Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[20]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[19]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[20]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-02 19:54:03.675
	1	+2017-01-02 19:54:03.0

Caselist.CitesClass[19]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,71 @@
	1	+WE HAVE REACHED A BREAKING POINT. Nuclear power has damaged the wellbeing of healthy people and broke apart sacred indigenous cultures and lands. It’s time for us to speak up and take a stand.
	2	+
	3	+Thus I affirm, I value morality because the resolution asks what ought to be done
	4	+
	5	+The criterion is maximizing quality of life, there are two main justifications for this
	6	+
	7	+First, the obligation of the state is to protect citizen’s interests—individual obligations aren’t applicable in the public sphere.
	8	+Goodin 95. Philosopher of Political Theory, Public Policy, and Applied Ethics. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995. p. 26-7, 1-2-16
	9	+The great adventure of utilitarianism as a guide to public conduct is that it avoids gratuitous sacrifices, it ensures as best we are able to ensure in the uncertain world of public policy-making that policies are sensitive to people’s interests or desires or preferences. The great failing of more deontology theories, applied to those realms, is that they fixate upon duties done for the sake of duty rather than for the sake of any good that is done by doing one’s duty. Perhaps it is permissible (perhaps it is even proper) for private individuals in the course of their personal affairs to fetishize duties done for their own sake. It would be a mistake for public officials to do likewise, not least because it is impossible. The fixation on motives makes absolutely no sense in the public realm, and might make precious little sense in the private one even, as Chapter 3 shows. The reason public action is required at all arises from the inability of uncoordinated individual action to achieve certain morally desirable ends. Individuals are rightly excused from pursuing those ends. The inability is real; the excuses, perfectly valid. But libertarians are right in their diagnosis, wrong in their prescription. That is the message of Chapter 2. The same thing that makes those excuses valid at the individual level – the same thing that relieves individuals of responsibility – makes it morally incumbent upon individuals to organize themselves into collective units that are capable of acting where they as isolated individuals are not. When they organize themselves into these collective units, those collective deliberations inevitably take place under very different circumstances and their conclusions inevitably take very different forms. Individuals are morally required to operate in that collective manner, in certain crucial respects. But they are practically circumscribed in how they can operate, in their collective mode. And those special constraints characterizing the public sphere of decision-making give rise to the special circumstances that make utilitarianism peculiarly apt for public policy-making, in ways set out more fully in Chapter 4. Government house utilitarianism thus understood is, I would argue, a uniquely defensible public philosophy.
	10	+
	11	+Second, questions of public policy should be judged through a consequentialist lens.
	12	+Woller 97, A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10
	13	+Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical way sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. At best, a priori moral principles provide only general guidance to ethical dilemmas in public affairs and do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and at worst, they create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse. For example, a moral obligation to preserve the environment by no means implies the best way, or any way for that matter, to do so, just as there is no a priori reason to believe that any policy that claims to preserve the environment will actually do so. Any number of policies might work, and others, although seemingly consistent with the moral principle, will fail utterly. That deontological principles are an inadequate basis for environmental policy is evident in the rather significant irony that most forms of deontologically based environmental laws and regulations tend to be implemented in a very utilitarian manner by street-level enforcement officials. Moreover, ignoring the relevant costs and benefits of environmental policy and their attendant incentive structures can, as alluded to above, actually work at cross purposes to environmental preservation. (There exists an extensive literature on this aspect of regulatory enforcement and the often perverse outcomes of regulatory policy. See, for example, Ackerman, 1981; Bartrip and Fenn, 1983; Hawkins, 1983, 1984; Hawkins and Thomas, 1984.) Even the most die-hard preservationist/deontologist would, I believe, be troubled by this outcome. The above points are perhaps best expressed by Richard Flathman, The number of values typically involved in public policy decisions, the broad categories which must be employed and above all, the scope and complexity of the consequences to be anticipated militate against reasoning so conclusively that they generate an imperative to institute a specific policy. It is seldom the case that only one policy will meet the criteria of the public interest (1958, p. 12). It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient.
