Opponent: Scarsdale ML | Judge: Koh, Kymn, Tripathy
1AC- Future Gens (Not Disclosed- msg me for more infoclipping stuff) 1NC- T Theory Case 1AR- New Shell (Shells with more than two planks are bad T theory underview 2NR- New Shell T Theory
1AC Structural Violence 1NC Cures Act DA Task Force CP Departments DA Court Clog DA Metatheory Case 2NR Most stuff except departments da
Greenhill
2
Opponent: Brentwood WJ | Judge: Terrence Lonam
1AC- Testimony 1NC- Moral Expertise K Kant NC Turns 1AR- Ableism Everything 2NR- Everything 2AR- Case
Greenhill
4
Opponent: Meadows ER | Judge: Braden James
1AC Nuclear Colonialism 1NC SSD CP SMRs CP Consult Natives CP Coal DA Case 1AR2AR Everything 2NR SSD CP SMRs CP Coal DA Case
Greenhill
5
Opponent: Pingry AG | Judge: Monica Amestoy
1AC Nuclear Security AC 1NC T-Weapons T-Spec Bad Case 1AR Everything 2NR T-Weapons Case 2AR Everything
Lexington
3
Opponent: Warren Township DI | Judge: Nathan Johnston
1AC Radiation Meltdowns Terror 1NC SMRs Desal Satellites Grids Case 2NR Satellties case
Newark
4
Opponent: Harvard Westlake AM | Judge: Amit Kukreja
1ac journalism 1nc hate speech cp da t-any extra-t case 2nr both t shells
Newark RR
2
Opponent: Harrison LC | Judge: Ross, Montague
1ac critical rights 1nc frats pic endowments da hate speech da case 2nr frats pic hate speech da case
Newark RR
5
Opponent: Scarsdale GZ | Judge: Choi, Omoregie
1ac critical dialogue 1nc wilderson title 9 da hate speech da case 2nr wilderson case
Newark RR
6
Opponent: Success SC | Judge: Baxter, Jeffers
1ac race 1nc Cap K Title 9 DA Hate Speech DA case 2nr DAs case
Scarsdale
1
Opponent: Princeton KS | Judge: Neha Pai
1AC Rights 1NC Wilderson Court Clog Case 2NR Wilderson
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0- Contact Info
Tournament: All | Round: Quads | Opponent: All | Judge: All Contact me on Facebook, "Paranirmal Balachundhar" phone: 781-864-1811 nbalachundhar@gmail.com we disclose all our stuff, let me know if you need anything.
9/24/16
1- Ableism Cap K
Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: William T Dwyer LM | Judge: Nick Montecalvo
The aff’s focus on survival strategies reflects the Achilles heel of identity politics—its individualistic focus precludes collective action to change larger structures—only a method grounded in class struggle can achieve change, both for the working class and persons with disabilities
Batalo 13 Klas Batalo. "What Wears us Down: Dual Consciousness and Disability At Work." Libcom.org. June 20th, 2013. https://libcom.org/library/what-wears-us-down-dual-consciousness-disability-work Without minimizing the importance of this work, we would like to offer up a AND collective responsibility to tackle disableism in our organizations and in our mass work.
Rejecting capitalism should be the starting point for challenging disableism—it’s a sequencing question—no perms because the alt has to happen first
Saczkowski 11 Thomas, Graduate Progam in Critical Disability Studies, York U, Aug, "NARRATIVES OF VIOLENCE: THE RELATIONSHIP OF MASCULINITY AND ABLEISM," ~www.academia.edu/1062128/Narratives'of'Violence'The'Relationship'of'Masculinity'and'Ableism~ In analyzing the relationship between patriarchal masculinity and politicaleconomy, Mohanty (2003) argues AND of capitalism perpetuate hegemonic ideologies that permeate interpersonal relations(Mohanty, 2003).
The alternative is a socialist pedagogy which engages in oppositional politics toward capitalist universality—your ballot has to center around class politics—-capitalism is the root cause of oppression and makes mass violence and extermination inevitable
Peter Mclaren 4, Education and Urban Schooling Division prof, UCLA—and Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale; University of Windsor, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2004, www.freireproject.org/articles/node2065/RCGS/class'dismissed-val-peter.10.pdf For example, E. San Juan (2003) argues that race relations and AND , most importantly, politically in light of the challenges that confront us.
1/28/17
1- F Word K
Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: William T Dwyer LM | Judge: Nick Montecalvo He said the “f” word—this is an independent reason to vote aff. SCHWYZER Hugo Schqyzer, community college history and gender studies professor, Berkley “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language, 4 November 2009, http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/ There’s a pause at this point. Here’s the problem: long before most kids in our culture become sexually active, the most common slang word in the American idiom has knit together two things in their consciousness: sex and rage. If “fucking” is the most common slang term for intercourse, and “fuck you” or “fuck off” the most common terms to express contempt or rage, what’s the end result? A culture that has difficulty distinguishing sex from violence. In a world where a heartbreakingly high percentage of women will be victims of rape, it’s not implausible to suggest that at least in part, the language itself normalizes sexual violence. I challenge my students. I don’t ask them to give up all the satisfactions of profanity; rather I challenge them to think about words like “fuck” or “screw” and then make a commitment to confine the use of those words to either a description of sex (“We fucked last night”) or to express anger or extreme exasperation (“I’m so fucking furious with you right now!”) but not, not, not, both. Rage and lust are both normal human experiences; we will get angry and we will be sexual (or want to be) over and over again over the course of our lives. But we have a responsibility, I think, to make a clear and bright line between the language of sexual desire and the language of contempt and indignation. Pick one arena of human experience where that most flexible term in the English vernacular will be used, and confine it there. Words matter, I tell my students. We’re told over and over again that “a picture is worth a thousand words” — but we forget that words have the power to paint pictures in our minds of how the world is and how it ought to be. The language we use for sexuality, the words we use for rage and longing — these words construct images in our heads, in our culture, and in our lives. We have an obligation to rethink how we speak as part of building a more pleasurable, safe, just and egalitarian world.
1/28/17
1- Framework V1
Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: William T Dwyer LM | Judge: Nick Montecalvo
1
Interpretation-All affirmative offense in the 1AC must derive from reasons that public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech through implementation of post fiat policy through governmental action.
Resolved means the affirmative must defend the implementation of a policy action
Parcher 1 (Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)** Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: AND 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question
And- Public colleges and universities in the US are state-funded institutions with specialized programs
DHS 13 ~U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "What is a Public University? What is a Private University?" 1/3/2013~ AZ When choosing a school in the United States, it is important to understand all AND at a private school, with both liberal arts classes and specialized programs.
Violation- they don't defend governmental implementation of a postfiat policy that gives rights to free speech
Standards-
1. Fairness
A. Prep and Clash – changing the topic post facto manipulates balance of prep, which structurally favors the aff because they speak last and use perms – key to engage a prepared adversary and a target of mutual contestation
Steinberg and Freeley 13 — Debate requires a type of stasis point, the only way to generate debate is to have a focused point of difference. If you argue over for a ton of arguments. It should be based on consistency of args. Steinberg and Freeley 13 ~David Steinberg (Lecturer in Communication studies and rhetoric. AND particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.
B. Limits- specific topics are key to reasonable expectations for 2Ns. Open subjects create incentives for avoidance and monopolization of moral high ground—that denies a role for the neg and turns accessibility.
The impact is procedural fairness- our kind of pluralism and democracy doesn’t exclude identity or alternate styles. Fairness is a prerequisite to effective dialogue.
Anderson 6 ~Amanda Anderson 6, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Humanities and English at Brown University, Spring 2006, "Reply to My Critic(s)," Criticism, Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 281-290 ~ MY RECENT BOOK, The Way We Argue Now, has in a sense two AND if they hope to live together in a post-traditional pluralist society.
Independently turns the case- they have silenced us by making it impossible to contest the aff
2. Deliberation- Substantive regulations that demarcate limits are important for normative stances and dialogue
A. Engagement- Debate is a process- not a product. Eliminating substantive parameters forces the negative to the margins of academia- we defend absolutist positions that elide materiality and depreciate quality of debate- a deliberative model develops in-depth strategies that foster better academic exchanges
Dryzek 6 ~John Dryzek 6, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649~ A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference AND need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate.
B. Debating and researching government policy does not entrench a universal subject, but refusal on those grounds ironically does
Zanotti 13 — Laura Zanotti, Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Florida International University, 2013 ("Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Volume 38, Issue 4, November, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via SAGE Publications Online, p. 289-290) Unlike positions that adopt governmentality as a descriptive tool and end up embracing the liberal AND position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.’’84
The impact is effective worldbuilding and social change- only a deliberative model can solve- turns case
Myers 13 ~Ella Myers 13, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Gender Studies at the University of Utah, 2013, Worldly Ethics: Democratic Politics and Care for the World, p. 123-125~ As I have suggested, such gathering occurs by way of specific, politicized worldly AND through multiple and accessible sites for the exchange of opinions and decision making.
3. Jurisdiction– extra-topicality is an independent voting issue – anything outside the resolution is not a justification for you to vote for them.
1/28/17
1- Moral Expertise K
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Brentwood WJ | Judge: Terrence Lonam Their evidence states we should defer to moral consensus before individual opinions. This idea of ethical expertise violates the conditions of equal ethical discourse, as we declare some person’s moral judgments to be more valuable than another’s, prima facie.
Scofield 08 Giles R. Scofield. “Speaking of Ethical Expertise . . .” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Volume 18, Number 4, December 2008, pp. 369-384 (Article) AJ
It is here that carries the day.
This model of ethical discourse only re-entrenches oppressive power structures – it also delinks the framework since the moral methodology does not follow from the ideal of non domination.
Scofield 08 Giles R. Scofield. “Speaking of Ethical Expertise . . .” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Volume 18, Number 4, December 2008, pp. 369-384 (Article) AJ Not only might when this thinking surfaced 20 years ago: “Poppycock!”
The impact is biopolitical oppression legitimized by the force of morality.
Evans 13 Evans, Brad (from, Deleuze and Fascism: Security: War: Aesthetics, 2013 This brings us sediment of political existence.
The alternative is ethical inclusion – we must recognize the deliberative and moral capacities of every human being.
McGrath 11 McGrath, Sarah. "Skepticism about moral expertise as a puzzle for moral realism." Journal of Philosophy 108.3 (2011): 111 AJ Consider then an alternative reflection and deliberation. Fiat is illusory, reps come first as they affect the way we think about the world and shift policy outcomes making the K a prereq to the aff. CRAWFORD 2 NETA CRAWFORD, PHD MA MIT, BA BROWN, PROF. OF POLI SCI AT BOSTON UNIVERSITY, “ARGUMENT AND CHANGE IN WORLD POLITICS”, P. 19-21 Coherent arguments are meta-argument
9/17/16
1- Spikes K
Tournament: Scarsdale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Millburn AJ | Judge: Ben Koh
1
Their obfuscation and the use of spikes is antiethical to the ethic of intellectual integrity,
Intellectual integrity is the biggest impact- it’s the point of debate.
Torson 13 "Debate and the Virtue of Intellectual Integrity by Adam Torson" March 25th, 2013. By Victory Briefs. http://vbriefly.com/2013/03/25/20133debate-and-the-virtue-of-intellectual-integrity-by-adam-torson/~~NB Intellectual integrity denotes a commitment to the honest pursuit of truth through openness to evidence AND I encourage the examination of those practices through the lens of intellectual integrity.
Reject the 1AC’s use of spikes to embrace argumentative responsibility- you know what you did wrong and know you better own up to it.
The 1AC represents a conflict within the paradigm of America but refuses to challenge the foundational antagonism that produces the violence that undergirds that same paradigm.
Wilderson, ’10 ~2010, Frank B. Wilderson is an Associate Professor of African-American Studies at UC Irvine and has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, "Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms,"~ s Leaving aside for the moment their state of mind, it would seem AND foundation of the close reading of feature films and political theory that follows.
The Modern System of Anti-Blackness is Perfected through Legal Action
Farley 5, Anthony. Prof. Farley specializes in Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure and Legal Theory. Taught at Boston College Before Teaching at Albany "Perfecting Slavery" Page 221-222 Slavery is with us still. We are haunted by slavery. We are animated AND , and while it cultivates the field of law hoping for an answer.
Black positionality renders their notions of counterhegemony and resistance incoherent—blackness is the site of absolute dereliction. The libidinal economy of anti-blackness forms violence of the world.
