lexis The Department of Energy proposed legislation today to spur construction of a national nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who hails from Nevada, promised to block such a bill. Department's Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Edward Sproat said that without new funding, the goal of opening the site by 2017 cannot be met. Sproat also said that if the capacity designated for the Yucca Mountain site is not increased from the current 77,000 tons, he would recommend to Congress that a second waste dump be built. Reid said, "This is just the department's latest attempt to breathe life into this dying beast, and it will fail. I will continue to leverage my leadership position to prevent the dump from ever being built."

108

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***ECONOMY

109

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Fiscal Discipline DA
1. This year’s budget deficit is forecasted to be almost half a trillion, not including war spending or bailout of mortgage firms BBC News, 7/28/08. “Record deficit for next president,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7529372.stm
The next US president is expected to face a record federal budget deficit of almost half a trillion dollars. The White House has lifted its deficit forecast for 2009 to $482bn (£242bn) up from $407bn. The budget deficit measures how much more the government is spending than it is raising through taxes. The slowing economy is reducing the tax take and the government has launched a stimulus plan by making payments to 130 million households to boost spending. The forecast figure excludes about $80bn of war costs. The budget deficit is measured from the beginning of October to the end of September. It is possible that the deficit for 2008 will also break the record of $413bn, which was set in 2004. A $482bn deficit would represent about 3% of the total output of the US economy, which is well below some of the deficits seen in the 1980s and 1990s in percentage terms. Nonetheless, whoever turns out to be the next US president may be reluctant to enact any further tax cuts or increases in spending that would raise the deficit. The deficit figure also is flattered by including the surpluses that are currently being accumulated by the social security trust fund, but that will soon turn into deficits in the next decade. And it takes no account of the potential costs of a full-scale Federal bail-out of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who have been given a Federal guarantee in the housing bill that has just passed Congress.

2. Their internal link evidence says nothing about fiscal discipline – it’s talking about foreign investment – means they can’t access Mead 3. Empirically denied – Congress just voted to spend $1 billion on new nuclear programs
The Daily News, Washington State Newspaper, 7/15/08. “Yucca Mountain stalling only delays inevitable nuclear power push,” http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/16/editorial/doc487bd23399ca7163372651.txt An emerging political consensus on the need to control greenhouse gas emissions and concern about the nation’s dependence on costly foreign oil have prompted the Bush administration and Congress to give nuclear energy a new look. President Bush made the construction of new nuclear power plants a priority of his second term and, more recently, Congress voted to provide almost $1 billion for various nuclear energy programs.

4. Increasing Environmental spending solves the economic crisis Andrew Simms, policy director of nef (the new economics foundation) the award-winning UK think-and-do tank, and head of nef's Climate Change Programme, The Guardian, 7/4/08,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/greenpolitics.climatechange For all their bluster, the architects of environmental backlash seem utterly bereft of their own ideas about what to do differently. The green movement, on the other hand, overflows with proposals. One initiative, soon to be launched, is the call for a "Green New Deal". Organised by a group of environmentalists and experts in finance, it proposes joined-up policies to tackle the triple crunch. At its heart is an acknowledgement of the profoundly distorting role of footloose and feckless finance. The Green New Deal will call for the re-regulation of finance and taxation, linked to a transformational economic programme to substantially reduce fossil fuel use. In the process, it will create countless green-collar jobs to tackle the unemployment and decline in demand caused by the credit crunch. The Green New Deal is a modern translation of the politics of hope and pragmatism employed by Roosevelt in the 1930s. Then, as now, someone needed to pick up the pieces of a system failed by short-termism and unenlightened self-interest.

5. No Evidence indicating an increase in earmarks collapses fiscal discipline

110

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 6. Case outweighs! Climate oscillations and CO2 destroy ecosystems which threatens all life on earth– that’s Milbrath and UPI - every increase in temperature and emissions gets us one step closer to catastrophic warming – and climate oscillations kill bizcon because investors are unsure how climate will affect businesses – that’s Milbrath Runaway prolif escalates - As soon as a few states begin proliferating, others will follow, then states will preemptively strike because they feel threatened by states around them – that’s Utgoff Fuel price spikes and blackouts are coming now and send immediate shockwaves through the economy – that’s Carreras and Poruban – means we access the terminal impact to the disad

111

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Fiscal Discipline DA (If No Econ Adv)
1. U.S. econ is resilient – 2 examples a. We’re currently in the midst of a massive recession and b. There also was a huge slowdown after 9/11. Neither tanked the global economy. 2. Congress overrides defenders of fiscal discipline
Belville News-Democrat, James Rosen, staff writer for McClatchy Newspapers, on 7/19/08, “senator who opposed expanding global AIDS program vows to keep up pressure” Before voting 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill, the Senate defeated DeMint’s amendments to cut its cost to $35 billion over five years and to prohibit funds from being used for alleged “coercive abortion and forced sterilization” in China or other countries.

3. The government’s economic safeguards prevent recession – means economic slowdown won’t cause total collapse 4. No fiscal discipline in the squo – the government is in debt up the heezy, and continuing to spend – the plan’s a drop in the ocean
Sharon Schmickle, writer for MinnPost, on 7/14/08, “mortgage giants in crisis – yet the public seems locked in ‘whatever’ mode”, http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/07/14/2554/mortgage_giants_in_crisis_--_yet_the_public_seems_locked_in_whatever_mode Even the toughest critics are saying the government had no choice at this point but to rescue Fannie and Freddie. The fallout from their failure would have been catastrophic. The anti-serenity piece for this picture is in the background. The government already is in debt to the tune of nearly $10 trillion, a level that would have been seen as a crisis in itself when President Bush's father occupied the Oval Office in the early 1990s. Now the White House plans to ask Congress to raise the debt ceiling for the Fannie-Freddie bailout. It is so '90s, but I'll ask anyway: Where are the deficit hawks? If they had squawked as loudly during this decade, we would not be suffering such a profound sense of insecurity over the government's ability to handle the Fannie-Freddie debacle. The deficit-spending issue surfaced last week at a town-hall meeting the presumed GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, staged in Denver. "We must also get government's fiscal house in order," McCain said. "American workers and families pay their bills and balance their budgets, and I will demand the same of the government. A government that spends wisely and balances its budget is a catalyst for economic growth and the creation of good and secure jobs."

5. Environmental spending saves the economy
Mark Lynas, a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book ‘High Tide’ and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an ‘emerging explorer for 2006, on 7/17/08, “a green new deal”, http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/lynas-towards-economy-climate The Green New Deal Group is not talking about incremental changes, however. It is calling for nothing less than a return to pre-war Keynesianism - complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls on international finance - with a "war economy" social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism, but towards heading off ecological crisis. What is novel is that this call is directed not just at stabilising the climate, but also at stabilising the economy - lower interest rates and higher government spending are aimed at ending the credit crunch as much as tackling the oil and climate crunches.

112

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

6. They can’t prove why the aff uniquely triggers the impacts – none of their link evidence draws the distinction between past appropriations of alternative energy bills and the plan. 7. Plan doesn’t cause new spending – funding for alternative energy has already been appropriated. Double bind: either there’s no link because the plan doesn’t spend money or the disad is non-unique because the appropriation didn’t trigger the impacts States New Service on 6/23/2008, “KIRK/BIGGERT: U.S. "MOON SHOT" PROGRAM TO GET OFF FOREIGN OIL
"APOLLO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" ON SCALE OF NASA'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO LOWER GAS PRICES, BOOST ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, lexis With Chicagoland leading the nation in gas prices, U.S. Representatives Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined with environmental, business and research leaders today to announce new legislation dramatically boosting the federal government's commitment to energy independence. With the backdrop of Chicago's premier space museum, the Adler Planetarium, the legislation is modeled on NASA's $20 billion effort to land an American on the moon. The "Apollo Energy Independence Act" establishes long-term market incentives to spur breakthroughs for the development and deployment of alternative energies, vehicles and fuel. Increases in support for alternative energy are offset by spending reductions in earmark and subsidy programs to ensure the bill does not require additional borrowing or taxes.

8. The aff solves the impact – the plan is key to check prolif. In the world of the plan, the US would diffuse conflict between nations lashing out – that’s Buckner and Sanders. 9. We outweigh – 3 reasons a. Probability – fossil fuel emissions are causing warming now – that’s our UN evidence. Warming causes climate oscillations and phytoplankton extinction, which collapses the food chain, leading to extinction from starvation – that’s Milbrath and UPI. The probability of extinction due to warming is 100%. b. Timeframe – 30 nuclear weapons states are on the horizon, meaning prolif is an imminent threat – that’s Stares. Their impact evidence makes NO claims about how long it might take nations to lash out against one another. Prefer the specificity of our internal link. c. Magnitude – U.S.-Russia relations outweigh Mead – lack of cooperation between Russia and the US over nuclear energy means they would unleash thousands of warheads at each other, ensuring a nuclear Armageddon – that’s McNarma and Lewis.
113

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

114

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

1AR EXT: Fiscal Discipline DA (If No Econ Adv) 2AC #1: Extend that the US economy is resilient – the slowdown after 9/11 and the current recession prove the US bounces back and doesn’t tank the global econ. 2AC #2: Extend the Belville News evidence – Congress overrides defenders of fiscal discipline. Our uniqueness ev assumes theirs – their Housing Wire evidence just says Bush wants to be fiscally disciplined. Ours indicates that even if Bush and his cronies are succeeding, Congress will always end up fucking him over. 2AC #3: Extend that government’s economic safeguards make the internal link impossible – even if they win 100% of the link, the 1AC impacts will always outweigh a disad with no internal link 2AC #4: Extend the Schmickle evidence – the government is in 10 trillion dollars of debt and is continuing to blow dollas on frivolous bullshit like the Fannie-Freddie bailout. Here’s more evidence that Congress is spending like a teenager with a new credit card –
Gail Russell Chaddock, Staff Writer of the Christian Science Monitor, on 6/30/08, “Congress's spending goes unchecked, with more likely”, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p25s01-uspo.html , BB Washington - Before leaving town last week, Congress wrapped up a $162 billion war-funding bill and expanded America's entitlement system by giving veterans the biggest boost in college benefits since the World War II GI bill. Lawmakers also added a 13-week extension to unemployment benefits and approved $2.7 billion in emergency relief for the storm-lashed Midwest. Despite commitments to fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle, none of it is paid for – at least not by today's taxpayers. "There is absolutely no appetite to make hard choices," says Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, citing the war-funding bill. "There's never been any attempt to pay for the war, and now that's being used to expand a major entitlement program for veterans, which might be a good idea, but we ought to pay for it."

115

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC #5: Extend our Lynas evidence – environmental spending saves the economy because low interest rates and higher government spending end the oil and climate crunches. Here’s more evidence –
Andrew Simms, policy director of nef (the new economics foundation) the award-winning UK think-and-do tank, and head of nef's Climate Change Programme, The Guardian, on 7/4/08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/greenpolitics.climatechange For all their bluster, the architects of environmental backlash seem utterly bereft of their own ideas about what to do differently. The green movement, on the other hand, overflows with proposals. One initiative, soon to be launched, is the call for a "Green New Deal". Organised by a group of environmentalists and experts in finance, it proposes joined-up policies to tackle the triple crunch. At its heart is an acknowledgement of the profoundly distorting role of footloose and feckless finance. The Green New Deal will call for the re-regulation of finance and taxation, linked to a transformational economic programme to substantially reduce fossil fuel use. In the process, it will create countless green-collar jobs to tackle the unemployment and decline in demand caused by the credit crunch. The Green New Deal is a modern translation of the politics of hope and pragmatism employed by Roosevelt in the 1930s. Then, as now, someone needed to pick up the pieces of a system failed by short-termism and unenlightened self-interest.

2AC #6: Extend that they haven’t read ONE piece of evidence distinguishing the plan from other alt energy appropriations. I dare them to read a card in the 2NR specifying that appropriations for GT-MHR is somehow different from the Water and Energy Appropriations Bill passed last week. 2AC #7: Extend our States New Service evidence – the plan doesn’t cause new spending because funding for alternative energy appropriations has already been set aside and calculated into the budget. They’re in a double bind: Either this is a complete link takeout, because the plan doesn’t actually spend any money, Or the DA is non-unique, because funding for the shit their link evidence is specific to was already set aside and didn’t push the economy over the brink. 2AC #8: Extend that the aff solves the impact of the DA – our Buckner and Sanders evidence proves that GT-MHR is key to promote peaceful use of nuke energy and check prolif, which means the world of the plan would be able to deal with escalating nuclear conflicts between nations lashing out.
116

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC #9: The case outweighs for 3 reasons – Subpoint A is probability. Our United Nations and Milbreth evidence both indicate that warming is happening now – there’s a 100% chance that a world absent the plan would worsen the problem, causing the collapse of the food chain and extinction – that’s UPI. Subpoint B is timeframe. In the imminent future, thirty nations have the potential to become nuclear weapons states. Prefer the Stares evidence here – action now is key to ensure global safety. And, subpoint C is magnitude. U.S.-Russia relations are the biggest impact in the debate, because negative sentiment between the superpowers would result in the launching of over 3,200 warheads. Such a conflict would kill billions in a ghastly nuclear holocaust.

117

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***TRADE

118

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: WTO DA
Credibility down now – failed trade talks International Herald Tribune 7/29/08 “WTO talks collapse over farm trade” < http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/29/business/wto.php> After seven years of on-again, off-again negotiations, world trade talks collapsed in rancor on Tuesday, ending hopes of a deal to free up global markets, cut farm subsidies and shore up the international trading system. Discussions here reached an impasse after nine straight days of high-level talks when the United States, India and China failed to compromise over measures to protect farmers in poor countries. Despite exhaustive efforts, Pascal Lamy, director general of the World Trade Organization, failed to bridge differences between a group of newly-confident developing nations and established Western economic powers. In the end too few of the real power-brokers proved committed enough to make compromises necessary to deliver a deal. "It is a massive blow to confidence in the global economy," said Peter Power, spokesman for the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union based in Brussels. "The confidence shot in the arm that we needed badly will not now happen." Supporters of the so-called Doha round, started in Qatar in 2001, say a deal would have been a bulwark against rising protectionist sentiments that are now likely to spread as economic growth falters in much of the world. Its failure also delivers a blow to the credibility of the WTO, which sets the rules of global commerce, and could set back efforts to work out other complex agreements involving many nations, including those intended to reduce the threat of global warming. Link not specific to the aff – read their Syunkova evidence – it is talking about biofuels and ethanol, not nuclear power Congress just appropriated just increased funds for nuclear power reactors – non uniques your links Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires, 3-10-08, “US Government Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Too Small-NRC”, http://www.tmia.com/News/LoansTooSmall.htm The U.S. government's $18.5-billion federal loan guarantees falls short of the $500 billion needed to build the country's next generation of nuclear powered reactors over the next decade, the commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday. The loan guarantees would only be enough to finance two to three nuclear reactors and could ultimately hinder companies from building all the new units they apply for, said the NRC's Gregory Jaczko in London. "It's a far cry from what's needed," said Jaczko. "Congress is supportive, but have decided not to provide more federal loan guarantees - there's a disconnect there, so financing would have to happen without federal loan guarantees," he added. The U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power revival after 30 years of no new build and companies say the loan guarantees are crucial to get the first wave of new plants up and running. "That first wave of new nuclear would need assistance as there's no commercially available financing now because of the uncertainties and because it's been 30 years since one was built," said Michael Wallace, CEO of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG).

119

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT Turn – WTO kills free trade Rockwell 03 President of the Ludwig von Nises Institute (Llewellyn, "Confusion and Clarity in Cancun", September 18,) But looking beneath the surface, we find a crazy mixed-up politics at work in Cancun, the culmination of counter-intuitive trends that have been building for some time. The World Trade Organization is supposed to be this great apparatus to push the world toward greater economic integration, a dream of the liberal school for many centuries. In reality, it was nothing but the resurrection of an old central-planning fallacy that world trade needs a central authority to manage it. In absence of an ideological consensus in favor of classical liberalism, the WTO has ended up politicizing trade by putting the stamp of officialdom on some very bad policies (just as many predicted). The rich nations (meaning, mainly, the US) swaggered into Cancun with an aggressive, threepronged agenda: to foist a stricter system of investment rules (including patent and copyright enforcement) on developing nations, to extend US-style environmental and labor regulations to cover poorer nations, and to reduce restrictions on exports to poor nations and foreign investment in them from the industrialized world. What was missing here was the good will to make a change in their own protectionist policies, much less to reduce the production supports for their own inefficient industries. Trade was certainly on the agenda, but free trade as traditionally understood was nowhere in the mix. From the beginning the WTO was based on the idea that spiffy industrialized nations need to find markets for their products among the sad-sack nations of the world – not that the poor nations might have something to sell that consumers in rich nations might want to buy. That's why "intellectual property rights" (coercive monopolies for particular producers in rich countries) was high on the agenda but real-life free trade in agricultural goods was off the table completely. Nor are the rich nations a monolith. US officials naturally assume that they have the right to exercise hegemonic control over the world economy, an assumption which makes EU finance ministers (embroiled in their own harmonization controversies) very wary indeed. This follows several years of unrelieved protectionist regulation by the US against anyone anywhere who would dare build a better mousetrap than is produced in the land of the free and the brave (which just so happens to be host to the largest, best-armed, most well-funded government in the history of the world).

120

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 2AC – WTO Plan doesn’t violate WTO Lucas Assunção, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. 11-20-2000 http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2000-11-20/20-11-00-Assuncao.pdf In addition to the exception just mentioned, a close look into the Subsidies Agreement may allow for some additional flexibility regarding its stern specificity rule. A subsidy is considered not “specific”, hence not actionable, if there are objective and legally enforceable criteria governing eligibility for, and the amount of, the subsidy and if eligibility is automatic for any company meeting the criteria. These criteria or conditions will need to be neutral, meaning they would not favour certain firms over others, and be economic in nature and horizontal in application. It could be argued that if eligibility for, and the amount of, a subsidy were linked directly to concrete criteria -- for example energy efficiency or intensity -- the subsidy might not be considered “specific” even if it only applied to one firm and industry, and therefore be perfectly consistent with WTO rules and climate change policies. Alternative organizations fill in Ramady 07 visiting associate professor of finance and economics at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Mohamed, “The WTO IS dead: Long Live the WTO,” Arab News 7/23) There are some practical consequences for the death of the WTO multilateral approach, should it reach that point. These involve trade dispute settlements — how could such trade disputes be settled in the absence of a WTO body? If current members feel that multilateralism is dead, then they could become more litigious and foster a new "beggar-they-neighbor" policy. If a multilateral trading system collapses, then the alternative is for bi-lateral agreements between countries and trading blocs. This seems to have been the trend over the past few years, as evidenced also by the various Free Trade Agreements (FTA's) that the GCC countries have signed or tried to sign with both the US and the European Union. Indeed, over half of current world trade is said to occur under regional or bilateral trade deals, and the GCC customs union is one such example of regional trade bloc.

121

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***FOSSIL FUELS

122

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Natural Gas – Russia DA
1. Relations bad in the squo
Gregor Peter Schmitz, director of the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Transatlantic in Brussels, October 29, 2007, “Cold War Tensions, Reloaded”, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,512464-2,00.html Bush had just used unusually hawkish words at this press conference to describe the nuclear tension with Iran. Clearly referring to Putin, Bush had told reporters, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." That reference to "World War III" was reminiscent of earlier presidential rhetoric like "The Axis of Evil" (Bush, 2002) and "The Evil Empire" (Reagan, 1983). The choice of words reflected a deep chill in US-Russian relations -- and differences over Iran are not the only reason for the falling out. "The relationship is really shaken. Both sides appear determined to verbally assault each other as often as possible over the coming months," says Rose Gottemoeller, Director of the Moscow office of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE.

2. Non-unique: Russia hasn’t imported an ounce of LNG to the U.S. 3. No Russian dependency on U.S. – U.S. has too much of its own reserves to become a major recipient of Russian LNG
Marshall I. Goldman, Kathryn Wasserman Davis Professor of Russian Economics (Emeritus) at Wellesley College, former associate Director of the Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard University from 1975 to 2006, M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Russian studies and economics from Harvard University, honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, FulbrightHayes Lecturer at Moscow State University, State Department consultant, May 27, 2008, Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia, Oxford University Press, Pg. 7 Equally unusual, even though there are no natural gas pipelines connecting the United States with Russia, Gazprom is also beginning to export LNG (liquified natural gas) to the United States. For the time being, because Gazprom as yet lacks the technology to produce LNG on its own, it is a swap arrangement. These shipments under the Gazprom label actually originate in Algeria (in exchange, Gazprom pipes gas to some of Algeria's customers in Europe), but by 2010, Gazprom anticipates (unrealistically) that it will supply as much as 10 percent of the natural gas the United States needs as LNG directly from its own fields.' Given that the United States has fairly large natural gas reserves of its own and supplements domestic production with imports by pipeline from Canada, it is unlikely that the United States will ever become as beholden to Russia for its energy as Germany or Austria have become. Yet Russia's emergence as an energy superpower will have a long term impact on U.S. and world diplomacy if for no other reason than that our European allies will begin to think twice before saying "no" to Russia.

4. Plan solves the impact – U.S. leadership is key to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy and check prolif – that’s Buckner and Sanders

123

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 5. Russia likes the plan – shared interest in nuclear development Jonathan Pinoli, staff writer, 4/16/2008, “Building better U.S.-Russian relations”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 64, No. 1,
p. 7-8, http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/e862187704144860/fulltext.pdf [SD] To improve U.S.-Russian relations, leaders on both sides need to recognize the shared agenda of the two countries and the opportunities that genuine collaboration would present. Building a partnership based on mutual trust and respect will help resolve a range of global security issues. As John Steinbruner argues in “Consensual Security,” on p. 23, cooperating on several issues—nuclear technologies, climate change, biotechnologies, and space security—could lead to a transformation of international relations. In addition to negotiating further reductions in the size of their nuclear weapons stockpiles (both deployed and reserve), Russia and the United States should immediately reduce the launch readiness of their nuclear arsenals. By transforming their nuclear postures toward each other, Russia and the United States might finally move beyond the Cold War strategic template that each claims is distant history but which poisonously lingers, posing unnecessary risks. Russian and U.S. leaders should also build on their 123 nuclear cooperation agreement and begin to lead negotiations for an international nuclear fuel regime that would eliminate the need for countries to develop their own nuclear fuel enrichment and manufacturing facilities. Converting fissionable material from U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons into fuel for civilian nuclear power production could help fill demand. Together with weapons reductions, these joint moves would enhance the credibility of both countries as world leaders. Further agreement on nuclear weapons reductions and nuclear energy cooperation makes sense for other domestic and foreign policy reasons. Russia is eager to complement its roaring oil economy with a revived nuclear energy enterprise and growth in its high-tech sector; the United States has an interest in securing its energy future and keeping markets open across Asia. Both countries want to limit nuclear proliferation as civilian nuclear power becomes more prevalent globally. By leading an international effort to clarify and codify the rules of nuclear development and commerce, Russia and the United States could lay the groundwork for further economic and political partnerships. The more overlap the two countries’ agendas acquire, the more their leaders will be able to articulate to their citizens the benefits of shared action. Russians and Americans often seem trapped by vestigial Cold War concerns, but they crave economic opportunity, and seek to play a leadership role in the international community. It’s up to leaders in both countries to take actions that promote an understanding of how the future security and prosperity of Russia and America are inextricably linked.

6. Plan doesn’t uniquely kill relations – none of their evidence makes the distinction between the plan and other recent alternative energy initiatives. 7. No chance of war with Russia
Noah Shachtman, writer for national security online network database, June 9, 2008, “Moseley: Gates was Right; ‘Zero Chance’ of War with China or Russia”, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/moseley-gates-w.html. Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Air Force Chief of Staff General "Buzz" Moseley after repeatedly accusing the service of being unable to focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a fascinating interview with Air Force Times , conducted right after his removal, Moseley said the critiques were dead-on. It's an eye-opening admission. For years, Moseley's generals have been warning about the dangers of China and a resurgent Russia -- and downplaying today's

124

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
counterinsurgency conflicts. Now, Moseley is saying there is "an almost zero chance we will fight a nation-state" like Russia or China. Which makes you wonder why the Air Force has been so preoccupied with these countries.

125

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT
8. We

outweigh – a. Probability – models indicate fossil fuel emissions are causing warming now, leading to climate oscillations and extinction from starvation – the probability of extinction via warming is 100%. b. Timeframe – 30 nuclear weapons states are on the horizon – that’s Stares. The plan is key to check prolif and prevent an imminent nuke war. Their ev makes no claims about how long fallout from a nuke accident would take to cause extinction.

