Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[17]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[17]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-21 03:12:43.574
	1	+2016-09-21 03:12:43.0

Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,29 @@
	1	+American attempts to control Japanese nuclear power reify US imperialism – only the US has the capability of having nuclear power and Japan is inferior. Broinowski ‘15
	2	+Adam Broinowski - an Australian Research Council postdoctoral research fellow at the school of Culture, History and Language in the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. “Nuclear Imperialism.” Palgrave Macmillan. 8/10/2015. file:///Users/Jaya/Downloads/Nuclear_Imperialism.pdfJN ‘20
	3	+Another client state and one of the first to sign up to the American nuclear model was Japan. Often described as a Faustian bargain, with the aid of US agencies during the Occupation period and after (1945–52), the case for the peaceful uses of nuclear power exploited received ideas about the causes of Imperial Japan’s humiliating defeat – energy scarcity and superior American technology. Widely broadcast through national and local outlets including the Asahi, Chugoku, Mainichi, Nihon Keizai and Yomiuri newspapers (Takekawa 2012), for many, atomic energy was the ‘third fire’ which heralded a ‘second industrial revolution’. In order to transition Japan into a nuclear client, the US narrative of ‘the Japanese’ had to be reversed from fanatical and undivided devotees of Imperial Japan to model students of American democracy. Imbricated with Harry S. Truman’s ‘Campaign for Truth’ offensive against communism in 1950, a precedent of collaborating with high officials in the Japanese wartime regime selected for their potential as intelligence assets (including former secret police, biological and nuclear weapons researchers, mafia leaders) was established to contain the influence of the USSR. Practised by the US Embassy, US Information Service (USIS) and CIA after 1952, individuals such as Shōriki Matsutaro became ideal collaborators in overcoming Japanese society’s so-called ‘nuclear allergy’ and undermining the political left. Resuming his position as editor in chief of the Yomiuri shinbun after a stint at Sugamo prison as a suspected war criminal, Shōriki actively encouraged peaceful nuclear power as an apparently neutral opportunity for Japan to overcome its pariah status and renew itself as the technoscientific-industrial powerhouse of Asia. His influence expanded when he founded the commercial station Nippon Television in 1953 (with Shibata Hidetoshi as director), which broadcast the first professional all Japan baseball game. At the urging of a young Nakasone Yasuhiro recently returned from the US, a significant nuclear research and development budget was passed in 1953 and General Electric reactor blueprints for local manufacturing were acquired in 1954. At this critical juncture, in March 1954, when the path was laid for a nuclear-powered future, 23 Japanese fishermen on the Daigo Fukuryūmaru, among other fishing vessels and fish caught from the area, were exposed to the 15 megaton ‘Bravo shot’ hydrogen bomb test as part of Operation Castle on Bikini atoll. By the time the ship returned to port in Japan, one fisherman had died and the others had advanced symptoms of acute radiation sickness. Petitions by citizens of Tokyo and local governments saw the collection of 32 million signatures nationwide and 600 million worldwide by August 1954. Stout resistance from a nascent anti-nuclear movement led by the political left and trade unions converged in the first World Conference against Atomic and Hydrogen bombs in Hiroshima in 1955. The foundations for a ‘plutonium economy’ were already underway, however. Known as the ‘1955 system’, in that year the LDP (Jimintō) was founded, the Yomiuri cosponsored the Atoms for Peace exhibition in November, the US-Japan Atomic Energy Agreement was signed in December, and the Atomic Energy Basic Law was passed to found the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) in January 1956. Shôriki was appointed minister of atomic energy, chair of the JAEC, and head of the Science and Technology Agency. With Kishi Nobusuke, another rehabilitated war criminal, leading the LDP to victory in 1957, a pro-nuclear, pro-American conservative policy platform became the bedrock for extending and projecting US imperial policies throughout ‘free Asia’, in the name of containing communism. Seeing nuclear weapons as a way to stem the ‘human sea’ tactics of communist powers, Kishi stated that it was not unconstitutional to acquire tactical nuclear weapons in the defence of the nation and to (re)gain power in East Asia (Office of Intelligence Research 1957: 2). Along with the bad old days of the Japanese Empire, living memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were buried beneath the foundations of the new nation state.