Wilderson 7 Wilderson 7 ~Frank B., "The Prison Slave as Hegemony’s Silent Scandal" in Warfare in the American Homeland ed. Joy James, p. 31-2~ Slavery is the great leveler of the black subjects positionality. The black American subject AND reparation) but that must, nonetheless, be pursued to the death.
The alternative is to embrace black nihilism and meaninglessness as a negation of politics and hope for the restoration of agency.
Warren 15 ~Warren, Calvin L. "Black Nihilism and Politics of Hope" CR: The New Centennial Review, Volume 15, Number 1, Spring 2015. P. 215-248 (Article). Published by Michigan State University Press. Project Muse. Calvin Warren from George Washington University.~ NB Within this description of nihilism, however, there is a certain tension between grounding AND the body must speak the existential crisis that gets muted within humanist grammars.
11/11/16
2- Disclose or Lose
Tournament: All | Round: Quads | Opponent: All | Judge: All INTERPRETATION- Debaters must disclose all broken cases on the NDCA wiki under their own name. In this disclosure, they must post cites, tags, and first three and last three words of all cards read. Debaters may begin disclosing at any point during the season, but they must disclose all broken cases at least an hour before this round in order to meet my interp, regardless of whether the tournament requires disclosure.
Strat Clash Academic Integrity
9/24/16
2- Dont Read Tricks V1
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scarsdale ML | Judge: Koh, Kymn, Tripathy Interpretation- The aff may not claim that neg theory is drop the arg, aff theory is drop the debater, negative may not indict aff spikes, and that the neg must weigh against side bias, and that the neg may only get one unconditional route to the ballot, and aff must specify potential implications and violations of winning the abuse story.
10/22/16
2- Giroux is Consequentialist
Tournament: Scarsdale | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Harrison SO | Judge: Gosain, Coyne, Thomas
Interpretation- The affirmative must allow consequentialist offense to link to their aff if they read policymaking education good arguments and abstraction bad arguments
Ground
Contradictions
Policymaking Education
11/14/16
2- Grant Neg RVI if 1AR theory outweighs
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 3 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit VL | Judge: Terrence Lonam the affirmative may not claim that 1ar theory outweighs neg theory, and that the negative doesn't get an rvi
11/19/16
2- Must Write Down Interp Text
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scarsdale ML | Judge: Koh, Kymn, Tripathy Interpretation- Debaters must write down the text of all theory interpretations before the speech they’re read in. To clarify, it is not sufficient to change it in their speech.
Counterplan Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech other than fraternity advertising, organization, or membership.
Fraternities are sites of rape, serious injury, and death.
Flanagan 14 (Caitlin, the Atlantic, citing Douglas Fierberg, attorney specializing in fraternity-related litigation, "The Dark Power of Fraternities", http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/03/the-dark-power-of-fraternities/357580/)** "Until proven otherwise," Fierberg told me in April of fraternities, "they AND or serious injury" of a healthy young person at a fraternity function.
Ban on campus fraternities solves – even banning fraternity advertising alone is good
Fraternities are protected by the First Amendment's right to free speech
Lukianoff 11 ~Greg Lukianoff (President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), "To Survive, Fraternities Need to Stand for Something, Anything," Huffington Post, 8/1/2015~ A lot of fraternities seem to know that their freedom of association is protected by AND my nonprofit, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, as well.)
Endowments are high now but dropping rapidly – protests and free speech isolate older donors
Hartocollis 8/4 ~Anemona Hartocollis, writer for NYT: August 4, 2016("College Students Protest, Alumni’s Fondness Fades and Checks Shrink" New York Times Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?'r=0 ~ Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered AND , said there was no evidence the drop was connected to campus protests.
Protests decrease donations enrollments- more colleges
ACE 14 ~"Understanding College and University Endowments," American Council on Education, 2014~ An endowment is an aggregation of assets invested by a college or university to support AND education and allow these institutions to make even greater contributions to the public good
Endowments benefit disadvantaged students the most- they increase funds
AAU 9 ~Association of American Universities, "MYTHS ABOUT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENTS," January 2009~ MYTH: Universities are not using enough of their endowments to make college accessible and AND income high school students to visit the campus, and waiving application fees.
Hate speech normalizes physical and psychological violence and renders educational spaces null and void—it should be banned: the right to free speech is contingent, not absolute
Heinze 14: Eric Heinze, professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary university of London. March 31, 2014. Nineteen arguments for hate speech bans—and against them. Free Speech Debate. Free speech scholar Eric Heinze identifies the main arguments for laws restricting hate speech and says none are valid for mature Western democracies. http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/nineteen-arguments-for-hate-speech-bans-and-against-them/. RW On all sides of the debat AND individual freedom" looks different from the viewpoint of historically vilified groups.’
Inclusivity- It causes less discursive participation from minorities which harms ability to reach the truth
Horne 16: Solveigh Horne, Minister of children and equality in Norway. "hate speech—a threat to freedom of speech." March 8, 2016. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/solveig-horne/hate-speech—a-threat-to'b'9406596.html. RW Hate speech in the public sphere takes place online and offline, and affects young AND liberal democracy like Norway strongly supports freedom of speech as a fundamental right.
Title IX forces colleges to either mandate speech codes that can be seen as harassment and violate the constitution or risk lose federal funding
Richardson 16 ~Bradford Richardson (reporter) Washington Times Http, 5-1-2016, "Title IX ‘harassment’ order seen as free speech threat," Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/1/title-ix-harassment-order-seen-as-free-speech-thre/~~ NB Several free speech advocacy groups are concerned about a Justice Department order that they say AND University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach."
Education department forces compensation which hurts school funds if they don’t regulate speech
Financial assistance benefits disadvantage students the most- they increase funds
AAU 9 ~Association of American Universities, "MYTHS ABOUT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENTS," January 2009~ MYTH: Universities are not using enough of their endowments to make college accessible and AND income high school students to visit the campus, and waiving application fees.
1/7/17
JANFEB- Hate Speech CP DA - Journalism Module
Tournament: Newark | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AM | Judge: Amit Kukreja
Counterplan Text – Colleges and Universities ought to restrict student hate speech in instances of journalism
Publications are a source of hate on campus – it’s been used to promote platforms for htings look holocaust denial. Foxman 10 (Abraham H. Foxman National Director Anti-Defamation League, Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements A Manual for Action Revised: May 2010)
Holocaust denial is AND We urge you to join us in this effort.
Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech
Banning hate speech in journalism is good– they make underground movements less effective and destructive, deter people from joining and allow for coalitions of targeted groups to fight back. Parekh 12
Parekh, Bhikhu (2012) ‘Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?’, in Herz, M. and Molnar, P. (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–56. It is sometimes argued that banning hate speech drives extremist groups under- ground and AND of the prohibited, but there is also the attraction of the respectable.
Hate speech normalizes physical and psychological violence and renders educational spaces null and void—it should be banned: the right to free speech is contingent, not absolute
Heinze 14- idk cite is in hate speech da above- it's not working for some reason individual freedom" looks different from the viewpoint of historically vilified groups.’
Powerful corporations hide behind the façade of free speech to exercise their own relative power in shutting down the views of anyone else. free speech relies on economic status- turns case.
Morley 15 ~Daniel Morley, 2-20-2015, "Our Cherished Freedom of Speech Myth," In Defence of Marxism, http://www.marxist.com/our-cherished-freedom-of-speech-myth.htm~~ NB In November 2014 the mysterious so-called Guardians of Peace hacked into Sony Pictures AND that is the demand of those who fight for real freedom of expression!
Capitalism controls the academy- it creates the parameters for acceptable behavior and shuts down radical faculty and free exchange
Chatterjee and Maira 14 Chatterjee, Piya, and Sunaina Maira. "The Imperial University: race, war, and the nation-state." The imperial university: Academic repression and scholarly dissent (2014): 1-50. Our geopolitical positions—of our immediate workplaces as well as trans- national work AND of labor and survival within the U.S. university system.11
Their model of rights assumes equal access to the market of ideas- the promotion of free speech attaches commodity value to it- which strengthens neoliberalism
Brown 15 Brown, Wendy. "Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution" MIT Press, 2015. At times, kennedy raises the pitch in Citizens United to depict limits on corporate AND warring forces parallel to those of government and capital in a neoliberal economy.
Capitalism faces a unique moment of structural crisis– the impact is unprecedented structural violence and extinction – 5 warrants – that turns the aff.
ROBINSON 14 (William I., Prof. of Sociology, Global and International Studies, and Latin American Studies, @ UC-Santa Barbara, "Global Capitalism: Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism" The World Financial Review) Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to AND the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
The role of the ballot is for the judge to center themselves as the academic fighting neoliberalism and allow radical imagination. The alternative is to reject the aff’s neoliberal paradigm in favor of social development. It is necessary to question the aff’s ideological framework to resolve unending violence.
Heron 8 – Taitu, The Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2008 ("Globalization, neoliberalism and the exercise of human agency." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 20.1-4 (2008): 85-101) While hunger and malnutrition haunts the poor, over nutrition imperils the affluent demonstrating the AND longer hold, the question is what will "the periphery" do?
Powerful corporations hide behind the façade of free speech to exercise their own relative power in shutting down the views of anyone else. free speech relies on economic status- turns case.
Morley 15 ~Daniel Morley, 2-20-2015, "Our Cherished Freedom of Speech Myth," In Defence of Marxism, http://www.marxist.com/our-cherished-freedom-of-speech-myth.htm~~ NB In November 2014 the mysterious so-called Guardians of Peace hacked into Sony Pictures AND that is the demand of those who fight for real freedom of expression!
Capitalism controls the academy- it creates the parameters for acceptable behavior and shuts down radical faculty and free exchange
Chatterjee and Maira 14 Chatterjee, Piya, and Sunaina Maira. "The Imperial University: race, war, and the nation-state." The imperial university: Academic repression and scholarly dissent (2014): 1-50. Our geopolitical positions—of our immediate workplaces as well as trans- national work AND of labor and survival within the U.S. university system.11
Their model of rights assumes equal access to the market of ideas- the promotion of free speech attaches commodity value to it- which strengthens neoliberalism
Brown 15 Brown, Wendy. "Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution" MIT Press, 2015. At times, kennedy raises the pitch in Citizens United to depict limits on corporate AND warring forces parallel to those of government and capital in a neoliberal economy.
Capitalism faces a unique moment of structural crisis– the impact is unprecedented structural violence and extinction – 5 warrants – that turns the aff.
ROBINSON 14 (William I., Prof. of Sociology, Global and International Studies, and Latin American Studies, @ UC-Santa Barbara, "Global Capitalism: Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism" The World Financial Review) Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to AND the system can come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
The role of the ballot is for the judge to center themselves as the academic fighting neoliberalism and allow radical imagination. The alternative is to reject the aff’s neoliberal paradigm in favor of social development. It is necessary to question the aff’s ideological framework to resolve unending violence.
Heron 8 – Taitu, The Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2008 ("Globalization, neoliberalism and the exercise of human agency." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 20.1-4 (2008): 85-101) While hunger and malnutrition haunts the poor, over nutrition imperils the affluent demonstrating the AND longer hold, the question is what will "the periphery" do?
K controls the root cause to the aff- it’s a prior quesiotn and kills autonomous reasoning
Through neoliberal rationality, the state constructs individuals as rational profit-maximizers—privatization is fundamental to this technique of governance—this perpetuates a ruse of freedom and undermines genuine political engagement
Brown 03 ~ Wendy Brown (Professor of Political Science at UC Berkley. Professor Brown received her Ph.D in Political Philosophy from Princeton University in 1983. Prior to coming to Berkeley in 1999, she taught at the University of California, Santa Cruz and at Williams College. Her work has been translated into more than twenty languages. She lectures around the world and has held a number of distinguished visiting fellowships and lectureships. Most recently, she has been a member of the Birkbeck Critical Theory Summer School faculty (2012), a Senior Invited Fellow of the Center for Humanities at Cornell University (2013) and a visiting professor at Columbia University (2014)). "Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy." Theory and Event 7:1. 2003. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/cogn'150/Readings/brown.pdf~~** 3) The extension of economic rationality to formerly non-economic domains and institutions AND individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial form" (Lemke 202).