126

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

Natural Gas - Indonesia
1. Indonesian economy down – inflation Reuters 7/24/08 “A glimmer of hope for Asia as inflation hits high levels” Lexis On Wednesday, Philippine and Indonesian central bankers admitted that they might have to act again, having both raised their key rates by 0.75 percentage points this year. "Given the current inflation environment, and given that there are still risks to the outlook, interest rate hikes cannot be ruled out at this point," said the Philippine central bank governor, Amando Tetangco. Both countries were still cutting rates last year when prices started creeping up, and inflation in both countries is running at more than 11 percent, well above benchmark interest rates. 2. No tradeoff – Nuke power just replaces base load electricity like coal, means we don’t decrease prices in natural gas – that’s Bossleman 3. Volatility destroys predictable nature of economy, consumers wont invest, stabilization is key to global economy and investor confidence – that’s Bolinger 4, Other countries fill in Bill Powers, Editor of Canadian Energy Viewpoint, 7/31/04, “Indonesia and Oman,” Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/1560 While Indonesia’s oil production capacity continues to dwindle, the country’s natural gas production has remained flat. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that Indonesia has reserves of 90.5 trillion cubic feet (tcf) and production of 2.5 tcf per year. Since the country consumes only 50% of its gas production per year, Indonesia has been able to maintain the title of the world’s leading exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are the primary destinations for much of Indonesia’s LNG exports. Beginning in 2007, Indonesia will export 2.6 million tons of LNG a year to China. 5. Nuclear expansion inevitable Thomas E. Blejwas, Thomas L. Sanders, Robert J. Eagan, and Arnold B. Baker, 2000, employees of Sandia Laboratories, a research and engineering lab that specializes in technology, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/751168-gOzGzK/webviewable/751168.pdf Creating an economic and/or environmental level playing field for nuclear power may be possible, but the aspects that nuclear shares with nuclear weapons can never be level with other fuel sources.  A common misconception is that eliminating nuclear energy would help our proliferation problems by eliminating the generation of tons of plutonium-containing spent fuel. But as a practical matter, if the U.S. abandoned nuclear energy, the use of nuclear energy outside the U.S. still would continue, and the U.S. would weaken seriously its ability to deal with proliferation issues. The proliferation threat of U.S. spent nuclear fuel is insignificant compared to the real risk of loss of control of separated fissile materials in the former Soviet Union, for example. As noted in the GNMM report, another real threat is the loss of nuclear infrastructure and any kind of leadership position for things nuclear. Also, as noted above, future nuclear fuel cycles give the U.S. the potential to burn or otherwise reduce fissile materials. Therefore, we must find ways to help U.S. policy makers support development of an integrated U.S. nuclear policy, despite the complexity of the issue and the complexity of our political system. Such an integrated politically acceptable policy is the only way to achieve the potential energy, economic and environmental benefits from nuclear power and the protection from nuclear weapons and materials that the world demands.
127

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

6. Indonesia is losing its hold on the natural gas market – customers are switching away now Grace Nirang, reporter in Jakarta, and Christian Schmollinger, reporter, 8/10/06, “Natural gas running low in Indonesia,” International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/09/bloomberg/bxgas.php Utilities in Japan, the largest Asian economy, are turning to other markets. Tokyo Electric Power and Tokyo Gas, the largest Japanese power and gas suppliers, have signed up with Royal Dutch Shell's Sakhalin project in Russia to diversify supplies. Osaka Gas is in talks with Inpex, an oil and gas producer based in Tokyo, about joining a $6 billion liquefied natural gas project in Australia. Japan buys 40 percent of the world's liquefied natural gas and depends on Indonesia for a quarter of its imports of the fuel, according to the Japanese Ministry of Finance. The gas is part of a strategy to reduce the country's reliance on Middle East oil. "The Japanese must be pretty worried about what's happening in Indonesia," Andy Flower, a former BP executive who works as an independent consultant, said by telephone. "There's no way they can renew the contracts and fill the pipe." Calls from politicians, including Vice President Jusuf Kalla, to divert Borneo gas to other parts of Indonesia have fanned concern about its reliability as a supplier. Buyers are "already outraged by our failure to meet commitments," said Ari Soemarno, the head of the state oil company, Pertamina, which negotiates Indonesia's liquefied natural gas sales contracts. "We're still studying the impact of Chevron's statement." While buyers are seeking alternatives, suppliers like Chevron in Indonesia have become reluctant to invest in fields that could have to supply markets in Java at lower prices than Japan, said Christopher Newton, the chairman of Indonesian Petroleum Association. All export contracts from the Borneo plant at Bontang, known as Badak NGL, are up for renewal between 2009 and 2011.

128

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Railroads DA
1. Railroads aren’t investing enough to meet demand – trucks will fill in in the squo Congressional Budget Office, “Freight Rail Transportation: Long-Term Issues,” Congressional Budget Office Paper, January 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7021/01-17-Rail.pdf
The freight railroad industry plays an important role in the nation’s economy as a mainstay of transportation for many basic industries and, increasingly, for exports and imports that travel by rail to and from the nation’s ports. After a long period of excess rail capacity, the pendulum has begun to swing toward tight capacity—at least at cer- tain times and places.1 Some transportation experts have expressed concern that the railroads are not investing enough to meet rising demand for their services. If they cannot keep pace, the result could be higher costs not only for shippers and consumers but also for taxpayers, because demand that the railroads cannot satisfy is most likely to be handled by trucks and thus require more spending on the construction and maintenance of high- ways.

2. No link – disad’s not intrinsic – a rational policymaker could do the plan and provide funding to maintain railroad safety a. It’s reciprocal – negative can counterplan out of advantages to test their germaneness to the plan. Intrinsicness allows the aff to test the relevance of the link. b. It’s fair – we’ll only make one logical same-actor intrinsicness argument per debate. This solves back any infinite regression claims. 3. Plan shifts coal from domestic consumption to exports – key to profitability Association of American Railroads, 10/07,
http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx From 1997 to 2006, U.S. coal exports averaged 56 million tons and, until recently, had been trending downward for several years. In 2006, exports were 50 million tons, far short of the peak of 112 million tons in 1981. Nearly all U.S. coal exports are Appalachian bituminous coal, and more metallurgical coal is exported than steam coal. A significant portion of U.S. coal exports travels by rail, so a slowdown in coal exports has a negative effect on railroads

4. Plan doesn’t uniquely drive down profits – none of their evidence makes the distinction between the plan and other recent alternative energy initiatives. 5. Impact empirically denied – 5 train accidents per day Lange, Lori J, Fleming, Raymond, Toussaint, Loren, Social Behavior and Personality, 01/01/04,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200401/ai_n9404663 Accidents due to train derailments are fairly common occurrences in the United States, with an estimated average of 5.7 train accidents per day between 1990-2000 (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001). Whereas physical injury and loss of life may be results of these mishaps, other - less apparent - behavioral and psychological consequences also are likely (Baum, Fleming, & Davidson, 1983; Bowler, Mergler, Huel, & Cone, 1994; Chung, Farmer, Werett, Easthope, & Chung, 2001; Hagstroem, 1995). Research on technological mishaps and disasters has shown that technological accidents can greatly impact upon psychological, behavioral, and physiological functioning (Gleser, Green, & Winget, 1981; Rubonis & Bickman, 1991). As a result, accidents that do not necessarily result in immediate injury or death may still result in social and psychological disruption (Baum, 1991).

6. Their impact author is a lunatic – no reason a nuclear accident in ONE U.S. city would spill over globally and cause extinction.
129

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

130

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 7. We outweigh – a. Probability – models indicate fossil fuel emissions are causing warming now, leading to climate oscillations and extinction from starvation – the probability of extinction via warming is 100%. b. Timeframe – 30 nuclear weapons states are on the horizon – that’s Stares. The plan is key to check prolif and prevent an imminent nuke war. Their ev makes no claims about how long fallout from a nuke accident would take to cause extinction.

131

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Australian Relations DA
1. Australia is far below its long-term growth rate Sydney Morning Herald, 7-16-08, http://news.smh.com.au/business/economy-torecord-below-trend-growth-20080716-3frn.html, Junaid
The Australian economy is expected to record below trend growth for the rest of the year and into 2009, a survey shows. The Westpac-Melbourne Institute leading index found Australia's annualised growth rate was 2.1 per cent in May, well below the long term trend of 3.9 per cent. The annualised growth rate of the leading index has fallen from 6.5 per cent six months ago. It is the sharpest six-month decline in the growth rate since February 2001, when the goods and services tax was introduced. The index, which measures the likely pace of economic activity three to nine months into the future, rose 0.1 index points in May to 255.6 points. Westpac chief economist Bill Evans said the result was "entirely consistent with the prospect that the Australian economy can be expected to slow further through 2008 and into 2009".

2. No competition with U.S. for market share – their Graham and Waring card just says Australia is competitive with overseas rivals, not it’s best ally, the U.S. 3. Renewable energy won’t replace the coal industry Toronto Star 11/22/07 (“Renewables no match for coal and nuclear” LETTER; Pg. AA07. Lexis)
If one does the math, one will see quickly that renewable sources, such as wind and solar, simply cannot be scaled up to replace coal or nuclear power plants. For example, 2,000 wind turbines would have to be built for every nuclear reactor, 8,000 turbines for a power plant of four reactors. Each one is a million dollars, so that's $8 billion for turbines. Solar is unable to be scaled up, too. The planned farm in Sarnia is 1,000 acres of land and $300 million for output of a mere 40 megawatts. To replace a full nuclear plant would require 48,000 acres and cost $160 billion.

4. Plan doesn’t uniquely kill relations – none of their evidence makes the distinction between the plan and other recent alternative energy initiatives. 5. Australia won’t abandon the US or question the alliance
Dennis Phillips, Professor of US Foreign Policy, University of Sydney, June 2008, Australian review of Public Affairs, http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/07/phillips.html,Junaid Nothing in Australian politics basks in a warmer, bipartisan glow than the Australian-American alliance (ANZUS). For more than a half century now—and 67 years after a Labor Prime Minister famously declared, ‘Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom’ (Curtin 1941)—the American alliance remains the absolute bedrock of the nation’s foreign policy. It matters not which political party commands a majority in the Australian parliament or whether Australia is led by the ‘man of steel’ (John Howard, 1996–2007), or by ‘My name is Kevin and I’m here to help’ (Kevin Rudd, 2007–), Australia’s loyalty to ANZUS is paramount and unquestioned. As Alan Renouf, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, noted long ago, the American alliance has entrenched itself as ‘the equivalent of the Bible in foreign relations’ (Renouf 1979, p. 115). Historian Peter Edwards put it somewhat less dramatically when he explained, ‘The Australian-American alliance is far more than just another bilateral relationship. … It has become a political institution in its own right, comparable with a political party or the monarchy’ (Edwards 2005, p. 2).

132

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 6. No nuclear war – their Ball evidence says the U.S. and Australia have one nuclear facility together. No scenario for any attack on the base absent U.S.Australia collaboration.

133

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT 7. We outweigh – a. Probability – models indicate fossil fuel emissions are causing warming now, leading to climate oscillations and extinction from starvation – the probability of extinction via warming is 100%. b. Timeframe – 30 nuclear weapons states are on the horizon – that’s Stares. The plan is key to check prolif and prevent an imminent nuke war. Their ev makes no claims about how long fallout from a nuke accident would take to cause extinction.

134

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Clean Coal DA
1. Clean coal not coming for a decade – no tech David Sassoon, writer at solveclimate – a blog about global warming, 2.1.08, “DOE timelines show ‘clean coal will be a long time
coming’” http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080201/doe-timelines-show-clean-coal-will-be-long-time-comin With the cancellation of US Department of Energy Funding for FutureGen -- the "demonstration" zero-emissions coal plant plagued by cost overruns -- it looks like the promise of clean coal has suffered a major setback. But a look at the DOE's Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan (2007) reveals that the technology -even with FutureGen -- was not going to be ready any time soon anyway. Certainly not before today's first graders finish high school, probably college, and quite possibly graduate school.

2. U.S. econ low now – housing slump, credit crunch and booming oil prices prove Bloomberg, 7/28/08, “US budget deficit to hit record 482 bln dlrs”, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlERvqX9gO99K_WKAsGeK-bAJMtA
The US government's budget deficit is expected to balloon to a record 482 billion dollars in the next fiscal year, largely due to an emergency economic stimulus and a slowing economy, a White House report showed Monday. The report revealed that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had trimmed its budget deficit prediction for 2008 by 21 billion dollars to 389 billion. The OMB cited "higher inflation and more modest expectations regarding economic growth" in revising its deficit projections. Its forecast indicates that the next US president, who will take office in January following November's presidential election, will inherit some tough spending decisions from the very first day in office. The projected 2009 black hole in the government's accounts would represent over three percent of the world's biggest economy which is presently valued at 14 trillion dollars. Officials of President George W. Bush's administration stressed the US economy has continued to expand -- it grew a lackluster 1.0 percent during the first quarter -- and said it remains fundamentally sound despite a lengthy housing market slump, a related credit crunch and booming world oil prices. The estimated budget gap for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 was significantly larger than the 407-billion-dollar shortfall in the 2009 budget Bush requested from Congress earlier this year.

3. No link – do the plan and mandate equal prices between clean coal and renewables. This isn’t intrinsic – a. It’s reciprocal – negative can counterplan out of advantages to test their germaneness to the plan. Intrinsicness allows the aff to test the relevance of the link. b. It’s fair – we’ll only make one intrinsicness argument per debate. This solves back any infinite regression claims. c. Policymakers could control both impacts – they can pass the plan and keep coal prices the same. 4. Renewables boost coal industry

135

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

5. Plan solves the impact – the plan is key to promote peaceful use of nuclear weapons and check prolif. In the world of the plan, the U.S. would be able to prevent nations from lashing out with nukes. 6. Dependence on coal won’t decrease – alt energy and clean coal both will be used – empirically proven Richard R. Hall and , John Kirkham, natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP. 6/4/07, “coal: like it or not, it’s here to
stay,” http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484 Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy sources were going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite these predictions, the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand, and coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the United States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths of the carbon emissions associated with electrical generation. The challenge facing government and industry is reconciling rapid economic growth and energy demand with the environmental impacts and risks of climate change. Despite the environmental concerns and promising advances in the development of alternative energy sources, coal will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in power generation for decades to come. Attempts to abruptly eliminate coal from current and/or future energy options would be imprudent and jeopardize the availability, reliability and security of a country’s overall energy supply. To ensure future energy needs are affordable, support for the development of new energy technologies should include research and development for clean coal technologies as well as improving competitiveness of alternative energy sources. 7. We

outweigh – a. Probability – models indicate fossil fuel emissions are causing warming now, leading to climate oscillations and extinction from starvation – the probability of extinction via warming is 100%. b. Timeframe – 30 nuclear weapons states are on the horizon – that’s Stares. The plan is key to check prolif and prevent an imminent nuke war. Their ev makes no claims about how long it would take for the coal industry to collapse and kill the economy. Prefer the specificity of our internal link.

136

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***RENEWABLES

137

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Renewables Good (1/2)
1. Renewables alone cannot solve – nuclear power is key PLATTS, provider of energy information, 1/19/2006 Renewable energy and nuclear power: Competitive or complementary
resources? http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/highlights/2006/epp_rer_012005.xml [Benjamin Lopez] US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, speaking in Sydney, Australia last week at a climate change meeting of major Asian powers (see story page 1), lumped together renewables, nuclear power and clean coal technology as examples of what he called the administration's commitment to R&D on climate change. Critics, lead by international campaigner Greenpeace, counter that, far from being renewable, nuclear power depends on uranium ore that could be largely depleted worldwide by mid-century. Opponents also charge that nuclear reactors can hardly be considered clean when they generate the deadly substance plutonium, which will last for millennia even if effective storage facilities can be built. Further, even if planning started tomorrow for building nuclear plants, critics say, they would not be available for 15 years or more. Still, some analysts see nuclear power's revival as inevitable. "Renewable energy won't be enough," Collette Lewiner, global leader for the energy, utility and chemicals sector at Capgemini, told RER. "I don't think you'll see the landscape covered with windmills. They're contributing, but not enough.

2. Extend 1AC Colvin 04 card – Nuclear energy is the only environmentally-friendly way to provide baseload energy – Nuclear Power is currently the most responsible for reductions in Carbon Emission 3. Nuclear Power is key to providing baseload energy – renewable cannot function alone
Patrick Moore, Leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years, co-founder of Greenpeace April 16, 2006, Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html [Benjamin Lopez] There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and I expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with much of what I said -- not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a clear feeling that all options must be explored. Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.

138

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

2AC AT: Renewables Good (2/2)
4. The plan solves for their impact – Nuclear technology is coming in the SQ—only US

leadership in nuclear development can promote non proliferation—cross apply Buckner and Sanders 01 5. Case outweighs Only the case accesses external impacts to the US economy—outweighs the possible impact to renewable or the CP Prefer our internal link to hegemony: Probability: Our Buckner and Sanders evidence says nuclear technology is KEY to safe non-prolif leadership where as their Institute for Energy and Environmental Research evidence only suggests that leadership maybe possible without nuclear power. Prefer the specificity of our evidence. In a debate with the same impacts predictability is the only way to evaluate which scenario has a greater impact.

139

Nuclear Aff DDI 2008 GT

***KRITIKS***

140

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC: Plan Focus Good
Plan enactment should be the focus of the debate, not the entire 1AC – prefer it, - The plan is the only stable focus of the debate, representations and the way the aff presents itself are not static - Alternative frameworks create bad models – they allow a rational judge to vote aff even if the plan is a bad idea. This creates irrational decision making that would never occur in the real world - Who cares what the 1AC justifies – debaters will always find reasons why the logic behind a policy is similar to the holocaust - Distinction between Kritikal and policy args are irrelevant, any argument can be run as long as they prove the plan is a bad idea

141

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC AT: Heidegger 1. Perm – do both. Either the alt is strong enough to solve the residual link to the plan or it can’t solve the impact to the K. 2. Turn – technological management of the environment is good because it allows us to sustain human life – this is the only thing we truly understand, which means we should privilege it over the environment. 3. The environment already disclosed itself to Alex and me – it wants us to use it to ensure our existence, that way we can interact with it. 4. The alt is nothing more than an excuse for inaction – policy action is necessary to change the status quo. Your alt fails!
Roe 1999 – Director of Center for Sustainable Resource Development @ UC Berkeley Except Africa, pg. ( )
Second, the conjunction of politics and complexity places up-front the core dilemma many power advocates have been happy to obscure. The social scientist or cultural theorist who finds, for example, that power is more complex than commonly supposed can leave the matter at that. No need to make anything like a practical recommendation about what real people with real problems in real time should do, now that things have been shown to be more complex. Their critique is policy relevant simply by virtue of being a critique of power, and what is more policy

relevant than power, right? Wrong. This trick won’t work in a politics of complexity. Here you can’t criticize your way to policy relevance. A politics that starts with complexity has always to ask: how do we underwrite and stabilize the assumptions for policy-making in the face of that complexity? How can we make policy choices in the presence of recurrent surprise and persistent unpredictability? Chapter 1 outlined six answers to the questions, while the bulk of Except-Africa has focused on one, the counternarrative option. Each option, however, shares the same implications. Each means avoiding the person who believes that the real objective of analysis is to critique and destabilize without obligation to provide an alternative to that which is being criticized. Each means avoiding people who automatically assume their analysis is policy relevant, who wouldn’t ever dirty their hands in such low-life things as having to choose the losers of a public policy, who in other words couldn’t care less whether they had access to policy makers who treated their work seriously and used it in making
decisions. Each means, finally, avoiding people who think that just because something can be criticized, something needs to be criticized. In short—and this is the sobering part—it means avoiding precisely many advocates of the polarized power narrative. Again: there can be no development without being committed to providing counternarratives. The distaste that many power advocates in African studies have for working in or with government, a.k.a. the state, is palpable. Plucking up “development” between the tweezers of twin scare quotes is about as close as these critics want to get to something so power-saturated that it stinks from every direction. If government builds the road it planned, it is criticized for doing “development”; if it fails to build the road, it is criticized because its plans are based on wrong assumptions. In either case, government is not doing its job, because it can’t have a job worth doing. Thus, the Wonderland of Permanent Critique identified in chapter 4: if a government policy actually succeeds, then it’s a disaster or a misuse of power. The fact that a policy’s implementation frequently falls short of what was originally planned is, however, never enough to make the failed policy a “success.” In the critics’ view, the real success would have been ensuring that government did not have the power to undertake the policy in the first place. Yet, if the criterion for success is government not undertaking a bad policy, then why aren’t governments praised by critics for the many bad policies they have considered but not undertaken? But no critic wants to praise “state power,” thank you very much! In their Wonderland, the critics’ role is always to stand in opposition to the state, no matter if this stance raises nettlesome questions like, Just how does permanent critique determine when the future is better than the present, the present better than the past? But who needs alternatives, when you don’t believe in “development” at all!

5. Perm – endorse the 1AC and all non-competitive parts of the alt
142

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

6. Alt doesn’t solve the aff – refusal to act does nothing to check back prolif, mitigate global warming or sustain U.S.-Russia relations

143

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

7. Non-intrinsic link – we don’t increase the amount of fucked up relationships people have to the environment. We don’t even increase the number of power plants managing nuclear energy. We just give businesses financial incentives to modify their conduct. This means we outweigh – if the link to the K is the status quo, their impacts should already be happening. Our entire 1AC is offense against the status quo. 8. Turn – the negative’s advocacy of doing nothing in the face of extinction dooms humanity to a nuclear holocaust – 2 implications a. Extinction means we’ll never have the opportunity to solve our technological relationships to the environments anyways b. Their complacency renders human lives devoid of value and re-entrenches their impacts. 9. Heideggcr votes aff – existence is a prerequisite to expression. Even postmodern goobley gook will ultimately prioritize humans or forever compromise moral commitment.
(Paul Wapner, "Leftist criticism of "nature," Dissent. New York: Winter 2003. Vol. 50, Iss. l; pg. 7l)

All attempts to Iisten to nature are social constructions--exccpt one. Even the most radical postmodernist must
acknowledge the distinction between physical existence and nonexistence. As I have said, postmodemists accept that there is a physical substratum to the phenomenal world even if they argue about the diflerent mcanings we ascribe to it. This acknowledgment of physical €xistence is crucial. We can't ascribe meaning to that which doesn't appear. What doesn't exist can manifest no character. Put differently, yes. the postmodernist should rightly worrv about interpreting nature's expressions. And all of us

should be wary of those who claim to speak on nature's behalf (including environmentalists who do that). But we need not doubt the simple idea that a prerequisite of expression is existence. This in turn suggests that preserving the nonhuman world- in all its diverse embodiments-must be seen by eco-critics as a fundamental good. Eco-critics must be supporters. in some fashion. of environmental preservation. Postmodernists reject the idea ofa universal good.
They rightly acknowledge the difficulty of identifying a common value given the multiple contexts of our value-producing activity. In fact, if there is one thing they vehemently scorn, it is the idea that there can be a value that stands above the individual

contexts of human experience, Such a value would present itself as a mctanarrative and, as JeanFrancois Lyotard has explained, Postmodemism is characterized fundamentally by its "incredulity toward meta- narratives." Nonetheless. I can't see how postmodem critics can do otherwise than accept the value of preserving the nonhuman world. The nonhuman is the extreme "other": it stands in contradistinction to humans as a species. In understanding the constructed qualitv of human experience and the dangers ofreification. postmodernism inherentlv adyances an ethic of respecting the "other," At the ven'least. respect must involve ensuring that the "other" actuallv continues to exist. ln ol|r day and age, this requircs us to take responsibilitv for protecting the actualitv of the nonhuman. Instead, however., we are running roughshod over the earth's diversit)i of plants, animals, and ecosystems. Postmodern critics should find this particularlry disturbing. If they don't, they deny their own intellectual insights and compromise their fundamental moral commitment.
144

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

10. We outweigh –We have two nuclear war scenarios – first, the plan allows the US to reprocess nuke energy, which leads to a net decline in Russia’s nuclear capabilities. This prevents conflict between the US and Russia that would end in nuclear winter. Additionally, absent the plan, over 30 new nations will procure nukes. Unchecked prolif results in nuclear war, which turn the K – a. Nuclear war causes massive pollution and environmental degradation. And, b. Roll back – during times of war corporations will be allowed to do whatever they want in the name of economic prosperity. States don’t have the time or money to regulate the environment and all legislation protecting it gets rolled back.

145

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

1AR EXT: Heidegger

2AC #1: Extend perm do both. If the alt can operate in society now, there’s no reason it can’t solve post-plan. Even if there’s a link to the world of the plan, either the alt has to solve that link or it can’t solve the impact because it can’t solve the link to the status quo. 2AC #2: Extend the sustainability turn – tech management allows us to sustain human life, which is the only thing we truly understands – means we should privilege it. 2AC #3: Extend that the environment already disclosed itself to us – it said it wants you to vote aff to keep us alive so we can hang out with it and stuff. 2AC #4: Extend the Roe evidence – the alt fails – it’s another excuse for inaction. The politics of complexity necessitates policy action within the system to create change. 2AC #5: Extend the perm – you should endorse the 1AC and all non-competitive parts of the alternative. Inaction necessarily embraces a set of values that can be combined with the world of the plan. 2AC #6: Extend that the alt doesn’t solve the aff – doing nothing does jackshit to solve prolif, warming or Russian relations. 2AC #7: Extend there’s no intrinsic link – we don’t cause an increase in the amount of fucked up relations people have to the environment – the plan just reshapes pre-existing infrastructure. Means the impacts should already be happening – the 1AC is offense against the status quo. 2AC #8: Extend the complacency turn – the world of the alt necessarily causes nuclear war – means we can never reshape our relationships with the environment. Additionally, their inaction devalues life, re-entrenching the impacts. 2AC #9: Extend that Heidegger votes aff – he acknowledges that preservation of life is a prerequisite to expression. Means the plan solves the k because acting to sustain life creates the opportunities for humans to examine their relationship to nature. 2AC #10: Extend that case outweighs – our 2 nuclear war scenarios turn the k. First, nuclear war destroys the environment. Second, during war, legislation protecting the environment gets rolled back, allowing corporations to fuck around with the environment in the name of economic prosperity.
146

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

147

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC AT: Security K
1. Pure rejection of security fails – it is too ingrained in modern politics – only acknowledging the classical approach to security is capable of changing the established discourse
Ole Waever, Professor of International Relations at the Institute for Political Science, University of Copenhagen, 1998. “Securitization and Desecuritization,” On Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz, p. 40 An agenda of minimizing security in this sense cannot be based on a classical critical approach to security, whereby the concept is critiqued and then thrown away or redefined according to the wishes of the analyst. The essential operation can only be touched by faithfully working with the classical meaning of the concept and what is already inherent in it. The language game of security is, in other words, a jus necessitatis for threatened elites, and this it must remain. Such an affirmative reading, not at all aimed at rejecting the concept, may be a more serious challenge to the established discourse than a critical one, for it recognizes that a conservative approach to security is an intrinsic element in the logic of both our national and international political organizing principles. By taking seriously this "unfounded" concept of security, it is possible to raise a new agenda of security and politics. This further implies moving from a positive to a negative agenda, in the sense that the dynamics of securitization and desecuritization can never be captured so long as we proceed along the normal critical track that assumes security to be a positive value to be maximized.

2. Case impacts turn the k – in a world in which we can no longer act against threats, climate change will destroy life on earth as we know it 3. Environmental security discourse communicates danger through science, which is key to solving the environment
Jon Barnett, 2003. “Security and climate change,” Global Environmental Change 13, Science Direct Despite these problems with any potential climate- change security discourse, it may nevertheless have some utility. Security communicates a certain gravitas that is arguably necessary in climate change policy. In that climate change is a security problem for certain groups, identifying it as such suggests that it is an issue that warrants a policy response commensurate in effort if not in kind with war. A critical and ambiguous concept in the UNFCCC is its reference to ‘dangerous’ levels of climate change. Security encapsulates danger much better than concepts like sustainability, vulnerability or adaptation, and it offers a framework in which danger can be recast as widespread risks to welfare and (in the case of small island states) sovereignty. Security can also serve as an integrative concept which links local (human security), national (national security) and global (inter- national security) levels of environmental change and response. It also integrates mitigation and adaptation as both are essential to security from climate risks. Finally, understanding processes that render insecurity, of which climate change is an important but not isolated factor, brings to the fore issues of justice and the global political-economy. Although it should not be over- stated, security addresses the possibility of violent social upheaval, and it brings military expenditure and its environmental impacts into the decision making frame- work. The ability of conventional national security discourse and policy to appropriate climate change is a matter of how climate security risks are understood, and who talks about them. Through a grounding in the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a climate-change-security discourse could better resist appropriation from conventional national security as its key concerns will be rooted in respectable science rather than conjecture. If used by IPCC scientists a change-security discourse will have a legitimacy that renders it less amenable to appropriation and rewriting by conventional national security institutions. If such a discourse downplayed and was cautious on the issue of violent conflict and refugees, and if it pointed to the justice issues that attend climate change insecurities, then it might helpfully integrate science and policy and usefully elucidate the nature of the ‘danger’ that the UNFCCC ultimately seeks to avoid.