	4	+Nuclear power is bound up with the global politics of nuclear weapons security – the aff is an instance where nuclear weapons states can perpetuate their power against non weapons states. Chung 14
	5	+CHUNG, ALEX H. "Postcolonial Perspectives on Nuclear Non-Proliferation." (2014).TF
	6	+
	7	+Nuclear weapons were introduced to the world over 65 years ago by the United States with¶ the purpose of winning a war against the Axis powers of Japan and Germany (Daadler and¶ Lodal 2008, p. 80). The destructive nature of nuclear weapons presents a tremendous¶ existential threat to the safety and security of the world. In the words of Rajiv Gandhi,¶ addressing the UN General Assembly on 9 June 1988, “Nuclear war will not mean the death¶ of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four¶ thousand million: the end of life as we know it on our planet earth,” (Shultz et al. 2007, p. 2).¶ Accordingly, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of nuclear¶ weapons, as the most universally accepted arms control agreement with 189 state members,¶ by recognising five Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) – the US, Russia, China, France, and¶ Britain (Peterson 2010). In return for the promise by all NWS states to completely disarm,¶ and assistance in the acquisition of civilian nuclear energy technology, all Non-Nuclear¶ Weapon States (NNWS) forever forego obtaining nuclear weapons, thereby preventing¶ horizontal proliferation with the stated goal of complete global nuclear disarmament¶ (Gusterson 1999, p. 113). It is significant to note that international institutions such as the¶ UN and the nuclear non-proliferation regime “are largely the product of interstate diplomacy¶ dominated by Western great powers,” (Barkawi and Laffey 2006, p. 331). The five NWS states¶ also hold the five permanent member seats on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC),¶ leading some to criticise the NPT for legitimising and institutionalising nuclear power at the¶ hands of the very few, and at the same time prohibiting the pursuit of nuclear security by the¶ rest of the world (Biswas 2001, p. 486; Biswas, forthcoming 2012). While there have been symbolic reductions in the nuclear stockpiles of the NWS states via bilateral and multilateral¶ treaties, the indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT in 1995 continues to legitimise¶ the existence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the NWS/P-5, allowing them to modernise¶ their nuclear arsenals, and engage in vertical nuclear proliferation without interference from¶ the international community (Singh 1998, p. 41).¶ The exclusive nature of the NPT and the alignment of NWS status with the UNSC P-5 is¶ indicative of an international regime that perpetuates logics of colonial violence, oppression,¶ and inequity as represented by the emblematic clash between nuclear “haves” and nuclear¶ “have-nots” (Biswas 2001, p. 486; Peterson 2010). As such, the institutionalised demarcation¶ of NWS and NNWS states has led to accusations of “nuclear apartheid” (Biswas 2001, p.¶ 486; Singh 1998, p. 48). Put simply, “nuclear apartheid” highlights the material inequalities¶ in the distribution of global nuclear resources – “inequities that are written into,¶ institutionalised, and legitimised through some of the major arms-control treaties, creating an¶ elite club of nuclear ‘haves’ with exclusive rights to maintain nuclear arsenals that are to be¶ denied to the vast majority of nuclear ‘have nots’,” (Biswas 2001, p. 486). This is evidenced¶ by the United States having “worked diligently to preserve its nuclear supremacy” since¶ 1945; by attempting to keep the nuclear “secret” in perpetuity, by limiting America’s¶ European allies’ ability to command atomic weapons independently, and endeavouring,¶ unsuccessfully, to keep the Middle East and South Asia free of nuclear weapons (Maddock¶ cited in Rotter 2011, p. 1175).