Neoliberal rationality risks subordinating democracy itself to a calculus of cost-efficiency; moral values of virtuousness become subordinate to profitability
Brown 03 ~Wendy Brown (Professor of Political Science at UC Berkley. Professor Brown received her Ph.D in Political Philosophy from Princeton University in 1983. Prior to coming to Berkeley in 1999, she taught at the University of California, Santa Cruz and at Williams College. Her work has been translated into more than twenty languages. She lectures around the world and has held a number of distinguished visiting fellowships and lectureships. Most recently, she has been a member of the Birkbeck Critical Theory Summer School faculty (2012), a Senior Invited Fellow of the Center for Humanities at Cornell University (2013) and a visiting professor at Columbia University (2014)). "Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy." Theory and Event 7:1. 2003. http://lchc.ucsd.edu/cogn'150/Readings/brown.pdf~~** However, invaluable as Marx's theory of capital and Weber's theory of rationalization are in AND also develops and disseminates new codes of legitimacy. More about this below.)
1/28/17
JANFEB- T- Any
Tournament: Newark | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AM | Judge: Amit Kukreja
Interpretation- On the Jan/Feb 2017 topic, the aff cannot specify a single type of constitutionally protected speech that their advocacy does remove a restriction for. To clarify, plan inclusive counterplans that remove restrictions in single type of speech are illegitimate.
"Any" is a negative polarity term which means that it is indefinite- especially considering that the res* is a downward entailing operator
Kadmon and Landman 93 ~Nirit Kadmon and Fred Landman. "Any" Linguistics and Philosophy Vol 16, No. 4 Aug 1993. Springer. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001516. ~ NB As is well known, any can function in two different ways hand, it AND ost is a sentential ad conclusion - towards w ambiguous:PSanyisan quantifier.
"Any" does not tolerate exceptions, because it’s either an existential quantifier or a universal quantifier
Kadmon and Landman 93 ~Nirit Kadmon and Fred Landman. "Any" Linguistics and Philosophy Vol 16, No. 4 Aug 1993. Springer. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001516. ~ NB What is it that any adds to the meaning of the indefinite NP? We AND they too are no exception to the claim that I don’t have potatoes.
Violation-
1. Specification is incompatible with "any" as an indefinite. Indefinites do not refer to particular instantiations of the resolution.
NOD ~New Oxford Dictionary "Indefinite" adjective.~ NB lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time: they may face indefinite detention. • not clearly expressed or defined; vague: their status remains indefinite. • Grammar (of a word, inflection, or phrase) not determining the person, thing, time, etc., referred to.
Standards
Semantics
Limits
Voter
1/7/17
JANFEB- T- Journalism Extra T
Tournament: Newark | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AM | Judge: Amit Kukreja
Interpretation: The affirmative cannot read this affirmative, or one specifically that advocates public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected journalist speech.
That’s the aff
standard
The aff is extra-topical
States have ruled that the Hazelwood case extends to public colleges and universities. Wheeler 15
CP Text: The United States federal government should implement a system of community relations through civilian review, legal oversight, early intervention, de-escalation, and video release through bodycams.
TF 16 ~Task Force (Group that reviews Chicago police officer accountability) "Recommendations for Reform: Restoring Trust between the Chicago Police and the Communities they Serve" April 2016. Executive Summary.~ NB This moment that we are in requires each of us to ask difficult but necessary AND , and turned out at community forums provided the foundation for this work.
Federal judges are burning out with skyrocketing casework- the brink is now
Bendery 15 ~Jennifer Bendery, 9-30-2015, "Federal Judges Are Burned Out, Overworked And Wondering Where Congress Is," Huffington Post, span class="skimlinks-unlinked"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/judge-federal-courts-vacancies'us'55d77721e4b0a40aa3aaf14b/span~~ NB WASHINGTON — It was Labor Day weekend and Lawrence O’Neill desperately wanted to get out AND long-term when you don’t give people the help they absolutely need."
Ending qualified immunity causes longer and more trials
Beerman 09 ~Beermann, Jack Michael. (Professor of Law and Harry Elwood Warren Schoolar, BU School of Law' "Qualified Immunity and Constitutional Avoidance" Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-51. December 2, 2009 ~ NB This two-pronged formulation of the qualified immunity standard36 lasted only seven years. AND would prevail before trial, which was the stated motivation for the change.
Court clog collapses the federal judiciary – overburdens dockets, expansion can't keep pace.
Oakley 96 John B. Oakley, Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus US Davis School of Law, 1996 The Myth of Cost-Free Jurisdictional Reallocation Personal effects: The hidden costs of greater workloads. The hallmark of federal justice AND would raise the most serious questions of the future course of the nation.
Court clog leads to poor decisions and hurts the minorities the worst- turns case
Brunt 15 ~Alexa Van Brunt, "Poor people rely on public defenders who are too overworked to defend them" Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked, June 17, 2015.~ Money can buy you a great defense team, but what if you can’t afford AND This group bears the brunt of our public defender systems’ underfunding and overwork.
21st Century Cures Act will pass, but time is running out—it’ll be in McConnell’s hands
Radke 11-13 James Radke, PhD. "Dear Senate and President Obama – Last Chance to Pass ~#CuresNow." November 13th, 2016. http://www.raredr.com/news/senate-president-curesnow With the changing of many Senate seats and a President, time is quickly running AND initiatives and ideas in the ‘Cures’ bill can become reality this year."
The plan sparks congressional debate and splits the GOP
Orenstein 16 ~WALKER ORENSTEIN. "Reform advocates upset over pushback over changing malice law." The News Tribune. July 29, 2016. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article92684372.html~~** When an effort by state lawmakers to make prosecuting police for improper use of deadly AND there needs to be a demonstration that we need to address these issues."
Splintering of the GOP undermines lame-duck passage
Cures Act is key to treat antibiotic-resistant superbugs
Coukell 16 Allan Coukell (Pew’s senior director for health programs. He oversees initiatives related to drug and medical device innovation and safety, medical conflicts-of-interest, the pharmaceutical supply chain, pharmacy compounding, antibiotic resistance, prescription drug abuse, FDA, specialty drugs, food safety, school nutrition, as well as other efforts related to health costs and care delivery. Prior to joining Pew, he practiced as a clinical pharmacist in oncology at the London Health Sciences Center and Ontario Regional Cancer Center, served as a senior medical writer and editor with the medical journal publisher Adis International, and covered health and science as a reporter and producer for WBUR (NPR) in Boston and Radio New Zealand. He is Vice Chair of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium and a board member of the Reagan Udall Foundation for the FDA. He served previously as consumer representative on the FDA’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee). "To Fight Antimicrobial Resistance, Allow FDA To Approve New Drugs For Limited Populations." Health Affairs Blog. April 5th, 2016. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/04/05/to-fight-antimicrobial-resistance-allow-fda-to-approve-new-drugs-for-limited-populations/ Over the past several months, microbiologists and public health experts around the world have AND and Pensions plans to advance a companion measure, called the PATH Act.
Superbugs cause extinction—outweighs warming
Goodchild 16 Sophie Goodchild (Lecturer/chair for the Royal Society of Medicine, The Royal Institution, the EU, the Council of Europe, Action on Addiction and others). "What if… a superbug stopped all open surgery indefinitely?" The Royal College of Surgeons Bulletin, vol. 98, issue 7, July 2016, pp. 282-286. http://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1308/rcsbull.2016.282 Superbugs pose a greater threat to human survival than global warming. That’s according to AND this happened and all open surgery had to stop for the foreseeable future.
Litigation slows down effectiveness of police departments
Rosen 05 ~Rosen, Michael M.(Attorney in San Diego at Fish and Richardson PC, an intellectual property law firm) "A Qualified Defense: In Suport of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Caess, With Some Suggestions for its Improvement" Golden Gate University Law Review. Volume 35. Issue 2. January 2005. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev . ~ NB It is hard to deny that the more time police officers spend at trial defending AND immunity can play in reducing unnecessary costs and in improving deterrence of crime.
Court cases against the police kill city budgets and harm local economy.
Elinson and Frosh 15 ~Zusha Elinson (Zusha Elinson is a U.S. news reporter based in Northern California) and Dan Frosch (Dan Frosch is a general assignment reporter for The Wall Street Journal's Southwest Bureau.), 7-15-15, "Cost of Police-Misconduct Cases Soars in Big U.S. Cities," WSJ, http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834~~(VR 10/31/16) The cost of resolving police-misconduct cases has surged for big U.S AND death after being put in a police chokehold last summer sparked widespread protests.
Police budget cuts turns and outweighs the case- multiple warrants
A. Higher crime rates in impoverished areas
Jackman 10 ~Tom Jackman (Washington Post Staff Writer ), 9-30-2010, "Police fear crime increase as recession saps forces," No Publication, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092907447.html~~(VR 10/31/16) Police chiefs across the country say that they are feeling the effects of the nation's AND .6 million. "We won't have enough officers," he said.
B. Lack of Police training- leads to more misconduct and police brutality.
Hollowell 11 ~Perry W. Hollowell (Perry W. Hollowell recently retired as Chief of Police, but has also been a Sheriff, Chief Deputy, Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant while serving with three jurisdictions. Along with a thirty-five year law enforcement career he has also had a successful military career retiring after twenty-two years of service. A strong training background includes training law enforcement and military on both a national and international basis. Along with educating thousands of police and military, Perry has been adjunct faculty for three colleges. He has also pursued numerous hours of professional development programs to include the FBI National Academy, U.S. Army Sergeant’s Major Academy and a Master of Business Management Degree. His training, experience and education has provided the opportunity to train in a wide variety of topics.), 2011, "Are Budget Cuts Killing Police Officers?" N.p, http://www.in.gov/ilea/files/Are'Budget'Cuts'Killing'Police'Officers'11-01-11.pdf ~(VR 11/1/16) While it can be argued that budget cuts are making life more dangerous for law AND could easily see how an officer under stress would revert to his firearm.
C. Incentivizes unjust arrests to make more money
Benson 15 ~Thor Benson (Thor Benson is a traveling writer based in Los Angeles, California. He regularly contributes to ATTN:, and his writing has also been featured in The Atlantic, Wired, Rolling Stone, Vice, The Verge, and elsewhere. ), 5-16-2015, "The 4 Disturbing Reasons Why Police Obsess over Petty Crime," ATTN:, http://www.attn.com/stories/1663/police-departments-prioritize-drug-crimes-over-violent-crimes~~(VR 10/1/16) Why so much attention on low-level drug offenders? One major reason is AND enough overall arrests, the department can lose some of its federal funding.
11/19/16
NOVDEC- Spec- Limit
Tournament: Scarsdale | Round: Octas | Opponent: Harrison MZ | Judge: Ceske, Jacobson, Wang
Interpretation- the affirmative must specify a particular method through which they limit qualified immunity with a solvency advocate in an explicit text in the 1AC. To clarify, they need to specify that they limit a particular feature of QI, an aspect of the legal procedure of QI, or the scope of QI
Violation- they don't spec.
Standards
1. Stable Advocacy-
11/14/16
NOVDEC- T- Implementation
Tournament: Scarsdale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Millburn AJ | Judge: Ben Koh
Interpretation: The affirmative burden must defend the consequentialist effects of a post-fiat topical policy option. To clarify, the negative must prove that the aff isn’t consequentially desirable- they can read any burden, they have to allow us to contest whether or not QI meets their burden, and whether or not their burden is true. The aff may not say that it’s sufficient to affirm if they recognize injustice.
OED defines ought as "Used to indicated a desirable or expected state" hijacks what it means to negate a statement- grammar context proves
Qualified immunity doesn’t exist independent of empirical legislative decisions and police officer conduct – empirical focus key
TLR 4 2004 Texas Law Review "NOTE: The Paradox Of Qualified Immunity: How A Mechanical Application Of The Objective Legal Reasonableness Damage suits against government officials raise a number of competing interests. On the one AND qualified immunity was designed to protect government officials only in limited situations. 8
1. Reciprocity.
2. Topic Lit. Literature analysis proves topic is about consequentialist effects
Armstrong 04 Armstrong, Melissa. Professor of Law and Columbia University "Rule pragmatism: Theory and application to qualified immunity analysis." Colum. JL and Soc. Probs. 38 (2004): 107. www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Fall202004/Armstrong381-A.pdf Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code30 provides a remedy AND they exclude so the judge doesn’t have jurisdiction to vote on a nontopical aff
11/14/16
SEPOCT- CP- Consult Natives
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: Meadows ER | Judge: Braden James
Pluralism exists – only acknowledging diverse circumstances between states can solve the case – turns case since not recognizing particulars justifies violence to certain groups
Young 94 - Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Crawford Ethnic Diversity and Public Policy: An Overview occasional paper no. 8 world summit for social development 11/1/94 UNRISD http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/E543236D2B275A5B80256B6400502008/$file/OPWSSD8.pdf Acc 9/10/16) Some fundamental postulates which shape this analysis require statement. The most basic premise — AND — and in the contemporary world cannot — be done by coercive fiat.
