Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[27]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[27]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-14 18:17:03.610
	1	+2016-10-14 18:17:03.0

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
	1	+LINKS
	2	+Threat construction efforts are rampart around nuclear power- the aff is part of a broader imperative to securitize this form of power.
	3	+Specific links- greenpeace, fukeshima disco, stress testing
	4	+
	5	+Mitev Securitization of Nuclear Power in Europe Posted on March 16, 2011 Lubo Mitev's Blog Analysing the future, today. https://lubomitev.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/securitize-nuclear-power-europe/
	6	+Securitization of Nuclear Power in Europe Posted on March 16, 2011 | 1 Comment Anyone who watches or reads the news has heard of the disaster in Japan. Following one of the worst earthquakes in history and the tsunami which resulted from it, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has become the center of attention. The systems of the plant and its nuclear reactors have malfunctioned and a nuclear disaster is said to be immanent. This has raised questions about the safety of nuclear power plants in Europe and has resulted in securitization of the topic. Security is defined by the Copenhagen School of Security Studies as “the pursuit of freedom from threat and the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity against forces of change which they see as hostile”. The main action to securitize an issue is the ‘presentation’ or ‘securitizing move’, which usually takes the form of rhetoric (e.g. a speech, a report, legislation etc.). When it comes to energy, there are two security sectors worth considering. First, economic security is defined as the “access to the resources, finance and markets necessary to sustain acceptable levels of welfare and state power”. The securitization of economics is mainly derived from the concept of investment risk and choices which have to be made in this respect. For example, the possibility that economic dependencies within the global market (especially oil) will be exploited for political ends or questions of security of supply are important to take into account. Second, environmental security is defined as “the maintenance of the local and the planetary biosphere as the essential support system on which all other human enterprises depend”. The main securitizing actors here are scientists, who use specialized reports to bring environmental threats to the public and to the political scene. The fact that the energy sector is often identified as one of the main causes of environmental threats has led to the spillover of environmental securitization into securitization of energy. In this way, the environmental and energy sectors have been inseparably linked through the urgent need for action to prevent an existentially threatening environmental disaster. Taking these two security sectors into account, there are three indicators used to define the level of securitization: 1) government policy; 2) NGO activity; and 3) public opinion. The first indicator is important because a consistent energy policy is essential to a government’s political stability. In any democratic system, if the ruling elite does not provide its people with electrical power, heating and fuel at acceptable prices, it will lose favor with voters. The second indicator – NGO activity – is also important since lobby groups or media organizations have a large sway over the perception of certain objects. If something is presented as a threat in the media, it inevitably becomes securitized. The last indicator, and perhaps the most important one, is the opinion of the public on an issue. If the population of a state deem a certain topic to be essential to their identity or national security, a securitization move will necessarily result. The securitization of energy has been a gradual process and has caused an increase in the perceived importance of the issue and the urgent necessity for action. The securitization of nuclear power, however, has been on the agenda for many years. For example, word-wide organization called Greenpeace was created in the 1970’s with a clear mission to stop the development of nuclear power. Events such as the partial reactor meltdown on Three Mile Island in the USA, and the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, further fueled the anti-nuclear movement. At the moment, Greenpeace is one the organizations leading the securitization of nuclear power because of the emergency in Japan. Nuclear power plants all over the world are now being questioned over their safety and security. The media’s role in this is minimal, since they report the facts coming from Japan, but try to remain objective. However, there is no question that nuclear power has been securitized to the highest level – it has become a question of national security and is being judged as a threat to the economic and environmental security of Europe. The announcement from March 15 2011 that the European Union has agreed to run ‘stress-tests’ on its nuclear installations is a direct result of this securitization.These tests will include an assessment of the risks that earthquakes, tsunamis, terror attacks and power cuts could pose to European nuclear plants. How this will be done