148

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val 4. Perm do both - Policy informed by deconstructive thought is better suited to solve conflicts than either deconstruction or politics alone
David Campbell, Professor of International Politics, at the University of Newcastle, 1998. National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia.

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (LZ W) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (LZ W) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

5. Double-bind – either the alt can’t solve all security discourse or it’s strong enough to solve any residual link on the perm

149

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val 6. Incentives circumvent the discursive constructions of the plan – governmental businesses interests divorces the discourse from action
John S. Dryzek, Professor, Social and Political Theory Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 2005, “The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses”, Oxford University Press, pp. 11-12 Alternatively, such recalcitrant actors can sponsor other discourses of environmental concern more conducive to their own interests. Perhaps this is why so many of them find the idea of "sustainable development" and its potential commitment to continued economic growth so attractive (as we will see in Chapter 7). Discourse and power can be interconnected in all kinds of ways, which I will attempt to bring out.4 Beyond the simple exercise of political power by interested parties, another constraint acts to limit the influence of discourse. Governments in capitalist economies have to perform a number of basic functions whether they want to or not, irrespective of any discourses which may have captivated government officials (see Dryzek, 1992a). These imperatives include, first and foremost, ensuring continued economic growth. If governments pursue environmental policies that corporations do not like, then corporations can stop investing. The increasing mobility of capital and finance across national boundaries intensifies this pressure, because businesses can easily threaten to transfer their operations to other countries with less stringent environmental policies and practices. Just South of the United States-Mexico border is a zone of maquiladora industries, producing for US markets, but without having to worry about US anti-pollution laws, still less about Mexican laws that look good on paper but are never enforced. Thus the first task of governments, in environmental policy and everything else, is to keep actual and potential corporate investors happy. If governments make investors unhappy-for example, through enacting tough anti-pollution polity-then they are punished by disinvestment, which in turn means recession, unpopularity in the eyes of voters, and falling tax revenues. Again, the relative influence of discourse and this kind of economic constraint on government policies merits investigation in particular cases.

150

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC: Eco-Managerialism
1.

The alternative still links – only the plan can solve – this card comes from within their link card, conveniently not highlighted

Dalby ’2 (Simon, professor of geography and political economy at Carleton University, Environmental Security, 2002, pg.
144-6) The political dilemma and the irony here is that the political alternative to global managerial efforts, that of political decentralization and local control, which is often posited by green theory, frequently remains in thrall to the same limited political imaginary of the domestic analogy and avoids dealing with the hard questions of coordination by wishing them away in a series of geographical sleights of hand coupled to the rearticulation of the discourses of political idealism.5 Given that the ecological analyses of biospheric processes and the human ecology discussions of biospheric people suggest both the global scope of processes of disruption and the intrinsic instabilities of ecology, the importance of politics and the inadequacies of international relations to grapple with its complexities is only emphasized in the face of these calls for either global management or radical decentralization

2. This absolutely destroys their alternative – it’s clear Dalby does not advocate an alternative to managerialism, even he knows it’s not possible – their card is mistagged, that’s not his real alternative – the Dalby 98 card doesn’t articulate anything nor does it even say alternative 3. Besides, our card postdates theirs – Dalby currently believes the alternative is just as bad 4. Perm: Combine our scientific representations with the acknowledgment that science is shaped by social issues – this solves issues of expert knowledge and instrumentalism. David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001,
(“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) Unfortunately, public representations of science seldom acknowledge the irreducibly social dimension of scientific knowledge and practice. As a result, disclosure of the social relations through which scientific knowledge is constructed and conceived has become grounds for discrediting both that knowledge and any public policy decisions based upon it. This political strategy of social construction as refutation has been pursued by the socalled climate skeptics and other opponents of the Kyoto Protocol. It is premised upon an idealized vision of scientific truth as the God’s-eye view from nowhere. Rather than accepting this premise and being forced to deny that scientific knowledge is socially situated and contingent, the proper response to it is to develop a more reflexive understanding of science as a situated and ongoing social practice, as the basis for a more balanced assessment of its knowledge. A richer appreciation for the social processes of scientific knowledge construction is as important for scientists themselves as it is for wider public credibility of their knowledge. In the particular case of climate change, heavy reliance upon diverse, highly specialized, and multidisciplinary bodies of scientific knowledge highlights the problem of trust in knowledge and the expert systems that produce it. As phenomena, the global climate and anthropogenic changes to it would be difficult even to conceive of without sophisticated computer simulations of the global climate system. Although satellite monitoring systems as well as instrumental records and paleoclimatic evidence have also been important, particularly in the identification of historic changes in the climate to date, it is these powerful computer models that have been decisive in identifying the problem of 151

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val
future anthropogenic climate change and making it real for policy makers and the public. 2 Ordinary senses struggle in the face of phenomena so extensive in space and time and incalculable in their potential impacts. For the social theorist Ulrich Beck (1992), this dependence upon science to make tangible otherwise invisible environmental risks is characteristic of what he calls the modern risk society.

5. Even if science isn’t perfectly objective, we shouldn’t reject it – it’s impossible to always give a perfectly unbiased representation of the world, and science is key to making the public understand and to achieving effective climate change mitigation.
David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001, (“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) Still, blindness does have its benefits, even for a progressive environmental politics. Although it is fashionable in many circles to bemoan the reductionism of science as an unmitigated evil, it is important to recognize where we would be without it. 7 Physically reductionist computer-simulation models have been crucial in identifying the physical effects of continued GHG emissions on the climate system. Their alarming red-orange visualizations of a future hothouse earth have played a vital role in bringing these risks to widespread public attention. To be sure, troubling exclusions are built into this epistemic community. The discipline and expertise required to participate meaningfully in its scientific debates restrict not only who is authorized to speak but also what and how things can be spoken about. 8 Important as it is to be reflexive about the exclusions that abstraction necessarily entails, there can be no escaping them entirely, for knowledge is always situated, partial, and incomplete (Haraway 1991, 183–201). Thus a climate model, no matter how sophisticated, can only ever provide a partial window on a much more complicated reality that it must, as a form of abstract
reasoning, reduce to some analytically simplified set of physical processes. One way to distinguish the practice of abstraction involved in this kind of physical reductionism from a more general sense of Reductionism is to say that Reductionism commits the “epistemic fallacy” (Bhaskar 1978, 36). It loses sight of the fact that its abstractions are merely analytical constructions, conveniently isolated from the flux of totality, and reduces reality to the terms of its own analytical abstractions. 9 This distinction between pernicious Reductionism and the physical reductionism of science has

occasionally been lost on science critics within cultural studies and critical human geography. All too often, social constructionist critiques of particular scientific abstractions come across, whether intended as such or not, as rejections of science and refutations of its specific knowledge claims. Such antiscience polemicism can be as sweepingly Reductionist as the very thing it opposes. Although the particular abstractions of global climate modeling may not tell us everything that we need to know, they deserve more credit than they sometimes receive from their critics. Physical process modeling has certain undeniable advantages. For one thing, the physically reductionist abstractions that it involves render the world analytically manageable. Only by dramatically simplifying the messy social relations driving GHG emissions and focusing narrowly on their physical and chemical properties have scientists been able to understand the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on the climate system. Oversimplistic as this way of seeing may be, it is still probably something that we cannot do without. Climate models provide one of the most important tools for exploring the physical relationships among GHG emissions, concentrations, and climate changes. The task, therefore, is to better appreciate the partial insights that these models provide without falling into Reductionism and losing sight of the limitations of physical process modeling.

152

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

#4 EXT: Perm
Perm: Do both – combining the ethics of environmentalism with the law is crucial to an embrasure of democratization and rejection of strict utilitarianism. Alyson Flournoy, Professor, University of Florida, Levin College of Law, Fall 2003, “Building Environmental Ethics from the Ground Up” Thus, it takes a concerted effort to identify what values we are pursuing under our laws. It requires that we wade through the analysis required under the relevant statutes and regulations for a start. Then, we need to look at how the regulations are applied and interpreted by agencies and courts, to determine whether some values are systematically favored, while others are protected in name only. Lawyers and legal scholars already typically engage in this type of analysis, but only up to a point. We study how the laws, regulations, and policies are interpreted and applied, and analyze whether agency and court decisions are based on sound reasoning. What I am suggesting is that this analysis needs an ethical dimension -- a translation of what happens under the law into the language of values. The challenge such a task presents is that it demands work across the boundary that divides law and philosophy. Both philosophers willing to delve into environmental law and legal scholars interested in environmental ethics will need to forge the path for this work. The missing analysis would seek to determine what values and ethics are embedded in Section 404. I have suggested that we need a detailed and systematic analysis. n16 Some may challenge the notion that detailed work is really necessary. For example, those familiar with Section 404 or with environmental philosophy might be willing to forgo a close analysis and offer as adequate the following general characterization: that Section 404 reflects predominantly a human-centered and utilitarian ethic -- that, in general, Section 404 employs a balancing designed to maximize human good. For purposes of considering whether detailed analysis is really necessary, let us assume that this characterization is generally correct, in this sense: that the values Section 404 advances are more consistent with a human-centered utilitarianism than with any [*61] other coherent ethic (environmental or not) that we can identify. Even if this is an accurate generalization, there is a fundamental problem with relying on this general characterization as a statement of the ethic of Section 404. By virtue of its effort to capture Section 404 in the abstract vocabulary of pure philosophy, this characterization is misleading. If we look more closely at Section 404, it is quickly apparent, that as applied, the section incorporates a very incomplete calculation of "the good." Rather than reflecting a pure and perfect utilitarianism, it reflects what I call a bounded and imperfect utilitarianism. By these qualifiers, I mean that the analysis is demonstrably inadequate on numerous scores. If one imagines a utilitarian calcPerulus that incorporates the insights of ecology as perfectly as is humanly possible, that is not the utilitarian calculus we are currently performing. n17 Our assessment of the benefits provided by wetlands is severely constrained by data gaps as well as by the limits of our understanding of complex natural systems. This is no surprise to most who study environmental law. Critiques that highlight the flaws of available analytic techniques are core contributions of legal scholarship. n18 But I submit that we lack and need analysis that does more than identify the flaws in regulatory and judicial decisions. We need to refocus our attention away from the consistency and completeness of regulatory and legal analysis, and onto the values advanced by the flawed analytic techniques as they exist. We need a language to express this, to describe the mix of values that actually emerges from the flawed utilitarian calculus that our laws so often embrace. This demands a new vocabulary, one that belongs neither to philosophy nor to law. n19 Philosophers can make a significant [*62] contribution by helping to develop this vocabulary, and lawyers and legal scholars can contribute by using it. n20 The work to uncover and articulate the values embedded in our laws represents a significant challenge that will require thinking that transcends disciplinary boundaries -- work and discussion fostered by symposia like this one. C. What Can We Gain from Unearthing the Ethics in Environmental Law? Having described the type of work I advocate, let me turn to the question of its worth. Why do we need a better understanding of the values embedded in our laws? Why do we need to be able to accurately describe the mix of values that Section 404 tends to protect? I contend that the public and decisionmakers need a better sense of our current bearings in order to validate or invalidate popular assumptions. Consider the portrait of Section 404 offered above: let us assume for a moment that the most accurate description of the ethic embedded in it is a bounded and imperfect human-centered utilitarianism -- in other words, a utilitarianism that does not fully account even for the total value to humans of wetlands. Contrast this with the public narrative we tell about Section 404. Section 404 is widely viewed as one of the brightest stars of the environmental law constellation. And rightly so. Wetlands have what we might call "most-favored-ecosystem" status under our legal regime, while many uplands ecosystems are left relatively unprotected. But the fact that Section 404 is one of our stronger environmental laws does not mean that it reflects any uniquely environmental values or a unique way of valuing the environment. Yet, the public narrative may reinforce the assumption that environmental law is a pure reflection of some indistinct but noble set of environmental values. This may contrast with the reality that our laws, like Section 404, [*63] often protect a wide array of very traditional human values, and uniquely environmental values or ethics are at best only partially reflected. What if this is true broadly? What if the values protected by our environmental laws are human values that differ only slightly from the values protected by the common law of nuisance, 153

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val
cloaked in the appealing veil of environmentalism? It is possible that instead of an identity between the values in our laws and those held by the public, there is a significant disjuncture. n21 At present, I contend that it is difficult for an expert, let alone a lay person, to know if this is the case. Such ignorance can interfere with democratic participation. The easy equation of environmental laws and environmentalism, which is reinforced by our inability to describe accurately the values of our laws, discourages serious public discourse about why we care about the environment. If we do not ever consider or discuss as a society what we value and why, we are like the rowers I described at the start: backs into the wind, rowing in unison with no idea where we are headed, but convinced it is where we all mean to go. A clearer picture of the embedded values can correct any erroneous assumptions and validate accurate ones. Moreover, the discourse involved in providing a more accurate account of the values protected by our laws may promote wider attention to the ethical questions, challenging people to consider why they support environmental protection. Thus, I propose that legal scholars and philosophers work to enhance public understanding of the values embedded in our laws. When members of the public are confronted with a clearer picture of what values are advanced by our current laws and policies, they can determine whether or not these laws comport with their ethical intuitions. If they find that the laws are consistent with their ethical intuitions, we will have a stronger public commitment to support existing laws. If not, the public can support efforts to reform the law in any direction -- to enhance protection of non-environmental human values like autonomy or to enhance protection of the social or intrinsic [*64] value of the environment, as they see fit. Beyond the democratic benefits of better public understanding of the values advanced under our laws, this work is important to the long-term efficacy of environmental law and policy. Engagement with environmental issues by the public and changes in individual and civic behavior will only result if we care about something at stake. If, as I suggest, the American public lacks clarity about what it values about the environment, then the public is less likely to be engaged and responsive on issues of environmental policy. As philosopher James Rachels explains, in describing where ethical argument leads us: As Hume observed, when we come to the last reason, we mention something we care about. Nothing can count as an ultimate reason for or against a course of conduct unless we care about that thing in some way. In the absence of any emotional involvement, there are no reasons for action. The fact that the building is on fire is a reason for me to leave only if I care about not being burned; the fact that children are starving is a reason for me to do something only if I care about their plight. n22 In short, unless we have a sufficient grasp both of our own values and of how a law or decision or action affects something we care about, we will not respond. The process of gaining clarity, of discussing the values at stake, may itself promote more reasoned thinking. n23 Deliberation may promote ethical development. n24 One does not need to know how [*65] deliberation might affect Americans' views on environmental values, to believe that greater thought and attention to these issues is a desirable end in itself. Because there is ultimately no reason for any action, nor for law that regulates action, unless we care, environmental philosophy matters for environmental law. The steady support for increased regulation to limit our impact on the environment over the past thirty years suggests that American society does care about some values associated with the environment. If we are to change our current pattern of conduct with regard to the environment -- including our action through government -- we need both information and motivation to deliberate. Several characteristics of environmental problems -- their technical complexity, the scientific uncertainty and extremely long time horizons attending them, and the wide array of values they engage -- discourage clear thinking about the relevant values. The possibility that a majority may wish to change our current patterns makes the effort to clarify our thinking about why we care worthwhile.

154

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

#5 EXT: Science Key
Even if science isn’t perfect, we shouldn’t reject it. Science is key to making the public understand and mitigate climate change. David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001, (“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) Still, blindness does have its benefits, even for a progressive environmental politics. Although it is fashionable in many circles to bemoan the reductionism of science as an unmitigated evil, it is important to recognize where we would be without it. 7 Physically reductionist computer-simulation models have been crucial in identifying the physical effects of continued GHG emissions on the climate system. Their alarming red-orange visualizations of a future hothouse earth have played a vital role in bringing these risks to widespread public attention. To be sure, troubling exclusions are built into this epistemic community. The discipline and expertise required to participate meaningfully in its scientific debates restrict not only who is authorized to speak but also what and how things can be spoken about. 8 Important as it is to be reflexive about the exclusions that abstraction necessarily entails, there can be no escaping them entirely, for knowledge is always (Haraway 1991, 183–201). Thus a climate model, no matter how sophisticated, can only ever provide a partial window on a much more complicated reality that it must, as a form of abstract reasoning, reduce to some analytically simplified set of physical processes. One way to distinguish the practice of abstraction involved in this kind of physical reductionism from a more general sense of Reductionism is to say that Reductionism commits the “epistemic situated, partial, and incomplete fallacy” (Bhaskar 1978, 36). It loses sight of the fact that its abstractions are merely analytical constructions, conveniently isolated from the flux of totality, and reduces reality to the terms of its own analytical abstractions. 9 This distinction between pernicious Reductionism and the physical reductionism of science has occasionally been lost on science critics within cultural studies and critical human geography. All too often, social constructionist critiques of particular scientific abstractions come across, whether intended as such or not, as rejections of science and refutations of its specific knowledge claims. Such antiscience polemicism can be as sweepingly Reductionist as the very thing it opposes. Although the particular abstractions of global climate modeling may not tell us everything that we need to know, they deserve more credit than they sometimes receive from their critics. Physical process modeling has certain undeniable advantages. For one thing, the physically reductionist abstractions that it involves render the world analytically manageable. Only by dramatically simplifying the messy social relations driving GHG emissions and focusing narrowly on their physical and chemical properties have scientists been able to understand the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on the climate system. Oversimplistic as this way of seeing may be, it is still probably something that we cannot do without. Climate models provide one of the most important tools for exploring the physical relationships among GHG emissions, concentrations, and climate changes. The task, therefore, is to better appreciate the partial insights that these models provide without falling into Reductionism and losing sight of the limitations of physical process modeling.

155

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Aff Turns K
The alternative is suicide, environmentalist agree that nuclear power is essential to galvanizing global support and averting immediate extinction John Ritch, Director General of the World Nuclear Association, 2004 (“Preparing for the Coming Nuclear Century” An International Journal of Nuclear Power – Vol. 18 No. 2-3) The idea is still hotly disputed by organised Greens. But a profound truth is slowly penetrating the global debate on environmental preservation and climate change: “In the century ahead, nuclear energy will be nothing less than indispensable if we are to meet the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced – which is to cope with our world’s vast and expanding human needs without destroying the very Earthly environment that enabled our civilisation to evolve.” Our planet’s fragile biosphere is now at risk, and history has reached a momentous point where the fate of humanity hinges on whether we can summon the will and the ingenuity to produce clean energy on a massive global scale – a scale our nations cannot realistically hope to attain without an expansive use of nuclear power. To fail in this is to invite real and unmitigated catastrophe – for people everywhere and for our global environment. Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactors, generating one-sixth of the world’s electricity. With global energy demand steadily rising, a clean-energy future will require thousands – perhaps 5,000 by midcentury, producing not only electricity but also hydrogen and clean water – if we are to mount a concerted strategy to avert environmental catastrophe. DIMENSIONS OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS For many environmentalists, any such projection will still seem shocking if not sacrilegious – a violation of basic assumptions in the environmentalist faith. But if organised environmentalists have not yet embraced nuclear power, they are acutely aware, and have helped to build awareness of the crisis we truly face: • They have warned cogently of the enormous consequences – human and environmental – of our world’s unprecedented explosion in human numbers. • They have warned compassionately that, of today’s 6 billion people, more than half live in dire conditions, and that we must urgently find new ways to meet these needs without jeopardising the global environment. • They have warned alarmingly that expanding populations are quickly depleting the world’s precious supplies of fresh water, lowering water tables so drastically that, within 25 years, half the world’s people could be without access to potable water, unless we can somehow achieve large-scale desalination of water from our oceans and seas. • They have warned that we face additional energy needs in the rising global demand for food and housing and basic services, and they have warned of the dire consequences – through pollution and global warming – if those needs continue to be met using fossil fuel. • They have warned that stark evidence of global warming is already all around us: that the hottest years in recorded history have occurred in the past decade, that weather catastrophes are on the rise, and that icecaps and glaciers are melting from Africa to Alaska. • They have warned that global warming could, in this century, raise sea levels by as much as 20 feet, flooding thousands of islands and coastal cities worldwide and inundating countries like Bangladesh. • They have warned that the ongoing melting of the Arctic iceberg and Greenland’s huge icesheet could entirely disrupt the Atlantic Gulf Stream, bringing to an end the benign delivery of warm air and water to Western Europe, and thereby leaving countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom – and even much of continental Europe – with climates as cold and severe as Lapland’s. • They have warned that global warming is also greatly accelerating the worldwide loss of biodiversity, so much so that, within the next 50 years alone, a full one-fourth of all species on our planet will be lost to extinction, never to appear on Earth again. This is a powerful message of global crisis. Sceptics, cynics, curmudgeons – and, ironically, many conservatives – may wish to ignore it. For my own part, far from disparaging these concerns, I find the environmentalist case compelling, profoundly alarming and a clear summons to public action. But what organised environmentalism has not done is to identify and embrace a feasible global response to the crisis we face – a strategy that must begin with, and be based upon, a sound concept for the massive worldwide production of clean energy. What organised environmentalism has rendered thus far is less a coherent strategy than an amalgam of dogma, wishful thinking and sometimes sheer fantasy that does not yet represent a basis for successful global action. Having raised a resounding clarion call concerning our global problem, environmentalists must now focus with equal acuteness on the solution. By its sheer magnitude and severity, the global environmental crisis will not allow us the luxury of political posturing or fuzzy thinking. We must discard preconceptions and ideology, assess our options carefully and build – with clear logic and determination – a feasible, science-based plan for collective action. THE URGENT NECESSITY OF A DECISIVE STRATEGIC RESPONSE Let us state the case – both the problem and the logic of its solution – in the clearest possible terms: In the next 50 years, as global population grows from 6 to 9 billion, human need will multiply – and, in the absence of dramatic measures, so too will human misery. As nations try to meet this need, the rate of world energy consumption will double or even triple, and – in just this narrow 50- year period alone – humankind will use more energy than in all previous history combined. Today, despite much rhetoric and diplomacy, the global rate of CO2 emissions – now 25 billion tonnes a year, or 800 tonnes a second – continues to rise inexorably and so too does the atmospheric build-up of these heattrapping gases. The implications of this unprecedented accumulation can be found in the Earth’s history 156

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val
over the last 400,000 years, which shows CO2 levels fluctuating between 200 and 300 parts-per-million and atmospheric temperature fluctuating – by about 15 degrees Centigrade – in almost perfect correlation. Now, however, human activity in the industrial age has suddenly – in geological time – raised CO2 concentrations to well above any pre-industrial level. Today’s level of 350 parts-per-million might in itself sound less than alarming. What is undeniably alarming, however, is the projected level. Unless we achieve prompt and drastic global action to curb greenhouse emissions, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will reach double the pre-industrial level by the middle of the 21st century and will continue to rise thereafter. It is thus far from alarmist to warn that pervasive air pollution and a changing, unstable global climate could, in the not distant future – and certainly in the lifetimes of our children – become threats far more devastating than terrorism or manmade weapons. To stabilise greenhouse gases – even at a dangerously higher level – scientists calculate that daily global emissions must be cut, within the next 50 years, by at least 50%. Since developing countries such as India and China will inevitably emit far more greenhouse gases, the already industrialised countries must, if we are to preserve the biosphere, cut emissions by 75% – and also lead in disseminating clean energy technologies worldwide. THE CRUCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY We face a future of radical change. Either we will achieve radical transformation in the global economy or we will experience a radical upsurge in human suffering and a radical alteration in the global environment. No aspect of sustainable development is more elemental than the need to achieve a massive worldwide shift to clean energy technologies. How are we to accomplish this? Authoritative projections by the International Energy Agency (in the public sector) and the World Energy Council (in the private sector) point unambiguously to the same conclusion – that our need for clean energy on a colossal scale cannot conceivably be met without a sharply increased use of nuclear power. In fact, nuclear power is the quintessential sustainable development technology: Its fuel will be available for multiple centuries, its safety record is superior among major energy sources, its consumption causes virtually no pollution, its use preserves precious fossil resources for future generations, its costs are competitive and declining, and its waste can be securely managed over the long-term. Those who persist in opposing nuclear power in the name of environmental preservation will surely earn the scorn of history and of future generations. The world’s environmentalists have performed many valuable services. But they can provide their fellow citizens no greater service now than to discard the fiction that conservation, solar panels and windmills alone can meet human needs. Sustainability requires nuclear energy; and the path of sound environmentalism today is to embrace, fight for, and finance, a future in which nuclear power and “new renewables” function as cleanenergy partners in a transformed global economy.

157

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Enviro Action Key
It is impossible to do nothing in the environment. Our very existence impacts the environment and is a form of management. We must figure out ways of acting that crafts action towards the environment and historical examination of ecosystems allows us to do so – contrary claims are false Bowman 01 (D.M.J.S., Northern Territory University, Australia, 2001 Journal of Biogeography, Vol 28, No. 5, Future Eating and Country Keeping: what role has environmental history in the management of biodiversity? JSTOR) Land managers can use the enormous complexity of landscape change and the absence of clear goals as an excuse not to act. But this strategy ignores a basic lesson from environmental history that it is impossible to ‘do nothing’ in dynamic systems. I suggest that the most basic goal of land management should be to minimize the rate of species extinction, particularly in largely intact landscapes and to maintain or restore ecosystem services, such as potable water, in degraded landscapes. In this regard a historical perspective provides .in important context to detect marked declines in species populations and ecosystem function. For example, the widespread decline of granivorous bird species (Franklin, 1999) and the population crash of the endemic conifer (lslli:ris sn:rarroprca R.T. Baker & HG. Sin. (Bowman & Panton, 1993) is clear evidence that northern Australian tropical savamsas are undergoing rapid evolutionary adjustment in response to ecological changes initiated by European colonization, The unpotability of many inland waters and collapse of native fish populations because of eutrophication and salinity dramatically signals the unsustainability of past and present agriculture practices in southern Australia (State of Environment Advisory Council. 1996.) CONCLUSION The description and explanation of environmental change is of critical importance for land management and the conservation of biodiversiry. However, practitioners of environmental history must accept that their studies are politically charged and that their findings are bounded by great uncertainty. It is inevitable that conflicting interpretations of essentially the same data will arise because authors have different value systems. Dovers (2000. p. X) sensibly advises scientists and historians that they should enter debates about environmental history with their ‘eyes wide open and other parts of their anatomy well covered’. Many of these tensions will he most apparent in popular works that have a tendency to gloss-over uncertatnties and over-generalize in order to make psychologically saris’ing stories. Some stories can be so powerhil that they assume a life of their own. Rather than attempting to quash these stories, I suggest it is more productive for ecologists to harness them to justify subsequent enquiry and to bolster land management interventions. Although in the short term dogmatically interpreted stories can stifle public land management debates and frustrate the incorporation of new research findings, in the long term they will be replaced by new stories to accommodate changing knowledge and value systems. In any case, on a practical level the rigid application of any single view across the diversity of landscapes is doomed to failure. just as traditional ecological knowledge enables indigenous people to adapt to particular environments I am confidetit that appropriate stories will he continually rehned to bolster ecologically sustainable management of modern landscapes. Regardless of the ideological struggles amongst different value systems, eventually natural selection will see the triumph and ecological ‘fit’ stories over ecological flawed ones. Isn’t thdt Darwin’s law?