	14	+
	15	+Contention 1: Nuclear Colonialism
	16	+
	17	+The legacy of nuclear colonialism is a legacy of systematic exploitation, destroying native culture and land.
	18	+Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103
	19	+Before attending to the rhetorical nature of nuclear colonialism, it is important to emphasize the scope and material effects of nuclear technologies on indigenous peoples and their lands. This is a history of systematic oppression and resistance, spanning from the 1940s to present. As the Indigenous Environmental Network writes, the nuclear industry has waged a war against our Indigenous peoples and Pacific Islanders that has poisoned our communities worldwide. For more than 50 years, the legacy of the nuclear chain, from exploration to the dumping of radioactive waste has been proven, through documentation, to be genocide and a deadly enemy of Indigenous peoples. ... United States federal law and nuclear policy has not protected Indigenous peoples, and in fact has been created to allow the nuclear industry to continue operations at the expense of our land, territory, health and traditional ways of life. ... This disproportionate toxic burden*called environmental racism*has culminated in the current attempts to dump much of the nation’s nuclear waste in the homelands of the Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin region of the United States.4 From an indigenous perspective, the material consequences of nuclear colonialism have affected the vitality of indigenous peoples. This can be seen clearly in both uranium mining and nuclear testing. Uranium mining is inextricably linked with indigenous peoples. According to LaDuke, ‘‘some 70 percent of the world’s uranium originates from Native Communities.’’5 Within the US, approximately 66 percent of the known uranium deposits are on reservation land, as much as 80 percent are on treaty-guaranteed land, and up to 90 percent of uranium mining and milling occurs on or adjacent to American Indian land.6 To support the federal government’s desire for nuclear weapons and power production, the Bureau of Indians Affairs (BIA) has worked in collusion with the Atomic Energy Commission and corporations such as Kerr-McGee and United Nuclear to negotiate leases with Navajo, Lakota and other nations for uranium mining and milling on their land between the 1950s to the present.7 BIAnegotiated leases are supported by the complex body of Indian Law, which I will demonstrate enables federal intrusion into American Indian lands and governmental affairs. These leases are heavily tilted in favor of the corporations so that American Indian nations received only about 3.4 percent of the market value of the uranium and low paid jobs.8 Uranium mining has also resulted in severe health and environmental legacies for affected American Indian people and their lands. From uranium mining on Navajo land, there have been at least 450 reported cancer deaths among Navajo mining employees.9 Even now, the legacy of over 1000 abandoned mines and uranium tailing piles is radioactive dust that continues to put people living near tailing piles at a high risk for lung cancer.10
	20	+
	21	+Nuclear power production disproportionately harms Native Americans because of their “land-linked” lifestyles
	22	+Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103
	23	+The history of exploitation and resistance continues with nuclear weapons production. As nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani argues, ‘‘all too often such damage has been done to ethnic minorities or on colonial lands or both. The main sites for testing nuclear weapons for every declared nuclear power are on tribal or minority lands.’’11 From 1951 to 1992, over 900 nuclear weapons tests were conducted on a Nevada test site which is actually land claimed by the Western Shoshone Tribe under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. The late Western Shoshone spiritual leader Corbin Harney proclaimed Western Shoshone to be ‘‘the most nuclear bombed nation in the world.’’12 According to Western Shoshone Virginia Sanchez, indigenous people may have suffered more radiation exposure because of their land-linked lifestyle of ‘‘picking berries, hunting and gathering our traditional foods,’’ resulting in ‘‘major doses of radiation.’’13 Yet, the federal government and legal system have made only token gestures toward compensating victims of nuclear testing. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) has strict qualification guidelines that have excluded many downwinders from receiving compensation.14 In addition to the effects on human health from nuclear testing, there is also an environmental toll through contaminated soil and water, which could harm animal and plant life.15
	24	+
	25	+Official documents are illegitimate, written by colonizers to suppress the voices of Native Americans.