remains a mystery, yet it is certain that nuclear power plants will have to adopt more stringent safety and security procedures and systems. Also, the fact that Germany decided to temporarily shut down the nuclear power plants operational since before 1980, shows how serious governments are taking the crisis in Japan. Environmentalists all over the world are hailing this as a major breakthrough for ridding the Earth of nuclear waste. However, the securitization effect also has an economic dimension which is not being considered – one has to watch out how much electricity prices will rise due to the discontinuation of such a large and cheap source of energy. The securitization of nuclear power to such an extent can lead to two conclusions: 1) nuclear power plants are deemed too great an environmental risk and a plan is adopted for their decommissioning; or 2) nuclear power plants are judged to be a necessary risk for achievement of economic stability. Either way, both the environmental and economic aspects have to be taken into account. Weighing the facts at hand is the difficult side. In the end, there are two clear-cut facts that have to be remembered before a decision is taken. First, the nuclear incident in Japan is a direct result of an environmental disaster. Once we start going down this road (initiating stress tests for nuclear installations), we might as well conduct such tests on gas-fired power plants, as well as office buildings and schools. When building any structure, the threat of environmental disasters has to be taken into account – earthquakes, hurricanes, risk of floods etc. Nuclear incidents can cause deaths and environmental damage just like a gas explosion or a hurricane, but on different scales. One has to be careful how far securitization can go. Second, nuclear power remains a key element in our energy-generation system. The Japanese recognized this, and that is why they have 53 nuclear reactors, generating 15 of their electricity. In the EU’s plan for 80 reduction of emissions by 2050, nuclear power still plays a role because of the lack of potential to achieve this target solely through renewable energy technology. In the World Energy Outlook report of the International Energy Agency, nuclear power will have to contribute 10 of electricity-generation in 2030. Realistically, there is no way to abolish atomic energy in the near future. N.B. I would like to state a personal opinion on the matter. Securitization of nuclear power has led to several misunderstandings in Europe: The radiation that is reportedly leaking from the power plant in Japan can reach Europe. This is simply ridiculous due to wind direction, the distance between Japan and Europe, and the rate at which radiation dissolves in the atmosphere. The only people benefiting from this are pharmaceutical companies who produce iodine, because the panic created by these beliefs has caused people to start consuming this substance which protects the body from radiation. Also, an iodine overdose can cause a burning sensation in the mouth, stomach and throat, abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, weak pulse, diarrhea and coma. Nuclear power plants are bad for the environment. Yes – nuclear power plants can cause environmental damage. Waste requires careful handling and storage. At the same time, there have only been three recorded nuclear power plant incidents in history (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now – Japan). Also, please remember that all power plants are harmful to the environment in one way or another (e.g. fossil fuels pollute the air; wind-generators kill birds). If environmentalists are ready to pay extremely high electricity bills in order to phase out nuclear power completely, most people are not. My final remark is that sacrifices are always required for progress to be made. Whether we have to sacrifice nuclear power for the avoidance of a potential disaster, or we have to live with it in order to have cheap electricity, is a matter of weighing the options. Just make sure you have all the facts before passing judgment.
	7	+The rhetoric of terror is an extension of a specific form of securitization. This independently turns case
	8	+Kapitan, 03 (Tomis Kapitan, Professor of Philosophy, Northern Illonois Univeristy, 2003, “Terrorism and International Justice”)
	9	+
	10	+More dramatically, the ‘terrorist’ rhetoric actually increases terrorism in four distinct ways. First, it magnifies the effect of terrorist actions by heightening the fear among the target population. If we demonize the terrorists, if we portray them as arbitrary irrational beings with a “disposition toward unbridled violence,” then we are amplifying the fear and alarm generated by terrorist incidents. Second, those who succumb to the rhetoric contribute to the cycle of revenge and retaliation by endorsing terrorist actions of their own government, not only against those who commit terrorist actions, but also against those populations from whose ranks the terrorists emerge, for the simple reason that terrorists are frequently themselves civilians, living amid other civilians not so engaged. The consequence has been an increase in terrorist violence under the rubric of ‘retaliation’ or ‘counter-terrorism’. Third, short of genocide, a violent response is likely to stiffen the resolve of those from