Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[14]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[14]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-11 05:07:49.844
	1	+2017-02-11 05:07:49.0

Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,42 @@
	1	+DA
	2	+
	3	+Hegemony is okay now, but presence and image is key. Wolf 9/27:
	4	+Martin Wolf, 9-27-2016, "How the west might soon be lost," Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/804537f6-83d2-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5.html?siteedition=intl Martin Wolf, CBE is a British journalist who focuses on economics. He is the associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times.
	5	+The US and its allies remains immensely powerful. But their economic dominance is in slow decline. According to the International Monetary Fund, the share of the high-income countries (essentially, the US and its chief allies) will fall from 64 per cent of global output (measured at purchasing power) in 1990 to 39 per cent in 2020, while the US share will fall from 22 per cent to 15 per cent over this period. While the US military might is still huge, two caveats must be made. One is that winning a conventional war is quite a different matter from achieving one’s aims on the ground, as the Vietnam and Iraq wars showed. Furthermore, China’s rapidly rising defence spending could create serious military difficulties for the US in the Asia-Pacific region. It follows that the ability of the US to shape the world to its liking will rest increasingly on its influence over the global economic and political systems. Indeed, this is not new. It has been a feature of US hegemony since the 1940s. But this is even more important today. The alliances the US‘s creates, the institutions it supports and the prestige it possesses are truly invaluable assets. All such strategic assets would be in grave peril if Mr Trump were to be president. The biggest contrast between the US and China is that the former has so many powerful allies. Even Vladimir Putin is not a reliable ally for China. America’s allies support the US largely because they trust it. That trust is based on its perceived commitment to predictable, values-based behaviour. Its alliances have not been problem-free, far from it. But they have worked. Mr Trump’s cherished unpredictability and transactional approach to partnerships would damage the alliances irreparably. A vital feature of the US-led global order has been the role of multilateral institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. In binding itself by the rules of an open economic system, the US has encouraged others to do the same. The result has been extraordinary growth in prosperity: between 1950 and 2015, average global real output per head rose sixfold. Mr Trump does not understand this system. The results of repudiation could be calamitous for all.
	6	+
	7	+Heg is impossible without naval dominance. Friedman 07:
	8	+Friedman, 07, George Writer for Stratfor "The Limitations and Necessity of Naval Power", Stratfor- Global Intelligence Reports, April 10th 2007, http://www.stratfor.com/limitations_and_necessity_naval_power
	9	+The argument for slashing the Navy can be tempting. But consider the counterargument. First, and most important, we must consider the crises the United States has not experienced. The presence of the U.S. Navy has shaped the ambitions of primary and secondary powers. The threshold for challenging the Navy has been so high that few have even initiated serious challenges. Those that might be trying to do so, like the Chinese, understand that it requires a substantial diversion of resources. Therefore, the mere existence of U.S. naval power has been effective in averting crises that likely would have occurred otherwise. Reducing the power of the U.S. Navy, or fine-tuning it, would not only open the door to challenges but also eliminate a useful, if not essential, element in U.S. strategy — the ability to bring relatively rapid force to bear. There are times when the Navy’s use is tactical, and times when it is strategic. At this moment in U.S. history, the role of naval power is highly strategic. The domination of the world’s oceans represents the foundation stone of U.S. grand strategy. It allows the United States to take risks while minimizing consequences. It facilitates risk-taking. Above all, it eliminates the threat of sustained conventional attack against the homeland. U.S. grand strategy has worked so well that this risk appears to be a phantom. The dispersal of U.S. forces around the world attests to what naval power can achieve. It is illusory to believe that this situation cannot be reversed, but it is ultimately a generational threat. Just as U.S. maritime hegemony is measured in generations, the threat to that hegemony will emerge over generations. The apparent lack of utility of naval forces in secondary campaigns, like Iraq, masks the fundamentally indispensable role the Navy plays in U.S. national security.
	10	+
	11	+Naval power is high now – the US’s large fleet is key to having the largest reach and dominance. Scout 9/21:
	12	+Staff, 9-21-2016, "5 Most Lethal Armies, Navies and Air Forces," Scout, http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1709199-5-most-lethal-armies-navies-and-air-forces
	13	+No other navy has the global reach of the U.S. Navy, which regularly operates in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa. The U.S. Navy also forward deploys ships to Japan, Europe and the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Navy has 288 battle force ships, of which typically a third are underway at any given time. The U.S. Navy has 10 aircraft carriers, nine amphibious assault ships, 22 cruisers, 62 destroyers, 17 frigates and 72 submarines. In addition to ships, the U.S. Navy has 3,700 aircraft, making it the second largest air force in the world. At 323,000 active and 109,000 personnel, it is also the largest navy in terms of manpower. What makes the U.S. Navy stand out the most is its 10 aircraft carriers—more than the rest of the world put together. Not only are there more of them, they’re also much bigger: a single Nimitz 3-class aircraft carrier 3 can carry twice as many planes (72) as the next largest foreign carrier. Unlike the air wings of other countries, which typically concentrate on fighters, a typical U.S. carrier air wing is a balanced package capable of air superiority, strike, reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions. The U.S. Navy’s 31 amphibious ships make it is the largest “gator” fleet in the world, capable of transporting and landing on hostile beaches. The nine amphibious assault ships of the Tarawa and Wasp 4 classes can carry helicopters to ferry troops or act as miniature aircraft carriers, equipped with AV-8B Harrier attack jets and soon F-35B fighter-bombers.