	26	+Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103
	27	+In addition to outlining a decision calculus that shifts the burden of proof in a way that makes it impossible to offer a counterargument that would outweigh the national interest, the site recommendation report also ignores American Indian arguments when it outlines and responds to the ‘‘principal arguments’’ against the site. The third strategy of nuclear colonialism explains how indigenous voices can be suppressed in official documents. In Sanchez, Stuckey and Morris’ conception, rhetorical exclusion is expressed through specific defining practices that label American Indians as threatening and already guilty.74 However, I argue that rhetorical exclusion can also be achieved through the strategic use of silence. Strategic silence acts as a form of rhetorical exclusion when silence is used by a group with power over another group as a way to exclude their voices or arguments. This way of defining strategic silence is different from Robin Clair’s notion of silence as an act of resistance by marginalized groups.75 It is also different from Barry Brummett’s articulation of strategic silence as an unexpected response that rhetorically calls attention to the silence.76 The Yucca Mountain case reveals that strategic silence can also be used to continue the silencing of an already silenced group by drawing attention away from the silence. This form of strategic silence works best when there is general lack of understanding among the public about the issue or group being silenced. For example, using strategic silence to exclude American Indian arguments against the Yucca Mountain site is enabled by the colonizer’s version of history that emphasizes that American Indians were defeated and have all been assimilated into ‘‘American’’ culture. As stated by Derek Buescher and Kent Ono, ‘‘contemporary culture masks the continuing lived history of people disenfranchised by colonialism by failing to acknowledge colonialism’s presence in the US today.’
	28	+
	29	+Contention 2: Environment
	30	+
	31	+Nuclear power puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all other energy sources today
	32	+W.I.L.P.F. 7 Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom (), October 2007; WILPF is part of the international women’s peace organization established in 1915 to 'bring together women of different political beliefs and philosophies who are united in their determination to study, make known and help abolish the causes and the legitimization of war'. There are WILPF groups in 42 countries including the U.S.; http://www.wilpf.org.au/PDFs/Nuclear_Awareness_WILPF_2007.pdf
	33	+Large amounts of electricity, petrol/diesel, and water are consumed in the mining and processing of uranium to generate nuclear fuel. Essentially a nuclear reactor is a very expensive way to boil water. The actual nuclear reactor may not produce any green house gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are significant amounts of CO2 produced in the mining and transport of the ore to the reactor., e.g. Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) using 729 million liters of water a day from the Artesian Basin. This water becomes radioactive and toxic. The problem of waste disposal from mining and processing as well as from the reactor is very large and so far unsolved. After the current expansion of BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs), it is expected that 1 tonne of radioactive tailings will be produced every second, and 10 million tonnes of tailing are produced annually. It is stored at the mine but there are no long-term treatment and management plans for how to deal with this contaminated mining waste. There are no solutions for dealing with spent fuel rods and other high-level radioactive waste generated from the nuclear cycle.
	34	+
	35	+Drought will prevent nuclear power from working, water resources are already too scarce to waste.
	36	+AP 8(“Drought Could Shut Down Nuclear Plants” MITCH WEISS, Jan 23, http://news.aol.com/story/_a/drought-could-shut-down-nuclear-plants/20080123164209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)–
	37	+Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate. Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer. "Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis." Analysis of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants' turbines.