158

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC AT: Prolif K
1. Perm – do the plan and reject the proliferation discourse 2. We must combine decisive action alongside cultural criticism to break down these harmful binaries Jonathan Arac, Professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, 1998, “Criticism between Opposition and
Counterpoint,” Boundary 2, Duke University Press, Vol. 25, No. 2, JSTOR [BB] Notice what has happened in Said's sequence of four sentences. The complexity of culture is adduced to criticize a political choice. It would be too simple to say what is nonetheless unavoidable here: Perhaps culture more readily allows for ambivalence, or polyphony, than politics does. One may reject the politics of blame because Austen, Conrad, Kipling, and company are dead, but even in the realm of culture, the politics of current criticism may require some decisiveness (a term, one will recall, that etymologically means "cutting from"). To conceive of culture as all-embracing points in the direction of various moments in recent criticism that deny or minimize the possibilities of opposition. I am thinking of Foucault's polemical assertion that Marx was at home in the nineteenth century "like a fish in water," his "opposition" to bourgeois economics simply contained within the era's larger structure of possibility. I think, too, of Walter Benn Michaels, who argues for the foolishness of imagining that Theodore Dreiser could stand "outside capitalism" so as then to "have attitudes toward it."'5 3.

The aff solves - the world is divided among nuclear have and nuclear have-nots: the plan solves for this injustice by engaging in global tech transfer – that’s Bengelsdorf ‘07

4. The problems with the NPT are based on its current weak status – the plan is key to revolutionizing the treaty and solving for the K
David S. Yost, Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, 2007, “Analysing the International Nuclear Order,” International Affairs In short, as with deterrence, Walker’s portrait of the non-proliferation regime in the 1960s and 1970s—part of what he sees as ‘a grand enlightenment project’—leaves out the factors of interstate competition and the self-interested pursuit of national security advantages. Rather than being the product of ‘concerted efforts to construct an international nuclear order meriting that title’, the NPT was a compromise among various national positions. While the chief sponsors of the NPT, the United States and the Soviet Union, had some shared interests in curbing nuclear proliferation, Soviet policy in this regard was ‘directed primarily at preventing West German acquisition of nuclear weapons’.24 It was only with great difficulty that Moscow and Washington reached agreement on language in articles I and II of the NPT that would permit the continuation of NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements, and Moscow seems to have agreed only because of US assurances that these arrangements would not enable the Federal Republic of Germany to become a nuclear power.25 As Pierre Hassner has observed, the NPT project was ‘flawed’ from the outset in that ‘it relied on a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of most of its participants and resembled an uneasy and fragile compromise based on existing power relations more than a project based on a coherent long-term vision.’ Moreover, Hassner notes, the NPT regime remains ‘inherently weak both in terms of legitimacy, because of its unequal and discriminatory character, and in terms of power, because of the lack of agreed and legal sanctions against non-compliance’. It is for these reasons that Hassner lodges a ‘political and moral objection to the idealized picture’ of the NPT presented by Walker

159

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val 5. No alt solvency - , only the aff can solve - All utopian models of existence without nuclear weapons are impossible – arms control is permanent and most capable of breaking down top-bottom dichotomies and inter-state rivalries
Paul Schulte, Director of Prolif & Arms Control - Ministry of Defense, UK, 2007, International Affairs 83.3, "Universal vision or bounded rationality?" [BB] It seems to me that there are three possible blueprints for an international nuclear order that would fulfil the criteria of rationality, universality and reciprocity implicit in the very association of the two terms of ‘order’ and ‘enlightenment’. The first would be nuclear disarmament: the total delegitimation and elimination of nuclear weapons. The second, analogous to the social contract initiating the civil state, would consist of entrusting nuclear weapons or the capacity to produce them to an impartial international authority which, de facto or de jure, would become a world government. The third would go to the other extreme: it would be a decentralized order in which each state would have the bomb and would be able to deter all the others, the balance of deterrence playing the same role as the market, or as the diplomatic–military balance of power, except that it would be immobile rather than flexible, since the distinction between great and small powers as well as between allies and adversaries would disappear (at least as far as nuclear weapons are concerned) in favour of what Morton Kaplan called ‘a unit veto system’.4 Each of these three abstract models has proved unworkable in its pure or integral version, for reasons not so different from those which pushed Kant to abandon the rational solution of a republic of republics in favour of ever less constraining ‘surogates’: the unwillingness of states to abandon their power or their freedom of action, and the danger of instituting a global Leviathan which would risk being ineffective, or tyrannical, or both. The abolition of nuclear weapons supposes an extraordinary degree of mutual trust among all states, since one that cheated and hid one or several nuclear weapons could become the master of the world. If they applied the maxim dear to President Reagan, ‘Trust
but verify’, the question would be whether the verifiers could be trusted themselves and what means they had to constrain or punish the cheats. This is indeed the main objection to the second model, that of the monopoly of nuclear weapons. It might have had a small chance as long as the United States was the only nuclear power if it had been able to stabilize and legitimize its supremacy by giving the rest of the world a say and a stake in managing it and thus creating a kind of constitutional order. But it was highly unlikely that the Soviet Union (given the nature of its regime) would ever rest content with American supremacy, however benevolent. The third model has long been the implicitly dominant one. It was official in France, where Generals Gallois and Poirier were its theorists and advocates. It still has a few well-known defenders, like Kenneth Waltz in the United States and Martin Van Creveld in Israel. But it rests, of course, on a series of postulates (such as the equalizing and moderating power of nuclear weapons or ‘proportional deterrence by the weak of the strong’, each nuclear state being able to deter an attack upon itself by threatening to inflict even limited damage upon a stronger aggressor) and of practical conditions (such as the mutual invulnerability of retaliatory forces and the mutual vulnerability of populations, or the functioning of communications, command and control). In the best case, it rested upon the risk of mutual genocide and common suicide, as envisaged from the outset by Winston Churchill in his announcing an age ‘where safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation’.5 No wonder that none of these three blueprints—the abolition, the monopolization, the generalization of nuclear weapons—won the day as the model of a nuclear order. But if these weapons could not be eliminated yet were not

automatically conducive, through the hidden hand of mutual deterrence, to the elimination of war, the only option left was the attempt to control or regulate them through mutual understanding. This attempt is called arms control, and I completely agree with William Walker in seeing in it the expression of the best of enlightenment: that is, the introduction of at least a partial constitutionalism in international affairs, and the attempt to transform enmity into rivalry and mutual forbearance. The necessity of communication and dialogue between adversaries, based on a common interest in not letting their rivalry get out of hand through the effect of passions, of misunderstanding or of the weapons themselves, is one of the most positive insights of the twentieth century. It answers Thomas Schelling’s call for ‘a theory of imperfect partnership and incomplete antagonism’.6 This essentially addresses what one could call the horizontal dimension of international relations: conflict, competition and cooperation between approximate or potential equals. But an international order has also to address the vertical dimension: that between the top dogs and the underdogs or between the haves and the have-nots; between the powerful and the powerless, or rather the less powerful. Here I have long thought that Schelling’s theory needed a counterpart, that of a theory of incomplete inequality and imperfect reciprocity. This is what Walker thinks humankind had found in the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and this is where I agree with him only in part. I would distinguish three components in the nuclear enlightenment praised by Walker, and I would tend to give them quite different marks. Arms control, the idea of a common interest among adversaries and the necessity for them to communicate and cooperate while continuing their rivalry, seem the most general and permanently valid aspects.

160

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Alt Can’t Solve – Nukes Inevitable
The alternative cannot solve – nations will continue to defend nuclear weapons – plan is key, we cannot isolate deterrence from other issues of international affairs, must strengthen the NPT David S. Yost, Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, 2007, “Analysing the International Nuclear Order,” International Affairs It is of course somewhat artificial to isolate nuclear deterrence, non-proliferation and disarmament issues from broader political challenges. International nuclear order is but a subset of international political order, and one of the great merits of Walker’s work is to raise fundamental questions about international political order. He quotes Kissinger’s seminal study of the restoration of a peaceful international order in Europe after the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, and underscores the importance of consensus among the leading powers on their responsibilities.64 As Walker puts it, citing phrases from Kissinger’s study, ‘Rather than give way to anomie, governments need now to return to the question of how to institutionalize restraint, addressing the whole presence of nuclear weapons in the international arena, in a manner that upholds “the existing structure of obligations” and can “translate transformation into acceptance”.’ In emphasizing the responsibilities of the nuclear-armed states Walker tacitly acknowledges that one of the fundamental elements of international order has historically been the relative stability of relationships among the major powers. As Robert Osgood and Robert Tucker once put it, ‘The prerequisite of order among autonomous states is that force be restrained by countervailing force within a balance (or equilibrium) of power.’65 The relationships among major powers are never more than comparatively stable, however, and their commitment to a sense of belonging to an international society with shared duties is always in competition to some extent with more self-centred priorities, including national or collective interests that do not encompass the whole of international society. As Hedley Bull observed, It is important … to retain a sense of the limitations of the anarchical international society. Because international society is no more than one of the basic elements at work in modern international politics, and is always in competition with the elements of a state of war and of transnational solidarity or conflict, it is always erroneous to interpret international events as if international society were the sole or the dominant element. This is the error committed by those who speak or write as if the Concert of Europe, the League of Nations or the United Nations were the principal factors in international politics in their respective times; as if international law were to be assessed only in relation to the function it has of binding states together, and not also in relation to its function as an instrument of state interest and as a vehicle of transnational purposes; as if attempts to maintain a balance of power were to be interpreted only as endeavours to preserve the system of states, and not also as manoeuvres on the part of particular powers to gain ascendancy; as if great powers were to be viewed only as ‘great responsibles’ or ‘great indispensables’, and not also as great predators; as if wars were to be construed only as attempts to violate the law or to uphold it, and not also simply as attempts to advance the interests of particular states or of transnational groups.66 Bull’s reminder that great powers may behave like ‘great predators’ instead of the ‘great responsibles’ that would consistently pursue a nuclear non- proliferation and disarmament agenda helps to explain why the major powers are likely to retain their nuclear deterrence postures for the indefinite future. Rivalries may be contained within certain bounds indefinitely through threats of nuclear retaliation, but distrust is likely to persist. Despite
the apparently reduced risks of major-power nuclear war in the past two decades, there cannot be any absolute guarantees. Aside from the risks of deterrence failure, accidents or breakdowns of control arrangements, Bull noted, the preservation of mutual nuclear deterrence obstructs the longterm possibility of establishing international order on some more positive basis. The preservation of peace among the major powers by a system in which each threatens to destroy or cripple the civil society of the other, rightly seen as a contemporary form of security through the holding of hostages, reflects the weakness in international society of the sense of common interest.67 Bull’s observation about ‘the weakness in international society of the sense of common interest’ remains entirely pertinent. It should be noted, moreover, that the concept of ‘common interest’ normally emphasizes material interests such as peace and prosperity. Martin Wight argued that ‘in the long run the idea of a common moral obligation is probably a more fruitful social doctrine than the idea of a common material interest’.68 The sense of ‘a common moral obligation’ in international society is, however, probably even weaker at the current juncture than the sense of shared material interests. The generally insufficient level of commitment to ‘a common moral obligation’ includes a low level of allegiance in key regions of the world to the non- proliferation and disarmament ideals championed by Walker. The most serious obstacles to the realization of his vision reside not, as he suggests, in the United States but in the rise of new power centres, particularly in Eurasia, and the emergence of violent and highly capable non-state actors. As Pierre Hassner observes,

Probably the most important reason for the crisis of the nuclear order, and for my rather pessimistic assessment of its chances of being solved any time soon, is the sharp decline of the international political order on which the NPT was based. The two elements on which any such order has to rely—power and legitimacy—have been profoundly modified in a direction unfavourable to the West.69 Although Walker deprecates the idea of ‘muddling through’ and deplores the focus in US policy on ‘certain actors in the world whose possession of nuclear weapons or weapon-related technologies would be intolerable’, there is a certain practical logic in focusing on the cases and tasks immediately at hand while pursuing broader positive political changes. Aside from concentrating on the most dangerous specific proliferants, the most pressing priority—while maintaining a reliable posture for deterrence, dissuasion and defence—is reforming and strengthening the NPT-based nuclear non-proliferation regime as a whole; and that includes remedying (to the maximum extent possible) the significant deficiencies present in the treaty since its origin. Further proliferation would probably make the achievement of nuclear disarmament an even more remote prospect and might well increase the risk of nuclear war.

161

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val Utopian alternatives cannot solve – while prolif of weapons may not stand up to theoretical questioning, the NPT is critical to stopping Iran from going nuclear. The alternative gives Iran the bomb
Paul Schulte, Director of Proliferation and Arms Control, Ministry of Defense, 2007, “Universal vision or bounded rationality?” International Affairs It is also very much worth remembering that, despite Walker’s criticisms, the effect of the imperfect NPT regime is not simply to exploit the non-nuclear weapon states and keep them at a permanent disadvantage. Crucial benefits of Walker’s manged system of abstinence still apply: ‘the nuclear umbrellas (extended deterrence) held over … allies, which reduced incentives to acquire nuclear arms; and security assurances to states renouncing nuclear weapons that they would not be used against them’. And, while the treaty holds, non-nuclear weapon states can generally (though to inevitably varying degrees) expect also to avoid regional nuclear arms races, in which they might have to cope with newly nuclear-armed neighbours, whether or not they obtain nuclear weapons themselves. These systemic incentives surely explain much of the continuing and still significant strength of the NPT regime. In the particular, undoubtedly critical, case of Iran, the IAEA has, as intended, been functioning effectively in bringing objective verification evidence to the world’s attention. In response, rather than unduly concerning themselves with Walker’s abstract ‘hydra-headed problem of reconciliation’, the UN Security Council and the EU, as well as the United States, with the discreet support of Gulf governments, have so far, as Walker in fact concedes, indicated a willingness to act strongly. This international determination takes into account Iran’s previous undertakings and compliance history, its specific political culture, and its fateful geopolitical position in the centre of an unstable region of immense worldwide importance. As they used to say, grudgingly, during the Northern Ireland Troubles, ‘It’s the kind of solution which might work in practice but will never stand up in theory.’

162

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Alt Homogenizes
There is no true consensus on proliferation discourse or solutions – each instance of prolif must create its own questions and solutions – the critique homogenizes proliferation discourse, recreating the problems they criticize – prefer our specificity
Paul Schulte, Director of Proliferation and Arms Control, Ministry of Defense, 2007, “Universal vision or bounded rationality?” International Affairs Indeed, as Walker says, ‘Increasingly, the United States concluded that there could not be a reliable collective response to NPT non-compliance. Referral to the Security Council would simply lead to procrastination and inaction.’ That conclusion would in many instances be psychologically understandable, if regrettably simplistic. The IAEA is a potentially effective investigatory instrument. But the Security Council is frequently criticized for division and irresolution over proliferation issues. This reflects a profound underlying lack of international consensus on how seriously nuclear proliferation should be dealt with. Vastly different positions are evident over the additional intrinsic illegitimacy, as Walker might put it, of nuclear proliferation and the effectiveness of remedies against it. Does it actually deserve commendation as a courageous move against an unbearable hegemonialism, which cloaks itself in the NPT? Or should it be addressed as an unacceptable transgression against world order, through UNSC resolutions expressing various levels of disapproval? Or through intensified constructive engagement and bridge-building? Or enhanced proliferation-related export controls? Or suspension of export credits among trading partners? Or smartly targeted sanctions which can somehow affect only the elite? Or wholesale mandatory worldwide sanctions, aimed at general living standards within the off ending state? Or selective military action against nuclear installations? Or regime change? Given so divergent a range of judgements, no one can expect easy agreement on how to make the policing system against proliferation work effectively in every case.

163

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Alt Securitization
Commitment to disarmament re-entrenches the logic of security – utopian nuclear disarmament is not the solution to the nuclear threat or proliferation.
David S. Yost, Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, 2007, “Analysing the International Nuclear Order,” International Affairs Somewhat paradoxically, it is in reference to the ambitious ideal of nuclear disarmament that Walker’s analysis at one point adopts a cautious and prudent tone. As Walker rightly observes, ‘The commitment to disarmament represents a direction of travel— towards an increased political and instrumental restraint, now serving the avoidance of both nuclear war and catastrophic terrorism. It neither requires nor necessarily welcomes a precipitous abandonment of deterrence.’ In this respect Walker tacitly acknowledges that the prescription of nuclear disarmament is inadequate if it includes no measures to prevent cheating and to deal with the risk of a nuclear rearmament race, and no arrangements to provide for political–military stability in lieu of nuclear deterrence. As Walter Slocombe observed in 1997, ‘Abolition, if understood as a near-term policy, rather than … an ultimate goal, is not a wise and surely not a feasible focus of policy … In view of this, it would be irresponsible to dismantle the well-established—and much reduced—system of deterrence before new and reliable systems for preserving stability are in place.’34 Walker nonetheless also insists that ‘the pursuit of nuclear disarmament has a security logic that is stronger than ever’. As Paul Schulte has observed, ‘It would be unfortunate … if his [Walker’s] passion for abstract systemic perfection led to further undermining of regime legitimacy and credibility. In nuclear matters, as in others, we should not exalt a universal vision of the best by destructively deprecating the actually existing, though contingent, good.’35 As Joachim Krause and Michael Ruhle have noted, the attempts to transform the NPT into a nuclear disarmament treaty have already weakened nuclear non-proliferation efforts by giving Iran and North Korea and their apologists grounds to criticize the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states for having not yet eliminated all their nuclear arms.36 It is also relevant to ask whether eliminating the nuclear arms of the NPT recognized nuclear weapon states would in fact end the nuclear ambitions of proliferants. Pierre Hassner has noted that there is reason to doubt that non-fulfilment by the great powers of their pledge to work towards total nuclear disarmament is a basic cause of proliferation. I think that if they were to keep their word, the power of their example would not be sufficient, in most cases, to prevail against the motivations in terms of status, domination or security that may push some of the non-nuclear states to seek nuclear status. The non-compliance of the nuclear powers with article VI of the treaty simply provides these other states with a ready-made alibi for continuing their quest, and some of them might even be encouraged or reinforced in their decision to go nuclear by the removal of the threat of nuclear retaliation by one of the existing nuclear powers.37

164

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Prolif K Case Turn (1/1)
1. The aff solves - the world is divided among nuclear have and nuclear have-nots: the plan solves for this injustice by engaging in global tech transfer – that’s Bengelsdorf ‘07 2. Impacts inevitable – since there’s no alternative, just Kritiking our representations of proliferation isn’t going to prevent proliferation at all – the K without the alternative is just the status quo 3. The problems with the NPT are based on its current weak status – the plan is key to revolutionizing the treaty and solving for the K
David S. Yost, Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, 2007, “Analysing the International Nuclear Order,” International Affairs In short, as with deterrence, Walker’s portrait of the non-proliferation regime in the 1960s and 1970s—part of what he sees as ‘a grand enlightenment project’—leaves out the factors of interstate competition and the self-interested pursuit of national security advantages. Rather than being the product of ‘concerted efforts to construct an international nuclear order meriting that title’, the NPT was a compromise among various national positions. While the chief sponsors of the NPT, the United States and the Soviet Union, had some shared interests in curbing nuclear proliferation, Soviet policy in this regard was ‘directed primarily at preventing West German acquisition of nuclear weapons’.24 It was only with great difficulty that Moscow and Washington reached agreement on language in articles I and II of the NPT that would permit the continuation of NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements, and Moscow seems to have agreed only because of US assurances that these arrangements would not enable the Federal Republic of Germany to become a nuclear power.25 As Pierre Hassner has observed, the NPT project was ‘flawed’ from the outset in that ‘it relied on a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of most of its participants and resembled an uneasy and fragile compromise based on existing power relations more than a project based on a coherent long-term vision.’ Moreover, Hassner notes, the NPT regime remains ‘inherently weak both in terms of legitimacy, because of its unequal and discriminatory character, and in terms of power, because of the lack of agreed and legal sanctions against non-compliance’. It is for these reasons that Hassner lodges a ‘political and moral objection to the idealized picture’ of the NPT presented by Walker

165

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Reps Focus Kills Reform
Exclusive focus on reps erodes meaningful reversal of the structures of exploitation – discursive focus must supplement, not supplant, material discussion of reform Giroux, CHAIR PROFESSORSHIP – EDUCATION AND CULTURAL STUDIES – PENN STATE, 06 [HENRY, ‘DIRTY DEMOCRACY AND STATE OF TERRORISM”, Comparative Studies of South Asia,163-177] Abstracted from the ideal of public commitment, the new authoritarianism represents a political and economic practice and form of militarism that loosen the connections among substantive democracy, critical agency, and critical education. In opposition to the rising tide of authoritarianism, educators across the globe must make a case for linking learning to progressive social change while struggling to pluralize and critically engage the diverse sites where public pedagogy takes place. In part, this suggests forming alliances that can make sure every sphere of social life is recognized as an important site of the political, social, and cultural struggle that is so crucial to any attempt to forge the knowledge, identifications, effective investments, and social relations that constitute political subjects and social agents capable of energizing and spreading the basis for a substantive global democracy. Such circumstances require that pedagogy be embraced as a moral and political practice, one that is directive and not dogmatic, an outgrowth of struggles designed to resist the increasing depoliticization of political culture that is the hallmark of the current Bush revolution. Education is the terrain where consciousness is shaped, needs are constructed, and the capacity for individual selfreflection and broad social change is nurtured and produced. Education has assumed an unparalleled significance in shaping the language,
values, and ideologies that legitimize the structures and organizations that support the imperatives of global capitalism. Efforts to reduce it to a technique or methodology set aside, education remains a crucial site for the production and struggle over those pedagogical and political conditions that provide the possibilities for people to develop forms of agency that enable them individually and collectively to intervene in the processes through which the material relations of power shape the meaning and practices of their everyday lives. Within the current historical context, struggles over power take on a symbolic and discursive as well as a material and institutional form. The struggle over education is about more than the struggle over meaning and identity; it is also about how meaning, knowledge, and values are produced, authorized, and made operational within economic and structural relations of power. Education is not at odds with politics; it is an important and crucial element in any definition of the political and offers not only the theoretical tools for a systematic critique of authoritarianism but also a language of possibility for creating actual movements for democratic social change and a new biopolitics that affirms life rather than death, shared responsibility rather than shared fears, and engaged citizenship rather than the stripped-down values of consumerism. At stake here is combining symbolic forms and processes conducive to

democratization with broader social contexts and the institutional formations of power itself. The key point here is to understand and engage educational and pedagogical practices from the point of view of how they are bound up with larger relations of power. Educators, students, and parents need to be clearer about how power works through and in texts, representations, and discourses, while at the same time recognizing that power cannot be limited to the study of representations and discourses, even at the level of public policy. Changing consciousness is not the same as altering the institutional basis of oppression; at the same time, institutional reform cannot take place without a change in consciousness capable of recognizing not only injustice but also the very possibility for reform, the capacity to reinvent the conditions [End Page 176] and practices that make a more just future possible. In addition, it is crucial to raise
questions about the relationship between pedagogy and civic culture, on the one hand, and what it takes for individuals and social groups to believe that they have any responsibility whatsoever even to address the realities of class, race, gender, and other specific forms of domination, on the other hand. For too long, the progressives have ignored that the strategic dimension of politics is inextricably connected to questions of critical education and pedagogy, to what it means to acknowledge that education is always tangled up with power, ideologies, values, and the acquisition of both particular forms of agency and specific visions of the future. The primacy of critical pedagogy to politics, social change, and the radical imagination in such dark times is dramatically captured by the internationally renowned sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. He writes, Adverse odds may be overwhelming, and yet a democratic (or, as Cornelius Castoriadis would say, an autonomous) society knows of no substitute for education and selfeducation as a means to influence the turn of events that can be squared with its own nature, while that nature cannot be preserved for long without "critical pedagogy"—an education sharpening its critical edge, "making society feel guilty" and "stirring things up" through stirring human consciences. The fates of freedom, of democracy that makes it possible while being made possible by it, and of education that breeds dissatisfaction with the level of both freedom and democracy achieved thus far, are inextricably connected and not to be detached from one another. One may view that intimate connection as another specimen of a vicious circle—but it is within that circle that human hopes and the chances of humanity are inscribed, and can be nowhere else.59

166

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

***2AC ADD-ONS***

167

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

US-Russian Relations A. With proliferation resistant technology the US can begin reprocessing. Marjorie Mazel Hecht, Managing editor of the quarterly. magazine 21st Century Science & Technology, 2005, Why We Don’t Reprocess, James Muckerheide, How to Build 6,000 Nuclear Plants By 2050, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Nuclear2050.pdf [SD]
The United States, which pioneered reprocessing, put reprocessing on hold during the Ford Administration and shut down the capability during the Carter Administration, because of fears of proliferation. This left reprocessing to Canada, France, Great Britain, and Russia (plus the countries they service, including Japan, which is now developing its own reprocessing capability). In addition, new methods of isotope separation using lasers, such as the AVLIS program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, were shut down, or starved to death by budget cuts. As a result, today we have 40,000-plus metric tons of spent fuel safely stored at U.S. nuclear plants, which the anti-nuclear fear-mongers rail about, even though they are the ones who created the problem. The plan to permanently store the spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, has become bogged down in what looks like a permanent political battle. Technologically speaking, we can safely store nuclear waste in a repository like that of Yucca Mountain. But why should we spend billions of dollars to bury what is actually billions of dollars’ worth of nuclear fuel, which could be supplying electricity in the years to come? The commercial reprocessing plant in Barnwell, S.C. shut down in 1977, but we could start reprocessing at the national nuclear facilities at Hanford in Washington State, and at Savannah River in South Carolina. And we could have a crash program to develop more advanced technologies for reprocessing.

B. US Nuclear energy decreases Russian warheads, save US cities, and increase US energy WILLIAM H. MILLER, professor with the Nuclear Science & Engineering Institute at the University of Missour, 7/29/08, Nuclear conversion program is a success, http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/jun/20080629comm008.asp [SD]
Established 15 years ago by the U.S. and Russian governments, the megatons to megawatts accord has a single goal: It calls for the conversion of 500 metric tons of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium to be used at U.S. nuclear power plants to produce electricity. The program has succeeded beyond all expectations. To date, 327 metric tons of Russia’s highly enriched uranium has been turned into nuclear fuel for use in U.S. commercial reactors, according to USEC, the corporation that is the agent for the U.S. government in the program. The conversion of that bomb-grade uranium is equivalent to the destruction of nearly 13,100 nuclear warheads that were aimed at obliterating U.S. cities. By 2013, when the program is scheduled to be completed, the equivalent of 20,000 Russian warheads will have been recycled into fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants. Fifty percent of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear plants to generate electricity comes from Russian nuclear warheads. Use of this converted fuel has extended available uranium supplies and reduced the need to open new uranium mines. As a result, it has made nuclear power more competitive economically and helped to ensure its long-term viability.