	14	+The 1AC has the history of floating nuclear power wrong – the US Navy uses nuclear power to fuel its ships – especially aircraft carriers. Stover 16:
	15	+Dawn Stover, 1 JUNE 2016, "Floating nuclear power plants: China is far from first," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/floating-nuclear-power-plants-china-far-first9522
	16	+
	17	+The American trailblazer. Nuclear reactors have already been used to power oceangoing vessels, of course, beginning with the USS Nautilus submarine in 1955. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are now more than 140 nuclear-powered ships in the world, including icebreakers and aircraft carriers as well as subs. The United States was the first country to build a floating nuclear power plant, theUSS Sturgis, which was launched in 1943 as a Navy transport ship but was repurposed in the 1960s with the installation of a 10-megawatt nuclear reactor in its hull. Dubbed the MH-1A (short for mobile, high power, first of its kind), the power plant was towed to the Panama Canal Zone in 1967, and until 1975 provided electricity for pumps that operated the locks. By that time, it required too much maintenance—and highly skilled technicians. It is currently being dismantled in Galveston, Texas.
	18	+
	19	+Nuclear power is key for the US Navy to remain dominant. Spencer and Baker 07’
	20	+Spencer, Jack, and Baker Spring. "The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 5 Nov. 2007. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
	21	+Unparalleled Flexibility. A nuclear surface ship brings optimum capability to bear. A recent study by the Navy found the nuclear option to be superior to conventional fuels in terms of surge ability, moving from one theater to another, and staying on station. Admiral Kirkland Donald, director of the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, said in recent congressional testimony, "Without the encumbrances of fuel supply logistics, our nuclear-powered warships can get to areas of interest quicker, ready to enter the fight, and stay on station longer then their fossil-fueled counterparts." High-Power Density. The high density of nuclear power, i.e., the amount of volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft, remote-operated and autonomous vehicles, and weapons. When compared to its conventional counterpart, a nuclear aircraft carrier can carry twice the amount of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons, and 300,000 cubic feet of additional space (which would be taken up by air intakes and exhaust trunks in gas turbine-powered carriers). This means that ships can get to station faster and deliver more impact, which will be critical to future missions. This energy supply is also necessary for new, power-intensive weapons systems like rail-guns and directed-energy weapons as well as for the powerful radar that the Navy envisions. Real-Time Response. Only a nuclear ship can change its mission and respond to a crisis in real-time. On September 11, 2001, the USS Enterprise~-~-then on its way home from deployment~-~-responded to news of the terrorist attacks by rerouting and entering the Afghan theater. Energy Independence. The armed forces have acknowledged the vulnerability that comes from being too dependent on foreign oil. Delores Etter,Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, said in recent congressional testimony, "We take seriously the strategic implications of increased fossil fuel independence." The Navy's use of nuclear propulsion for submarines and aircraft carriers already saves 11 million barrels of oil annually. Using nuclear propulsion for all future major surface combatants will make the Navy more energy independent. Survivability. U.S. forces are becoming more vulnerable as other nations become more technologically and tactically sophisticated. Expanding America's nuclear navy is critical to staying a step ahead of the enemy. A nuclear ship has no exhaust stack, decreasing its visibility to enemy detection; it requires no fuel supply line, assuring its ability to maneuver over long distances; and it produces large amounts of electricity, allowing it to power massive radars and new hi-tech weaponry. Superiority on the Seas. Policymakers have taken for granted the United States' superiority on the seas for many years. This has led to a decline in America's overall naval force structure and opened the door for foreign navies to potentially control critical blue-water regions. Expanding the nuclear navy will allow the United States to maintain its maritime superiority well into the 21st century.