	38	+
	39	+Contention 3: Economy
	40	+
	41	+Although current nuclear plants are expanding to meet current needs new reactors need to be built to meet future energy needs
	42	+Fertel 4 (Marvin, Senior VP and chief Nuclear officer at Nuclear energy Institute, March 4,2004, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)
	43	+As our country prepares for the construction of new nuclear power plants, the U.S. industry has increased the productivity and efficiency of its existing 103 plants. The industry continues to uprate capacity at U.S. plants—the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized more than 2,000 megawatts (MW) of power uprates over the last three years, and another 2,000 MW are expected over the next several years. An uprate increases the output of the nuclear reactor and must be approved by the NRC to ensure that the plant can operate safely at the higher production level. Companies will invest in these power uprates as conditions in their local power markets justify.  In addition, energy companies are pursuing renewal of their operating licenses. This option allows today’s operating plants to extend their lives for 20 additional years—from 40 to 60 years. Just in the past 12 months, the NRC has approved renewed licenses for 13 reactors, bringing the total number of reactors extending their federal operating licenses to 23. An additional 33 reactors either have already filed their renewal applications, or indicated formally to NRC that they intend to do so. That represents over one-half of U.S. reactors. We expect virtually all our nuclear plants will renew their licenses—simply because it makes good economic sense to do so. With license renewal, our first plants will operate until the 2030s and our newest plants will run past 2050. As an industry, we’ve implemented systematic programs across the industry to manage the systems and components in these plants for their entire expected lifetime. And we’re making the capital investments necessary to allow 60 years of operation at sustained high levels of safety and reliability. Increasing electricity production at nuclear power plants is a key component of the president’s voluntary program to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy. In December 2002, NEI responded to President Bush’s challenge to the business community to develop voluntary initiatives that would reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of the U.S. economy. NEI indicated that the U.S. nuclear energy industry could increase its generating capability by the equivalent of 10,000 MW. NEI’s analysis showed that this would achieve approximately 20 percent of the president’s goal. The additional 10,000 MW would come from three sources: Power Uprates—5,000 to 6,500 MW of capacity additions between 2002 and 2012. Improved Capacity Factors—the equivalent of 3,000 to 5,000 MW of additional capacity in 2002-2012. Plant Restarts—refurbishing and restarting Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry Unit 1 would add 1,250 MW. The nuclear energy industry has recorded substantial progress toward its goal. The NRC has approved 2,198 MW of uprates in the past several years. In addition, based on information from nuclear plant operators, the NRC expects applications for an additional 1,886 MW of uprates in the 2004-2008 period. 5 In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is moving forward with refurbishment of Unit 1 of the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant. The TVA Board in May 2002 approved the refurbishment and restart, a $1.8-billion project that is expected to return the reactor to commercial operation in 2007. Browns Ferry Unit 1 is not a new construction reactor, but its comprehensive refurbishment and restart, when complete, will represent a significant accomplishment for the industry. With 5,334 MW of new capacity in prospect (4,084 megawatts of uprates and 1,250 MW at Browns Ferry Unit 1), the nuclear energy industry will be approximately halfway toward meeting its goal of expanding capacity by 10,000 megawatts by 2012. This represents substantial progress—the largest progress of any single industry—toward achievement of the president’s goal to reduce the GHG intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by 2012. Obviously, there are limits on how much additional electricity output can be produced at the existing 103 nuclear power plants. Meeting the nation’s growing demand for electricity—which will require as much as 400,000 MW by 2025, depending on assumptions about electricity demand growth6 —will require construction of several new nuclear power plants in the years ahead.
	44	+
	45	+Nuclear power would be costly and crush the economy
	46	+Rifkin 6 (Jeremy, founder and president of the Foundation of Economic Trends and the author of “The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth”, “Nuclear Energy: Still a bad idea”, Los Angeles Time, September 29, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm)
	47	+
	48	+First, nuclear power is unaffordable. With minimum price tags of $2 billion each, new-generation nuclear power plants are 50 more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants. The cost of doubling nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation — which currently produces 20 of our electricity — could exceeds half a trillion dollars. In a country facing record consumer and government debt, where is the money going to come from? Consumers would pay the price in terms of higher taxes to support government subsidies and higher electricity bills. Second, 60 years = our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. In the United States, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that the underground storage facility will leak. According to a study conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2001, known uranium resources could fail to meet demand, possibly as early as 2026. Of course, new deposits could be discovered, and it is possible that new technological breakthroughs could reduce uranium requirements, but that remains purely speculative.
	49	+
	50	+Contention 4: Health
	51	+
	52	+Nuclear waste sites will inevitably create health problems for future generations.
	53	+Brook 98 Daniel, “Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1, Jan., pp. 105-113, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3487423.pdf
	54	+
	55	+Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that virtually every landfill leaks, and every incinerator emits hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concedes that "even if the protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually leak poisons into the environment" (ibid.). Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation-a rather dubious proposition at best-they will pose an increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations. Native people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which corporate executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way, private corporations are able to externalize their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health, safety, and the environment.
	56	+
	57	+Radiation can result in cancers and death.
	58	+WNA 2 (“Radiation and Life”, http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm)
	59	+
	60	+It has been known for many years that large doses of ionising radiation, very much larger than background levels, can cause a measurable increase in cancers and leukemias ('cancer of the blood') after some years delay. It must also be assumed, because of experiments on plants and animals, that ionising radiation can also cause genetic mutations that affect future generations, although there has been no evidence of radiation-induced mutation in humans. At very high levels, radiation can cause sickness and death within weeks of exposure - see Table. The degree of damage caused by radiation depends on many factors - dose, dose rate, type of radiation, the part of the body exposed, age and health, for example. Embryos including the human fetus are particularly sensitive to radiation damage. But what are the chances of developing cancer from low doses of radiation? The prevailing assumption is that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possibility of risk to human health.
	61	+
	62	+Contention 5: Nuclear Weapons
	63	+
	64	+Nuclear power would be an easy way to spread terrorism further in the Middle East.
	65	+Rifkin 6 (Jeremy, founder and president of the Foundation of Economic Trends and the author of “The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth”, “Nuclear Energy: Still a bad idea”, Los Angeles Time, September 29, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm)
	66	+Fourth, building hundreds of nuclear power plants in an era of spreading Islamic terrorism seems insane. On the one hand the United States, the European Union and much of the world is frightened by the mere possibility that just one country — Iran — might use enriched uranium from its nuclear power plants for a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, many of the same governments are eager to spread nuclear power plants around the world, placing them in every nook and cranny of the planet. This means uranium and spent nuclear waste in transit everywhere and piling up in makeshift facilities, often close to heavily populated urban areas. Nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On Nov. 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested 18 suspected Islamic terrorists who were allegedly plotting to blow up Australia's only nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities. We should all be very.
	67	+
	68	+Proliferation is inevitable with nuclear power. This could ultimately lead to full scale nuclear conflict.
	69	+Digges 8 (Charles. Author at The Environmental Foundation Bellona, “Nuclear energy not an alternative for fight on Climate Change.” 10.01.2008.) http://www.bellona.org/position_papers/nonuke_bellonaposition
	70	+
	71	+The nuclear relationship between Russia and Iran is a prescient example of corporate or governmental greed running roughshod over nonproliferation concerns. By building a $1 billion reactor in Iran’s port of Bushehr, Russia opened a Pandora’s Box of nuclear technology for Iran, which has developed uranium enrichment to a level that puts it, by IAEA estimates, within two to 10 years of building a nuclear weapon. For its part, France is underwriting the construction of a nuclear power plant in Libya, and actively encourages nuclear development in the Middle East. The relationship between the basic infrastructure of the fuel cycle and the eventual development of nuclear weapons technology is a well-worn path. Quite simply, any nuclear fuel cycle facility such as a uranium enrichment facility or a reprocessing facility can be used, if built in sufficient sizes, to produce nuclear weapons. Where the worldwide nuclear fuel cycle to expand to the dimensions needed to even begin cutting CO2 emissions and meet energy needs, the development of nuclear weapons – the world’s single geopolitical doomsday devices - would be possible virtually everywhere. The corporate interests of spreading nuclear technology thereby put the most feared technologies in direct proximity to many nations who have established ties to terrorist organizations. Cheap energy then becomes inestimable loss of life and reconstruction costs when viewed in light of the ever more likely possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack, or even the heightened chances of a full blown nuclear war. With the global concerns about nuclear proliferation in places such as North Korea and Iran, development of nuclear power globally is untenable given the existence of perfectly acceptable, renewable and non-weapons usable energy technologies. And while certain very specific disarmament agreements – like the Cooperative Threat Reduction act between Russia and the United States have stemmed this spiral between the two Cold War foes, larger-scale treaties, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are under constant challenge. Written with the aim of pressing its nuclear-armed signatories toward disarmament, while holding its non-nuclear armed nuclear energy producing nations to the agreement not to build nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been particularly

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-02 19:54:05.311

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Ashveer Singh

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Bradley Tech SD

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+20

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Appleton East Moorhead Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT- Shitstorm AC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lakeland