168

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Recycling ↓ Prolif and ↑ Leadership The US can become a world leader in nuclear technology if they begin recycling and would decrease chances of proliferation.
WILLIAM H. MILLER, professor with the Nuclear Science & Engineering Institute at the University of Missour, 7/29/08, Nuclear conversion program is a success, http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/jun/20080629comm008.asp [SD]
The United States is finally reawakening to the value of spent-fuel recycling. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership calls for the resumption of recycling in the United States by 2020. Research on improved recycling technologies is under way. With recycling, nuclear waste would be less of a problem. One repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would have enough capacity to hold all of the waste from nuclear power plants and the defense program. There would be no need for additional repositories. If recycling were revived, nations wanting to develop their own nuclear power programs would have access to nuclear fuel produced in the United States and other nations that have uranium enrichment capability, such as Russia, France and Great Britain. Through this international partnership, countries seeking to launch nuclear power programs would have no need to build their own enrichment or recycling facilities, reducing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation.

169

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Nucs ↑ Russia-US Relations Protecting nuclear materials by governments leads to increased security
New York Times, 7/24/08, Loose Nukes, Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 16,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/opinion/24mon1.html [SD] Declaring nuclear terrorism one of the biggest threats facing the world today, Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin began a new coalition of the willing that will share intelligence, develop better ways of securing bomb-making materials and train for the all too imaginable day when a terrorist makes off with a suitcase of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Any effort that requires governments to look harder at how they are protecting nuclear materials is a good idea. That is true whether a country has tons of plutonium stored at nuclear fuel plants or a few kilos of highly enriched uranium, which can still be found in scores of poorly guarded research reactors around the world. The new group should develop a set of security standards for all nuclear facilities. And Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin should set the pace by being the first to sign on. The two presidents also announced they would negotiate a civil nuclear cooperation agreement that could allow Russia to get into the multibillion-dollar business of storing spent nuclear fuel. Washington is hoping that the promise of new cash-paying customers will persuade Moscow to finally break with an old customer, Iran, and agree to United Nations sanctions if Tehran refuses to give up its nuclear ambitions. Profit is a strong motivator. But Russian officials have a long, cozy history with their Iranian counterparts, and Mr. Bush will need to keep reminding Mr. Putin that a nuclear-armed Iran would also threaten Russia's security. Making all this happen will require the sort of intensive presidential attention that neither the White House nor the Kremlin has been willing to invest in the past. Long-running American efforts to help Russia lock up its nuclear arsenal are still plagued by bureaucratic and political wrangling. According to a recent survey by Harvard experts, 15 years after the programs began, the United States has provided full security upgrades for slightly more than half of the buildings with nuclear materials in Russia's far-flung weapons complex.

170

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Shared Goals US-Russia Relations
Shared goals increase US-Russian relations dramatically Jonathan Pinoli, staff writer, 4/16/2008, “Building better U.S.-Russian relations”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 64, No. 1, p. 7-8, http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/e862187704144860/fulltext.pdf [SD] To improve U.S.-Russian relations, leaders on both sides need to recognize the shared agenda of the two countries and the opportunities that genuine collaboration would present. Building a partnership based on mutual trust and respect will help resolve a range of global security issues. As John Steinbruner argues in “Consensual Security,” on p. 23, cooperating on several issues—nuclear technologies, climate change, biotechnologies, and space security—could lead to a transformation of international relations. In addition to negotiating further reductions in the size of their nuclear weapons stockpiles (both deployed and reserve), Russia and the United States should immediately reduce the launch readiness of their nuclear arsenals. By transforming their nuclear postures toward each other, Russia and the United States might finally move beyond the Cold War strategic template that each claims is distant history but which poisonously lingers, posing unnecessary risks. Russian and U.S. leaders should also build on their 123 nuclear cooperation agreement and begin to lead negotiations for an international nuclear fuel regime that would eliminate the need for countries to develop their own nuclear fuel enrichment and manufacturing facilities. Converting fissionable material from U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons into fuel for civilian nuclear power production could help fill demand. Together with weapons reductions, these joint moves would enhance the credibility of both countries as world leaders. Further agreement on nuclear weapons reductions and nuclear energy cooperation makes sense for other domestic and foreign policy reasons. Russia is eager to complement its roaring oil economy with a revived nuclear energy enterprise and growth in its high-tech sector; the United States has an interest in securing its energy future and keeping markets open across Asia. Both countries want to limit nuclear proliferation as civilian nuclear power becomes more prevalent globally. By leading an international effort to clarify and codify the rules of nuclear development and commerce, Russia and the United States could lay the groundwork for further economic and political partnerships. The more overlap the two countries’ agendas acquire, the more their leaders will be able to articulate to their citizens the benefits of shared action. Russians and Americans often seem trapped by vestigial Cold War concerns, but they crave economic opportunity, and seek to play a leadership role in the international community. It’s up to leaders in both countries to take actions that promote an understanding of how the future security and prosperity of Russia and America are inextricably linked.

171

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

172

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Biz Con
Lack of confidence in government backed loans is deterring investors BOYD Erman, The Globe and Mail's capital markets reporter, 7/12/08. “Good timing: Feds avoid Fannie-style mortgage freefall,”
The Globe and Mail, Lexis
That criticism misses a larger point, something that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are making painfully clear in the United States: The housing market depends not just on the confidence and borrowing ability of people interested in trading up from a bungalow to a two-storey with an ensuite Jacuzzi and a great room. It depends on

investor confidence and the borrowing ability of the giant government-backed lenders that really fund mortgages. In the United States, that investor confidence is gone and the ability of Freddie and Fannie to borrow may follow. That's an unprecedented threat to the housing market, which is saying something given what the United States has already been through. Freddie and Fannie are federally chartered companies created to help homeowners by purchasing the mortgages that banks make, freeing up banks to make even more. With the implicit backing of the U.S. government, Fannie and Freddie could borrow cheaply in the bond market to finance mortgage purchases. Until recently, that is. Investors are shying away and borrowing costs have shot up relative to government bonds. Investors are worried about the highest delinquency rates on mortgages in at least three
decades. Many of those mortgages have terms like zero-down and 40-year amortizations. If those terms sound familiar, it's perhaps because Canadian banks had been advertising them lately.

Plan restores business confidence – indicates federal government’s ability to guarantee loans EESI (Environmental and Energy Study Institute), 10-30-07, “Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills:
Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability?”, http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/energy_climate/10-3007_loan_guarantees/Nuclear_LGP_Issue_Brief_2007.pdf

The position taken by Wall Street regarding investing in nuclear energy indicates the financial risk involved. Six of the nation’s largest investors—Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley—submitted
comments to DOE in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking for the loan guarantee program in June 2007. At the time the comments were submitted, DOE had promised to guarantee loans for up to 80 percent of the project costs, but had not, as of then, determined what percent of this debt it would guarantee. The investors

urged greater financial support from the federal government, stating, “We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit.” 32 Members of this group also made note of the
many investment concerns associated with nuclear energy: “Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political, regulatory and litigation-related risks

that are unique to nuclear power, including the possibility of delays.” 33 They concluded that DOE should guarantee 100 percent of the loans as one of the “minimum conditions necessary to secure project financing from lenders and from investors in the fixed income markets.” 34 The nuclear industry itself has made clear that the construction of new nuclear projects will rely heavily upon the financial backing of DOE through the loan guarantee program. A press release from the Nuclear Energy Institute on October 4, 2007, demonstrated this view when it announced, “It is imperative that the Energy Department have in place a loan guarantee program that will support the financing for these large, capital-intensive power plant projects.” 35 Both the nuclear industry and Wall Street investors make it clear that new nuclear projects carry a significant financial risk, one that neither wants to carry without support from the federal government.

173

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val Confidence key to econ John Braithwaite, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, 2004, The Annals of The American Academy of Political and
Social Science, March, “Emancipation and Hope,” Lexis
The challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emanci- pation and hope is addressed within the assumption of economic institutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the hope nexus because we know capitalism thrives on hope. When

business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for recession. This dependence on hope is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will build new factories; consumers need confidence before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before they will buy shares in the company that builds the factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory; scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the hope that a capitalist will come along and market their invention.
Keynes’s ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lamented the theoretical neglect of “animal spirits” of hope (“spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation” (p. 161) in the discipline of economics, a neglect that continues to this day (see also Barbalet 1993).

Confidence key to preventing Indo-Pak conflict Michael C. Rupert 02, “Global Economic Collapse Imminent, Pension Fund Disaster”, http://www.rense.com/general26/ftw.htm, The situation now is much, much worse as more factors combine to suggest that foreign investors and trust in the U.S. economy might soon be a thing of the past. Your pension is at risk today and your home may be at risk in six months to a year. One economic analyst has suggested that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan might be the perfect cover for the biggest financial wipe out in human history. I think that an illconceived and risky invasion of Iraq might serve the same purpose. From consumer confidence, to corporate accounting, to the dollar, to gold, to foreign capital flight, to pension fund wipe outs, to the derivative bubble, to debt, there is not a single economic indicator that is not flashing red. The warnings are as clear, explicit and welldocumented as were the warnings received by the U.S. government throughout summer 2001 that a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center would take place during the week of Sept. 9 using hijacked airliners from United and American airlines. Nothing was done to prevent that and apparently nothing is being done now in spite of the fact that $4.2 trillion of your money has been stolen right in front of your eyes.

Extinction Fai 01 (Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington Times, 7-8)
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The

most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense
Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. The

boiling witches' brew in Kashmir should propel the United States to assertive facilitation or mediation of Kashmir negotiations justify complacency.

174

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

Competitiveness
Nuke power solves the two major drains on growth – labor and energy – and boosts competitiveness PR Newswire, 6-17-08, “Nuclear Energy's Resurgence Promises to Spur Job Growth”,
http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/06/17/prnewswire200806171059PR_NEWS_USPR_____NETU094.html U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) -- U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) -- U.S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) -U.S. Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) -- U.S. Representative Jason Altmire (D-PA) -- Mayor Bill Saffo, Wilmington, NC -John Engler, President and CEO, National Association of Manufacturers -- Mark Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO -- Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder, Greenpeace -- Lisa Stiles, Project Manager, Strategic Staffing and Knowledge Management, Dominion Nuclear -- Michael Kurzeja, Vice President, North American Young Generation in Nuclear -- Gilbert J. Brown, Ph.D., Professor and Coordinator, Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Massachusetts Lowell The white paper examines the job growth potential for existing and future nuclear power plants and finds that nuclear plants are a boon to local economies. Altogether, 12,000 to 21,000 new jobs will be added to the U.S. market if some 30 reactors currently planned for construction are built. These are long-term jobs that would exist throughout the operation of the reactor, promising decades of employment. -- Each nuclear plant provides 400 to 700 high-paying jobs. -- Depending on construction methods, each new reactor could require as many as 4,000 workers per project at peak periods. -- According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual salary for nuclear engineers is $82,900 -- approximately $8,000 more than all other engineering disciplines except petroleum engineering. -- Each of the country's 104 reactors generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for the local community, and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income. "Nuclear power provides a clean energy solution that produces no greenhouse gases and is good for the economy," said Whitman. "A renewed focus on nuclear energy will translate into tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs needed to build and operate new reactors." The CASEnergy white paper details the favorable impact of the nuclear industry's resurgence on jobs and the economy -- this at a time when employment is currently 5.5% and the country needs 25 percent more electricity by 2030, according to projections by the U.S. Department of Energy. To realize the economic potential that new reactor projects offer, the nation must invest in the education infrastructure needed to cultivate the next generation of workers. Close collaboration between energy companies, government and secondary educational institutions is critical. Although interest among students in nuclear energy careers is growing rapidly, new reactor construction may be the next catalyst to drive enrollment in college and university programs and create substantial numbers of new nuclear professionals. New nuclear plants will also drive the demand for skilled craft labor focused on three areas -- construction, operation and maintenance. As many as 185,000 new construction workers will be needed in the nuclear energy industry by 2015 for new positions and to replace approximately 95,000 retiring workers. Joint apprenticeship and training programs in the building and construction industry are important to ensure that the industry maintains a highly skilled work force. The CASEnergy Coalition and its more than 1,600 members will work to promote the use of nuclear energy to stimulate our nation's economy and protect our environment, but it calls on industry, government and educators for support. The need for energy is a non-partisan issue and the support for nuclear energy is bi-partisan. Those who authored a foreword to the white paper stated: -- "We need to maintain and grow a safe, clean nuclear industry to protect our nation's future energy security and reduce the threat of global warming. Congress must provide support and incentives to the nuclear industry to help redevelop its workforce, facilities and capacity, which, in turn, can restore our lead in safe, efficient nuclear manufacturing, while creating tens of thousands of highly-skilled jobs." -- U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety -- "Nuclear power is growing in the world and our own energy and environmental needs can serve as a springboard to rebuild American technology and manufacturing capabilities to something approaching the leadership the nation once enjoyed, contributing to foreign markets as well as supporting our own. A recent nuclear energy roundtable that Senator Carper and I co-chaired in November with representatives of the government, industry, academia, and labor leaders including John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO, confirmed my belief that the ongoing resurgence in nuclear power provides a unique opportunity for the United States to reclaim its leadership role in the advancement of nuclear technologies and revitalizing nuclear component manufacturing base which should create many high paying jobs for American workers." -- U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety -- "Through a renewed commitment to nuclear power, we have a unique opportunity, and a responsibility, to simultaneously cut greenhouse gases, maintain the affordability of our electricity supply, and give a boost to 175

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val
our ailing economy. The construction of dozens of new plants on American soil will foster the rebirth of our domestic manufacturing industry and create tens of thousands of new, high-paying jobs. Not only will our environment be better for it, our national security will also be fortified. Millions of households will be powered by zero-emission nuclear power and our nation's economy will be powered by nuclear as well." -- U.S. Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI), Ranking Republican on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality -- "In light of what high gas prices are doing not only to our local economy, but our national and global economy, the time to act with respect to alternative and renewable energy sources is now. Nuclear energy is a clean and efficient form of power. Its potential is important to our energy policy nationally. It is proven over the years to be safe and reliable and will play a large role as one of our sources to overcome our dependence on foreign oil." -- Bill Saffo, Mayor of Wilmington, N.C. -- "We must continue to support the expansion of nuclear energy to maintain jobs and economic growth in America. A robust economy demands more energy, even as we pursue alternative means such as conservation and efficiency. Failure to supply those increased energy demands will raise energy costs for manufacturers and consumers and hurt our global competitiveness." -- John Engler, President and CEO, National Association of Manufacturers -- "As
a college student, I chose to study nuclear engineering because I was fascinated by the science and I believed nuclear science and technology make important contributions to society. Working in the industry more than met those expectations and I've enjoyed many challenging opportunities to learn and grow. Plus, I know I'm doing my part to make the world a better place." -- Lisa Stiles, Project Manager, Strategic Staffing and Knowledge Management, Dominion Nuclear. -- "The industry needs engineers, technicians and other professionals to support, operate and maintain existing nuclear plants. Moreover, well educated and trained workers are needed for all of the new plants that are being ordered to meet growing energy demand while cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and to conduct research and development on the next generation of reactors. To cultivate job creation and seize on the opportunities ahead, we must invest in our educational infrastructure by strengthening existing educational and training programs while developing new and innovative programs to attract and retain a skilled workforce." -- Gilbert J. Brown, PhD., Professor and Coordinator, Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Massachusetts Lowell -- "The nuclear industry is experiencing growth in both new plant builds and a multitude of exciting, rewarding and diverse job opportunities. Today's young professionals in the nuclear industry are excited to be part of an industry that will not only support long-term career opportunities but also provides the world with clean, safe, and reliable energy and innovative nuclear science & technology solutions." -- Michael Kurzeja, Vice President, North American Young Generation in Nuclear About the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition

Loss of U.S. competitiveness causes war withChina
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, ’05, “China Bashing and the Loss of US Competitiveness”, http://www.counterpunch.org/petras10222005.html The danger is that as the US competitive position declines, a coalition of backward industrialists and civilian-militarists will try to compensate by provoking political confrontations and even inventing military threats to justify a military build-up. The politics of confrontation however will cause greater harm to the US MNCs than to China. After all it is the US which has imposed political barriers to the entry of Chinese investors in the US, while China has welcomed over 100 billion dollars from the leading US MNCs into the Chinese market. It is China which is financing the US trade deficit by purchasing US T-notes of declining worth, sustaining US over-consumption and under-investment. In contrast to Washington's restrictive policies on Chinese investments in US energy companies, China welcomed large-scale investments by Peabody Energy (the world's largest coal company by sales) in joint venture mines (Financial Times Sept. 21, 2005 p19). China is increasingly diversifying its trade and sources of energy. Its trade in Asia surpasses that of the US. China has increased its security links with Russia as a counterweight to the bellicose posturing of the US neo-conservative militarists and liberal Democratic "humanitarian" imperialists. Washington's increasing reliance on rearguard statism, whether in imposing tariffs, quotas, political restrictions on takeover bids, or blocking private investments is doomed to failure. Ultimately the US competitive or non-competitive position in the world market will determine who will be the next economic superpower. The only way for US capitalism to answer the China challenge is to save, invest, innovate, produce and compete in a free market free of atavistic statism and militarism.

U.S.-Sino war causes extinction The Straits Times (Singapore), June 25, 2K. “No one gains in war over Taiwan.” l/n
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale 176

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

Competiveness key to heg Khalilzad, fellow at RAND, 95 (Zalmay, “Losing the moment? The United States and the World after the Cold War?” Washington Quarterly Vol 18 no 2 Spring) The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. Solves your impacts Khalilzad 95 - Program director for strategy, doctrine, and force structure of RAND's Project AIR FORCE. [Zalmay Khalilzad,
From 1990 to 1993 he was assistant under secretary of defense for policy planning. “Losing the moment? The United States and the world after the Cold War,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995 v18 n2 p87(21) Global Leadership - Under the third option, 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. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and 177

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power
system. Precluding the rise of a hostile global rival is a good guide for defining what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be ready to use force and put American lives at risk. It is a good prism for identifying threats, setting
priorities for U.S. policy toward various regions and states, and assessing needs for military capabilities and modernization. To succeed in the long term in realizing this vision, the United States should adhere to the following principles as guidelines for its policies. It must: * maintain and strengthen the "zone of peace"(6) and incrementally extend it; * preclude hostile hegemony over critical regions; * hedge against reimperialization by Russia and expansion by China while promoting cooperation with both countries; * preserve U.S. military preeminence; [and] * maintain U.S. economic strength and an open international economic system; * be judicious in the use of force, avoid overextension, and develop ways of sharing the burden with allies; and * obtain and maintain domestic support for U.S. global leadership and these principles.

178

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

***CASE***

179

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

***Econ

180

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT: Expensive
1. They assume construction costs will be factored into energy prices – the plan funds plant construction – this allows nuclear power to immediately be cost-competitive with fossil fuels – that’s Dawson 2. Their evidence is from 2006 – doesn’t assume recent fossil fuel price jumps or price volatility 3. The passive safety design makes GT-MHR economically competitive and it’s FAST!
S.S. Pennera et al., researcher at the Center for Energy Research,1/3/2007, Steps toward passively safe, proliferation-resistant nuclear power, <<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3W-4R1NN7H-

1&_user=4257664&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_url Version=0&_userid=4257664&md5=3eeaef427c2fc52aac18f1db92c953de#sec7>> [SD]
The GT-MHR is projected to have economic advantages over any other source of base-load generation capacity. The economic competitiveness is a consequence of the use of the direct Brayton cycle PCS and the passive safety design. The direct Brayton cycle provides high thermal conversion efficiency and eliminates extensive power-conversion equipment required for the Rankine (steam) power-conversion cycle. Reduction in the complexity of the power-conversion equipment reduces both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The passive safety design eliminates the need for extensive safety-related equipment that also reduces both capital and O&M costs. The capital cost for the reference GT-MHR plant containing four modules is projected to be $1000/kWe. The construction period required for the first module of the GT-MHR plant is estimated to be 3 years. The 20-year levelized busbar generation cost is projected to be 3.1 cents/k Wh, including capital, O&M, fuel, waste disposal, and decommissioning.

181

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT: Market Solves
1. Current gas prices disprove – fossil fuel price has nearly doubled in the last 2 years alone, and people have yet to make a significant shift to nuclear or any other alternative energy 2. Nuclear plants need streamlined licensing to be built quickly – under status quo permits they won’t be able to solve – that’s Ferguson

182

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT: Econ Resilient
1. Doesn’t assume blackouts – a major power outage would knock out the entire economy because all sectors are interdependent – that’s Carreras 2. People don’t buy anything during blackouts because stores and the stock market are closed – that’s the only warrant to econ bounce-back 3. The utilities sector is huge – almost every other sector relies on electricity

183

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT: No Impact
Economic collapse worse than war Ellwood 2003 [Charles Ellwood, University of Missouri. "Sociology and Modern Social Problems" 2003 Online http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resour.../chapter9.html\ As already implied, then, economic depression exercises a very considerable influence upon death rate, particularly when economic depression causes very high prices for the necessities of life and even widespread scarcity of food. This cause produces far more deaths in modern nations than war. The doubling of the price of bread in any civilized country would be a far greater calamity than a great war. While modern civilized peoples fear famine but little, there are many classes in the great industrial nations that live upon such a narrow margin of existence that the slightest increase in the cost of the necessities of life means practically the same as a famine to these classes. Statistics, therefore, of all modern countries, and particularly of all great cities, show an enormous increase in sickness and death among the poorer classes in times of economic depression

184

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

***Prolif

185

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Waste Disposal Prolif
1. Their evidence doesn’t assume GT-MHR’s - GT-MHRs are uniquely suited to dispose of plutonium and prevent diversion and proliferation
]Malcolm P. La Bar, registered Professional Mechanical Engineer as well as a Professional Nuclear Engineer in the State of California. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society and Walter A. Simon, ’97, Uranium Institute 22nd Annual International Symposium, “The Modular Helium Reactor for the Twenty-First Century”, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/labar.htm The GT-MHR also provides important benefits for the destruction of plutonium, either weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or reactor grade plutonium (RPu). Effective Plutonium Destruction For the disposition of weapons grade plutonium (WPu), the GT-MHR provides the capability to consume more than 90% of the initially charged plutonium-239 and more than 65% of the initially charged total plutonium in a single pass through the reactor. The performance of plutonium coated particles to burnup levels of 750 000 MWd/t has been demonstrated by irradiation tests in the Dragon and Peach Bottom 1 gas-cooled reactors. As shown in Figure 12, this level of plutonium destruction is well beyond that achieved by other WPu disposition alternatives. By achieving this high level of plutonium destruction, the GT-MHR extracts a substantially higher portion of the useful energy content from the material than other reactor options without reprocessing and recycling. Because the plutonium-fuelled GT-MHR uses no fertile fuel material, all fissions in the core are plutonium fissions, and no new plutonium is produced by the operation of the reactor. Comparable results would apply to the use of reactor grade plutonium. Diversion/Proliferation Resistance The GT-MHR is particularly well suited for international deployment for plutonium disposition. Both the fresh fuel and the spent fuel discharged from the GTMHR have higher resistance to diversion and proliferation than other reactor options for plutonium disposition. The plutonium content of the fresh fuel is very diluted within the fuel element graphite. In addition to having the self-protecting characteristics of other spent fuel (high radiation fields and spent fuel mass and volume), the amount of plutonium per GTMHR spent fuel element is very low and there is neither a developed process nor capability anywhere in the world for separating the residual plutonium from GT-MHR spent fuel. Furthermore, the discharged plutonium isotopic mixture is severely degraded (well beyond LWR spent fuel) making it particularly unattractive for use in weapons. In contrast, one weapons grade mixed oxide (MOX) fuelled PWR spent fuel assembly contains sufficient plutonium to fabricate more than one nuclear device.

2. Nuclear plants are inevitable - but the plan would solve all the problems their evidence points out by increasing US leadership and oversight and spreading GTMHR tech awesomeness all around the world – that’s Buckner and Sanders 3. US power plants burn weapons-grade material Physics Today, May 2005; “Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force”,
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/28_1.shtml Another critical aspect of encouraging a new generation of power plants is the concern over nuclear proliferation, especially in the wake of September 11th. The task force's bottom-line conclusion is that the rest of the world is going to move forward with energy generation from nuclear power regardless of what the US does, and the US would be better off participating than sitting on the sidelines. An increase in the use of nuclear power in the US would actually "serve our non-proliferation objectives," the report says, because "one of the most efficient and certainly the most thorough ways of disposing of that nuclear material is to burn it as fuel in commercial nuclear reactors."

186

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

EXT: GT-MHRs Solve
Their evidence doesn’t assume GT-MHR’s - GT-MHRs are uniquely suited to dispose of plutonium and prevent diversion and proliferation
Malcolm P. La Bar, registered Professional Mechanical Engineer as well as a Professional Nuclear Engineer in the State of California. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society and Walter A. Simon, ’97, Uranium Institute 22nd Annual International Symposium, “The Modular Helium Reactor for the Twenty-First Century”, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/labar.htm The GT-MHR also provides important benefits for the destruction of plutonium, either weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or reactor grade plutonium (RPu). Effective Plutonium Destruction For the disposition of weapons grade plutonium (WPu), the GT-MHR provides the capability to consume more than 90% of the initially charged plutonium-239 and more than 65% of the initially charged total plutonium in a single pass through the reactor. The performance of plutonium coated particles to burnup levels of 750 000 MWd/t has been demonstrated by irradiation tests in the Dragon and Peach Bottom 1 gas-cooled reactors. As shown in Figure 12, this level of plutonium destruction is well beyond that achieved by other WPu disposition alternatives. By achieving this high level of plutonium destruction, the GT-MHR extracts a substantially higher portion of the useful energy content from the material than other reactor options without reprocessing and recycling. Because the plutonium-fuelled GT-MHR uses no fertile fuel material, all fissions in the core are plutonium fissions, and no new plutonium is produced by the operation of the reactor. Comparable results would apply to the use of reactor grade plutonium. Diversion/Proliferation Resistance The GT-MHR is particularly well suited for international deployment for plutonium disposition. Both the fresh fuel and the spent fuel discharged from the GTMHR have higher resistance to diversion and proliferation than other reactor options for plutonium disposition. The plutonium content of the fresh fuel is very diluted within the fuel element graphite. In addition to having the self-protecting characteristics of other spent fuel (high radiation fields and spent fuel mass and volume), the amount of plutonium per GTMHR spent fuel element is very low and there is neither a developed process nor capability anywhere in the world for separating the residual plutonium from GT-MHR spent fuel. Furthermore, the discharged plutonium isotopic mixture is severely degraded (well beyond LWR spent fuel) making it particularly unattractive for use in weapons. In contrast, one weapons grade mixed oxide (MOX) fuelled PWR spent fuel assembly contains sufficient plutonium to fabricate more than one nuclear device.