The negative advocacy is that an advocacy of the resolution as a means of deconstructing settler colonialism through a critique of nuclear power except in the cases where marginalized groups affected desire nuclear power production.
Some indigenous groups see waste facilities as good. To clarify, my argument is not that all groups should do this, but they need the option- the aff denies that. Grover et al 92 Grover 92 et al, Kevin, and Jana L. Walker (Native American AND the proposal effectively and, if it's feasible, plan for its development.
Political self-determination solves root cause – key to indigenous status, culture, and resistance to colonialism.
Moore 02 (Margaret The Right of Indigenous Peoples to Collective Self-Determination 3/22-27/2002 ECPR Joint Sessions Universita di Torino, Turin https://ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=14599andEventID=47 Acc 9/11/16) CW By ignoring the historical and territorial nature of most indigenous peoples= claims to be AND of indigenous marginalization and the injustice attached to their continuing inequality and deprivation.
9/18/16
SEPOCT- CP- MSRs- Japan Module
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Quads | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other CP text: Japan should shift to thorium molten salt reactors purchased from TTS, converting existing reactors and incorporating their waste Hapler 13 Halper, Mark " A Plan To Turn Japan’S Nuclear Past Into Its Future With Molten Salt Reactors - The Alvin Weinberg Foundation ". The-weinberg-foundation.org. N. p., 2016. Japan’s fleet of conventional AND Moto-yasu Kinoshita. Absent development of molten salt thorium reactors, we lose out on technological leadership on energy issues to China MARTIN 8-2 Martin, Richard. "Fail-Safe Nuclear Power." MIT Technology Review. N.p., 02 Aug. 2016. Web. 08 Aug. 2016. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/?set=602058.
Over the next AND stagnation of the industry. Increasing thorium mining allows safe extraction of rare earth metals for renewables development – kills aff solvency MIT 16 "Fissile Elements Solutions". Web.mit.edu. N. p., 2016. Web. 28 Aug. 2016. Renewable energies such AND thorium to feed it.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- CP- MSRs- Russia Module
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Quads | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Text: The Russian Federation should replicate it’s MSR type MOSART reactors—more efficient and provide safe energy Ignatiev 7 Victor. "Progress in Development of Li,Be,Na/F Molten Salt Actinide Recycler and Transmuter Concept." Proceedings of ICAPP 2007 (n.d.): n. pag. 2007. Web. 29 Aug. 2016. http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/7548.pdf. VV In study main AND in the design).
10/22/16
SEPOCT- CP- OSMRs
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Quads | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other CP Text: The _ should only produce offshore- small modular reactors. Solves the af Woody 14 Todd Woody (Tech Writer for the Atlantic), 4-17-2014, "Could a Floating Nuclear Power Plant Prevent Another Fukushima?," Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-floating-nuclear-power-plant-for-japan/360747/ NB A group of MIT AND and military bases.” Only offshore avoids nuclear meltdowns Chandler 14 – Mit News Office(David, “Floating nuclear plants could ride out tsunamis”, Apr 6, 2014, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/floating-nuclear-plants-could-ride-out-tsunamis-0416, Daehyun) When an earthquake AND based in Canton, Mass. SMRs are a significant safety upgrade---no need for outside electricity, deals with earthquakes and better waste storage Rosner and Goldberg 11 Robert, William E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor, Departments of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and Physics, and the College; Senior Fellow, Computation Institute; Director, Energy Policy Institute; Enrico Fermi Institute; Harris School of Public Policy and Stephen, Special Assistant to the Director, Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Policy Institute at Chicago The Harris School of Public Policy Studies, "Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.", November, https://epic.sites.uchicago.edu/sites/epic.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/EPICSMRWhitePaperFinalcopy.pdf While the focus in AND scope of this paper.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- CP- SMRs- Africa Module
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Quads | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Text: Africa should import SMRs from US Melymont 16 Rosalind Mclymont, 9-17-2016, "Africa Eyes Nuclear Power; The U.S. Looks To SMRs," No Publication, http://www.africastrictlybusiness.com/news-analysis/africa-eyes-nuclear-power-us-looks-smrs NB As the number of African countries expressing interest in, considering, or actively planning for nuclear energy grows, the United States hopes to become a significant exporter of small modular reactors that can power small cities and villages around the clock. There is excitement and advocacy for the next generation of small nuclear reactors, which are much less expensive to deploy and can be deployed in many of the emerging markets around the world, “ said Ronald Kirk (pictured above), co-chari of CASEnergy Coalition, a U.S. industry-funded group that supports the increased use of nuclear energy “to ensure an affordable, environmentally clean, reliable and safe supply of electricity.”
10/22/16
SEPOCT- CP- SMRs- Belgium Module
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Quads | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Text: Belgium should work with U.S. Companies to develop SMRs Spersaud 6-20 Spersaud, Felicia. Cultice, Curt. (U.S. Department of Commerce), 6-20-2016, "New Opportunities for U.S. Companies in Belgium's Civil Nuclear Energy Industry ," No Publication, http://www.power-eng.com/articles/npi/print/volume-9/issue-3/nucleus/new-opportunities-for-u-s-companies-in-belgium-s-civil-nuclear-energy-industry.html NB My advice would be for U.S. companies to partner with local companies. One local company that is active in decommissioning is Tractebel, a Belgian engineering company that has built some of the nuclear power plants with Westinghouse and was also active in building the SCK-CEN research center. The companies who were originally active in building and designing the power plants would logically be active in decommissioning the same plants. The U.S. Commercial Service in Belgium can help U.S. companies identify potential local partners. Q: Is there any demand in Belgium for new civil nuclear technology? Croigny: There are no new builds planned for now, but given that the phasing out law has been amended, demand for new technologies is possible. I believe there may be interest in smaller and more flexible technologies such as small modular reactors (SMRs), and Belgium is very much involved in fusion technologies with the http://www.iter.org/"ITER project. Interest in Gen III+ or Gen IV advanced reactors is lower though. If the phasing law is not further amended or is cancelled, the future of Belgium will be one without nuclear technology, at least for energy production. There will always be a strong focus on nuclear medicine and RandD in general. U.S. companies can definitely play an active role in those fields in the future.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- CP- SMRs- Japan Module
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Quads | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other CP Text: Japan should develop small modular reactors Matsui 13 Matsui, Kenichi. (Councilor at the Institute of Energy Economics in Japan. He is a past president of the IAEE) "A Thought on Small Modular Reactors" https://www.iaee.org/en/publications/newsletterdl.aspx?id=201. IAEE Newsletter. NB Now, I think AND IFR system and take due action.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- CP- SSD
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: Meadows ER | Judge: Braden James
CP Text: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should designate sub-seabed disposal as the sole candidate for its permanent nuclear waste repository.
Wilson 14 ~Wilson, founder of BuildingGreen, Inc. and executive editor of Environmental Building News, founded the Resilient Design Institute Alex, "Safe Storage of Nuclear Waste", Green Building Advisor, www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/safe-storage-nuclear-waste SP~ The big question now is how long it will be until the plant can be AND . I believe that sub-seabed storage would be far less expensive.
Solves the aff ssd is able to isolate any radioactive nuclear waste from humans.
Bala 2014 ~Amal Bala, Sub-Seabed Burial of Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?, 41 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 455 (2014),SP~ In general, two related methods of underwater disposal of SNF exist: dumping containers AND considering existing laws and a popular belief that Earth’s oceans are a global commons
9/18/16
SEPOCT- CP-SMRs Waste Module
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: Meadows ER | Judge: Braden James Text: The '''' should acquire small modular reactors for electricity generation.
SMRs solve nuclear downsides
They are much smaller which means that they cost a lot less/they also do produce less energy but less complexity is involved. 2. Standard design that can be fabricated in factories so construction costs are less AND no scenario in which a loss-of-coolant accident could occur.
SMRs are a significant safety upgrade—-no need for outside electricity, deals with earthquakes and better waste storage
They utilize gravity driven or natural convection systems, so they are cooled that way There is no large external piping that is required either Major reactor vessels are placed undergournd which dampens the effects of the earth movements
AND a detailed examination of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper.
Nuclear key to decrease emissions NEI 15 Nuclear Energy Institute. “Nuclear Energy in China” Nuclear Technology Exports. Dan Lipman, (Vice President, Suppliers and International Programs), Carol Berrigan (Senior Director, Supplier Policy and Programs), Bob Powers (Senior Director, Federal Program) January 2015. http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Trade/China.pdf?ext=.pdf NB Reduction of Carbo AND reduce its carbon emissions.
Development of nuclear power and new technology is rising to fix emissions problems. Duggan 14 Duggan, Jennifer. “China working on uranium-free nuclear plants in attempt to combat smog.” The Guardian. March 19, 2014. NB China is developing AND avoid a similar accident. Global warming definitively causes extinction Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/) Our planet is 4.5 billion AND be hard to fix!
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- China Prolif
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 9 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other China nuclear ban would break US- china agreement on nuclear tech—allows prolif to other states NEI 15 Nuclear Energy Institute. “Nuclear Energy in China” Nuclear Technology Exports. Dan Lipman, (Vice President, Suppliers and International Programs), Carol Berrigan (Senior Director, Supplier Policy and Programs), Bob Powers (Senior Director, Federal Program) January 2015. http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Trade/China.pdf?ext=.pdf NB Nonproliferation. When AND consent for reprocessing.
Nuclear proliferation results in nuclear war- laundry list Kroenig 15 , Associate Professor and International Relations Field Chair at Georgetown, 2015¶ (Matthew Kroenig, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, "The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have a Future?", The Journal of Strategic Studies, 2015 Vol. 38, Nos. 1–2, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273960071_The_History_of_Proliferation_Optimism_Does_It_Have_a_Future, Accessed 6/28/16, JL @ RKS) The greatest threat AND devastating nuclear exchange.
Nuclear power is the only way to generate sufficient energy for large-scale desalination
IAEA 15~— widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, "New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy," IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015~ It is anticipated that by 2025, 33 of the world population, AND for coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for specific sites in the Mediterranean region
Water crises cause escalating global conflict.
Empirics verify i.e. Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan/India (Kashmir), Egypt. All experience conflict Current effort of diplomacy is insufficient and hasn't worked yet Also impacts to lower AND and "business as usual" prevails, then water wars will accelerate.
That goes nuclear
Zahoor 12 (Musharaf, Researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics – National Defense University, Water Crisis can Trigger Nuclear War in South Asia, http://www.siasat.pk)** Water is an ambient source, which unlike human beings does not respect boundaries. AND being faced by Pakistan, which can only be resolved through political will.