whose ranks terrorists have emerged, leading them to regard their foes as people who cannot be reasoned with, as people who, because they avail themselves so readily of the ‘terrorist’ rhetoric, know only the language of the ‘terrorist’ rhetoric, know only the language of force. As long as they perceive themselves to be victims of intolerable injustices and view their oppressors as unwilling to arrive at an acceptable compromise, they are likely to answer violence with more violence. Fourth, and most insidiously, those who employ the rhetoric of terrorism for their own political ends, are encouraging actions that they understand will generate or sustain further violence directed against civilians. Inasmuch as their verbal behavior is intended to secure political objectives through these means, then it is an instance of terrorism just as much as any direct order to carry out a bombing of civilian targets. In both cases, there is purposeful verbal action aimed at bringing about a particular result through violence against civilians.
	11	+
	12	+AND- Err in favor of a link- Psychology proves their impacts tend to be constructed
	13	+Jacobs, 10 – Journalist, Former Staff Writer for The LA Daily News (Tom, "The Comforting Notion of an All-Powerful Enemy", Miller-McCune, March 8th 2010, July 17th 2010, http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-comforting-notion-of-an-all-powerful-enemy-10429/, KONTOPOULOS)
	14	+**Citing a Psychologist ~-~- Daniel Sullivan of the University of Kansas ~-~- Ph.D. candidate in Social Psychology at University of Kansas
	15	+We have seen the enemy, and he is powerful. That’s a recurring motif of contemporary political discourse, as generalized fear mutates for many into a fixation on a ferocious foe. Partisan rhetoric has turned increasingly alarmist. President Obama has difficulty getting even watered-down legislation passed, yet he is supposedly establishing a socialist state. The Tea Party is viewed as a terrifying new phenomenon, rather than the latest embodiment of a recurring paranoid streak in American politics. Osama bin Laden is likely confined to a cave, but he’s perceived as a threat large enough to justify engaging in torture. According to one school of thought, this tendency to exaggerate the strength of our adversaries serves a specific psychological function. It is less scary to place all our fears on a single, strong enemy than to accept the fact our well-being is largely based on factors beyond our control. An enemy, after all, can be defined, analyzed and perhaps even defeated. The notion that focusing our anger on a purportedly powerful foe helps mitigate our fears was first articulated by cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker in his 1969 book Angel in Armor. It has now been confirmed in a timely paper titled “An Existential Function of Enemyship,” just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. A research team led by social psychologist Daniel Sullivan of the University of Kansas reports on four studies that suggest people are “motivated to create and/or perpetually maintain clear enemies to avoid psychological confrontations with an even more threatening chaotic environment.” When you place their findings in the context of the many threats (economic and otherwise) people face in today’s world, the propensity to turn ideological opponents into mighty monsters starts to make sense. In one of Sullivan’s studies, conducted during the 2008 presidential campaign, a group of University of Kansas undergraduates were asked whether they believed enemies of their favored candidate (Obama or John McCain) were manipulating voting machines in an attempt to steal the election. Prior to considering such conspiracy theories, half were asked to consider the truth of statements such as “I have control over whether I am exposed to a disease,” and “I have control over how my job prospects fare in the economy.” The other half were asked to assess similar statements on relatively unimportant subjects, such as “I have control over how much TV I watch.” Those who were forced to contemplate their lack of control over significant life events “reported a stronger belief in opponent-led conspiracies,” the researchers report. In another study, the student participants were randomly assigned to read one of two essays. The first stated that the U.S. government is well-equipped to handle the economic downturn, and that crime rates are declining due to improved law enforcement. The second reported the government is not at all competent to cope with the recession, and crime rates are going up in spite of the authorities’ best efforts. They were then presented with a list of hypothetical events and asked to pick the most likely cause of each: A friend, an enemy, or neither (that is, the event happened randomly). Those “informed” that the government was not in control were more likely to view a personal enemy as responsible for negative events in their lives. In contrast, those told things are running smoothly “seemed to defensively downplay the extent to which enemies negatively influence their lives,” the researchers report. These studies suggest it’s oddly comforting to have someone, or something, you can point to as the source of your sorrows. This helps explain why Americans inevitably find an outside enemy to focus on, be it the