187

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NRC Strain  Prolif (1/1)
1. Doesn’t apply – Most of this card talks about international regulation, not regulation inside the US 2. 9/11 doesn’t prove anything – the terrorist attacks don’t prove anything about the vulnerability of US Nuclear Plants to terrorism 3. This is non-unique – Nuclear Power Plants are just as vulnerable if not more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the status quo than post-plan – there’s no indication of a linear impact 4. GT-MHR’s solve – they are uniquely terrorist-resistant
M. P. LaBar, associated with the development of passively safe, modular high temperature gas cooled reactors in many different capacities including engineering design and analysis, power generation economics, process heat applications, business development, and project management, 2003, Status of the GT-MHR for Electricity Production, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/labar.htm [Benjamin Lopez] The GT-MHR has very high proliferation/terrorist resistance. Both GT-MHR fresh fuel and spent fuel have higher resistance to diversion, proliferation and potential terrorist opportunities than other nuclear reactor options. GT-MHR fresh fuel has high proliferation/terrorist resistance because the fuel is very diluted by the fuel element graphite (low fuel volume fraction) and because of the technical difficulty to retrieve materials from within the refractory fuel coatings. GT-MHR spent fuel has these same characteristics plus self-protecting high radiation fields. Furthermore, the low volume fraction and low quality (high degradation due to high burnup) of plutonium in GT-MHR spent fuel make it particularly unsuitable for use in weapons.

188

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Unilateral Approach Solves (1/1)
1. US unilateralism leads to Nuclear Proliferation – Cooperation is key
Gawdat Bahgat Professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania 2007 “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East” Pg. 9 [Benjamin Lopez] Another important motivation for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is the growing American military presence in the region since the late 1980s. At the end of Iran-Iraq War, the US. Navy took responsibility for protecting oil shipments and was involved in several confrontations with Iran. A few years later, the United States led an international coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait (the 1991 Gulf War) and established military bases in several Gulf monarchies. In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan and has since maintained a military presence there and in other Central Asian states. In 2003, the United States toppled Saddam Hussein and occupied Iraq. Naturally, Iran feels threatened by this American military presence on almost all sides. Iranian leaders understand that their country's conventional capabilities are no match for the US. military superiority. Within this context, acquiring nuclear weapons might deter United States from attacking Iran23 Meanwhile, providing assurances that Washington has no intention of attacking Iran and does not seek regime change in Tehran might convince the Iranian leaders to give up their nuclear ambition. Despite the obvious strength of the security model, there are fundamental problems. First, the state is not a unitary and rational actor pursuing its national security. Domestic organizations and individual leaders have their own parochial priorities that influence the decision to "go nuclear." Second, the pursuit of security does not explain differences across space or changes over time. True, all nuclear powers faced security threats that drove them to acquire nuclear weapons, but not all insecure countries seek military nuclear capabilities. In other words, security threats should be seen as a necessary but not sufficient reason for nuclear proliferation.

2. The NPT Regime requires cooperation and is key to non-proliferation
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 7 Some argue, however, that while nuclear deterrence no longer has a significant role to play, neither do nuclear nonproliferation agreements, because rogue states cheat on the agreements and terrorists are not bound by them. Rather, it is asserted, the United States should rely on a unilateralist preemptive policy of counter-proliferation using military force when necessary. But the failure of intelligence to accurately portray the situation in Saddam Hussein's Iraq points out the danger of relying on a preemptive strategy where much is unknowable, and the threat of possible nuclear weapon programs in North Korea and Iran underscores the difficulty of the United States going it alone- It is clear that both of these conflicts can be effectively resolved only through the cooperation and consistent effective effort of the international community (in the case of North Korea, with special emphasis on states in that region). And there can only be consistent effective international action through a treaty system such as the N P T regime, which requires cooperation. Thus, strong and viable arms control and nonproliferation treaty systems are as essential to peace and stability today as they have ever been.

3. Countries would only be deterred from building a nuclear arsenal if they receive a guarantee from the international community – the US cannot achieve global non-proliferation unilateraly

189

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Unilateral Approach Solves Extensions – International Cooperation
International Cooperation is key to preventing nuclear terrorism
Graham Allison, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government YaleGlobal, 14 March 2008 Time to Bury a Dangerous Legacy – Part I http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10503 [Benjamin Lopez] The good news is that nuclear terrorism is preventable by a feasible, affordable agenda of actions that, if taken, would shrink the risk of nuclear terrorism to nearly zero. A global strategy to prevent this ultimate catastrophe can be organized under a Doctrine of Three No’s: No loose nukes, no new nascent nukes, no new nuclear weapons. The first requires securing all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material, on the fastest possible timetable, to a new “gold standard.” The second does not allow for any new national capabilities to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. The third draws a line under the current eight and a half nuclear powers – the five members of the Security Council and India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea – and says unambiguously: “Stop. No More.” The US cannot unilaterally sustain a successful strategy to prevent nuclear terrorism. Nor can the necessary actions simply be commanded, compelled or coerced. Instead, they require deep and steady international cooperation rooted in the recognition that nations share a common threat that requires a common strategy. A Global Alliance Against Nuclear Terrorism is therefore in order. The mission of this alliance should be to minimize the risk of nuclear terrorism by taking every action physically, technically and diplomatically possible to prevent nuclear weapons or materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.

The US cannot defeat the nuclear threat alone – international cooperation is key
Joseph Cirincione, director for Non-Proliferation programs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005, A New Non-Proliferation Strategy, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v025/25.2cirincione.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] However, the current Bush strategy—like the one it replaced—has proven insufficient. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons requires more international resolve than previous administrations could muster, but it also demands more genuine international teamwork than the Bush administration recognizes. Nuclear weapons and fissile materials are problems wherever they are, not just in a handful of "evil" states. The threat cannot be eliminated by removing whichever foreign governments the United States finds most threatening at any given time. History has repeatedly shown that today's ally can become tomorrow's problem state. Moreover, terrorists will seek nuclear weapons and materials wherever they can be found, irrespective of a state's geopolitical orientation. The United States cannot defeat the nuclear threat alone, or even with small coalitions of the willing. It needs sustained cooperation from dozens of diverse nations—including the leading states that have forsworn nuclear weapons, such as Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, South Africa, and [End Page 158] Sweden—in order to broaden, toughen, and stringently enforce non-proliferation rules.

190

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Unilateral Approach Solves Extensions –Arms Control
Arms Control is key to national Security
Thomas Graham, resident of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, served as the special representative of the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, The Washington Quarterly 23.2 (2000) 183-196”Strengthening Arms Control” http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v023/23.2graham.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] While the mechanisms, rationale, and tangible benefits of arms control are somewhat different today than during the Cold War, arms control continues to be, and will certainly remain for the foreseeable future, essential to U.S. and international security. During the Cold War, the gravest danger to the United States was nuclear war with the Soviet Union and accordingly arms control was principally designed and intended to curb that threat. The Soviet Union has vanished but nuclear weapons remain the principal threat to the United States, only today the danger is the spread of nuclear weapons around the globe. Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998; heightened existing concern about nuclear weapon programs in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and elsewhere; and anxieties that unilateral deployment of a nationwide missile defense by the United States could prompt a renewed nuclear arms race involving the United States, Russia, and China demonstrate that the dangers of nuclear weapons have broadened in the last decade. The threat that additional states with which the United States has poor or strained relations, or even subnational groups such as terrorist organizations or religious cults, could acquire these weapons has reinforced the relevance of arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament efforts.

191

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Nuclear Power = Cover for Nukes (1/1)
1. There is no link between civil and military nuclear programs – empirically proven WNA (World Nuclear Association), 07/08, Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf12.html [Benjamin Lopez] Civil nuclear power has not been the cause of or route to nuclear weapons in any country that has nuclear weapons, and no uranium traded for electricity production has ever been diverted for military use. All nuclear weapons programmes have either preceded or risen independently of civil nuclear power, as shown most recently by North Korea. No country is without plenty of uranium in the small quantities needed for a few weapons. Former US Vice-President Al Gore said (18/9/06) that "During my eight years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs." He is not correct. Iran has failed to convince anyone that its formerly clandestine enrichment program has anything to do with its nuclear power reactor under construction (which will be fuelled by Russia), and North Korea has no civil reactor program. In respect to India and Pakistan, which he may have had in mind, there is evidently a link between military and civil, but that is part of the reason they are outside the NPT.

2. GT-MRH’s Solve – the small amounts of spent nuclear fuel cannot be either diverted or reprocessed into nuclear weapons fuel
Malcolm P. La Bar, registered Professional Mechanical Engineer as well as a Professional Nuclear Engineer in the State of California. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society and Walter A. Simon, ’97, Uranium Institute 22nd Annual International Symposium, “The Modular Helium Reactor for the Twenty-First Century”, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1997/labar.htm The GT-MHR also provides important benefits for the destruction of plutonium, either weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or reactor grade plutonium (RPu). Effective Plutonium Destruction For the disposition of weapons grade plutonium (WPu), the GT-MHR provides the capability to consume more than 90% of the initially charged plutonium-239 and more than 65% of the initially charged total plutonium in a single pass through the reactor. The performance of plutonium coated particles to burnup levels of 750 000 MWd/t has been demonstrated by irradiation tests in the Dragon and Peach Bottom 1 gas-cooled reactors. As shown in Figure 12, this level of plutonium destruction is well beyond that achieved by other WPu disposition alternatives. By achieving this high level of plutonium destruction, the GT-MHR extracts a substantially higher portion of the useful energy content from the material than other reactor options without reprocessing and recycling. Because the plutonium-fuelled GT-MHR uses no fertile fuel material, all fissions in the core are plutonium fissions, and no new plutonium is produced by the operation of the reactor. Comparable results would apply to the use of reactor grade plutonium. Diversion/Proliferation Resistance The GT-MHR is particularly well suited for international deployment for plutonium disposition. Both the fresh fuel and the spent fuel discharged from the GT-MHR have higher resistance to diversion and proliferation than other reactor options for plutonium disposition. The plutonium content of the fresh fuel is very diluted within the fuel element graphite. In addition to having the self-protecting characteristics of other spent fuel (high radiation fields and spent fuel mass and volume), the amount of plutonium per GT-MHR spent fuel element is very low and there is neither a developed process nor capability anywhere in the world for separating the residual plutonium from GT-MHR spent fuel. Furthermore, the discharged plutonium isotopic mixture is severely degraded (well beyond LWR spent fuel) making it particularly unattractive for use in weapons. In contrast, one weapons grade mixed oxide (MOX) fuelled PWR spent fuel assembly contains sufficient plutonium to fabricate more than one nuclear device.

192

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Terrorism Turns Case (1/1)
1. A Strong NPT prevents Nuclear Terrorism, but increased commitment is key
Jayantha Dhanapala Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs United Nations, 9 April 2002 The NPT, Nuclear Disarmament, and Terrorism http://disarmament.un.org/speech/09apr2002.htm [Benjamin Lopez]
In the field of counter-terrorism, there are already twelve United Nations conventions dealing with this issue and work is continuing on a new convention on the suppression of nuclear terrorism. One can hope that the events of 11 September will inspire more and more states to join these treaties and to redouble their efforts to conclude a new treaty against nuclear terrorism -- all initiatives that would benefit from advocacy efforts by groups in civil society. While the United Nations can encourage its member states to move in these directions, the choices are of course for the states themselves to make. The UN's experience in assisting the States parties to the NPT during the Preparatory Committee sessions and Review Conferences has shown, however, some subtle ways that the UN can at times exert a positive independent influence. Because the NPT -- unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention -- lacks an institutional infrastructure, the United

Nations has assisted the NPT States parties in innumerable ways. While we cannot fully substitute for such a permanent infrastructure, we assist both the States parties and groups in civil society throughout the laborious work of the review process. By maintaining all the official records of these deliberations, by offering our advice and counsel to States parties, by helping to encourage public participation while promoting public education, and by offering a common global forum for debate and deliberation -- the United Nations is making its our own contributions in the global effort to reduce nuclear threats. Yet the
primary responsibility for action still remains in the hands of the States parties, in particular the nuclear-weapon states, and this is likely to remain the case until a global nuclear disarmament regime can develop a stronger legal and institutional infrastructure -- including, that is, a nuclear weapons convention and some machinery to ensure that it is implemented. The "thirteen steps" agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference were a very constructive step forward in addressing this problem -- by establishing some specific benchmarks for assessing progress in nuclear disarmament. Clearly full implementation of each of these steps would advance substantially global efforts against nuclear terrorism -- by making nuclear materials harder to acquire, by further de-legitimizing the possession of nuclear weapons per se by any country or anybody, and by demonstrating to concerned citizens around the world that close multilateral cooperation in disarmament and non-proliferation can produce peace and security dividends -- not to mention cost savings -- that cannot be purchased by greater reliance upon arms alone or the threat or use of force.

2. Plan solves – it will be harder for terrorists to access nuclear material when less nations have nuclear weapons 3. GT-MHR’s Solve - GT-MHRs are both terrorist attack resistant and the fuel is less vulnerable to use by terrorists– diluted, low quality fuel and passive safety measures
M. P. LaBar et al, registered Professional Mechanical Engineer as well as a Professional Nuclear Engineer in the State of California. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society, A.S. Shenoy, Oakland Operations Office Program for the U.S. Department of Energy, W. A. Simon and E. M. Campbell, ’03, World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, “Status of the GT-MHR for Electricity Production”, http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eLp0s9yJXAJ:www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/labar.pdf+gas+turbine modular+helium+reactors+%2Bproliferation+safe&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us The GT-MHR has very high proliferation/terrorist resistance. Both GT-MHR fresh fuel and spent fuel have higher resistance to diversion, proliferation and potential terrorist opportunities than other nuclear reactor options. GT-MHR fresh fuel has high proliferation/terrorist resistance because the fuel is very diluted by the fuel element graphite (low fuel volume fraction) and because of the technical difficulty to retrieve materials from within the refractory fuel coatings. GT-MHR spent fuel has these same characteristics plus self-protecting high radiation fields. Furthermore, the low volume fraction and low quality (high degradation due to high burnup) of plutonium in GT-MHR spent fuel make it particularly unsuitable for use in weapons.

193

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT No Impact to Prolif (1/1)
1. An Iran with nuclear weapons would destabilize the entire Middle East and cause Israeli retaliation
Gawdat Bahgat Professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania 2007 “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East” Pg. 28 [Benjamin Lopez] On the Israeli side, several officials and analysts have been alarmed by the possibility of a nuclear Iran and have been articulating a possible Israeli reaction. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that "a nuclear Iran was 'intolerable' and would erode Israel's strategic edge." Similarly, Meir Dagan, director of Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee that "Iran posed an `existential threat' to Israel"32 Finally, Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said, "The minute Iran turns into a nuclear power, a `black curtain' will drop over Israel, the Middle East, and the entire free world:'33 This intense alarm is driven by two considerations. First, an Iran with nuclear weapons capability is likely to be more assertive and adopt an aggressive foreign policy approach. This might include expanding support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Jihad. Second, a nuclear Iran is likely to prompt other regional powers such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia to follow suit-the so-called domino effect. This might ignite a nuclear arms race and further destabilize the entire Middle East. In short, the underlying stand is that Israel cannot live with a nuclear Iran and that something needs to be done to prevent such a possibility

2. Proliferation leads to extinction – a few additional states building nuclear weapons would lead to a massive domino-effect leading to world-wide unchecked proliferation and a single nuclear attack would ensure escalation to the point of human extinction – that’s Utgoff ‘02

194

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

US Nuke Power Key - Prolif
US domestic nuclear power development key to Non-Prolif leadership The Nuclear Energy Study Group of the American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs, May 2005; “Nuclear
Power and Proliferation Resistance”, http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/proliferationresistance/upload/proliferation.pdf Given nuclear power’s potential to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels, a balanced U.S. energy policy must keep open the nuclear energy optiotn through the development and availability of nuclear plants and supporting infrastructure that can be built, operated, and eventually decommissioned in a safe, secure, environmentally sound and cost-effective manner. Nuclear Power, Nuclear Proliferation and National Security The technologies and materials used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons overlap with those used in peaceful nuclear power applications. The extent to which nuclear power will be an acceptable and enduring option to meeting future energy requirements in many regions of the world will therefore depend in part upon the ability to minimize the associated proliferation risks.

195

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

***NPT

196

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC AT: Israel DA
Aff never solves for NPT credibility all our evidence is predicated on US nuclear leadership – tanks your link Credibility high now G8 Summit 7/08 (“G8 Declaration on Political Issues” < http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080708-10.html>) 57. We are determined to make every effort to overcome the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery means and to prevent acquisition of WMD by terrorists, by upholding, strengthening and universalizing all relevant multilateral non-proliferation and disarmament instruments. 58. We are committed to resolving regional proliferation challenges by diplomatic means. We express our continuous support for the Six-Party
process towards the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the eventual normalization of relations between the relevant Six-Party members through the full implementation of the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005, including the resolution of the outstanding issues of concern such as the abduction issue. Noting the progress made through the Six-Party process since last year, we welcome, though long overdue, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)'s provision of a declaration as a step toward the full implementation of the Joint Statement. Comprehensive verification of the declaration is of utmost importance,

and we look forward to an early agreement on the principles/regime of the verification. We urge the DPRK to fully cooperate in the verification process, including its effective implementation. We also emphasize the importance of swift
disablement of all existing nuclear facilities and the abandonment of all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes by the DPRK. We also urge the DPRK to fully comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 1695 and 1718,

including abandoning all its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes as well as all other existing WMD and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, and to return to full compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and IAEA safeguards at an early date. No internal link A. US controls the direction of NPT – it wouldn’t force disclosure of its closest ally B. their evidence is pre 9/11 –cant take into account numerous changes in international politics – Iraq, Iran prolif Case solves impact – US leadership in nuclear technology promotes safer developments which prevents pre-emptive strikes – that’s Buckner and Sander Israeli strikes inevitable Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, 7/21/08 (“A Brazen Evil” Anti-War.Com <
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13168>) Here's the shocker, really a double jolt: "Israel," he avers, "will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months." Either that, he writes, or else Israel will eventually have to launch "a preemptive nuclear strike." His message to the West: take out Iran, or we'll nuke 'em! The Israelis have been threatening to strike for the past six months, so nothing new there, except for the tone of certainty. Morris is no fringe nut-job flailing away on his obscure blog; he's a prominent Israeli historian writing on the most noted opinion page of them all, a veritable bulletin board for governing elites worldwide. As such, he is almost certainly speaking with some insight into Israeli government plans. It is, in any case, almost inconceivable that he wrote his piece without the foreknowledge and consent of Israeli government officials. As to whether he – and they – are bluffing, well, I

wouldn't count on it. With all this talk of Iran's alleged attempt to build nuclear weapons – which our own intelligence services say was abandoned years ago – Israel is the one country in the region we know is armed to the gills with nukes. Given their history, the increasing extremism of their leadership and polity, and their fanatical devotion to the doctrine of preemption – indeed, they invented it, while George W. Bush merely adopted it – the Israelis are far more likely than any other member of the nuclear club to actually use nukes, as Morris makes all too clear.
197

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val Leads to middle east war Carl Moore 04 (http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html)
If Israel is attacked or is about to be attacked with unconventional weapons (or overwhelming conventional forces), there will be a "Share the Pain" response... Therefore, Israel would be wise to notify each country that, either pre-emptively or as a vicious second-strike option, Israel will hit all hostile parties with nuclear weapons, regardless of who launched the first attack. Israel will hold all collectively and severally responsible - as if they had met and conspired together. ...One hundred or 200 nukes will reduce the hostile cities and army sites of the Middle East to rubble in minutes. Of course, the ensuing debris would also envelope those nations who sold the Arab world the weapons of nightmares. After all, they enjoyed the money and clearly understood that what they were selling was to be targeted at Israel. Perhaps with a dedicated and credible deterrence, the Europeans selling weapons will make some effort, along with American Arabists, to have the Arab nations stand down their plans which call for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic State.... Prof. Martin Van Crevel, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, recently put it this way... “Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in

the world, but rather the second or third. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We have the capability to take the world down with us.

198

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC AT: Bioweapons
1. NPT credibility existed in the 60s and so did bioweapons – those tight restrictions should have already triggered the construction of bioweapons 2. Their impact evidence proves why countries would never use bioweapons – the results are unknown, so they would never want to launch a weapon that could kill them as well

199

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

2AC AT: Opaque Prolif AT Opaque Proliferation Turn (1/2)
1. NPT controls and safeguards solve opaque prolif, Pakistan proves
By Brodie Ross Honours Arts Degree in Political Science with research specialization and a minor in philosophy at Wilfrid Laurier University. Intern at the Centre for International Governance Innovation pursuing a Master's degree in International Public Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University. Nov 17, 2007 “Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal” http://www.igloo.org/brodieblog/securing While I am comforted that the U.S. has had the prudence to step in to help guarantee the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and sensitive technology, I still wonder why they don’t take step to ensure a more durable and lasting guarantee of safety. Pakistan is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty yet often benefits from tremendous support from the U.S. Surely bringing the country under the controls and safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Association should be a priority for the U.S. administration given the threat of opaque proliferation Pakistan poses.

2. Nuke know-how solves opaque prolif – if we know how nuclear plants should be built, we’ll be able to detect if countries are using power plants as a front for weapon construction – that’s Buckner and Sanders 3. Their Nye evidence is super power-tagged – it just says opaque prolif is secret, not that countries will go to war or escalate

200

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Opaque Proliferation Turn (2/2)
4. A strong NPT would solve opaque prolif by controlling the transfer of missile technology, implementing special inspections, and ensuring multilateral commitment to end prolif
REVIEW AND EXTENSION CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE TREATY ON THE NONPROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS March 1995 “1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” NPT/CONF.1995/13 28 New York, 17 April-12 May 1995 LETTER DATED 23 MARCH 1995 FROM THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF HUNGARY ADDRESSED TO THE PROVISIONAL SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE 1995 REVIEW AND EXTENSION CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE TREATY ON THE NONPROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS The participating States recall that in Prague on 30 January 1992 they reiterated their commitment to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to control the spread of missile technology. They also recall their declaration in the Helsinki Document of 10 July 1992 to take further steps to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to intensify cooperation on a non-discriminatory and equitable basis in the field of effective export controls applicable to nuclear materials, and other sensitive goods and technologies as well as conventional arms. The participating States strongly believe that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and missiles to deliver them, poses a threat to international peace, security and stability and hereby affirm their commitment: - to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons; - to prevent the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical and biological weapons; - to control the transfer of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and their components and technology. In order to promote international peace, security and stability, the participating States undertake to enhance and strengthen existing norms against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They seek to do so through the use of an entire range of measures available to address the proliferation issues, as well as through the broadest possible multilateral support. Therefore the participating States will: Nuclear - implement fully all their existing undertakings in the field of nuclear disarmament and arms control; - endorse and encourage universal adherence to the NPT; in particular, the participating States that are still not parties to the NPT reiterate their pledge to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon States in the shortest time possible; - agree that the NPT should be indefinitely and unconditionally extended; - bring into force full-scope IAEA safeguards agreements as required by the NPT, including the right of the IAEA to conduct special inspections, thus strengthening the verification regime; - support efforts to strengthen and streamline IAEA safeguards, in particular with a view to enhancing the Agency's capabilities to better detect clandestine nuclear weapons programmes; - improve national nuclear export control policies by supporting and, where possible, strengthening the guidelines of the Zangger Committee and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, including the latter's controls on dual-use items; - welcome the recent statements of France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America relating to nuclear testing and are convinced that these statements are consistent with the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty and support negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament of a universal and effectively verifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as agreed by the Conference on Disarmament on 10 August 1993.

201

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT Strong now (1/1)
1. The NPT is weak – US commitment is key Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 51 [Benjamin Lopez]
I would not go so far as to say that we must choose between complete nuclear disarmament and the rampant spread of nuclear weapons, but I do agree with Schell's premise that we are at a crucial juncture in the world's relationship with nuclear weapons. Our approach to nuclear arms control and nonproliferation in recent years has drifted so far away from the commitments we have made that we are now approaching a point where we may have to make a conscious choice: Do we accept a widely proliferated world in which thirty or more nations have nuclear weapons and begin to develop plans to try to manage that world, or do we pursue a strong, vigorous, effective nuclear nonproliferation regime? There can be no underestimating the importance of this decision- The principal threats to U.S- security today center not on the risks posed by powerful nation states but on the weakness of states such as Russia (which may be potentially unable to pre-vent part of its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive material, and other threatening technologies and scientific weapon expertise left over from the Cold War from proliferating into dangerous hands) and on transnational concerns such as terrorism, economic instability, wide-scale poverty and disease, and environmental degradation, all of which reinforce the central threat to our security: the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable countries, terrorist organizations, religious cults, and the like.

2. The NPT needs US support – it’s weak and requires US domestic nuclear power development – that’s Bengelsdorf ‘07 3. Strengthening the NPT is key to non-proliferation and US national security
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 58 [Benjamin Lopez] To those that support a strictly unilateralist course of action for the United States, the cost of maintaining the nonproliferation regime may be too high. Our membership in a variety of international instruments associated with the NPT regime, negotiations of additional treaties and the constraints associated with them, efforts to move toward significant reductions in nuclear arsenals, and suggestions from NATO allies that NATO should move to a core deterrence policy and forswear the first use of nuclear weapons are seen by some as a high price to pay for nonproliferation- If we do not want to pay that price, if we do not take the steps required to strengthen the NPT regime, then we can expect to continue to drift toward a widely proliferated world. This would be a most unfortunate development for U.S. security- But if this is the path on which we will ultimately travel, then we must be pre-pared to cope with the new security challenges associated with it. We would need to reevaluate our filndamental strategic interests and reconsider our criteria for interventions abroad. Perhaps we would need to broaden our list of potential targets for nuclear weapons; field a larger, more diverse nuclear arsenal; and return to testing new types of nuclear weapons- But if a world in which every conflict has the potential to "go nuclear" is not what we want, then the United States must take steps to avoid it. We must strengthen the NPT.