10/15/16
SEPOCT- DA- Egypt Russia Exports
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Russian nuclear export market is focused and expanding in Middle East now – key to economy, nuclear intelligence, and greater overall Russian influence in the region Armstrong 15 (Ian, former non-proliferation and international energy researcher at UPenn, Hudson Institute’s Center for Political-Military analysis, and Temple University, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world’s first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, research presented at conferences at Tufts University and University of Edinburgh, “Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire,” Global Risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/) Thus, Russia’s nuclear power diplomacy has penetrated the international stage in an already significant manner. Countries that have signed on to Rosatom nuclear agreements span across all regions of the world, and include strategically significant players such as Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. As of 2014, 29 Russian reactors are planned for construction abroad, and Rosatom predicts that the number will grow to around 80 within a “few years.” While other countries such as the United States and France have the nuclear know-how required to export nuclear technologies abroad, no entity outside of Russia has aggressively sought to capitalize on international demand for nuclear energy. The Russian dominance of global nuclear energy that has followed holds important geopolitical connotations in the medium-term and beyond. Positive Economic Implications For one, the ability of Russia to not only maintain pre-Fukushima nuclear power agreements but also broaden its international NPP roll-out is a clear signal that — from a global perspective — the reportedly “historic” decline of nuclear energy may be less dramatic than presently understood. Russia’s success in securing a litany of NPP contracts may be an early indicator that nuclear energy will rise in the medium-term along the same environmentally-minded tide as renewables. Naturally, sending nuclear power abroad also provides economic gains to Moscow; The U.S. Department of Commerce projects $740 billion in revenue generation from nuclear power technologies between now and 2025. With Rosatom boasting no other comparable international competitor, vast swaths of that revenue will be siphoned into the pockets of the Kremlin, with nuclear energy standing firmly alongside oil and gas as an adhesive to the otherwise fracturing economy. Finally, nuclear power plants have been deemed as an “effective local development tool” for the surrounding community. Local economies across the diverse list of Rosatom contractees may benefit not only from the labor required for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails. Russian Geopolitical Influence Expanded Though these economic implications are worth considering, they are far overshadowed by the geopolitical impacts of Russia’s nuclear power expansion strategy. The same local governments that may experience economic upticks as a result of Russian-installed NPPs will also become sutured to the Russian nuclear industry — and therefore the broader Russian government. To be clear, the influence gained by Russia through each bilateral nuclear agreement should not be understated. For one, the construction timeline for nuclear power plants is typically long-term, ensuring that Russia will have a presence in any country it signs a nuclear contract with for a minimum of several years. In addition, Moscow has secured special comprehensive contracts with highly strategic countries like Turkey under the premise of “build-own-operate” — a system in which Russia builds, owns, and permanently operates a nuclear power plant. From this perspective, Russian-built nuclear power plants in foreign countries become more akin to embassies — or even military bases — than simple bilateral infrastructure projects. The long-term or permanent presence that accompanies the exportation of Russian nuclear power will afford President Vladimir Putin a notable influence in countries crucial to regional geopolitics. Western influence will subsequently be undermined in crucial ally states like Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria. This now-justified Russian presence abroad will also provide Moscow intelligence opportunities that would otherwise be significantly more difficult and risky. Russian nuclear expertise will also be required in some form for maintenance and operational purposes even in countries that do not sign on for the full build-own-operate package. All of these benefits — significant as stand-alone strategic gains — will be undergirded by the traditional Russian leverage that emerges when nations become dependent on Russia for their energy needs. At present, it appears that Russia is well-positioned to continue its expansive nuclear power diplomacy in pursuit of a broader sphere of influence. However, competition from other capable nuclear powers may emerge in the medium-term. The affirmative trades off – we will grant them the internal link on their second advantage – US-Egypt relations are key to American influence in the region, which blocks Russian influence – it’s a controlling factor *Recut AC CFR 2 Council on Foreign Relations. “Strengthening the US-Egyptian Relationship. Council on Foreign Relations. May 2002. MSG
The U.S.-Egyptian relationship is rooted in strategic calculation. It bolsters peace between Egypt and Israel and makes possible broader peace in the region. The U.S.-Egyptian relationship has helped Egypt modernize its military and has added weight to its position as a stabilizing regional force. America's support has also strengthened Egypt's economy. As has been true for the past two decades, a moderate Egypt is the key to peace and stability in the Middle East and a strong U.S.-Egyptian relationship is essential to securing American presence in the region.¶ The U.S.-Egyptian relationship has served the two sides well. Two decades of military cooperation and training have moderated Egypt's military establishment, the most powerful institution in Egypt, and made it a reliable U.S. partner. During the Gulf War, Egypt's support was central to Arab participation in the war against Iraq; Egypt's willingness to keep open its canal in crisis and allow overflight and refueling cannot be taken for granted. These ties remain central to the U.S. ability to project and protect its strategic interests in the world's most volatile region.¶ Washington has lost sight of what the Middle East would look like without a strong U.S.-Egyptian relationship. A nuclear-inclined or -armed Egypt, ambiguous on the issue of terror, uncertain on peace with Israel, and disinclined to negotiate would drastically recast the management of the Middle East.¶ Since September 11, it has become all too clear that U.S.-Egyptian ties are in trouble. Although the Egyptian government has stood firmly with the United States, the U.S. Congress has grown increasingly critical in its support for Egypt. Congress questions the line that Egypt has taken with Israel, its position on terrorism, issues of human rights, and economic and political reform.¶ A similar dissatisfaction with the U.S.-Egyptian relationship exists in Egypt. The events of recent months set loose demonstrations unprecedented in recent decades. The Egyptian public's perception of powerlessness is breeding alienation and intensifying anger. It underscores a key challenge to American statecraft- how to begin recreating a partnership that serves both Egyptian and American interests and helps further peace for the region. The United States needs Arab allies, especially in these challenging times; Egypt is our most important partner.¶ The generation of American statesmen and political leaders who forged the Egyptian-Israeli agreement and was committed to the political relationship between the United States and Egypt in the 1970s has largely passed. As the Mubarak era similarly draws to a close, Washington should work to ensure that the successor regime shares a commitment to the kind of relationship the United States has enjoyed over the past quarter century.¶ At the same time, both sides must recognize that the U.S.-Egyptian relationship has changed and now reflects new political realities, such as Egypt's struggling economic condition and concerns over governance and human rights. This generation of leaders must set new goals for the relationship and recalibrate the dialogue so that it reaches beyond the institutions of government and engages religious leaders, media, intellectuals, and the business establishment on both sides.¶ Foundations of the U.S.-Egypt Relationship¶ Political¶ Egypt is the most powerful moderate, balancing voice in the Arab world.¶ Its position in the region is critical to peace between Arab states and Israel.¶ Egypt's political clout shapes outlooks and guides agendas in the region.¶ Cairo's diplomatic corps has significant influence in regional and multinational bodies. Egypt plays an important role in the United Nations in shaping international consensus on issues important to peace and stability in the region.¶ Egypt's posture on key issues of importance provides cover for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.¶ Egypt, a vigorous Organization of African Unity actor, has the ability to influence events in Africa.¶ Military¶ U.S.-Egyptian military ties are a key link in the U.S. relationship. They are a central stabilizing factor in the U.S.-Egyptian relationship. More broadly, the U.S.-Egyptian defense relationship sends a signal of domestic moderation and deterrence to the region. The Egyptian military is deeply opposed to Islamic political radicalism.¶ Overflight rights, the sharing of intelligence and military perceptions in the region, transit through the Suez Canal, military supply, etc., demonstrate the important nature of the military relationship, especially during times of war.¶ Egypt hosts Operation Bright Star, the largest military exercise the United States conducts in the world. These maneuvers send a strong signal to the region of the close ties the U.S. shares with Egypt and its ability to quickly deploy American military power during times of crisis.¶ Cultural¶ Egypt's intellectual and academic voice is the strongest in the region.¶ Geopolitical parity is crucial to avoid creeping US-Russia war – this card is fantastic -Parity is both geopolitical and perception-based – changing our view of Russia to respect its power is key -Russia sees current world order as the result of US incursions on its SOIs – means trying to reclaim regions isn’t an act of aggression, it’s a search for equal footing Cohen 15 (Stephen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation, “Why We Must Return to the US-Russian Parity Principle,” The Nation, April 14, 2015, https://www.thenation.com/article/why-we-must-return-us-russian-parity-principle/) (The text below is a somewhat expanded version of remarks I delivered at the annual US-Russia Forum in Washington, DC, held in the Hart Senate Office Building, on March 26.) When I spoke at this forum nine months ago, in June 2014, I warned that the Ukrainian crisis was the worst US-Russian confrontation in many decades. It had already plunged us into a new (or renewed) Cold War potentially even more perilous than its forty-year US-Soviet predecessor because the epicenter of this one was on Russia’s borders; because it lacked the stabilizing rules developed during the preceding Cold War; and because, unlike before, there was no significant opposition to it in the American political-media establishment. I also warned that we might soon be closer to actual war with Russia than we had been since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. I regret to say that today the crisis is even worse. The new Cold War has been deepened and institutionalized by transforming what began, in February last year, as essentially a Ukrainian civil war into a US/NATO-Russian proxy war; by a torrent of inflammatory misinformation out of Washington, Moscow, Kiev and Brussels; and by Western economic sanctions that are compelling Russia to retreat politically, as it did in the late 1940s, from the West. Still worse, both sides are again aggressively deploying their conventional and nuclear weapons and probing the other’s defenses in the air and at sea. Diplomacy between Washington and Moscow is being displaced by resurgent militarized thinking, while cooperative relationships nurtured over many decades, from trade, education, and science to arms control, are being shredded. And yet, despite this fateful crisis and its growing dangers, there is still no effective political opposition to the US policies that have contributed to it—not in the administration, Congress, mainstream media, think tanks, or on campuses—but instead mostly uncritical political, financial, and military boosterism for the increasingly authoritarian Kiev regime, hardly a bastion of “democracy and Western values.” Indeed, the current best hope to avert a larger war is being assailed by political forces, especially in Washington and in US-backed Kiev, that seem to want a military showdown with Russia’s unreasonably vilified president, Vladimir Putin. In February, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande brokered in Minsk a military and political agreement with Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if implemented, would end the Ukrainian civil war. Powerful enemies of the Minsk accord—again, in both Washington and Kiev—are denouncing it as appeasement of Putin while demanding that President Obama send $3 billion of weapons to Kiev. Such a step would escalate the war in Ukraine, sabotage the ceasefire and political negotiations agreed upon in Minsk, and provoke a Russian military response with unpredictable consequences. While Europe is splitting over the crisis, and with it perhaps shattering the vaunted transatlantic alliance, this recklessness in Washington is fully bipartisan, urged on by four all-but-unanimous votes in Congress. (We must therefore honor the 48 House members who voted against the most recent warfare resolution on March 23, even if their dissent is too little, too late.)
* * What more can I say today? I could use my limited time to point out that the primary cause of this fateful crisis has been US policy since the 1990s, not “Russian aggression.” But I did so here nine months ago and subsequently published those remarks (“Patriotic Heresy vs. The New Cold War,” September 15, 2014). Instead, I want to look back briefly to the US-Soviet Cold War, as well as ahead, in order to ask, perhaps quixotically: Even if negotiations over the Ukrainian civil war proceed, how do we sustain them and avoid another prolonged, more perilous Cold War with post-Soviet Russia? The answer is through a new détente between Washington and Moscow. For this, we must relearn a fundamental lesson from the history of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War and how it ended, a history largely forgotten, distorted, or unknown to many younger Americans. Simply recalled, détente, as an idea and a policy, meant expanding elements of cooperation in US-Soviet relations while diminishing areas of dangerous conflict, particularly, though not only, in the existential realm of the nuclear arms race. In this regard, détente had a long, always embattled, often defeated but ultimately victorious history. Leaving aside the first détente of 1933, when Washington officially recognized Soviet Russia after fifteen years of diplomatic non-recognition (the first Cold War), latter-day détente began in the mid-1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. It was soon disrupted by Cold War forces and events on both sides. The pattern continued for thirty years: under President John Kennedy and Khrushchev, after the Cuban Missile Crisis; under President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, in the growing shadow of Vietnam; under President Richard Nixon and Brezhnev in the 1970s, the most expansive era of détente; and briefly under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, also with Brezhnev. Each time, détente was gravely undermined, intentionally and unintentionally, and abandoned as Washington policy, though not by its determined American proponents. (Having been among them in the 1970s and ’80s, I can testify on their behalf.) Then, in 1985, the seemingly most Cold War president ever, Ronald Reagan, began with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev a renewed détente so far-reaching that both men, as well as Reagan’s successor, President George H.W. Bush, believed they had ended the Cold War. How did détente, despite three decades of repeated defeats and political defamation, remain a vital and ultimately triumphant (as it seemed at the time to most observers) American policy? Above all, because Washington gradually acknowledged that Soviet Russia was a co-equal great power with comparable legitimate national interests in world affairs. This recognition was given a conceptual basis and a name: “parity.” It is true that “parity” began as a grudging recognition of the US-Soviet nuclear capacity for “mutually assured destruction” and that, due to their different systems (and “isms”) at home, the parity principle (as I termed it in 1981 in a New York Times op-ed) did not mean moral equivalence. It is also true that powerful American political forces never accepted the principle and relentlessly assailed it. Even so, the principle existed—like sex in Victorian England, acknowledged only obliquely in public but amply practiced—as reflected in the commonplace expression “the two superpowers,” without the modifier “nuclear.” Most important, every US president returned to it, from Eisenhower to Reagan. Thus, Jack Matlock Jr., a leading diplomatic participant in and historian of the Reagan-Gorbachev-Bush détente, tells us that for Reagan, “détente was based on several logical principles,” the first being “the countries would deal with each other as equals.” Three elements of US-Soviet parity were especially important. First, both sides had recognized spheres of influence, “red lines” that should not be directly challenged. This understanding was occasionally tested, even violated, as in Cuba in 1962, but it prevailed. Second, neither side should interfere excessively, apart from the mutual propaganda war, in the other’s internal politics. This too was tested—particularly in regard to Soviet Jewish emigration and political dissidents—but generally negotiated and observed. And third, Washington and Moscow had a shared responsibility for peace and mutual security in Europe, even while competing economically and militarily in what was called the Third World. This assumption was also tested by serious crises, but they did not negate the underlying parity principle. Those tenets of parity prevented a US-Soviet hot war during the long Cold War. They were the basis of détente’s great diplomatic successes, from symbolic bilateral leadership summits, arms control agreements, and the 1975 Helsinki Accords on European security, based on sovereign equality, to many other forms of cooperation now being discarded. And in 1985-89, they made possible what both sides declared to be the end of the Cold War.
