Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[26]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[26]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-22 22:40:03.617
	1	+2016-10-22 22:40:03.0

Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,13 @@
	1	+Russian nuclear submarines help balance against the US
	2	+Schmitt 4-20 Eric Schmitt, 4-20-2016, "Russia Bolsters Its Submarine Fleet, and Tensions With U.S. Rise," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/world/europe/russia-bolsters-submarine-fleet-and-tensions-with-us-rise.html?_r=0 NB
	3	+Adm. Mark Ferguson, the United States Navy’s top commander in Europe, said last fall that the intensity of Russian submarine patrols had risen by almost 50 percent over the past year, citing public remarks by the Russian Navy chief, Adm. Viktor Chirkov. Analysts say that tempo has not changed since then.¶ The patrols are the most visible sign of a renewed interest in submarine warfare by President Vladimir V. Putin, whose government has spent billions of dollars for new classes of diesel and nuclear-powered attack submarines that are quieter, better armed and operated by more proficient crews than in the past.¶ The tensions are part of an expanding rivalry and military buildup, with echoes of the Cold War, between the United States and Russia. Moscow is projecting force not only in the North Atlantic but also in Syria and Ukraine and building up its nuclear arsenal and cyberwarfare capacities in what American military officials say is an attempt to prove its relevance after years of economic decline and retrenchment.¶ Independent American military analysts see the increased Russian submarine patrols as a legitimate challenge to the United States and NATO. Even short of tensions, there is the possibility of accidents and miscalculations. But whatever the threat, the Pentagon is also using the stepped-up Russian patrols as another argument for bigger budgets for submarines and anti-submarine warfare.¶ American naval officials say that in the short term, the growing number of Russian submarines, with their ability to shadow Western vessels and European coastlines, will require more ships, planes and subs to monitor them. In the long term, the Defense Department has proposed $8.1 billion over the next five years for “undersea capabilities,” including nine new Virginia-class attack submarines that can carry up to 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles, more than triple the capacity now.¶ “We’re back to the great powers competition,” Adm. John M. Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said in an interview.¶ Last week, unarmed Russian warplanes repeatedly buzzed a Navy destroyerin the Baltic Sea and at one point came within 30 feet of the warship, American officials said. Last year some of Russia’s new diesel submarines launched four cruise missiles at targets in Syria.¶ Mr. Putin’s military modernization program also includes new intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as aircraft, tanks and air defense systems.¶ To be sure, there is hardly parity between the Russian and American submarine fleets. Russia has about 45 attack submarines — about two dozen are nuclear-powered and 20 are diesel — which are designed to sink other submarines or ships, collect intelligence and conduct patrols. But Western naval analysts say that only about half of those are able to deploy at any given time. Most stay closer to home and maintain an operational tempo far below a Cold War peak.
	4	+
	5	+
	6	+Strong Russian navy northern fleet deters NATO and US militarization in the arctic
	7	+Klimenko 16 Klimenko. Ekaterina, “Russia’s Arctic Security Policy- Still Quiet in the High North?” SIPRI Policy Paper-45-Febraury 2016. (SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute.) Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. NB
	8	+Another group of security issues in focus at that time related to border security. According to a statement in 2010 by the head of the FSB’s Border Service, Vladimir Pronichev, the main challenges for the Border Service were the unauthorized presence of foreign ships and research vessels in Russian Arctic waters, illegal migration, drug smuggling and poaching.65 Terrorist attacks against¶ oil platforms were also seen as a potential threat to security in the Arctic.66 Based on these perceived security risks, Russia again began to prioritize the protection of Arctic borders and the strengthening of the Border Service in the region, following several withdrawals after the end of the cold war. This return to a focus on Arctic border protection was reiterated by Putin on a number of occasions.6 During the period 2008–13 the only state-related security concerns expressed by Russian officials related to growing NATO activity in the Arctic. In 2010 Dmitry Medvedev, who was then the Russian President, stated that Russia was watching NATO’s increased activity in the Arctic ‘intently and with some concern’. According to Medvedev, the Arctic ‘could do without NATO . . . because it is part of our common heritage, which, strictly speaking, does not have anything to do with military objectives. We are fully capable of managing there with the use of economic regulation and international agreements we sign’.68 Similarly, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov issued statements claiming that Russia could not see what benefit NATO could bring to the Arctic and confirming that any problems that existed, or that might arise, should be solved by political means on the basis of international law. Speaking to the press in 2010, Lavrov said: ‘I do not think that NATO will do the right thing by taking it upon itself to determine, who and how will decide issues in the Arctic.’69 In an interview from 2012 Lavrov also remarked that militarization of the Arctic should be avoided: The situation in the Arctic is not that hard in terms of military units, which are not there (though some of our partners are trying to call NATO in there). We object to that. We believe that this step will be a very bad signal to the militarization of the Arctic, even if NATO just wants to go there and get comfortable.70 The deterioration of the relations between Russia and the West that started in¶ 2012 (and coincided with Putin’s return as Russian president) has gradually been¶ spilling into the Arctic, leading to an increase in rhetoric about Arctic security. At¶ an expanded meeting of the Collegium of the Ministry of Defence in February¶ 2013, Putin noted that militarization of the Arctic was among the remaining¶ dangers faced by Russia.71 Commenting on Putin’s statement in an interview in¶ April 2013, the Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, stated¶ that the danger of militarization was linked to the occasionally conflicting international¶ relations around biological resources, energy reserves, fresh water and¶ transportation routes in the Arctic.72 The following year Putin underlined, in a statement in April 2014, that the changing international context and socioeconomic¶ situation was fraught with new risks and challenges to Russia’s¶ national interests, including in the Arctic.73 This altered perception of Arctic¶ security was reiterated by Russia’s Minister of Defence, Sergei Shoigu, in December¶ 2014 when he stated that a ‘broad spectrum of potential threats to Russia’s¶ national security is now being formed in the Arctic’.74¶ Key security documents issued since the beginning of 2013 reflect the changing rhetoric but use a more cautious tone. The Russian Military Doctrine published in 2014, for example, includes the task of ‘protecting Russian interests in the Arctic’ for the first time. The 2014 Military Doctrine, as in the previous iteration from 2010, states that the primary military danger to Russia is the expansion of NATO’s power capacity, achieved through the use of global functions that are in violation of international legal norms and by positioning military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders.75 Amendments to the Maritime Doctrine adopted in July 2015 focus on two regions: the Atlantic and the Arctic. The 2015 Maritime Doctrine highlights NATO’s global activities as the primary security concern on the Atlantic side, while it also emphasizes the Arctic’s strategic significance as it provides limitless access to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and is key to the capabilities of the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet for the defence of Russia. Additionally, it specifies ‘lowering the threats in the Arctic region’ as the main policy goal in the Arctic, which will be achieved through, among other things, strengthening of the Northern Fleet.7
	9	+
	10	+Arctic war goes nuclear ~-~- independently spills over to global security
	11	+Dhanapala 2013 – member of the Board of Sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and a governing board member of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Jayantha, “The Arctic as a bridge,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/arctic-bridge)BC
	12	+
	13	+There are in fact many reasons that the international community ~-~- and not just the countries with coastlines on the Arctic Ocean ~-~- should focus on the Arctic. First, the world is increasingly interdependent, and the hard evidence of climate change proves that the felling of Amazon forests in Brazil and increased carbon dioxide emissions in China have a cumulative global impact, leading to the incipient disappearance of Tuvalu into the Pacific Ocean and the gradual sinking of the Maldives. In a literal sense, English poet John Donne's celebrated line ~-~- "No man is an island, entire of itself" ~-~- is truer today than ever before. The environment of the Arctic affects the world environment. Beyond its contribution to rising sea levels, the melting of the Arctic ice cap will facilitate the mining of resources, especially oil and gas, and lead to an increase in commercial shipping. The ownership of the resources and the sovereignty of Arctic areas, including the Northwest Passage, are already being contested. The applicability of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has to be more sharply defined, especially in those areas of the Arctic where claims overlap. And clearly, access to the resources of the Arctic north is of concern to the global south, where the "bottom billion" people of the world live in extreme poverty. Increasingly, science shows that those people are going to be hit hardest by climate change. Some of those people also see the area outside the territory claimed by the littoral states of the Arctic as part of the global commons and, therefore, the shared heritage of humankind. A global regime could thus be established over the Arctic to mitigate the effects of climate change and to provide for the equitable use of its resources outside the territory of the eight circumpolar countries. Third, as someone who has devoted most of his working life to the cause of disarmament, and especially nuclear disarmament, I am deeply concerned that two nuclear weapon states ~-~- the United States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world ~-~- face one another across the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims ~-~- not to mention those that could be made by North Atlantic Treaty Organization member states Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway ~-~- may lead to conflict that has the potential to escalate into the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the Arctic is ripe for conversion into a nuclear weapon free zone. I discussed a fourth reason the international community should focus on the Arctic with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (who has in fact visited the Arctic on an icebreaker) when I met him in New York last fall. The Arctic, I told him, is the one region in the world where the environment (and climate change in particular), the threat of nuclear weapons, the human rights of indigenous people, and the need to advance the rule of law converge as international issues. The Arctic, therefore, offers a unique opportunity to make international diplomacy work for the benefit of the entire international community. Security and interdependence. Security today is a concept that is much broader than military security alone. It encompasses international peace and security, human rights, and development. Twenty-first century security is also a cooperative and common security, in which one region's insecurity inevitably and negatively affects the security of other regions of the world. And so Arctic security is inextricably interwoven with global security, giving us all a role as stakeholders in the north.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-22 22:40:04.29

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lexington Balachundhar Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT- DA- Russian Navy

Tournament

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