	8	+
	9	+This justifies exploitation of nations we view as other – this logic is genocidal and racist. Nuclear power is key because it allows us to ignore other countries as technologically inferior. Chung 14
	10	+CHUNG, ALEX H. "Postcolonial Perspectives on Nuclear Non-Proliferation." (2014).TF
	11	+
	12	+Unlike neorealists, liberals do not entirely disregard the existence of ‘weak’ states, but they¶ are merely of interest, “primarily as bearers of rights and objects of emancipation…for their¶ normative value in Western political theoretic terms,” (Barkawi and Laffey 2006, p. 333).¶ Whereas “realist approaches to security studies are Eurocentric in that they locate agency and¶ history with the great powers,” liberal approaches are equally Eurocentric, in addition to¶ defining the West “in ethical and progressive terms,” (Barkawi and Laffey 2006, p. 340). In¶ the Western imagination, discourse on nuclear proliferation is deeply entrenched in relation¶ to the Third World, dividing the world into states that can be trusted with nuclear weapons¶ and those that cannot (Gusterson 1999, p. 113). Liberals and conservatives alike hold the¶ following orthodox belief: “the proliferation of nuclear weapons to nuclear-threshold states in¶ the Third World, especially the Islamic world, would be enormously dangerous,” (Gusterson¶ 1999, p. 112). Nuclear apartheid is justified in the liberal mindset, since western democracies¶ have the moral imperative and ethical superiority to impose their will for the good of the¶ ‘other’. Edward Said asserts that Orientalist discourse demarcates the world in a binary opposition¶ that presents the ‘Orient’ as the mirror image of the West, “where ‘we’ are rational and¶ disciplined; ‘they are impulsive and emotional; where ‘we’ are modern and flexible, ‘they’¶ are slaves to ancient passions and routines; where ‘we’ are honest and compassionate, ‘they’¶ are treacherous and uncultivated,” (Gusterson 1999, p. 114). This Orientalist process has an¶ effect of creating an immense sense of ‘Otherness’ separating the Third World from liberal¶ Western democracies, thereby rationalising and internalising a sense of liberal ‘superiority’¶ (Gusterson 1999, p. 114). Empirically, this construct of ethical superiority in the liberal West¶ requires Orwellian self-delusion. As purported by Barkawi and Laffey (2006, p. 341), the¶ Holocaust presents a challenge to the liberal faith in the “Western myths of progress and¶ ethical superiority.” To maintain the Western belief in liberal superiority, the “sins of¶ Western civilisation” are displaced “onto an intrusive non-European Other…Germany, that¶ quintessentially Western society, somehow becomes not Western,” (Barkawi and Laffey 2006,¶ p. 341). Furthermore, the brutal and barbaric slaughter and loss of life amongst ‘natives’ was¶ a normative feature of European colonisation and expansion into the non-European world¶ (Barkawi and Laffey 2006, p. 343). As observed by Sven Lindqvist, “the Holocaust was¶ unique – in Europe. But the history of Western expansion in other parts of the world shows¶ many examples of total extermination of whole peoples,” (Barkwai and Laffey 2006, p. 343).¶ Liberal ideology legitimates domination over the Global South. This can be observed via¶ liberal Western discourse on nuclear proliferation as it “legitimates the nuclear monopoly of¶ the recognised nuclear powers,” (Gusterson 1999, p. 115). Much like neorealism, rationality¶ and objectivity is arbitrarily assigned to the West, while the Global South or ‘Third World’ is¶ considered to be subjective, irrational, or even ‘rogue’ and therefore incapable of the¶ responsibility of a nuclear arsenal. The inherent Eurocentricism in liberal ideology directly¶ results in a “taken-for-granted politics that sides with the rulers, with the powerful, with the¶ imperialists, and not with the downtrodden, the weak, the colonised, or the post-colonised,”¶ (Barkawi and Laffey 2006, p. 344)¶ For example, Iran has been demonised by the United States since the Iranian Revolution in¶ 1979, when citizens of the Islamic Republic laid siege to the US embassy compound in¶ Tehran, and took fifty-two American hostages for 444 days (Zenko 2012). Their suspected¶ nuclear weapons program and alleged sponsorship of terrorism have deemed them a ‘rogue¶ state’ (BBC 2001; Munoz 2012). US President Obama issued a warning to Iran in a¶ September 2012 speech to the UN General Assembly, stating unequivocally, “The United¶ States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon…It would¶ threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations and the stability of the global¶ economy,” (ABC News 2012). North Korea, an NPT non-signatory and nuclear state is¶ perceived to pursue “alien objectives which are normative anathema to the rest of the¶ ‘civilised’ international system,” leading to the assumption that the North Korean state is¶ acting fundamentally outside the norms of the global community, and is therefore clearly a¶ “rogue state” (Smith 2000, p. 115). Nicholas Eberstadt wrote that, “the North Korean¶ regime is the North Korean nuclear problem,” (Smith 2000, p. 118). These Eurocentric and racist assumptions in liberal IR theory have led to obvious and¶ problematic ‘double standards’ and inequities in the treatment of non-Western states,¶ exacerbated by the existing Northern dominated nuclear non-proliferation regime. While¶ Iran has suffered debilitating economic sanctions over suspicions of an unconfirmed¶ clandestine nuclear weapons program, Israel, one of only four NPT non-signatories, and the¶ sole state in the Middle East that actually possesses nuclear weapons, has remained free from¶ any meaningful, significant, or even symbolic international oversight (Steinbach 2011, p. 34).¶ Warren Kozak (2012) epitomises the unashamed and blatant Eurocentricism of the liberal¶ Western perspective on the issue of nuclear proliferation:¶ “Few people lost a wink of sleep over the American nuclear monopoly in the 1940sand¶ when the Saudis or Syrians or Egyptians have turned off their lights over the past¶ half-century, the last worry on their minds has been being blown to bits by an Israeli¶ nuclear bomb…the sound mind understands that Israel, the only stable democracy in¶ the Middle East, is also one of its few rational actors.”