* * We are in a new Cold War with Russia today, and specifically over the Ukrainian confrontation, largely because Washington nullified the parity principle. Indeed, we know when, why, and how this happened. The three leaders who negotiated an end to the US-Soviet Cold War said repeatedly at the time, in 1988-90, that they did so “without any losers.” Both sides, they assured each other, were “winners.” But when the Soviet Union itself ended nearly two years later, in December 1991, Washington conflated the two historic events, leading the first President Bush to change his mind and declare, in his 1992 State of the Union address, “By the grace of God, America won the Cold War.” He added that there was now “one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America.” This dual rejection of parity and assertion of America’s pre-eminence in international relations became, and remains, a virtually sacred US policymaking axiom, one embodied in the formulation by President Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, that “America is the world’s indispensable nation,” which was echoed in President Obama’s 2014 address to West Point cadets, in which he said, “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” This official American triumphalist narrative is what we have told ourselves and taught our children for nearly twenty-five years. Rarely is it challenged by leading American politicians or commentators. It is a bipartisan orthodoxy that has led to many US foreign policy disasters, not least in regard to Russia. For more than two decades, Washington has perceived post-Soviet Russia as a defeated and thus lesser nation, presumably analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II, and therefore as a state without legitimate rights and interests comparable to America’s, either abroad or at home, even in its own region. Anti-parity thinking has shaped every major Washington policy toward Moscow, from the disastrous crusade to remake Russia in America’s image in the 1990s, ongoing expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, non-reciprocal negotiations known as “selective cooperation,” double-standard conduct abroad, and broken promises to persistent “democracy-promotion” intrusions into Russia’s domestic politics. Two exceedingly dangerous examples are directly related to the Ukrainian crisis. For years, US leaders have repeatedly asserted that Russia is not entitled to any “sphere of influence,” even on its own borders, while at the same time enlarging the US sphere of influence, spearheaded by NATO, to those borders—by an estimated 400,000 square miles, probably the largest such “sphere” inflation ever in peacetime. Along the way, the US political-media establishment has vilified Putin personally in ways it never demonized Soviet Communist leaders, at least after Stalin, creating the impression of another policy orientation antithetical to parity—the delegitimization and overthrow of Russia’s government. Moscow has repeatedly protested this US sphere creep, loudly after it resulted in a previous proxy war in another former Soviet republic, Georgia, in 2008, but to deaf or defiant ears in Washington. Inexorably, it seems, Washington’s anti-parity principle led to today’s Ukrainian crisis, and Moscow reacted as it would have under any established national leader, and as any well-informed observer knew it would.
* * Unless the idea of détente is fully rehabilitated, and with it the essential parity principle, the new Cold War will include a growing risk of actual war with nuclear Russia. We must therefore strive for a new détente. Time may not be on our side, but reason is. To those who say this is “appeasement” or “Putin apologetics,” we reply, no, it is American patriotism, not only because of the risk of a larger war but because real US national security on many vital issues and in many critical regions—from nuclear proliferation and international terrorism to the Middle East and Afghanistan—requires a partner in the Kremlin. Ukraine’s the tinder – spark sets off nuclear war and mass famine Helfand and Pastore 14 (Ira and John, Ira is M.D., co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, John is M.D., cardiologist in Boston, past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Dr. Ira Helfand and Dr. John O. Pastore: Nuclear doom lurks in U.S. faceoff with Russia over Ukraine,” Daily Hampshire Gazette, August 6, 2014, http://www.gazettenet.com/home/13038993-95/dr-ira-helfand-dr-john-o-pastore-nuclear-doom-lurks-in-us-faceoff) NORTHAMPTON — As we mark the anniversary of the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, events in Europe, both current and historical, underline how great a danger nuclear weapons still pose to our national security. One hundred years ago this month, Europe stumbled into World War I, a conflict that no one wanted but which no one was able to stop. Before it was over 16 million were dead, the world had learned the horrors of chemical warfare and the old order in Europe had been destroyed. The events of August 1914 serve as frightening cautionary tale of how conflict can spin out of control. Today we are witness to another unexpected war in Europe. We all hope that the fighting in Ukraine will not lead to a broader war, but the conflict there between the U.S.-backed government in Kiev and separatists backed by Russia is fraught with danger. For 25 years we have been assured that we no longer had to worry about war between the nuclear super powers. The current crisis puts the lie to these assurances: War between the U.S. and Russia remains a real possibility, and as long as both sides possess large nuclear arsenals — nearly 15,000 nuclear warheads between them — the use of nuclear weapons remains a real possibility as well. A large-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would be a disaster beyond imagining. A 2002 study by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if only 300 Russian warheads got through to targets in U.S. cities, 75 to 100 million people would die in the first half hour. In addition, the entire economic infrastructure of the country would be destroyed, and it is likely that the vast majority of the U.S. population would die in the months following the attack from starvation, epidemic disease, exposure and radiation sickness. The U.S. counterattack would cause similar destruction in Russia. But these local effects are only part of the story. The firestorms generated by these nuclear explosions would loft enormous amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere causing catastrophic global climate disruption. If all of the 3,100 weapons allowed to the U.S. and Russia when the New START treaty is fully implemented in 2017 were used, temperatures around the world would drop an average of 8 degrees Celsius to levels not seen since the last ice age; food production would plummet and the vast majority of the human race would starve. Recent studies have shown that even a very limited nuclear war, one involving just 100 small, Hiroshima-sized bombs, less than 0.03 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenals, would cause enough climate disruption to trigger a worldwide famine that would put more than 2 billion people at risk. The use of a small portion of our nuclear arsenal against targets far away from the U.S. would trigger this global catastrophe even if our adversaries failed to drop a single warhead on us.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Fossil Shift
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 4 | Opponent: Meadows ER | Judge: Braden James
Nuclear energy essential to decreasing warming- studies prove
Nuclear power avoids carbon outputs- better than renewables and coal
Emanuel AND and letting go of long-held biases when it comes to nuclear power
1. Power plants spew radioactive coal ash that multiple studies confirm is worse than nuclear waste
Hvistendahl 16 Hvistendahl, Mara. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste". Scientific American. N. p., 2016. Web. 23 Aug. 2016. Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these AND Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
2. Native reservations have large amounts of fossil fuels on reserves – shift would be worse because coal is more intrusive
SO 15 Sourcewatch Organization. 2015 "Coal And Native American Tribal Lands - Sourcewatch". Sourcewatch.org. N. p., 2016. Web. 15 Sept. 2016. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), the host of SourceWatch, believes strongly in the internet as a vital tool for education, advocacy and information exchange The Native American lands of the United States are home to large coal reserves, AND also led to conflict within tribes and between some tribes and environmental groups.
Kuckro and Klump 8-18 ~Rod Kuckro and Edward Klump (Energywire reporters). "Power grid hums along during heat wave thanks to upgrades." Energywire. August 18th, 2016. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060041763~~ Despite record-setting temperatures and unprecedented demand for electricity across much of the United AND 14.1 billion in 2012 — reversing a three-decade decline.
Shutting down nuclear plants causes blackouts—renewables can’t solve
Follett 5-16 ~Andrew Follett (science reporter). "Nuclear Power’s Decline In New England Could Cause Blackouts." The Daily Caller. May 16th, 2016. http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/16/nuclear-powers-decline-in-new-england-could-cause-blackouts/~~ Competition from natural gas and environmental opposition are causing New England’s nuclear power plants to AND 470 million to the local economy, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Blackouts spread like wildfire—the grid’s poorly prepared to minimize them if they arise
Kennedy 14 ~Jessica Kennedy (contributor). "Without An Optimized Electric Grid: We Will Be Back In Black." Your Energy Blog. April 29th, 2014. http://www.yourenergyblog.com/without-an-optimized-electric-grid-we-will-be-back-in-black/~~** THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN’T WORKING Our aging energy transmission system is poorly prepared to minimize AND rare, although it does expose serious weaknesses in our current grid structure.
Grid failure undermines military readiness—DOD operations would grind to a halt
CNA 15 presents the views of a group of retired flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps CNA Military Advisory Board (a not-for-profit company which serves the AND believe that the time to fix the issues with our grid is now.
Military readiness prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear war
O’Hanlon and Kagan 7 Michael O’Hanlon (Senior Fellow and Sydney Stein Jr. Chair in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution) and Frederick Kagan (Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute). "The Case for Larger Ground Forces." Stanley Foundation Report. April 2007. http://stanleyfoundation.org/publications/other/Kagan'OHanlon'07.pdf We live at a time when wars not only rage in nearly every region but AND Such a measure is not only prudent, it is also badly overdue.
10/15/16
SEPOCT- DA- Hormesis
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Meltdowns are net good for bio-d – removing humans outweighs increased radioactivity Lynas 11 Mark Lynas 11, visiting research associate at Oxford, 6-7-2011, “How a nuclear disaster can be good for ecology,” http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/how-a-nuclear-disaster-can-be-good-for-ecology/ The truth, insofar AND , or even an environmental one. Key to health Feinendegen 5—MD. Prof. Emeritus Julich, and Senior Researcher U.S. DOE and National Institutes of Health, (Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis, British Journal of Radiology, vol. 78, 3-7, http://glasstone.blogspot.com/, Note – this ev is not from a blog – the blog has this paragraph from the above cite in it – Miles
'Low doses in the mGy range AND unnecessary expenditure.' Scientific consensus goes neg Venugopal 5—President, Indian Association of Nuclear Chemists and Allied Scientists . Outstanding Scientist and the Director of Radiochemistry and Isotope Group at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. Officer-in-charge, Nuclear Material Accounting and Control cell of the Indian. Department of Atomic Energy. Member of Standing Advisory Group for Safeguard Implementation to advice Director General IAEA on Safeguards Matters. Chairman of Radiation Technology and Applications Committee of Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences and a member of Board of Radiation and Isotope Techology board. He is a member of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research council and member of safety committees such as Operating Plants Safety Review Committee and Conventional and Fire Safety Review Committee. He is the chairman of Nuclear materials sectional committee of Bureau of Indian Standards. President of Indian Thermal Analysis Society and Indian Association of Nuclear Chemists and Allied Scientists. VP of Indian Nuclear Society. Member of several professional bodies such as NAARRI, ISAS, ISEAS, ISMAS, MRSI and Hindi Vigyan Parishad. He has received many awards including the Netzsch-ITAS award, ISCAS silver medal and MRSI medal and INS award for 2005 and DAE award. Senior professor of Homi Bhabha National Institute, a deemed University of DAE. M.Sc. Ph.D—AND—Shri R.V.Kamat Radiochemistry Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. M.Sc (V., Nuclear Power is Fine - Radiation is Good for You, Indian Nuclear Society News, April-June)
Unfortunately, far from AND issue of Prospect magazine).
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- India Fossil Shift
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 9 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other India planning on increasing nuclear energy consumption- key to satisfy increasing energy needs Jayaraman 10 K. S. Jayaraman, 1-4-2010, "India's nuclear future : Nature News," No Publication, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100104/full/news.2010.0.html NB With India's energy AND the Indo–US deal.
Solar and wind power is too expensive and unreliable to fuel India’s exploding energy demands. Vaidyanathan 15 Gayathri Vaidyanathan, 10-19-2015, "Coal Trumps Solar in India," Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-trumps-solar-in-india/ VR Grid power, which AND can deliver renewables,” he said. India is top three source for carbon emissions--- major contributor to global warming and nuclear power necessary to prevent poverty Martin 15 Richard Martin, 10-7-2015, "India Tries to Electrify without Creating an Emissions Disaster," MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542091/indias-energy-crisis/ NB Already the world’s AND More Life, Less Death.”)
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 9 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Nuclear energy saves depleting resources for Iran and limits warming while benefiting bodies Shirazi 15 Shirazi, Nima. Posted By, 7-7-2015, "Wide Asleep in America: Does Iran Really Need Nuclear Power?," No Publication, http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2015/07/does-iran-really-need-nuclear-power.html. NB After leaving his AND and renewable souces.”