202

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT Strong now Extensions
NPT Commitment key to Non-Proliferation
Thomas Graham, resident of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, served as the special representative of the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, The Washington Quarterly 23.2 (2000) 183-196”Strengthening Arms Control” http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v023/23.2graham.pdf [Benjamin Lopez]

In addition, as an essential part of this process, all the nonnuclear weapon states would reaffirm their nonnuclear status and all the
NPT parties would commit themselves to joint action--including force if necessary--against any violator. These levels would be the end point until the world has changed sufficiently to permit contemplation of a prohibition on nuclear weapons. With respect to the NPT itself, the regime then would be very strong. At each five-year Review Conference, the parties could consider new measures in the context of the five-power disarmament process, which undoubtedly would take many years. These would simply be basic mileposts that the states parties would set forth in order to maintain a proper course and better ensure full participation by all the other parties in the implementation of the NPT. They would not be time-bound objectives and could carry over from Review Conference to Review Conference. The intent would be to gradually merge the nonproliferation constraint of the NPT, along with the practice of non-use of nuclear weapons into customary international law binding forever on all states. This is the direction the international community should head if the world is to be freed from the dangers of nuclear weapons in the next century

203

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT US Commitment High (1/1)
1. US Commitment to the NPT is low – US commitment is key to global stability
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 146-147 [Benjamin Lopez] For over fifty years, the United States pursued a balance of power policy among the great powers-the United States, Russia, China, and Europe- The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the U.S.-Japan alliance are among the institutions and partnerships created by this grand strategy, the centerpiece of which was containment of the Soviet Union, based on a nuclear deterrence policy which included negotiated arms restraint and which was designed to balance the forces of the two opposing camps. The United States pursued a world order built on rules and international treaties that permitted the expansion of democracy, the enlargement of international security, free market economies, and free trade- Within this international order, in addition to keeping the peace, the United States gave political cover to countries throughout the world to adopt the American position by joining international institutions and multilateral treaty regimes such as the international Telecommunication Union, the World Trade Organization, the Outer Space Treaty, the CFE Treaty, and the NPT- However, in recent years the United States has moved away from this world system that it helped to create and toward a less cooperative and more unilateral and confrontational strategy- The United States has rejected new treaty arrangements important to key allies, such as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court, instead of attempting to amend them or leave them quietly "on the shelf" For a long time, we refused direct negotiations with North Korea on their nuclear pro-grams, and we have renounced treaty arrangements that are important to the world community, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and a verification and inspection annex to the Biological Weapons Convention.

2. This is our inherency – commitment to the NPT is characterized by tech transfer under Article IV – the US’s status in Nuclear Power is low – other countries, such as France, are almost entirely powered by nuclear energy

204

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT US Commitment doesn’t solve (1/1)
1. US Commitment to the NPT is key to NPT Credibility
Ambassador Thomas Graham

Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 152-153[Benjamin Lopez] The United States is the strongest country in the world today, and the most significant to the ultimate success of arms control and nonproliferation- The American public usually supports arms control and the international rule of law (for example, a strong majority favor ratification of the CT13T), but, as stated in the Introduction, apparently the public does not consider these issues sufficiently important to insist that U.S- political leaders either actively address them or risk paying a political priceThus many politicians believe them-selves free to respond to the wishes of special interests rather than those of the American people- If the United States and the world community wishes to be secure in the future, this must change. Perhaps the American public (and other publics) does in fact consider these issues important- However, the issues may seem so technical that only experts can understand them, and there-fore elected representatives are relied upon to sort them out- But in any country that functions as a representative democracy, it is never wise to leave matters as important as these to elected representatives and government officials- In the end, arms control and nonproliferation are political issues and should be treated as such; policies made by political representatives must reflect the informed wishes of the people.

2. The US has a unique role to plan in non-proliferation
Gawdat Bahgat Professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania 2007 “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East” Pg. 14 [Benjamin Lopez] The United States has long played a special role in influencing nuclear behavior both bilaterally and collectively. Given its history as the first nuclear power and its current status as the world's only superpower, the United States has a significant role in creating nonproliferation policy. Furthermore, in the post-cold war era the proliferation of WMD, particularly nuclear weapons, is considered one of the most serious threats to American national secu rity. The potential spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, where the United States maintains vital economic and strategic interests, adds more significance to its nonproliferation policy. Historically, U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy has focused on the demand side. American security guarantees to allies such as Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey have reduced their incentives to acquire nuclear weapons. Close bilateral relations have restrained other allies such as Egypt from pursuing nuclear weapon options. In other words, the United States has employed both positive security assurances (i.e., commitments to extend help in the event of a nuclear attack) and negative security assurances (i.e., commitments not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear power) to persuade countries to refrain from nuclear proliferation. In order to work, these commitments have to be credible 40 This credibility of U.S. assurances is an important reason for nuclear restraint by Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

3. US is key to preventing non-proliferation – US leadership on Nuclear Power is a prerequisite to US led non-proliferation, which is key to global stability – that’s Buckner and Sanders ‘01

205

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Other Treaties Key (1/1)
1. The NPT is key to preventing international nuclear terrorism
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 17-18 [Benjamin Lopez] In meeting the threats of international terrorism and weapon proliferation, we must do everything we can to reduce, not enhance, the role of nuclear weapons- This means drastically reducing their numbers, eliminating stockpiles of fissile material, and otherwise strengthening the NPT regime- The difference between U.S- policy toward Iraq (which does not have nuclear weapons) and North Korea (which may) will not be lost on some states-for example, Iran. They may heed the comment made after the first Gulf War, attributed to Krishnaswamy Sundarii, a former chief of staff of the Indian army; "If you are going to take on the United States, you had better have a nuclear weapon." The only effective long-term response to these threats is increased and intensive international cooperation, with an emphasis on inter-national law and specifically the NPT regime- The world community must come together to effectively address the threat of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and international security.

2. NPT is uniquely key to international security
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 155-156 [Benjamin Lopez] In combating the threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and the grave danger that these weapons may be acquired by international terrorist organizations (as well as by rogue states), it has been argued in these pages that military force is not the primary means whereby these threats can be successfully addressed. Rather, to be effective, the response of the civilized world to the threats of weapon proliferation and international terrorism must largely be diplomatic, economic, and cultural in nature, with only the occasional use of military force when necessary. Failed states, regions of poverty and widespread deprivation, and machine gun cultures are breeding grounds for international terrorism. These problems cannot be solved by military force- Likewise, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the full cooperation of the world community is essential- This is a diplomatic task. Such international cooperation is required in order to maintain a viable NPT regime, which has been for thirty years and will continue to be the central instrument of international security in today's world.

3. NPT solves best - The NPT best fosters international cooperation in arms control, that’s Bengelsdorf ‘07 4. Empirically proven – The NPT has prevented nuclear war and uncontrolled proliferation for 40 years successfully in time of high confidence – higher confidence would reinstill the NPT’s prior successes

206

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Other Treaties Key Extensions
A strong NPT is key to global non-proliferation
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 154 [Benjamin Lopez] A case in point with respect to international cooperation is the NPT mentioned so often here. Some argue that traditional nonproliferation policies have already failed and that counter-proliferation (that is, the use of force rather than diplomacy and treaty regimes to inhibit proliferation) is the only viable policy- But traditional nonproliferation policies have not yet failed, and in the long term, international cooperation based on a shared commitment to international rules is the only way to win the war on terror. Of course, it will be difficult for traditional nonproliferation policies to succeed if the nuclear weapon states do not observe their part of the basic bargain, if the political value of nuclear weapons remains high, if rogue states pursue nuclear programs because they believe they are likely to be subject to military intervention, and if neighboring states are likely to respond to each other with nuclear weapon programs- It has been clear for several years now that the choice is not between traditional nonproliferation and counter-proliferation policies, but rather between a strengthened and successful NPT regime and gradual descent into a widely proliferated world-one in which many states possess nuclear weapons and in which every conflict is a potential nuclear confrontation- The latter out-come would be very difficult to manage -even a minimum level of stability and security would be difficult to sustain. An effective NPT regime is still possible, but it will require great effort. It should be our dedicated objective.

207

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Inspector Overstretch (1/1)
1. The NPT consists of strong enforcement and inspection mechanisms
Gawdat Bahgat Professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania 2007 “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East” Pg. 12 [Benjamin Lopez] Avner Cohen defines the nonproliferation regime as "the entire edifice of treaties, norms, safeguard mechanisms, and
international organizations that embody the ideal of nuclear nonproliferations."26 The need to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons was evident from the first days of the nuclear era. In 1946 Bernard Baruch, U.S. representative to the UN Atomic Energy Commission, called for the creation of an international agency that would control nuclear materials and technology and prevent their proliferation. Following this step, the United States would eliminate its small nuclear arsenal and the world would be free from these terrible devices.27 Given the mistrust between the two superpowers, the Soviet Union rejected Baruch's plan and opted instead for building its own nuclear weapons capability. In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution sponsored by Ireland calling on all states to conclude an international agreement that would ban the acquisition and transfer of nuclear weapons. In 1965, the Geneva disarmament conference began consideration of a draft nonproliferation treaty. Negotiations were completed in 1968, and the NPT was opened for signature. With the NPT, both the United States and the Soviet Union signaled that the core debate over nonproliferation policy had been settled and that both were committed to the same goal: preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. Two years later, the NPT entered into force. In the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference in New York, the treaty was extended for an indefinite duration and without conditions. The growth

in treaty membership toward universality has been steady over the years.28 With nearly 190 parties today, the NPT has become the arms control treaty most widely adhered to in history, according to the United States Department of State.29 Article III of the NPT obliges each nonnuclear weapon state to accept comprehensive international safeguards through agreements negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The intent of these safeguards is to deter and detect the division of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes. By the early 1990s, the cases of North Korea and Iraq had shown that signatories of the safeguards still can pursue nuclear weapon programs through the use of covert facilities. As a result, the IAEA established the Additional Protocol (AP) to strengthen the existing safeguards system. Under the AP, states are required to make expanded, comprehensive declarations of all their nuclear material and nuclear-related activities. Meanwhile, the IAEA has access to any location to check for undeclared nuclear material or activities and can conduct environmental sampling. Acceptance of the AP by member states is voluntary. As of November 2006,110 states had signed the AP, and only 78 had ratified it. The Nonproliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol are considered the backbone of the nonproliferation regime. A violation of this regime can invoke diplomatic and economic sanctions by the international community against potential proliferators. Since the regime was officially established in 1968, only five states have acquired nuclear weapon capability: India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and South Africa.32 Equally encouraging, since 1968, more countries have given up nuclear weapon programs than have initiated them. Despite these significant achievements, the nonproliferation regime has shown important weaknesses that need to be addressed, particularly articles IV, VI, and X of the NPT.

2. No overstretch - Inspection becomes less relevant in a world where there is less proliferation – Inspectors won’t have a greater amount of ground to cover

208

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Inspections Fail Now
1. NPT standards allow for thorough and comprehensive inspections
George Bunn, US ambassador to the Geneva Disarmament Conference, March 2007, Nuclear Safeguards: How far can inspectors go? http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21726/Bunn-IAEA_48.2.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] Euratom country representatives participated actively in the negotiations that produced the IAEA safeguards standards for the NPT (INFCIRC/153). They then negotiated a separate deal with the IAEA on what IAEA inspectors would be permitted to do in Euratom countries. As a result, IAEA safeguards in Euratom countries were carried out largely through IAEA observation of Euratom inspections, or through operation of “joint” inspections. This did not, of course, reduce the scope of what the NPT inspection provision had authorized. In summary, the 1960s IAEA inspection standards (INFCIRC/ 66/Rev.2) were what the NPT negotiators had before them to describe IAEA inspections when they drafted the Treaty’s safeguards provisions. These standards did not require that nuclear material always be present before an inspector could carry out an inspection. The NPT negotiators of the safeguards provision clearly did not intend to require that nuclear material be present at every site inspected by the IAEA inspectors pursuant to the NPT.

NPT inspections are through and far-reaching
George Bunn, US ambassador to the Geneva Disarmament Conference, March 2007, Nuclear Safeguards: How far can inspectors go? http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21726/Bunn-IAEA_48.2.pdf [Benjamin Lopez]

As we have seen, the “Agency’s safeguards system” does authorize inspection of various activities, some of which may not involve nuclear material, which could contribute to the making of nuclear weapons. The IAEA’s ability to detect, at an early stage, possible diversion of nuclear material is necessary to deter such diversion from happening rather than simply detecting its loss after it is gone. Thus, the NPT authorizes

broader IAEA inspections whenever there is the possibility that nuclear material may be being used for weapons-related purposes. Examples of these inspections are cited in a study for VERTIC, a nongovernmental organization that has done useful research on arms control
verification. Like INFCIRC/66, INFCIRC/153 focuses mainly on locations where nuclear material is known to be present or is likely to be present. However, it also identifies, as subject to IAEA inspection, facilities meant to contain nuclear material even though they do not contain nuclear material at the time of inspection. Moreover, the INFCIRC/153 provision authorizing “special inspections,” to gain “access to information or locations in addition to the access specified” by the safeguards agreements, shows that nuclear material does not always have to be present at the inspected site if there is other information that suggests that the site may be related to nuclear activities There is in that provision no limitation of access to places where nuclear material is already present.

209

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val
AT Israel Turn (1/1)

1. Non Unique – Israel has already publicly disclosed its nuclear weapons The Guardian, British Newspaper, December 13, 2006, Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/13/israel [Benjamin Lopez] Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was yesterday trying to fend off accusations of ineptitude and calls for his resignation after he accidentally acknowledged for the first time that Israel had nuclear weapons. After decades in which Israel has stuck to a doctrine of nuclear ambiguity, Mr. Olmert let slip during an interview in Germany that Israel did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. He told Germany's Sat.1 channel on Monday evening: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"

2. The NPT has no effect on Israel- they haven’t signed it Israel News Agency, December 11th, 2006, Good Evening Iran, Syria, Israel Has Nuclear Weapons,
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelnuclearweaponsolmertiransyriaterrorism481211.html [Benjamin Lopez] Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons. As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

210

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT  Prolif (1/2)
1. NPT is key to preventing nuclear proliferation
Thomas Graham Jr., is president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Lessons for the Future United Nations New York May 24, 2005 http://www.gsinstitute.org/docs/5_24_05_GrahamSpeech.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] In short, the NPT has never seemed weaker or its future less certain. And if the treaty should fail, it is too complex to ever be resuscitated. The nuclear nightmare world that President Kennedy feared likely would become a reality. The NPT central bargain simply must be resurrected and implemented, particularly the Test Ban, legally binding negative security assurances, the Fissile Material Cutoff and significant nuclear weapon reductions worldwide. If the nuclear weapon states, particularly United States, took the above-mentioned positive steps to enhance the NPT central bargain, the result would be a greatly invigorated NPT and considerably enhanced world security. One of the important near-term steps necessary to prevent the NPT’s undermining from within--as Iran appears to be contemplating--is to restrict access to the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium enrichment and the chemical reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for plutonium) through some multilateral arrangement. These fuel processes are important for nuclear power but they can also be used in nuclear arms production. However, if the nuclear weapon states appear to be living up to their end of the NPT’s central bargain, they will have a much better chance of 8 persuading nonnuclear weapon states to restrict access to the fuel cycle which until now has been guaranteed under the treaty.

2. The NPT prevents Proliferation – empirically proven
Graham Allison Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, October 2006, Resuscitating the Non-Proliferation Treaty Regime, http://openingargument.com/index.php?name=Home&file=article&did=95 [Benjamin Lopez] Skeptics of international treaties contend that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is an abysmal failure. But in truth, President John F. Kennedy predicted in 1962 that “by 1970 there may be 10 nuclear powers instead of 4, and by 1975, 15 or 20.” Had nations created nuclear arsenals as soon as they acquired the advanced technical capability to do so, Kennedy’s prediction would have proved correct. But his warning helped awaken the world to the unacceptable dangers of unconstrained nuclear proliferation. The world negotiated international constraints, including the NPT, export control regimes, interdiction organizations, strategic arms reduction agreements, and nuclear-weapon-free zones, to prevent Kennedy’s dystopia. The NPT is the centerpiece and offers a bargain: the five original nuclear weapon states pledge to disarm and swear not to transfer nuclear weapons to others, while the non-nuclear-weapon states receive the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and commit not to build or acquire nuclear bombs. Thanks to that regime, today 183 nations, including scores that have the technical capability to build nuclear arsenals, have renounced nuclear weapons. Four decades later, there are only 8 1/2 nuclear weapons states, not 20 or 40. Moreover, no nuclear weapon has been used in an attack on an adversary for 60 years. But today the non-proliferation regime is poised at a tipping point

211

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT  Prolif (2/2)
3. Nuclear plants reduce the risk of prolif posed by coal plants
Richard Rhodes, affiliate of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, and Denis Beller, UNLV M.S. in Materials and Nuclear Engineering Program Research Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Nevada, 2K, “The Need for Nuclear Power”, 79 Foreign Affairs, pp. 30-44

Nuclear proliferation is another overlooked potential consequence of coal-burning. The uranium released by a single 1,000-MWe coal plant in a year includes about 7 pounds of uranium-235 – enough for at least two atomic bombs. This uranium would have to be enriched before it could be used, which would be complicated and expensive. But plutonium could also be bred from coal-derived uranium. Moreover, “because electric utilities are not high-profile facilities,” writes
physicist Alex Gabbard of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals ... can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern or intervention. Any country with coal-fired plants could collect combustion byproducts and amass sufficient nuclear weapons materials to build up a very powerful arsenal.”

4. Their evidence is based on the NPT as it stands now – the NPT post plan will be stronger and more effective at preventing proliferation

212

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to nonprolif (1/2)
NPT prevents the spread of nuclear weapons
Thomas Graham, resident of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, served as the special representative of the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, The Washington Quarterly 23.2 (2000) 183-196”Strengthening Arms Control” http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v023/23.2graham.pdf [Benjamin Lopez] Despite the fundamental changes in arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament discussed above, however, efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons cannot succeed without dedicated commitment from the nuclear weapon states. Recent events suggest that this commitment may not be as strong as it should be and the NPT regime as a result is under siege. The October 1999 rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by the U.S. Senate, the suggestions to change unilaterally the ABM Treaty to deploy an NMD, the stalled START process, and last year's nuclear tests by India and Pakistan underscore the perilous condition of the NPT regime. Without serious efforts by the international community, specifically the nuclear weapon states, to bolster the regime in the short term, there is a very real possibility that the NPT could begin to unravel in the next five to ten years. The question is, how can the arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament regime be revitalized and the NPT regime preserved? It may be desirable for the NPT states parties to agree to an additional Statement of Principles and Objectives at the 2000 NPT Review Conference as part of an agreement to diffuse widespread disaffection and criticism at the conference. In such an understanding, the nonnuclear weapon states would pledge to refrain from acting in a manner that would question the NPT regime at and after the 2000 Conference and the nuclear weapon states would agree to pursue specific additional steps prior to the 2005 Review Conference. These could include good faith efforts to bring the CTBT into force, to universalize no-first-use policies among the nuclear weapon states or establish legally binding negative security assurances for NPT nonnuclear weapon states parties, to maintain the viability of the ABM Treaty, and to pursue reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to a level well below proposed START III levels. Three of these four suggestions are, or are close to, current government policy. Under such an agreement, if sufficient progress, or at least a good faith effort, is perceived to have been made toward fulfilling these commitments, the 2005 Conference would reaffirm the fundamental international commitment to the NPT. Otherwise, support for the NPT regime might begin to erode after the 2005 Conference.

The NPT is the foundation of non-proliferation efforts, and it has succeeded
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, The Arms Control Association, April 5, 2005, Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), http://www.armscontrol.org/node/2511/print [Benjamin Lopez] The Nonproliferation Treaty, as many of you know, is the foundation of global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the threat of their use. It codifies a three-part bargain. It must be remembered that it codifies a three-part bargain. It is not just a nonproliferation treaty. First of all it says that states without nuclear weapons pledge not to acquire them. It also says that states with nuclear weapons commit not to transfer nuclear weapons and commit eventually to eliminate them. And third, the NPT allows for the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by non-nuclear weapons states under strict and verifiable control. We'll be talking about each of these three parts of the bargain and how we think they need to be strengthened in a little bit. But first it must be said that the NPT has succeeded in leading several states to abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions. It's made if far more difficult for other non-nuclear weapons states to secretly acquire the material and the technology to build such weapons, and the NPT process has also encouraged action on several nuclear arms control initiatives and led the nuclear weapons states to pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states, also called negative security assurances, thereby reducing incentives for others to seek nuclear arms for prestige or defense.

213

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to nonprolif (2/2)
The NPT is committed to stopping biological and chemical weapons in addition to nuclear
Review And Extension Conference Of The Parties To The Treaty On The Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons March 1995 “1995 Review And Extension Conference Of The Parties To The Treaty On The Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons” NPT/CONF.1995/13 28 New York, 17 April-12 May 1995 Letter Dated 23 March 1995 From The Permanent Representative Of Hungary Addressed To The Provisional Secretary-General Of The 1995 Review And Extension Conference Of The Parties To The Treaty On The Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons Annex II. VI. Principles Governing Non-Proliferation. The participating States recall that in Prague on 30 January 1992 they reiterated their commitment to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to control the spread of missile technology. They also recall their declaration in the Helsinki Document of 10 July 1992 to take further steps to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to intensify cooperation on a non-discriminatory and equitable basis in the field of effective export controls applicable to nuclear materials, and other sensitive goods and technologies as well as conventional arms. I. The participating States strongly believe that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and missiles to deliver them, poses a threat to international peace, security and stability and hereby affirm their commitment: - to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons; - to prevent the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical and biological weapons; - to control the transfer of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and their components and technology.

214

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to security
The NPT is key to national and international security
Robert S. McNamara was U.S. secretary of defense from 1961 to 1967. Thomas Graham Jr. is president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, March 12, 2002 , “Nuclear Weapons For All?” http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/03/12_mcnamara_weapons-all.htm [Benjamin Lopez] The Bush administration has made much of its belief that the international arms control treaty regime is irrelevant. As the recently leaked Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reportedly states, "that old process is incompatible with the flexibility U.S. planning and forces now require." The United States has decided to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, put aside improvements in the Biological Weapons Convention, and refused to continue the formal strategic arms reduction process. It now seems that the Administration is prepared to add the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to its list of treaties to put aside. Should this happen, and should this administration's practice continue, nuclear weapons can be expected to spread around the world. We will then live in a far, far more dangerous world and the United States will be much, much less secure. Given the stakes, we may be approaching some of the most important decisions in decades. During the Cold War, peace was supported by the doctrine of "mutual assured destruction," which simply meant that each side maintained forces and observed the conditions required to retain a devastating second strike capability, thereby deterring nuclear war. The Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the treaties limiting strategic offensive nuclear forces were the underpinning of this doctrine and the basis for ending the nuclear arms race and enhancing strategic stability. While the United States and Russia continue to maintain thousands of nuclear weapons -- with many remaining on hair-trigger alert -- the Bush administration has unilaterally declared mutual assured destruction to be outdated, and has decided to withdraw from the ABM Treaty to underscore this point. Now, according to reports describing the NPR, the administration has moved to a new nuclear doctrine described by one commentator as "unilateral assured destruction." Russia is still targeted, but potentially by offensive forces rather than secondstrike nuclear forces. China is also targeted, with a "military confrontation over the status of Taiwan" set forth as a possible rationale for a nuclear strike.

The NPT is key to international peace and security Byers, Bruce (Political Security Program Officer), 18 May 1995, Extension of NPT a Major Step Toward Nuclear Disarmament."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/news/950518-392065.htm [Benjamin Lopez] Speaking to a group of international security policy experts in the Regents' Room of the Smithsonian Institution's Castle, Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr. stressed that this is the bedrock of U.S. nuclear disarmament policy as he reviewed the outcome of the international NPT review and extension conference which ended May 12 with a consensus decision to extend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty indefinitely and without conditions. Most significantly, in Graham's view, the decision for indefinite and unconditional extension was achieved through collaboration rather than competition and focused participants' attention and efforts on the need to create a centerpiece of international peace and security. Graham praised the leadership of conference president Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala who achieved a greater general agreement among the participants than anyone thought possible at the outset. As a result of these efforts, according to Ambassador Graham, Deputy Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, all the nations of the world are winners. This is because the participants of the conference also adopted a set of principles and objectives of non-proliferation and a framework which strengthens the review process, putting in place a foundation by which nations can judge future progress and success of non-proliferation efforts.

215

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT  Prolif Extensions – NPT key to norms
The NPT represents a global norm that has been overwhelmingly successful despite challenges
Jayantha Dhanapala Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs United Nations, 11 January 1999, The NPT Regime: External and Internal Challenges http://disarmament.un.org/speech/Address1.PDF [Benjamin Lopez] The truth, however, is that the regime has in many respects fared quite well, even under these trying circumstances. First, I believe the regime is continuing to demonstrate its vitality in the world community today. The recent tests have not inspired parties to abandon the NPT and its associated regime. The tests surely did not interfere with Brazil’s decision to join the treaty last year. The treaty is about as close to full universal membership as is possible -- its norms represent global norms. Neither the NPT nor the IAEA’s safeguards system can be blamed for the decisions by two non-parties to test nuclear weapons.

216

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Article Six Commitment Key (1/2)
1. Article IV commitment is central to the NPT
Ambassador Jackie W. Sanders, Special Representative of the President of the U.S. for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, April 29, 2004, NPT Article IV, www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/32292.htm [Benjamin Lopez] The central bargain of the NPT is that if non-nuclear-weapon states renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and comply fully with this commitment, they may gain assistance under Article IV of the Treaty to develop peaceful nuclear programs. The United
States promotes such cooperation, and shares the view that the proper application of nuclear technology can improve the quality of life on an international scale. However, Parties cannot afford to ignore the fact that several countries have exploited Article IV to advance their illicit nuclear weapons programs and threaten international security. These countries have not lived up to their end of the bargain, and if we allow this abuse to continue, the net-value of peaceful nuclear cooperation will diminish, and the security benefits derived from the NPT will erode. Paragraph 1 of Article IV makes clear that access to peaceful nuclear cooperation must be “in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.” NPT Parties have noted this linkage at every review conference since the NPT entered into force. By extension, this linkage also includes Article III, since safeguards help ensure that the obligations of Articles I and II are being honored. Clearly, any right to receive benefits under Article IV is conditioned on the fulfillment of the Treaty’s nonproliferation obligations, but Article IV also places specific responsibilities upon suppliers. Parties are not compelled by Article IV to engage in nuclear cooperation with a given state, and should withhold such cooperation if they believe that a state is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, is not in full compliance with its safeguards obligations, or is in violation of Articles I or II. Our delegation will address in greater detail the question of what constitutes noncompliance; in the end, however, we

must look at the totality of the behavior of each individual recipient. States’ actions should generate confidence that they are in full compliance. In instances in which a state’s actions indicate the intent to pursue nuclear weapons, as in the case of Iran, the risks to global security are too high for individual supplier states to wait until consensus emerges on a formal finding of noncompliance. Rather, supplier states should halt all nuclear and nuclear-related cooperation until there are no further reasons to suspect violations of nonproliferation norms. NPT parties also have the responsibility to improve the implementation of Article IV in such a way that both preserves NPT parties’ right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and ensures against abuse of this right by states pursuing nuclear weapon capabilities.