	13	+
	14	+Vote neg to reject the 1AC’s imperialist mindset and critically challenge the structures of imperialism that dominate society – that’s a pre-requisite to policy focus. McLaren and Kincheloe ‘08
	15	+Peter McLaren - Professor in Critical Studies, College of Educational Studies, Chapman University, where he is Co-Director of the Paulo Freire Democratic Project and International Ambassador for Global Ethics and Social Justice. Joe Kincheloe - professor and Canada Research Chair at the Faculty of Education, McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. “The Landscape of Qualitative Research.” Sage Publications. Page 407-409. 2008.
	16	+In this context, it is important to note that we understand a social theory as a map or a guide to the social sphere. In a research context, it does not determine how we see the world but helps us devise questions and strategies for exploring it. A critical social theory is concerned in particular with issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy; matters of race, class, and gender; ideologies; discourses; education; religion and other social institutuions; and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system (Beck-Gernsheim, Butler, and Puigvert, 2003; Flecha, Gomez, and Puigvert, 2003). Thus, in this context we seek to provide a view of an evolving criticality or a reconceptualized critical theory. Critical theory is never static; it is always evolving, changing in light of both new theoretical insights and new problems and social circumstances. The list of concepts elucidating our articulation of critical theory indicates a criticality informed by a variety of discourses emerging after the work of the Frankfurt School. Indeed, some of the theoretical discourses, while referring to themselves as critical ,directly call into question some of the work of Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse. Thus, diverse theoretical traditions have informed our understanding of criticality and have demanded understanding of diverse forms of oppression including class, race, gender, sexual, cultural, religious, colonial, and ability-related concerns. The evolving notion of criticality we present is informed by, while critiquing, the post-discourses – for example, postmodernism, poststrucuralism, and postcolonialism. In this context, critical theorists become detectives of new theoretical insights, perpetually searching for new and interconnected ways of understanding power and oppression and the ways they shape everyday life and human experience. In this context, criticality and the research it supports are always evolving, always encountering new ways to irritate dominant forms of power, to provide more evocative and compelling insights. Operating in this way, an evolving criticality is always vulnerable to exclusion from the domain of approved modes of research. The forms of social change it supports always position it in some places as an outsider, an awkward detective always interested in uncovering social structures, discourses, ideologies, and epistemologies that prop up both the status quo and a variety of forms of privilege. In the epistemological domain, white, male, class elitist, heterosexist, imperial, and colonial privilege often operates by asserting the power to claim objectivity and neutrality. Indeed, the owners of such privilege often own the “franchise” on reason and rationality. Proponents of an evolving criticality possess a variety of tools to expose such oppressive power politics. Such proponents assert that critical theory is well-preserved by drawing upon numerous liberatory discourses and including diverse groups of marginalized peoples and their allies in the nonhierarchical aggregation of critical analysts (Bello, 2003; Clark, 2002; Humphries, 1997). In the present era, emerging forms of neocolonialism and neo-imperialism in the United States move critical theorists to examine the ways American power operates under the cover of establishing democracies all over the world. Advocates of an evolving criticality argue – as we do in more detail later in this chapter – that such neo-colonial power must be exposed so it can be opposed in the United Stated and around the world. The American Empire’s justification in the name of freedom for undermining democratically elected governments from Iran (Kincheloe, 2004), Chile, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to Liberia (when its real purpose is to acquire geopolitical advantage for future military assaults, economic leverage in international markets, and access to natural resources) must be exposed by criticalists for what it is – a rank imperialist sham (McLaren, 2003a, 2003b; McLaren and Jaramillo, 2002; McLaren and Martin, 2003). Critical researchers need to view their work in the context of living and working in a nation-state with the most powerful military-industrial complex in history that is shamefully using the terrorist attacks of September 11 to advance a ruthless imperialist agenda fueled by capitalist accumulation by means of the rule of force (McLaren and Farahmandpur, 2003). Chomsky (2003), for instance, has accused the U.S. government of the “supreme crime” of preventive war (in the case of its invasion of Iraq, the use of military force to destroy an invented or imagined threat) of the type that was condemned at Nuremberg. Others, like historian Arthur Schlesinger (cited in Chomsky, 2003), have likened the invasion of Iraq to Japan’s “day of infamy,” that is, to the policy that impe-rial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor. David G. Smith (2003) argues that such imperial dynamics are supported by particular epistemological forms. The United States is an epistemological empire based on a notion of truth that undermines the knowledges produced by those outside the good graces and benevolent authority of the empire. Thus, in the 21st century, critical theorists must develop sophisticated ways to address not only the brute material relations of class rule linked to the mode and relations of capitalist production and imperialist conquest (whether through direct military intervention or indirectly through the creation of client states) but also the epistemological violence that helps discipline the world. Smith refers to this vio-lence as a form of “information warfare” that spreads deliberate falsehoods about countries such as Iraq and Iran. U.S. corporate and governmental agents become more sophisticated in the use of such episto-weaponry with every day that passes.