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Shinzo Abe pushing for constitutional revision of Article 9 – just shy of PC required Walters 7/26 (Riley Electoral Win for Japanese Prime Minister Draws International Concern Providence Mag 7/26/16 https://providencemag.com/2016/07/electoral-win-japanese-prime-minister-draws-international-concern/ As the longest serving AND top concern. Nuclear phase-out extremely popular Kingston 13 (Jeff Will the real Shinzo Abe emerge after Diet success? CNN 23 July 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/23/opinion/japan-real-abe-kingston/index.html Abe also faces AND points for a sample of 500 Constitution revision causes explosive East Asian arms race Siegel 07 (Michael T. Questioning the Rationale for Changing Japan’s Peace Constitution Asia-Pacific Geopolitics: Hegemony Vs. Human Security ed. Joseph A. Camilleri pp. 75-92 1/1/07 Google Books Acc 9/1/16) CW For almost sixty years, AND - with all the risks that that entails. East Asian arms race triggers global annihilation. Ogura and Oh 97 Toshimaru Ogura and Ingyu Oh are professors of economics, April, “Nuclear clouds over the Korean peninsula and Japan,” 1997Accessed July 10, 2008 via Lexis-Nexis (Monthly Review) North Korea, South Korea, and Japan AND escalate into a global conflagration. Constitution revision would turn the clock back to an imperialist era – kills individual liberties The Economist 13 (Back to the future http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21578712-shinzo-abes-plan-rewrite-japans-constitution-running-trouble-back-future 6/1/13 Even this slight shift AND must help each other.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Japan Fossil Shift
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 9 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Japan will shift towards fossil fuels, empirics prove – 2013 was the terminal shut down of all nuclear power and japan spent 58 more fossil fuels, they haven’t maxed out yet – dependence is false, japans companies have spread their reach and are government subsidized unlike renewables EIA 2015 "Japan - International - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". Eia.gov. N. p., 2016. Web. 10 Aug. 2016. KB In March 2011 AND projects in recent years. They’re a major contributor to warming Reuters 15 Reuters Editorial, 7-17-2015, "Japan sets 26 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as target," Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-carbon-idUSKCN0PR0A220150717 NB Japan - the world's fifth largest AND coal-fired plants at home.¶
Global warming definitively causes extinction Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/) Our planet is 4.5 billion AND be hard to fix!
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Middle East Desal
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Quads | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Nuclear desal is necessary to address increasing water demand Al Sabbagh 4-6 Nabegh Al Sabbagh (is a New York-based independent analyst of energy issues in the Middle East.—Works For Security Council), 4-6-2016, "The Case for Developing Nuclear Energy in the Middle East," Atlantic Council, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-case-for-developing-nuclear-energy-in-the-middle-east NB The Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts an increase in the demand for energy in the region of 7 percent over the next 10 years. Increases in demand for electricity will add 281 GW of new production, of which nuclear energy is expected only to contribute 7 GW (2.5 percent of total demand). Nuclear energy nonetheless presents a strong case as an important energy source. The World Health Organization recently reported that Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Qatar, and UAE suffer from some of the worst air pollution indicators globally. Iran and Saudi Arabia also contribute some of the highest CO2 emissions. If an environmental approach is not a convincing case, the Middle East’s water resource woes, low levelized cost of energy (LCOE, or the average cost of energy over time) for nuclear power amid a reduction in hydrocarbon subsidies, and plummeting national oil revenues should inspire an efficient approach to energy consumption. Nuclear reactors can contribute significantly to water desalination. The concentration of desalination plants in the Middle East—70 percent of the world’s total plants—highlights the problem facing the region. Nuclear desalination is a tested technology, notably in Kazakhstan, which boasts a 750 MW plant. In the Middle East the combination of a facility that produces both electricity and desalinates water can address both resource deficits. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) support the technology of a combined utility plant. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) argues that the SMRs can desalinate water, generating 5-300 MW of energy. High water salinity and high regional temperatures represent a barrier for transitioning to reverse osmosis desalination. The energy intensive process forces Middle Eastern countries to look for alternatives, prompting attempts at introducing solar powered plants. Yet transitioning into solar powered desalination has also had its barriers. The scarcity of fresh water against an annual 8 percent increase in demand for desalination requires a diversified approach towards desalination, considering the Middle East’s states dependence on fossil fuels for desalination.
Renewables insufficient- need nuclear as a baseload power Al Sabbagh 4-6 Nabegh Al Sabbagh (is a New York-based independent analyst of energy issues in the Middle East.—Works For Security Council), 4-6-2016, "The Case for Developing Nuclear Energy in the Middle East," Atlantic Council, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-case-for-developing-nuclear-energy-in-the-middle-east NB Saudi Arabia recently announced an investment of $133 billion towards its power sector projects. This policy reflects the wider trend in the region where governments turn to investment to meet public demand. Divesting away from fossil fuels toward nuclear energy would allow countries like Saudi Arabia to meet the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24 hours (known as “baseload generation”), producing a stable baseload source that would address blackouts across the region. The increasing demand in energy ensures that the reserve margin capacity is never high enough to rely completely on solar panels. If solar panels are not supported by a reserve margin capacity, which nuclear energy can provide, the high seasonal demands will create blackouts. This is a constant issue facing utility providers in the Middle East during the summer—as seen in Muscat, Riyadh, and other major cities. Poor security and coordination in Arab countries—take Egypt and Jordan, for example—highlights the vulnerability in the current dependence structure. Al-Arish station, located in the Sinai Peninsula, has suffered repeated sabotage, causing disruptions to the flow of gas and liability disputes. Nuclear energy would provide a reliable domestic baseload technology, but would require more than the expected 7 GW contribution to address recurrent problems. The high capital expenditure commitment challenges region-wide implementation given recent strains on national budgets. Furthermore, the stagnating economics of nuclear power and electricity demand has led to many plants being decommissioned globally, among other pressures on the industry. However, SMRs could compete with other economically viable options. They can decrease the gap between the capital commitment and resource pool available and provide energy both to urban centers and remote areas.
Brink of water wars especially in the Middle East- it’s a survival concern and will escalate Ahmed 15 Nafeez Ahmed (PhD, is an investigative journalist, international security scholar and bestselling author who tracks what he calls the 'crisis of civilization.' He is a winner of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian reporting on the intersection of global ecological, energy and economic crises with regional geopolitics and conflicts. He has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest.) , 3-19-2015, "New age of water wars portends 'bleak future'," Middle East Eye, http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/new-age-water-wars-portends-bleak-future-804130903 NB New peer-reviewed research published by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) shows that water scarcity linked to climate change is now a global problem playing a direct role in aggravating major conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. Numerous cities in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia are facing “short and declining water supplies per capita,” which is impacting “worldwide” on food production, urban shortages, and even power generation. In this month’s issue of the Journal of the AWWA, US water management expert Roger Patrick assesses the state of the scientific literature on water scarcity in all the world’s main regions, finding that local water shortages are now having “more globalised impacts”. He highlights the examples of “political instability in the Middle East and the potential for the same in other countries” as illustrating the increasing “global interconnectedness” of water scarcity at local and regional levels. In 2012, a US intelligence report based on a classified National Intelligence Estimate on water security, commissioned by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, concluded that after 2022, droughts, floods and freshwater depletion would increase the likelihood of water being used as a weapon or war, or a tool of terrorism. The new study in the Journal of the AWWA, however, shows that the US intelligence community is still playing catch-up with facts on the ground. Countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen, where US counter-terrorism operations are in full swing, are right now facing accelerating instability from terrorism due to the destabilising impacts of unprecedented water shortages. Thirsty people, failing states The UN defines a region as water stressed if the amount of renewable fresh water available per person per year is below 1,700 cubic metres. Below 1,000, the region is defined as experiencing water scarcity, and below 500 amounts to “absolute water scarcity”. According to the AWWA study, countries already experiencing water stress or far worse include Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Yemen, India, China, and parts of the United States. Many, though not all, of these countries are experiencing protracted conflicts or civil unrest. The AWWA is an international scientific association founded to improve water quality and supply, whose 50,000 strong membership includes water utilities, scientists, regulators, public health experts, among others. AWWA operates a partnership with the US government’s Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for safe water, and has played a key role in developing industry standards. Study author Robert Patrick, formerly of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, is a government consultant and water management specialist who has worked on water scarcity issues in Jordan, Lebanon, New Mexico, California and Australia. His Journal of AWWA paper explains that the grain price spikes that contributed to Egypt’s 2011 uprising, were primarily caused by “droughts in major grain-exporting countries” like Australia, triggered by climate change. Patrick points out that such civil unrest could signal an Egyptian future of continuing unrest and conflict. He highlights the risk of war between Egypt and Ethiopia due to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, threatening to restrict Egypt’s access to the Nile River, which supplies 98 of Egypt’s water supply. As Egypt’s population is forecast to double to 150 million by 2050, this could lead to “tremendous tension” between Ethiopia and Egypt over access to the Nile, especially since Ethiopia’s dam would reduce the capacity of Egypt’s hydroelectric plant at Aswan by 40. Water wars and the ‘war on terror’ The nexus of countries in the Middle East and North Africa where the United States is currently leading a multi-year military engagement against the “Islamic State” (IS) all happen to be drought-stricken. Before Syria erupted into ongoing civil war, Patrick reports, 60 of the country went through a devastating drought that led over a million mostly Sunni farmers to migrate to coastal cities dominated by the ruling Alawite sect, fuelling sectarian tensions that culminated in unrest and a cycle of violence. A new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has provided the most compellingresearch to date on how climate change amplified Syria’s drought conditions, which in turn had a “catalytic effect” on civil unrest. But Patrick’s concern is that the Syria crisis could be a taste of things to come. Citing the findings of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) sponsored by NASA and the German Aerospace Centre, he notes that between 2003 and 2009, the Tigris-Euphrates basin comprising Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and western Iran “lost groundwater faster than any other place in the world except northern India”. A total of 117 million acre-feet of stored freshwater was lost due to reduced rainfall and bad water management. If this trend continues, “trouble may be brewing” for the region. Yemen is also consuming water far faster than it is being replenished, Patrick observes, an issue that has been identified by numerous experts as playing a key background role in driving local inter-tribal and sectarian conflicts. Syria, Iraq and Yemen are currently subjected to ongoing US military operations under the rubric of fighting Islamist terrorists, yet the new AWWA study suggests that the rise of Muslim extremist movements has been indirectly fuelled by regional water crises. The ravaging impact of climate change in these countries has devastated local agriculture, heightened community tensions, and stoked already entrenched political grievances. With huge quantities ofmoney pouring into the region to Islamist militant networks from the Gulf states, this is an ideal recipe for violent radicalisation. As US meteorologist Eric Holthaus points out, the rapid rise of the “Islamic State” (IS) last year coincided with a period of unprecedented heat in Iraq, recognised as being the warmest on record to date, from March to May 2014. Recurrent droughts and heavy rainstorms have also played havoc with Iraq’s agriculture. With water supplies dwindling, and agriculture waning, the Iraq’s US-backed Shiite-dominated government has largely failed to address these burgeoning challenges, even as IS has moved quickly to exploit these failures, for instance by using dams as a weapon of war. Escalating trend But water scarcity does not make conflict inevitable. While water has played a role in Israel’s conflicts with its neighbours in the past, Patrick argues that through a combination of efficient water management methods and desalination technologies, Israel has been able to successfully cooperate with Jordan on their shared water resources for many years. This is, of course, a one-sided picture. While Israel does not want for water, the UN has warned that Gaza could become “unlivable” due to its worsening water crisis. Ongoing water shortages throughout the Occupied Territories are rooted in discriminatory policies of resource theft by the occupying power, including Israel’s effective forced privatisation of the Palestinian water supply. These disparate cases show that while, theoretically, efficient water management and distribution methods can offset crises and continue to meet local needs, government mismanagement combined with regional power inequalities and repressive policies can be a precursor to social breakdown and violent conflict. The AWWA study’s findings have been backed up by other recent studies. One from this January in Global Affairs, the journal of the European International Studies Association, argues that all four of the world’s most significant hotspot regions for major conflicts – the Sahel, the Middle East, Central Asia, the coastal zones of East, South and Southeast Asia - are increasingly unstable due to constellations of “water scarcity; loss of land; and food insecurity”. The paper, which calls for greater European support to these regions to mitigate trends of environmental degradation, is authored by Hartmut Behrend, a climatologist with the German military’s Agency for Geo-information. The symbiotic link between modern agriculture and water consumption poses the biggest global risk, according to Roger Patrick. Water scarcity is driven predominantly by the increasing use of groundwater in agriculture. Yet across most of the world’s major food basket regions, including the Central Valley in Cali¬fornia, northern China and the Upper Ganges in India and Paki¬stan, “demand exceeds their aqui¬fers’ sustainable yields,” by some estimates 3 and a half times as much. By 2035, global water consumption is predicted to increase by 85. Much of this growth will be driven not just by agricultural expansion, but also by greater demand for energy. Biofuels are particularly water intensive, but hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for unconventional oil and gas also uses large amounts of water.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Nigerian Energy
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Nuclear Power in Nigeria provides cheap energy to the power deprived population Idrisu 14, Babatunde. "The Nigerian Nuclear Power Plant: Risks and Benefits." N.p., 30 May 2014. Web. 8 Sept. 2016. https://community.irena.org/t5/The-Market/The-Nigerian-Nuclear-Power-Plant-Risks-and-Benefits/td-p/325. Babatunde Idrisu has a masters in energy management and policy from the Pennsylvania State University and has conducted multiple research work on renewable energy, energy policy and electricity markets. The construction of AND for a long time. Nigeria is energy deprived and current energy isn’t enough, Nuclear power is the method to give more energy to the civilians- No terrorism Escalation the government is committed to banning fissile material that would result in Nuke Terror Daly 14, John C.K. "Nigeria Planning Country's First Nuclear Power Plant." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ck-daly/nigeria-planning-countrys_b_5146398.html. John C.K Daly is the chief analyst at the energy news site Oilprice.com. Dr. Daly received his Ph.D. in 1986 from the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London. VV According to the U.S. AND Nigeria’s electrical output.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Russia Fossil Shift
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Russia developing nuclear now WNA 8-1 World Nuclear association, 8-1-2016, "Nuclear Power in Russia," No Publication, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-power.aspx NB Russia is moving steadily forward with plans for an expanded role of nuclear energy, including development of new reactor technology.¶ An average of one large reactor per year is due to come on line to 2028, balancing retired capacity.¶ Efficiency of nuclear generation in Russia has increased dramatically since the mid-1990s. Over 20 nuclear power reactors are confirmed or planned for export construction.¶ Exports of nuclear goods and services are a major Russian policy and economic objective.¶ Russia is a world leader in fast neutron reactor technology.¶ Russia's first nuclear power plant, and the first in the world to produce electricity, was the 5 MWe Obninsk reactor, in 1954. Russia's first two commercial-scale nuclear power plants started up in 1963-64, then in 1971-73 the first of today's production models were commissioned. By the mid-1980s Russia had 25 power reactors in operation, but the nuclear industry was beset by problems. The Chernobyl accident led to a resolution of these, as outlined in the Appendix.¶ Rosenergoatom is the only Russian utility operating nuclear power plants. Its ten nuclear plants have the status of branches. It was established in 1992 and was reconstituted as a utility in 2001, as a division of SC Rosatom.