	22	+Impacts:
	23	+
	24	+Hegemony prevents great power wars
	25	+Kagan, 2012, The World America Made, Brookings Institution, Robert, p. 90-91
	26	+One of the main causes of war throughout history has been a rough parity of power that leaves nations in doubt about who is stronger. Rough parity creates uncertainty about which power might prevail in war, which leads to a complex interaction of probes and posturing between the contending powers that greatly increase the likelihood of a genuine test to discover which is actually the more powerful. Wars tend to break out as a result of large-scale shifts in the power equation, when the upward trajectory of a rising power comes close to intersecting the downward trajectory of a declining power. The great miracle of the Cold War was that the United States and the Soviet Union never decided to test their relative strength, though there were times when they came dangerously close. There is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand. And it is no coincidence that scholars began talking about the impossibility of great-power conflict after the Cold War, when the United States suddenly enjoyed such a vast military superiority over every other potential challenger. Were that superiority to erode, the return of great-power competition would make great-power war more likely again.
	27	+
	28	+Great power wars are uniquely bad – causes over proliferation of nuclear weapons and leads to catastrophe. Varisco 13:
	29	+Andrea E. Varisco 13, Ph.D. candidate at the Post-War Reconstruction and Development Unit of the University of York, holds a Master in International Affairs, Peace and Conflict Studies specialisation from the Australian National University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo and a Master in Politics and Comparative Institutions from the University of Milano, 6/3/13, “Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?,” http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multi-polar-international-system-which-prospects-for-global-peace/
	30	+A return to multi-polarity will therefore imply more instability among great powers. But great power rivalry will not be the only source of possible instability for the future multi-polar world. The current distribution of power allows not only great powers but also middle, small powers and non-state actors to have military capabilities that could threaten the global security. In particular, the presence of nuclear weapons constitutes a further reason of concern and implies that the future world could carry not only the potential instability of multi-polarity and great powers rivalry, but also the dangers entailed in nuclear proliferation. The future multi-polar world will thus be potentially more unstable than all the other multi-polar periods history has experienced until nowadays: for the first time in history, the world could become both multi-polar and nuclear. While some scholars argue that nuclear deterrence “could reduce the war-proneness of the coming multi-polar system” (Layne, 44-45), the majority of them consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a source of instability (McNamara; Rosen; Allison). In particular, regional powers and states that are not great powers armed with nuclear capabilities could represent a cause of concern for global security. A nuclear Iran could for example attack – or be attacked – by Israel and easily involve in this war the rest of the world (Sultan; Huntley). A war between Pakistan and India, both nuclear states, could result in an Armageddon for the whole Asia. An attack from the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea (DPRK) on Japan or South Korea will trigger an immediate reaction from the US and “a nuclear proliferation ‘domino effect’ in East Asia” (Huntley, 725). Terrorists armed with nuclear weapons could wreak havoc and target the heart of the most powerful countries of the world (Bunn and Wier). Iran, Pakistan, DPRK, terrorist groups will rarely be great powers or poles in a future multi-polar world. Nevertheless, the effects of their actions could easily reverberate all over the globe and represent another cause of potential instability. For the first time in history, the stability of the future world will therefore depend not only on the unpredictable effects of the rivalry among great powers, but also on the dangerous potential of middle and small powers and non-state actors armed with nuclear weapons.
	31	+US hegemonic decline causes preventive war against China. Beckley 12:
	32	+
	33	+Beckley, 2012, International Security, Winter, vol. 36, #3, Tuft’s political science professor, Michael, p. 77-78
	34	+Another danger is that declinism may impair foreign policy decisionmaking. If top government officials come to believe that China is overtaking the United States, they are likely to react in one of two ways, both of which are potentially disastrous. The first is that policymakers may imagine the United States faces a closing “window of opportunity” and should take action “while it still enjoys preponderance and not wait until the diffusion of power has already made international politics more competitive and unpredictable.” This belief may spur positive action, but it also invites parochial thinking, reckless behavior, and preventive war. As Robert Gilpin and others have shown, “Hegemonic struggles have most frequently been triggered by fears of ultimate decline and the perceived erosion of power.” By fanning such fears, declinists may inadvertently promote the type of violent overreaction that they seek to prevent.
	35	+
	36	+US-China conflict increases the risk of nuclear war
	37	+Ong-Webb, 2009, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, May, PhD Research Student, King’s College, London, Graham Gerard, p. 815
	38	+Because both sides field nuclear forces as vital instruments of their national security, growing Sino-US strategic rivalry stands to affect international peace and stability on a scale that non-nuclear inter-state relationships do not. The possibility of nuclear conflict between these and other major powers armed with nuclear weapons cannot be left to chance. (p. 815)
	39	+
	40	+US-China war will cause extinction
	41	+Wittner, 2011, Huffington Post, COMMENTARY: Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?, November 28, Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany; Lawrence, p. http://www.huntingtonnews.net/14446
	42	+Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-11 05:07:51.381

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+14

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Christopher Columbus Navarrete Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1- SEPTOCT Navy DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Holy Cross