	17	+
	18	+The ROB is to endorse the best strategy to resist imperialist domination. Prefer since:
	19	+
	20	+1. Fiat is illusory – representations are the only thing we take away from the round
	21	+
	22	+2. Specifically in education we have an obligation to challenge imperialism – assuming their scholarship is innocent is what reproduces our impacts. Sachs 03
	23	+Aaron Sachs, “The Ultimate "Other": Post-Colonialism and Alexander Von Humboldt's Ecological Relationship with Nature”, History and Theory, December 2003 EE
	24	+
	25	+There is no denying the value of the post-colonial critique and its relevance to all studies of travel and the environment. Post-colonialism, at its best, means recuperating the objects of the traveler’s gaze. In a world so profoundly shaped- damaged, I would argue-by colonialism and imperialism, it is imperative that scholars focus on celebrating the colonized, on hearing the voices of “others.” We must understand all the ways in which Western civilization has come to depend directly on forms of domination. Indeed, it makes perfect sense, as David Spurr has noted in The Rhetoric of Empire (1993), that “works once studied pri- marily as expressions of traditionally Western ideals are now also read as evidence of the manner in which such ideals have served in the historical process of colonization."'° The problem arises when scholars read Western texts only as evidence of complicity in colonialism. If Said can be said to have founded the post-colonial school with Orientalism, he also initiated its prejudices and ovemealousness. Refusing to admit any exceptions into Orienmlism‘s paradigm of the imperial Western gaze, he committed the same sin he so abhorred in his subjects: he essentialized all Westerners as essentialists. In order to salvage Said’s worth- while and penetrating critique of the West’s orientalism, then, as Bruce Robbins has wisely remarked, we need to “break down the false unity of ‘the West‘ and thus avoid the trap of a symmetrical ‘occidentalism.”"7 Surely not all Westerners were complicit in colonialism and imperialism to the same extent. A close analysis of Humboldt’s work reveals a complex, elusive character: there is ample evidence of the broad-thinking, liberal, republican abolitionist cel- ebrated in the popular biographies; there are also certain facts linking him to structures of domination. As Mary Louise Pratt has suggested, in the most sig- nificant critique of Humboldt to date,‘8 his entire expedition through Latin America can be seen as a fact-finding mission in service to the Spanish crown. In his writings he occasionally seemed to describe the productions of nature sim- ply as resources to be appropriated by colonial powers, and he was sometimes guilty of demeaning or even erasing the history and culture of the native peoples of the Americas. Yet he also suggested, in his journal, that “the very idea of a Colony is immoral.”19
	26	+3. AC imperialist mindset means policies always fail – they’re masking reality by claiming their imperialism is somehow helping society when they only reproduce violent impacts. Santos ‘03
	27	+Boaventura de Sousa Santos - Professor at the School of Economics at the University of Coimbra, Distinguished Legal Scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. “Collective Suicide?” Bad Subjects. April 2003. http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos.htmlJN ‘20
	28	+
	29	+According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists. This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers. At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians. The last, catastrophic heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable calculations by the Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 thousand civilians will die during the war and in the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war will cost 100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-21 03:12:58.62

Judge

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

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lexington NB

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+17

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Engel Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPT-OCT - K - Japan Orientalism

Tournament

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