Soviets, the Muslims or the Chinese. Given that society pays an obvious price for such illusions, how might we go about reducing the need for “enemyship?” “If you can somehow raise people’s sense that they have control over their lives and negative hazards in the world, their need to ‘enemize’ others should be reduced,” Sullivan said in an e-mail interview. “In our first study, for instance, we showed that people who feel dispositionally high levels of control over their lives did not respond to a reminder of external hazards by attributing more influence to an enemy. Any social structure or implementation that makes people feel more control over their lives should thus generally reduce (though perhaps not completely eliminate) the ‘need’ or tendency to create or attribute more influence to enemy figures. “In our third study, we showed that if people perceived the broader social system as ordered, they were more likely to respond to a threat to personal control by boosting their faith in the government, rather than by attributing more influence to an enemy. So, again, we see that the need to perceive enemies is reduced when people are made to feel that they are in control of their lives, or that there is a reliable, efficient social order that protects them from the threat of random hazards. “One could imagine, then, that circumstances which allow all citizens to be medically insured, or to have a clear sense of police protection, could reduce the tendency to seek out enemy figures to distill or focalize concerns with random, imminent threats.” Sullivan also offers two more personal potential solutions. “If people have such inherent needs for control and certainty in their lives, they should try to channel those needs as best they can into socially beneficial pursuits,” he says. “Lots of people pursue science, art and religion — just to give a few examples — as means of boiling down uncertainty about the world into clear systems of rules and engagement with reality, creating small domains for themselves in which they can exert a sense of mastery. Insofar as these pursuits don’t harm anyone, but still provide a sense of control, they can reduce the need for enemyship. “A final solution would be to encourage people to simply accept uncertainty and lack of control in their lives,” he adds. “Some meaning systems — Taoism for example — are rooted in this idea, that people can eventually accept a certain lack of control and eventually become resigned to this idea to the extent that they no longer react defensively against it.” So there, at least, is a practical place to begin: Less MSNBC and more meditation.
	16	+Impacts
	17	+TURNS THE AFF
	18	+The discourse of threat construction makes the impacts of the plan inevitable- independent reason to reject if I win a link as it forecloses the ability to have dialogue over our own responsibility
	19	+
	20	+Chernus, 01 (Ira, PROFESSOR OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER,
	21	+“FIGHTING TERROR IN THE NATIONAL INSECURITY STATE,” http://spot.colorado.edu/~chernus/WaronTerrorismEssays/FightingTerror.htm, AD: 7/10/09)
	22	+
	23	+Just as the outcome of World War I sowed the seeds of World War II, and the outcome of World War II the seeds of the cold war, so the outcome of the cold war sowed the seeds of the war on terrorism. And this newest war is already, quite visibly, sowing the seeds of insecurity to come. It may be most useful to view the whole period from the early cold war years through the present war as a single historical era: the era of the national insecurity state. Throughout that era, U.S. policy decisions made in the name of national security consistently breed a greater sense of vulnerability, frustration, and insecurity. It is not hard to see why. Four decades of cold war enshrined two fundamental principles at the heart of our public life: there is a mortal threat to the very existence of our nation, and our own policies play no role in generating the threat. The belief structure of the national insecurity state flows logically from these premises. If our nation bears no responsibility, then we are powerless to eradicate the threat. If others threaten us through no fault of our own, what can we do? There is no hope for a truly better world, nor for ending the danger by mutual compromise with "the other side." The threat is effectively eternal. The best to hope for is to hold the threat forever at bay. Yet the sense of powerlessness is oddly satisfying, because it preserves the conviction of innocence: if our policies are so ineffectual, the troubles of the world can hardly be our fault. And the vision of an endless status quo is equally satisfying, because it promises to prevent historical change. If peril is permanent, the world is an endless reservoir of potential enemies. Any fundamental change in the status quo portends only catastrophe.
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+alt-reject secularization

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-14 18:17:05.831

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Still fife

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mountain Brook PS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+27

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2-K threat construction

Tournament

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