2. Article 4 commitment and tech transfer is key to a strong NPT
Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., president of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security 2004 “Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Pg. 59 [Benjamin Lopez] The United States should be mindful of its obligations under NPT Article 4 to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to assist nonnuclear weapon states in their utilization of these technologies consistent with nonproliferation commitments. One way to do this would be to promote the development of proliferation-resistant nuclear energy technologies.

217

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Article Six Commitment Key (2/2)
3. Article 4 commitment fulfills the core objectives of the NPT
Christopher Ford, Principal Deputy Assistant, Bureau of Verification and Compliance, May 18, 2005 NPT Article IV: Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/46604.htm [Benjamin Lopez] In conclusion, Madam Chair, the peaceful application of nuclear energy holds great promise for mankind. The United States will continue to contribute to its development throughout the world. But, today, we face a situation that is threatening to undermine our ability to implement Article IV in a way that contributes to the core objectives of the NPT. As we move forward in our consideration of Article IV, we urge all States Party to remember that the nuclear activities of States Party must comply with Articles I and II of the Treaty, and to remember that by calling for the "fullest possible" cooperation in the field of nuclear energy, Article IV recognizes that achievement of the nonproliferation goals of the Treaty must be foremost.

4. The NPT is a global treaty predicated on perception – an increased Article 4 commitment would have the same effect as Article 6 commitment

218

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Proliferation Inevitable (1/1)
1. A strong NPT has prevented and can prevent proliferation
Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate and Director for Non-Proliferation, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 5, 2005 Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) http://www.armscontrol.org/node/2511/print [Benjamin Lopez] I'm just going to make three quick points and then get out of the way and let people with greater expertise and authority speak. My three quick points are, one, the Nonproliferation Treaty has worked. This is a record of success. In the 1960s, before the NPT, there were some 23 nations that either had nuclear weapons, had nuclear programs to develop such weapons, or were considering such programs. You can find those countries listed on page 19 of our Universal Compliance Study. Today, counting North Korea and possibly Iran, there are only 10 such countries. We have half the danger that we faced in the 1960s. The cost of the Nonproliferation Treaty and the interlocking network of treaties and arrangements that grew up around that treaty, because of the work of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives working together for the past 45 years, there were fewer countries in the world with nuclear weapons, fewer countries in the world considering nuclear weapons, and half the number of nuclear weapons in the world that there was just 20 years ago. 2.

This is answered by our aff – we solve proliferation through tech transfer of nuclear power technology We solve: an increased NPT commitment decreases the perceived Nuclear Threat – we constructively engage the world in Nuclear non-proliferation, decreasing the need for a nuclear weapons program - that’s Bengelsdorf 07

3.

219

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT Security more important than norms (1/1)
1. Norms and regimes are key to non-proliferation
Jayantha Dhanapala, President of The 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference and Randy Rydell Senior counsellor and report director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission 2005, “Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider’s Account” Pg. 141 [Benjamin Lopez] Despite the many challenges that lie ahead, treaty-based regimes remain enormously "relevant" in serving international peace and security. They offer many hard-law advantages over their ad hoc political counterparts among the various regulatory regimes. They are binding. They have or are approaching universal membership. They have the permanence of law. Some have institutions staffed with full-time professionals dedicated to building confidence in compliance. And they have the most precious treasure of all-legitimacy, both because they enshrine universal norms and because legislatures had to approve their ratification. With legitimacy, the regimes can continue to grow and to enhance the conditions of international peace and security. If they lost that legitimacy, they would lose all hope for effectiveness, and they would risk collapsing.

2. NPT Norms supersede security – nations act in order to undertake international obligations that do not necessarily coincide with their security concerns
David Sloss Associate Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law. 2006 Do International Norms Influence State Behavior?: The Limits of International Law. (LN) [Benjamin Lopez] According to Limits, the primary reason why states enter into treaties "is that they gain more than they lose, on balance, from the
agreement." This statement succinctly describes the incentives of almost all the original parties to the NPT. There were forty-three original parties to the NPT, including three nuclear-weapon states and forty non-nuclear weapon states. The three NWS - the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom - all wanted to limit the acquisition of nuclear weapons by additional states. Thus, the Article I restriction that prohibited them from transferring nuclear weapons to other states served their interests. Moreover, they presumably calculated that the Article VI obligation "to pursue negotiations in good faith" on nuclear disarmament was a price they were willing to pay in order to get the benefit of treaty limitations on acquisition of nuclear weapons by NNWS. The vast majority of the NNWS that were original parties to the NPT had no realistic prospect of acquiring nuclear weapons. As Goldsmith and Posner wryly note, "when Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Gabon, the Holy See, and Malta ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, they did not have to alter their pre-ratification behaviors." The same applies to the majority of NNWS who were original parties to the NPT. Their decision to ratify can thus be explained by Goldsmith and Posner's "coincidence of interest" model: the treaty prohibited the states from engaging in activity that they had no interest or capacity to pursue.

However, Goldsmith and Posner's theory seems inadequate to explain the ratification decisions of all the original NPT NNWS. For example, Sweden maintained an active nuclear weapons program in the 1950s and most of the 1960s, which it did not finally
terminate until 1972. In 1963 a classified Pentagon document ranked Sweden as one of the United States' top proliferation concerns, estimating that Sweden would be able to conduct a nuclear test within two to three years. Goldsmith and Posner contend that states do not ratify treaties unless "they gain more than they lose, on balance, from the agreement." Yet Sweden clearly incurred a cost by ratifying

the NPT: it was forced to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Granted, Sweden did not have a huge incentive to develop nuclear weapons because it did not confront any serious external nuclear threat. On the other hand, though, ratification of the NPT did not provide Sweden any offsetting security benefit. Thus, if one focuses narrowly on security interests, Sweden's ratification decision presents a puzzle for Goldsmith and Posner's theory because ratification appears to impose a cost with no offsetting benefit. In this author's view, the best explanation for Sweden's ratification decision is that law often serves an expressive function. Sweden ratified the NPT primarily to express its support for the emerging non-proliferation norm.
Goldsmith and Posner acknowledge that the "rhetoric" of international law is an important aspect of the international legal system, but they insist that the rhetoric of international law is entirely self-serving. The Swedish example, however, suggests that international rhetoric is

not always self-serving. States sometimes undertake legal obligations for the purpose of expressing their support for an international norm, even when that obligation imposes a cost without any offsetting benefit, other than the moral satisfaction of expressing one's support for a normatively appealing position. Goldsmith and Posner's theory fails to account for this type of behavior.

3. Norms guarantee equality – countries would rather accept NPT norms in order to gain access to nuclear technology – that’s Bengelsdorf ‘07
220

02

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

103

AT Security more important than norms extensions
Norms dictate international peace and security above all else
Jayantha Dhanapala, President of The 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference and Randy Rydell Senior counsellor and report director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission 2005, “Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider’s Account” Pg. 101 [Benjamin Lopez] I believe it is especially important to view the NPT as a treaty regime, one that shares many qualities with other regimes. The deeper we understand these qualities-in particular the factors that influence the behaviour of its states parties-the stronger will be our foundation for improving the overall health of this regime. We live in a world of rules and norms.135 Some regulate common day-to-day international activities in the fields of air transportation, communication, public health and the environment, and other such areas. Others comprise the basic architecture of international peace and security. Virtually all of these rules and norms are taken for granted-yet they have profound effects in defining conditions in the world today and in shaping the world of future generations. In a world of sovereign nation states, it is astonishing not only that such rules and norms persist, but also that compliance has itself become a norm. Louis Henkin's dictum-that "almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time"136-remains valid even in our current environment, which is often characterized by glaring headlines about the dangers arising from WMD.

Norms influence state behavior
David Sloss Associate Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law. 2006 Do International Norms Influence State Behavior?: The Limits of International Law. (LN) [Benjamin Lopez] The simplicity of the theory presented in Limits, however, is also the book's greatest weakness. Limits assumes that "state interests at any particular time [are] an unexplained given." By adopting this simplifying assumption, Limits largely ignores the insights developed by domestic politics theorists. Whereas the authors are merely indifferent to domestic politics theories, they are openly hostile to international norms theories. Indeed, one of the authors' main goals is to persuade readers that international norms do not influence state behavior. They fail to accomplish that goal. This Review presents a critical assessment of the theory presented in Limits. Part I provides a brief summary of Goldsmith and Posner's theory. Part II tests the theory by analyzing the evolution of international law and state practice, especially U.S. practice, related to the juvenile death penalty. Part III tests the theory by analyzing the evolution of China's policy and practice related to nuclear proliferation. The analysis in Parts II and III demonstrates that the United States and China have both altered their policies and practices to conform to international norms. If powerful states such as these modify their behavior to conform to international norms, one may infer that weaker states are even more likely to be influenced by international law. Therefore, contrary to one of the central claims advanced in Limits, this Review suggests that international norms do influence the behavior of states

221

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT Discriminatory (1/2)
1. The NPT is the only treaty that restricts the nuclear powers
Jayantha Dhanapala, President of The 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference and Randy Rydell Senior counsellor and report director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission 2005, “Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider’s Account” Pg. 105 [Benjamin Lopez] Hence we find ourselves at a peculiar juncture with respect to these disarmament regimes. Weakened by erratic and often inadequate funding-and deprived of unqualified verification mandates or in some cases relevant institutions to implement them-the utility of these regimes has been questioned by commentators in some of the states that are responsible for these limitations. Some sceptics refuse to credit the treaty-based regimes for the pattern of compliance by the overwhelming majority of their states parties. Other critics and non-parties object that the treaties either are discriminatory or place them at security disadvantages regionally. Though the NPT has specifically been labelled as discriminatory, it remains the only treaty locking the five NWS into a binding legal obligation with respect to nuclear disarmament. As of November 2004, the United Nations describes the treaty as having 189 states parties-there are different opinions, however, among the member states about the status of the DPRK following its declared withdrawal from the treaty. While impressive, the CWC (with its 167 parties) and the BWC (with its 152) still have some catching up to do before becoming fully universal. Nevertheless, these treaties together do far more on behalf of global norms than any of the non-proliferation regimes-regimes whose greatest contributions are in complementing efforts to achieve global disarmament goals.

2. Plan solvers – Tech transfer guarantees that all nations have access to the same nuclear power which they might not have had access to otherwise – that’s Bengelsdof ‘07

222

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

AT NPT Discriminatory (2/2)
3. The NPT is key to establishing equality among states, and breaking down the prisoner’s dilemma otherwise inherent in nuclear politics
Dr. Christopher A. Ford, United States Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation and reserve intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy, Summer, 2007, Symposium: Existing And Emerging Legal Approaches To Nuclear Weapons In The Twenty-First Century: The Nonproliferation Bestiary: A Typology And Analysis Of Nonproliferation Regimes (LN) [Benjamin Lopez] But nuclear weapons are valuable if a nation is consistently threatened by significant conventional forces - as Israel has been or by a nuclear-armed nation - as North Korea claims to be by the United States. Additionally, the prestige nuclear weapons bring is an enticing fringe benefit. Thus, a major criticism of the NPT is that it freezes the nuclear haves and have-nots, saddling the latter with a permanent and significant disadvantage. Perceptions among NNWSs that the NPT's bargain between themselves and the NWSs has not been honored by the NWSs exacerbates this problem. The powerful arguments against acquiring nuclear arms, however, still lead the great majority of NNWSs to believe that their security interests are better served through a comprehensive regime of non-proliferation. Major benefits flow from this regime the NPT created. One is stability in the small number of NWSs. Certainty over who has nuclear weapons or at least who is willing to pursue them is another, because "the fact is that countries with nuclear weapon aspirations have refused to sign the NPT rather than renege on undertakings." As evidence of this norm, other than the five NWSs the NPT recognizes and the DPRK, none of the states that have tested or are believed to possess nuclear weapons were ever NPT signatories. The NPT thus emerges as a crucial treaty. As the central legal and political barrier to states obtaining nuclear weaponry, it supplies a reliable commitment by nations to not seek nuclear weapons even in the absence of central enforcement mechanisms. In this manner the NPT breaks a prisoner's dilemma among nations and allows them to cooperate in nuclear non-proliferation. This adds certainty, [*431] predictability, and stability to nuclear non-proliferation. The result is a treaty that is "trumpeted by virtually all states ... and constitutes a "norm' of international behavior that has virtually silenced those who would advocate the possession of nuclear weapons as a symbol of prestige." It is a treaty worth preserving.

223

Heidegger DDI 2008 Turnstein Val

***GNEP?

224

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

GNEP FYI
http://www.energy.gov/news/3346.htm GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to enable the expansion of emissions-free nuclear energy worldwide by demonstrating and deploying new technologies to recycle nuclear fuel, minimize waste, and improve our ability to keep nuclear technologies and materials out of the hands of terrorists. GNEP's four main goals are to reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels, recycle nuclear fuel using new proliferation-resistant technologies, encourage prosperity growth and clean development, and utilize the latest technologies to reduce nuclear proliferation worldwide. (We’re not the GNEP, they have no ev saying building plants = GNEP)

225

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

AT: GNEP Bad/Unnecessary
Despite potential weaknesses of the GNEP, it is the best option – as the world moves toward nuclear power, regulations are needed Steve Kidd, Head of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, 9/14/07. “Evolving international pacts for tomorrow,” http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2047064 It is now 18 months since the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) was proposed by US president Bush and during this time, it has continued to attract a good deal of publicity and comment, both positive and negative (see GNEP: the right way forward?, link below). The opposition depicts it as a flagrant example of US arrogance, embracing dangerous proliferation-prone technologies whilst claiming to make the world a safer place. Supporters, on the other hand, regard it as a fine example of the USA assuming world leadership in encouraging the world to open up important questions which have been avoided during the ‘dark ages’ of nuclear power since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, in order to encourage a new era of booming nuclear commerce and international cooperation. The truth, of course, lies somewhere between these two extremes. It is important, however, to place GNEP within the wider context of a number of other complementary developments taking place simultaneously. Although there is a tendency to pronounce on each of these in isolation, they must be seen as part of a bigger picture. Firstly, there are the nuclear cooperation agreements that the USA has been working on with India, Russia and other countries. The aim of these is to facilitate nuclear commerce and cooperation in order that restrictions can be removed and the full vision of GNEP realised. India is being brought back into the fold, having been isolated from nuclear commerce by its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and its subsequent testing of nuclear weapons. This breakthrough doesn’t please everybody and leaves open the question of what to do with Israel and Pakistan, also nonNPT signatories and (assumed in the case of Israel) effectively nuclear weapons states. Yet something had to be done as the world’s largest democracy could not be left isolated from international non-proliferation arrangements. The solution is certainly imperfect, but the alternative of inaction is much more unpalatable. The bilateral agreement with Russia, which should eventually lead to a similar ‘123 agreement’ (a civilian cooperation pact, named after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act 1954) as with India, outlines a framework for global sharing of nuclear expertise and technical assistance. It fits in well with GNEP as it aims to provide modern, proliferation-resistant reactors to third countries and help develop used fuel solutions, so they have incentives to develop nuclear energy safely and without attendant security risks.

226

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

AT: GNEP Exclusionary
The GNEP does not discriminate against any country that wants to acquire nuclear tech – contractually bound GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (US DoE), 9/16/07. “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Statement of Principles.” http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/GNEP_SOP.pdf Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is cooperation of those States that share the common vision of the necessity of the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner. It aims to accelerate development and deployment of advanced fuel cycle technologies to encourage clean development and prosperity worldwide, improve the environment, and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation. States participating in this cooperation would not give up any rights, and voluntarily engage to share the effort and gain the benefits of economical, peaceful nuclear energy. Commitments and international obligations, including IAEA safeguards and the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1540, will be strictly observed. The highest levels of safety and security will be maintained. The cooperation will be carried out under existing and, where appropriate, new bilateral arrangements as well as existing multilateral arrangements such as the Generation IV International Forum and the International Project on Innovating Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles. While recognizing the need for a variety of approaches and technical pathways in achieving a long-term vision of the future global civilian nuclear fuel cycle, which will help ensure that nuclear energy makes a major contribution to global development in the 21st century consistent with non-proliferation and safety objectives, this cooperation will be pursued with the following objectives: Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy demand in a sustainable manner and in a way that provides for safe operations of Nuclear Power Plants and management of wastes. In cooperation with the IAEA, continue to develop enhanced nuclear safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities, to ensure nuclear energy systems are used only peaceful purposes. Establish international supply frameworks to enhance reliable, costeffective fuel services and supplies to the world market, providing options for generation nuclear energy and fostering development while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation by creating a viable alternative to acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies. Develop, demonstrate, and in due course deploy advanced fast reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled spent fuel. Promote the development of advanced, more proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions. Develop and demonstrate, inter alia, advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel for deployment in facilities that do not separate pure plutonium, with a long term goal of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating stocks of separated civilian plutonium. Such advanced fuel cycle technologies, when available, would help substantially reduce nuclear waste, simplify its disposition and draw down inventories of civilian spent fuel in a safe, secure and proliferationresistant manner. Take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches for the efficient and responsible use of energy and natural resources. Other countries that share this vision will be welcome to participate.

227

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst
The GNEP requires that countries with nuclear capabilities share the technology with developing countries – under the condition it is used peacefully GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (US DoE), 2008. “The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,” http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/gnepOverview.pdf Under GNEP, a consortium of nations with advanced nuclear technologies would provide fuel and reactors that are appropriately sized for the grid and industry needs of other countries that agree to refrain from fuel cycle activities. By participating in GNEP, developing nations can enjoy the benefits of clean, safe nuclear power while minimizing proliferation concerns and eliminating the need for an expensive recycling infrastructure. In cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), participating nations would develop international agreements to ensure reliable access to nuclear fuel. Grid-appropriate reactors GNEP would call for a program to design, build, and export nuclear reactors that are cost effective, well suited to conditions in developing nations and scaled for small electricity grids. • Improved nuclear safeguards to enhance the proliferation-resistance and safety of expanded nuclear power A basic goal of GNEP is to make it nearly impossible to divert nuclear materials or misuse facilities without immediate detection; thus, an international safeguards program is key to every element of its implementation. The U.S. will continue to work closely with the IAEA and our international partners to ensure that civilian nuclear facilities are used only for peaceful purposes. Issues for the introduction of nuclear power: The U.S. has heard from a number of countries expressing interest in adding nuclear power to their energy mix to meet energy demands and increase energy security. Countries with developed nuclear power programs will have a responsibility to share their expertise on legal, regulatory, safety and security issues that pertain to the incorporation of nuclear power.

228

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

***Waste Disposal

229

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

Burial solves
Waste burial will prevent any exposure to radiation. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 [The Nuclear Energy Option, http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/nuclear/index.html] 1990
External irradiation by radioactive materials in the ground is also a lesser problem. Rock and soil are excellent shielding materials; while the waste remains buried, not a single particle of radiation from it can ever reach the surface (See Chapter 11 Appendix). Compare this with the 15,000 particles of radiation from natural sources that strike each of us every second. If radioactivity is released by groundwater, this shielding is still effective as long as it remains underground or dissolved in river water. If the radioactivity does somehow become deposited on the ground surface, it will soon be washed away or into the ground by rain. The great majority of the radiation is absorbed by building materials, clothing, or even the air. Thus, there would be relatively little exposure to the human body due to radiation originating from materials on the ground.

230

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

Sea disposal – solves
Sea disposal solves waste problems and won't hurt ocean ecosystems. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, [The Nuclear Energy Option, http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/nuclear/index.html] 1990
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to convert the waste into a glass — a technology that is well in hand — and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can claim that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.

231

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

Storage Solves – soil & water
Disposal measures solve soil or water contamination. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, Spring ["Radiation Pollution and Cancer," http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj2n1/cj2n1-8.pdf] 1982
When some people hear that nuclear waste must be carefully isolated for a few hundred years, they react with alarm. They point out that very few manmade structures and few of our political, economic, and social institutions can be expected to last for hundreds of years. Such worries stem from our experience on the surface of the earth, where most things are short-lived. However, 2,000 feet below the surface the environment is quite different. Things remain essentially unchanged for millions of years. The natural radioactivity in the ground is a good comparison. The ground is full of naturally radioactive materials so that by adding nuclear waste to it the total radioactivity in the top 2,000 feet of U.S. soil would increase by only one part per million per plant-year. Moreover, the radioactivity in the ground (except that very near the surface) does virtually no harm it can be shown that it causes less than one fatality every 10 years in the United States. Therefore, adding to it by one part in a millionwould not be a serious problem. Waste burial plans would delay the release of the waste to the environment for a very long time, thus giving near-perfect protection from the short-term problem. Under these plans, the rock formation chosen for burial will be well-isolated from ground water and be expected to remain isolated for a very long time. Also, if water did enter that rock formation, it would have to dissolve a reasonable fraction of the surrounding rock before reaching the waste. The least favorable situation for this factor would be if the waste were buried in a salt formation, because salt is readily dissolved in water. However, in the New Mexico area being considered for an experimental repository, if all the water now flowing through the ground were diverted through the salt formation, the quantities of salt are so vast and the amount of water so meager that it would take 100,000 years to dissolve the salt around the buried waste.

No contamination -- backfill protects waste. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, Spring ["Radiation Pollution and Cancer," http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj2n1/cj2n1-8.pdf] 1982
A third protection is the special backfill material surrounding the waste package. Clays selected for this purpose swell up to seal very tightly when wet, thereby keeping out any appreciable amount of water. These materials are also highly efficient filters; if ground water did get to the waste and dissolve some of it, these clays would filter the radioactive material out of solution before it could escape with the water.

Casings protect waste Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, Spring ["Radiation Pollution and Cancer," http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj2n1/cj2n1-8.pdf] 1982
Another safeguard is that the waste will be sealed in a corrosionresistant casing. Casing materials are available that would not be dissolved even if soaked in ground water for a million years. Also, the waste itself will be a rock-like material that would require thousands of years of soaking in water before dissolving. Ground water is more like a “dampness’’ than a “soaking,” thus dissolving things hundreds of times more slowly.

232

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

Storage solves – water & soil
Time delay solves any risk of contamination – it would take a million years for contaminated water to reach the surface. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, Spring ["Radiation Pollution and Cancer," http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj2n1/cj2n1-8.pdf] 1982
There is also a time delay. Ground water moves quite slowly, usually only inches per day, and ordinarily must travel many miles before reaching the surface from 2,000 feet underground. Hence, even if the dissolved radioactive material moved with the ground water, it would take about 1,000 years to reach the surface. Yet, there are processes by which the rock constantly filters the radioactive materials out of the ground water, causing it to migrate about a thousand times slower than the water itself, It would therefore take most of the radioactive materials a million years to reach the surface even if they were already dissolved in ground water. Most of the radioactive materials are highly insoluble under most geological conditions; thus, if they were in solution when the water encountered these conditions (chemically reducing, alkaline), they would precipitate out and form new rock material.

Radiation is easily detected – we would know if water was contaminated Bernard L. Cohen, Professor of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, Spring ["Radiation Pollution and Cancer," http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj2n1/cj2n1-8.pdf] 1982
Finally, if radioactivity did reach surface waters, it would be detected easily one millionth of the amounts that can be harmful are readily detected and measures could be taken to prevent it from getting into drinking water or food. With all these safeguards, it seems almost impossible for much harm to result during the first few hundred years while the waste is highly toxic, and there is substantial protection over the long term.
— —

233

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

Storage solves & carbon waste is worse
Disposal technology solves and carbon waste is worse anyway. Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director of the IAEA,
[http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2004/ebsp2004n001.html, European Parliament Conference: "Energy Choices for Europe," Nuclear Power: An Evolving Scenario] 3/2/2004 To visualize the waste issue, analysts sometimes note that the spent fuel produced from all the world’s reactors in a year — even without any being processed for re-use — would fit into a structure the size of a soccer field and 1.5 meters high. When this amount — 12 000 tonnes — is contrasted with the 25 billion tonnes of carbon waste released directly into the atmosphere every year from fossil fuels, the volume of spent nuclear fuel seems relatively small. Moreover, disposal technology is fully capable of stabilizing nuclear waste in the form of glass or ceramic, encasing it further in corrosion resistant containers, and isolating it geologically. Further research is underway that would use accelerator driven systems to reduce the volume and radio-toxicity of waste. And new research is being conducted on ways to ensure the retrievability of waste stored in repositories, to allow full use of future advances in technology.

234

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

Storage solves – safety
Storage systems are safe and effective. John Ritch, former US ambassador to the United Nations Organisation in Vienna, June [Australian Financial Review 26/3/99, IAEA Bulletin 41.2; "Nuclear Green"] 1999
THE FACT THAT modern reactors are immensely safe shifts attention to the question of nuclear waste. The myth is that, regardless of reactor safety, the resulting waste is an insoluble problem-a permanent and accumulating environmental hazard. The reality is that, of all energy forms capable of meeting the world's expanding needs, nuclear power yields the least and most easily managed waste. The challenge of climate protection arises precisely because it is fossil fuel consumption, not nuclear power, which presents an insoluble waste problem. The problem has two aspects: the huge volume of waste products, primarily gases and particulates; and the method of disposal, which is dispersion into the atmosphere. Neither seems subject to amelioration through technology. In contrast, nuclear waste is small in volume and subject to sound management. Most nuclear waste consists of relatively short-lived, low and intermediate level waste -annually, some 800 tonnes from an average reactor. Such waste can be handled safely through standard techniques of controlled burial or storage in near-surface facilities. Half of such waste comes from industrial and medical activities rather than from power production.

235

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

***Solvency

236

File Name DDI 2008 GT MKunst

AT Earthquakes
1. Nuclear Power plants are built to withstand strong earthquakes WNA (World Nuclear Association), 05/08 Nuclear Power Plants and Earthquakes, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf18.html [Benjamin Lopez] Japanese, and most other, nuclear plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earth movement, to shut down safely. In 1995, the closest nuclear power plants, some 110 km north of Kobe, were unaffected by the severe KobeOsaka earthquake, but in 2004, 2005 and 2007 Japanese reactors shut down automatically due to ground acceleration exceeding their trip settings. In 1999, three nuclear reactors shut down automatically during the Taiwan earthquake, and were restarted two days later. Design criteria Nuclear facilities are designed so that earthquakes and other external events will not jeopardise the safety of the plant. In France for instance, nuclear plants are designed to withstand an earthquake twice as strong as the 1000-year event calculated for each site. It is estimated that, worldwide, 20% of nuclear reactors are operating in areas of significant seismic activity. Because of the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in Japan, particular attention is paid to seismic issues in the siting, design and construction of nuclear power plants. The seismic design of such plants is based on criteria far more stringent than those applying to non-nuclear facilities. Power reactors are also built on hard rock foundations (not sediments) to minimise seismic shaking. Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand two specified earthquake intensities, S1 and S2. The plants are fitted with seismic detectors. If these register ground motions of a set level (S1), systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown.

2. GT-MHR’s solve – the passive safety system means no radioactive release can occur in the event of a natural disaster – that’s Pannera et al

237

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful