Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-11 18:51:02.984
	1	+2016-09-11 18:51:02.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,53 @@
	1	+NC - Shell
	2	+A – Text:
	3	+The Co should substantially expand the Navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered ships and mandate that all future navy combatant vessels must be nuclear-powered. Spencer and Roe 07:
	4	+Spencer, Jack Research Fellow, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Baker Spring F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy, Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation. “The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy.” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo No. 1693, Nov. 5, 2007. MO. Brackets in original.
	5	+With the defense authorization bill, Congress is on the threshold of making a generational decision on the future of the Navy. Nuclearpowered ships have a proven record of safety, costeffectiveness, and strategic value. With the industrial capacity already in place, Congress must seriously consider the unique benefits of providing and maintaining a larger nuclear navy.
	6	+Expansion should take the form of detailed planning for production and RandD. Eaglen and McGrath 11:
	7	+Eaglen, Mackenzie Research Fellow, Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation and Bryan McGrath Retired Naval Officer (commanded the destroyer USS Bulkeley), Director of Delex Consulting, Studies, and Analysis. “Thinking About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy.” The Heritage Foundation, No. 2555, May 16, 2011. MO. Brackets in original
	8	+After numerous studies and a halfdozen shipbuilding plans, Navy leaders have correctly concluded that the United States needs a larger fleet—not simply in numbers of ships and aircraft, but also in terms of increased network capability, longer range, and increased persistence. Navy leaders recognize that the U.S. is quickly losing its monopolies on guided weapons and the ability to project power. Precision munitions (guided rockets, artillery, mortars, and missiles) and battle networks are proliferating, while advances in radar and electro-optical technology are increasingly rendering stealth less effective. ¶Policymakers should help the Navy to take a step back and look at the big picture to inform future investment portfolios. Congress should demand and uniformed leaders should welcome the opportunity to develop long-range technology road maps, including a science and technology plan and a research and development plan for the U.S. Navy. These plans should broadly outline future investments, capabilities, and requirements. The possibilities include: •A next-generation surface combatant, •A sixth-generation fighter, and •Low-observable capabilities beyond stealth. These plans should also identify and prioritize the need for additional investment in critical capabilities, including: •More capable anti-ship, land attack, and air-toair missiles; •Satellite recapitalization; •Directed energy and electromagnetic weapons; •Underwater weapons, including an unmanned underwater vehicle; •Nanotechnology and solid-state and fiber lasers; •Biotechnologies; and •Advanced cyber technologies.¶ In light of the need for a comprehensive, longrange technology road map for the Navy, Congress should consider adding to its quadrennial requirement for a 30-year shipbuilding plan by directing the Navy to submit a long-range technology road map on a quadrennial basis, two years out of phase with the shipbuilding plan.
	9	+
	10	+B – Competition:
	11	+Mutual exclusivity: the aff prohibits nuclear energy, so nuclear ships can’t be built in the aff world.
	12	+
	13	+C – Solvency
	14	+
	15	+D – Net benefits:
	16	+Uniqueness: Our navy is on the brink – we can keep peace now, but we need to maintain or increase our current forces to prevent the collapse of US naval power. Eaglen and McGrath 2:
	17	+Eaglen, Mackenzie Research Fellow, Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation and Bryan McGrath Retired Naval Officer (commanded the destroyer USS Bulkeley), Director of Delex Consulting, Studies, and Analysis. “Thinking About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy.” The Heritage Foundation, No. 2555, May 16, 2011. MO. Brackets in original
	18	+Today’s Navy is experiencing extreme levels of stress.6 While the fleet has shrunk by about 15 percent since 1998,7 the number of ships deployed overseas has remained constant at about 100. Each ship goes to sea longer and more often, resulting in problems such as the well-publicized shortfalls in surface ship condition.8 With no surge capacity left in the fleet, each new casualty ripples through the schedules of dozens of ships. With the end of supplemental funding, Navy maintenance funding will be cut by almost 20 percent this year. In this context, a relatively small additional reduction in maintenance funding could render a Navy with 250–280 ships capable of keeping only 50 to 60 ships at sea.¶ Even if the Navy can sustain today’s number of ships or even grow slightly over the next decade as predicted by current Navy shipbuilding plans, the fleet will increasingly be composed of smaller and less capable littoral combat ships and logistics ships, such as Joint High Speed Vessels. This trend toward a fleet for engagement and maritime security could be enabled by the country’s increasingly modest vision of itself and the erosion of its sense of destiny and centrality. With ship design times of 20 years or longer and service lives of up to 50 years, the fleet could degrade to a point at which the country will be economically and strategically unable to reverse course. The nation and the most versatile element of its military power would then continue to decline to second-rate status.¶ An absolute decline in American sea power would probably span decades, but the examples of the Soviet Union and previous naval powers unable to deploy and maintain a robust fleet demonstrate how rapidly a navy can become hollow and unable to influence events abroad. As the U.S. fleet evolves toward a less capable mix and the costs of maintaining aging submarines, destroyers, and carriers mount, the U.S. Navy could easily find itself with an effectively smaller fleet in the future. Newer, smaller ships would ply waters abroad, while the combat power that helped to win two world wars and deter the Soviet Union would remain at home in a reduced operating status for financial reasons. This would leave the Navy and the nation ill-prepared for a future economic and security crisis.
	19	+Pax Americana is real – the American Navy is essential for global peace and trade. Eaglen and McGrath 3:
	20	+Eaglen, Mackenzie Research Fellow, Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation and Bryan McGrath Retired Naval Officer (commanded the destroyer USS Bulkeley), Director of Delex Consulting, Studies, and Analysis. “Thinking About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy.” The Heritage Foundation, No. 2555, May 16, 2011. MO. Brackets in original
	21	+Modern American sea power—represented for the purposes of this paper by the U.S. Navy and its expeditionary land force, the U.S. Marine Corps— is the most flexible, adaptable, useful, and powerful naval force the world has ever known. The ascendance of American sea power since the fall of the Soviet Union has been so benign and complete that many nations have forgone traditional investments in their own naval forces,1 confident in the peace and stability provided by the United States or convinced of the futility of trying to challenge so powerful a force head-on: ¶ The strong tendency toward counterhegemonic balancing in the European system during the last five centuries has not been replicated in the global maritime system. High concentrations of naval power (and in the economic correlates of naval power) tend to generate alliances with the leading power rather than against it. The decision of many of the strongest powers in the contemporary system to ally with the United States rather than against it in the Cold War and post– Cold War periods is fully consistent with behavior in the global system for the last five centuries.2 ¶The overwhelming majority of world commerce moves virtually unmolested across the great expanse of the maritime commons. This is as near a “given” on the international scene as can be conjured. So engrained is this sense of security in the free flow of goods across the world’s oceans that the activities of a relatively insignificant group of brigands off the East African coast have caught the world’s attention, forcing many to consider for the first time the impact of sea power on their lives. ¶American sea power is taken for granted. Policymakers in the United States, friendly and allied governments, executive officers of international conglomerates, and would-be competitors are all affected by the daily operations of the world’s most pervasive and successful naval power, but few ever consider what the world would be like without it. Exploring this question is the central aim of this paper.
	22	+Naval superiority has always been essential for maintaining global peace and prosperity throughout all of history. The US fills this role today. Eaglen and McGrath 4:
	23	+Eaglen, Mackenzie Research Fellow, Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation and Bryan McGrath Retired Naval Officer (commanded the destroyer USS Bulkeley), Director of Delex Consulting, Studies, and Analysis. “Thinking About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy.” The Heritage Foundation, No. 2555, May 16, 2011. MO. Brackets in original
	24	+How the United States might replace its preponderant sea power—if that day ever comes—seems less straightforward. Indeed, the question seems almost ludicrous. The United States is a maritime nation, bordered by two oceans and for much of its history protected by them. Over the past 60 years, the oceans have been highways for worldwide trade that has helped to lift more than a billion people out of poverty,3 and those sea lanes have been patrolled by the U.S. Navy, the world’s preeminent naval power. ¶The U.S. Navy’s global presence has added immeasurably to U.S. economic vitality and to the economies of America’s friends and allies, not to mention those of its enemies. World wars, which destroyed Europe and much of East Asia, have become almost incomprehensible thanks to the “nuclear taboo” and preponderant American sea power. If these conditions are removed, all bets are off. ¶For more than five centuries, the global system of trade and economic development has grown and prospered in the presence of some dominant naval power. Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and now the U.S. have each taken a turn as the major provider of naval power to maintain the global system. Each benefited handsomely from the investment: ¶These navies, in times of peace, secured the global commons and ensured freedom of movement of goods and people across the globe. They supported global trading systems from the age of mercantilism to the industrial revolution and into the modern era of capitalism. They were a gold standard for international exchange. These forces supported national governments that had specific global agendas for liberal trade, the rule of law at sea, and the protection of maritime commerce from illicit activities such as piracy and smuggling.4¶ A preponderant naval power occupies a unique position in the global order, a special seat at the table, which when unoccupied creates conditions for instability. Both world wars, several Europeanwide conflicts, and innumerable regional fights have been fueled by naval arms races, inflamed by the combination of passionate rising powers and feckless declining powers.
	25	+
	26	+
	27	+Safety
	28	+US Navy nuclear propulsion has a perfect safety record.
	29	+US Dep’t of Energy and US Navy. “The United States Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program,” March 2013. PDF. MO.
	30	+Naval Reactors maintains an outstanding record of over 151 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power. The Program currently operates 97 reactors and has accumulated over 6,500 reactor-years of operation. A leader in environmental protection, the Program has published annual environmental reports since the 1960s, showing that the Program has not had an adverse effect on human health or on the quality of the environment. Because of the Program's demonstrated reliability, U.S. nuclear-powered warships are welcomed in more than 150 ports of call in over 50 foreign countries and dependencies.
	31	+
	32	+Seriously – not a single accident.
	33	+Spencer, Jack Research Fellow, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Baker Spring F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy, Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation. “The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy.” The Heritage Foundation, WebMemo No. 1693, Nov. 5, 2007. MO. Brackets in original.
	34	+Nuclear power is safe. The Navy operates 103 reactor plants in 81 nuclear-powered ships, the NR-1 submarine, and four training and test reactors. Over more than half a century, the Navy has operated for over 5,800 reactor years and steamed over 136 million miles without accident or radioactive release.
	35	+Link
	36	+Nuclear power will be replaced by coal construction and natural gas.
	37	+Biello 2013, David. “How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming,” December 12, 2013.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/. SD
	38	+As long as countries like China or the U.S. employ big grids to deliver electricity, there will be a need for generation from nuclear, coal or gas, the kinds of electricity generation that can be available at all times. A rush to phase out nuclear power privileges natural gas—as is planned under Germany's innovative effort, dubbed the Energiewende (energy transition), to increase solar, wind and other renewable power while also eliminating the country's 17 reactors. In fact, Germany hopes to develop technology to store excess electricity from renewable resources as gas to be burned later, a scheme known as “power to gas,” according to economist and former German politician Rainer Baake, now director of an energy transition think tank Agora Energiewende. Even worse, a nuclear stall can lead to the construction of more coal-fired power plants, as happened in the U.S. after the end of the nuclear power plant construction era in the 1980s.∂
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+After a ban on nuclear power, coal consumption would rise dramatically. Nakata 2002
	42	+Toshihiko Nakata Professor at Tohoku University, “Analysis of the impacts of nuclear phase-out on energy systems in Japan” April 2002
	43	+Fig. 3 illustrates the changes in the electric power generation under the nuclear phase-out case. The total energy consumption and the carbon dioxide emissions for four scenarios in the year 2041 are shown in Table 4. We can see three ways in which the system has adjusted to make up the nuclear boiler after its phasing out: ∂ The use of coal boiler and coal IGCC rise and the total coal consumption rises by four times. The use of gas combined-cycles and gas boiler rise gradually, and the total gas consumption ∂ grows by three times. The renewables are not seen in the electricity market.
	44	+
	45	+Germany proves that ending the production of nuclear power results in the increased use of coal.
	46	+Lindsay Abrams (Staff Writer at Salon on sustainable energy), "Germany’s clean energy plan backfired", Salon, 07/30/2013, www.salon.com/2013/07/30/germanys_clean_energy_plan_backfired/
	47	+When a nuclear power plant closes, a coal plant opens. At least, that’s the way things are shaping up in Germany, where the move away from nuclear energy appears to have backfired. For the second consecutive year, according to Bloomberg, the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to increase. German Chancellor Angela Merkel made headlines back in 2011 when, in the wake of the reactor meltdown in Tokyo, she announced the impending closure of Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors. Up until then, nuclear-generated energy contributed to a full quarter of the nation’s electricity. At the time, the closings were framed as a positive effort to increase the country’s use of clean energy. As an expert then predicted to the New York Times: “If the government goes ahead with what it said it would do, then Germany will be a kind of laboratory for efforts worldwide to end nuclear power in an advanced economy.” But predictably, when nuclear plants began to shut down, as eight immediately did, something else had to take its place. And coal, which according to Bloomberg is favored by the market, did just that. In the absence of a strong government plan to push natural gas and renewable forms of energy, the share of electricity generated from coal rose from 43 percent in 2010 to 52 percent in the first half of this year, according to the World Nuclear Association.
	48	+
	49	+Impact
	50	+
	51	+The use of coal leads to detrimental health issues and is largely responsible for global warming. Keating 2001.
	52	+Martha Keating (Policy Advisor at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), “Cradle to Grave: the Environmental Impacts from Coal”, Clean Air Task Force, June, 2001 SD
	53	+The electric power industry is the largest toxic polluter in the country, and coal, which is used to generate over half of the electricity produced in the U.S., is the dirtiest of all fuels.1 From mining to coal cleaning, from transportation to electricity generation to disposal, coal releases numerous toxic pollut- ants into our air, our waters and onto our lands.2 Nation- ally, the cumulative impact of all of these effects is magnified by the enormous quantities of coal burned each year – nearly 900 million tons. Promoting more coal use without also providing additional environmental safe- guards will only increase this toxic abuse of our health and ecosystems. ∂ The trace elements contained in coal (and others formed during combustion) are a large group of diverse pollutants with a number of health and environmental effects.3 They are a public health concern because at sufficient exposure levels they adversely affect human health. Some are known to cause cancer, others impair reproduc- tion and the normal development of children, and still others damage the nervous and immune systems. Many are also respira- tory irritants that can worsen respiratory conditions such as asthma. They are an environmen- tal concern because they damage ecosystems. Power plants also emit large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), the “greenhouse gas” 2 largely responsible for climate change.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-11 18:51:04.652

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Olivia Panchal

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+San Marino BK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Marlborough Coates Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Nuclear Navy CP

Tournament

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