Nuclear necessary to displace coal and other non-renewables Mckinsey 09 Mckinsey and Company. “Pathways to an energy and carbon efficient Russia- Opportunities to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (In autum 2009, as part of its efforts to quantify energy efficiency and greenhouse gas abatement measures across major economies, McKinsey and Company conducted an independent and self-financed study on the related topics of energy efficiency. The research team interacted with more than 50 experts, among them some of the leading specialists in Russia, and acknowledges their input. The purpose of the study is to identify opportunities in Russia to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions). The study focuses on quantifying and prioritizing opportunities) KB/NB ¶ Construction at new nuclear capacity. Russia is one of the leading players in the field¶ of civilian-use nuclear technology. with a 15 share of global reactor production¶ ¶ and a 45 share of global uranium enrichment. The industry employs a few hundred¶ thousand people and is considered one of the nation's most competitive industries¶ internationally. it is in this context that the Russian government has announced¶ ¶ an ambitious nuclear power pant program. aiming to increase domestic nuclear capacity¶ from its cment 24 GW to 52-62 GW ‘n 2000. Among experts. however. it is disputed¶ ¶ as to what extent such an ambitious program could be ‘mplemented: it would reqme build¶ 1.7-2.7fl reactors per year. whereas today Russia brings one reactor on-Iine every two years.¶ Construction at hydro and renewable energy sources. Russia has the second largest¶ potential for hydro power in the world. but so far exploits only about 20 of its economic¶ potential’. Current plans that have been announced assume the construction of about¶ 40 GW of additional hydo capacity by 2000. Renewable sources of energy have also¶ received more attention of late: in the recently approved Energy Strategy 2000. a target¶ of 4.5 of total power production is envisaged. a five-fold increase over today's figure¶ ¶ of 0.9. As with nuclear. the likelihood of the successful implementation of this strategy¶ is also subject to question. particularly since no supporting polices for renewables have¶ yet been adopted. The future implementation of these policies wil affect the Russian economy it many.¶ sometimes interdependent ways - its future fuel mix will determine the amount of investment¶ required. the gas volumes available for export. and the costs which industry and consumers¶ will have to pay for electricity". To take into consideration the existing uncertainties about¶ ¶ the future of Russia’s fuel mix. four discrete scenarios have been developed in our study.¶ ¶ related to the possible outcome of the policy decisions isted above. Each scenario¶ ¶ is characterized by a particular fuel mix and level of required capital investments. and shows¶ ¶ the resulting differences in gas consumption and CO; emissions (Exhibit 3).¶ ¶ e Fuel mix scenario 1 ("Balance on coal") assumes limitations on domestic gas¶ consumption and moderate construction rates of nuclear and large hyao capacity¶ (replacement of retiring nuclear capacity. the rebuild'ng of Sayano-Shushenskaya hydro¶ station. and 7 SW of new hyao plants by 2080. Due to the imits on the use of gas.¶ coal becomes competitive it most Russian regions9. In this scenario the share of coal¶ increases from the current 19 to 30. and therefore this scenario has the higiest 00.¶ emissions.¶ ¶ a Fuel mix scenario 2 ("Balance on gas”) assumes the same moderate construction rate¶ of hydro and nuclear as 'n Scenario 1. In this scenario. however. domestic use of gas¶ is not limited. Given the long-term oil price forecast at $60/bbl. gas remains competitive¶ everywhere west of Sberia‘o. In this scenario. the share of gasbased power generation¶ increases from 47 to 59. Scenario 2 consequently has the lowest investments.¶ but the higiest gas usage. This scenario represents a continuation of current trends.¶ and is therefore used as a reference case throughout this report.¶ ¶ a Fuel mix scenario 3 ("Minimum gas”) assumes an ambitious 'ncrease in installed nuclear¶ capacity from 23 to 57 SW and in installed hyao capacity from 53 to 93 GW. Also.¶ itaesumesthesamenattralgaspolicyasScenario1.Thefuturefuelmixinth'sscenario¶ would be the one closest to Russia’s Energy Strategy 2030 (dated 2009). Of the four¶ scenarios. th’s one has the highest investments. but the lowest consunption of natural gas.¶ ¶ a Fuel mix scenario 4 ("Minimum emissions") assumes the same ambitious rate¶ of construction of new nuclear and hydro capacity as in Scenario 3. but a iberal approach¶ to gas as described in Scenario 2. In this scenario the share of coal decreases to 12.¶ while the share of nuclear and hydro 'ncreases to 45. making this scenario the one with¶ the lowest CO.Q emissions.
Russia is a key emitter- and exports to other countries Chiavari 08 Institute for International and European Environmental policy (Joana Chiavari, and marc Pallemaerts). DG Internal Policies of the Union. Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy. “Energy and climate Change in Russia.” IP/A/CLIM/NT. 2008-06. NB Although other energy and climate change issues are important in Russia, it is oil and gas that¶ drives everything and represents the central fact of the energy politics of the country.¶ Russia holds the world's largest natural gas reserves9 and the eighth largest oil reserves10,¶ being the world's largest exporter of natural gas, and the second largest oil exporter11.¶ Russia’s economy is heavily dependent on oil and natural gas exports. According to the US¶ DOE (2008), the oil and gas sector generates more than 60 of Russia’s export revenues¶ (64 in 2007), and accounts for 30 of all foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country.¶ Total GHG emissions (excluding LULUCF12) in Russia amounted to 3,323,419.06 Gg CO2¶ eq. in 1990 (the base year) and decreased by 36.0 from the base year to 200413, due to the¶ steep economic decline in the 1990s14 (UNFCCC, 2008). Russia’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol is to ensure that average emissions in 2008-¶ 2012 do not exceed its emissions at the 1990 level, which would leave a substantial part of¶ assigned amount available for transfer to other Annex I Parties and make the country a¶ potential net seller.¶ Russia is currently the third largest energy consumer and is also the world’s third largest¶ emitter of greenhouse gases in absolute terms15, accounting for a share of around 6.2 of the¶ global GHG emissions in 2004, according to EIA (2007). Total fossil CO2 emissions are¶ reported in the figure below for different regions and include Russia:
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Russian Middle East Presence
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Russia currently assists Iran’s nuclear program—multiple relations benefits for both Retinger 14 Andrei Retinger (Independent Expert who has written about Russian nuclear industry for more than 10 years), 11-26-2014, "Russia-Iran deal is about more than nuclear Power," Russia Beyond The Headlines, http://rbth.com/opinion/2014/11/26/russia-iran_deal_is_about_more_than_nuclear_power_41727.html NB Russia and Iran signed a series of documents providing for the construction of eight nuclear power units along with a specific contract for the construction of two power units at the already operating Bushehr nuclear power plant. Overall, this is one of the biggest deals to be signed on the world nuclear market in recent years. ¶ The value of the whole package of projects is estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars, given that the price of building one nuclear power unit on the world market varies between $5 billion and $7 billion. ¶ The arrangement will not only generate massive profits for Russian state nuclear energy corporation Rosatom, but will also strengthen Russia’s position in the Middle East.¶ According to preliminary estimates, thanks to the deals, Iran may eventually produce a minimum of 10 gigawatts of energy from nuclear power. This estimate includes power generated by the first power unit at Bushehr. As a reference, Russia currently generates 25 gigawatts of energy from nuclear power. With the agreement, Moscow and Tehran have sent a clear signal to the international community that despite a difficult political climate, the two countries are moving their relationship forward. The construction of these new nuclear power generation capacities could make Iran an exporter of electricity to the countries of the Persian Gulf, where there is an ever-increasing demand.¶ The entire project for the construction of new nuclear power units in Iran, including equipment and fuel supplies, will be carried out under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) and will fully comply with the regime of nonproliferation of nuclear materials, as was the case with the construction of the first power unit at the Bushehr plant.¶ Russia has much to gain from the new agreement in both the short and long term. The agreement provides work for Russia’s nuclear machine factories and engineers, who will have to supply all the equipment for the power plants throughout the construction period. In addition, the nine power units, including Bushehr-1, will also be buying Russian nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future. The provision of fuel alone will mean a constant inflow of revenue into Russia for many years. The profit from the sales of fuel is also estimated to be tens of billions of dollars. ¶ More importantly, the deal, like the agreement to finish the construction of Bushehr in the first place after it was abandoned by Germany, gives Russia a place from which to grow its presence in the Iranian market once sanctions on Tehran are lifted. Iran has been under some form of sanctions since its 1979 revolution, and additional sanctions were imposed in 2006 after the country refused to curtail its nuclear enrichment program. Today, sanctions are in place against Iran’s oil and petrochemical industries, banking and insurance services, shipping and some online services such as Web hosting. ¶ Many observers, however, believe that the country will soon be allowed back into the global economic community. The U.S. and the E.U. lifted some sanctions against Iranian oil in January after Iran stopped enriching uranium past 5 percent, and are expected to lift more restrictions before the end of 2014. ¶ In anticipation of the re-opening of the Iranian economy, businesspeople from all over the world are flocking to Tehran. The nuclear agreement gives Moscow a boost. This is especially important since once the country is open for business, Russia will face stiff competition from China, Japan and Europe in providing goods and services. ¶ Iran, for its part, will also reap multiple benefits. The country is diversifying its energy policy. Expanding the percentage of domestic energy provided by nuclear power will free up oil and gas to sell on the world market. Additionally, the project will provide Iran with thousands of jobs for years to come. The plants will require large teams of construction workers along with specialized architects and engineers. Another plus — the Iranian scientists and engineers who will build and work at the power plants will learn from the experience of their Russian colleagues. ¶ In anticipation of the re-opening of the Iranian economy, businesspeople from all over the world are flocking to Tehran. The nuclear agreement gives Moscow a boost. This is especially important since once the country is open for business, Russia will face stiff competition from China, Japan and Europe in providing goods and services. ¶ Iran, for its part, will also reap multiple benefits. The country is diversifying its energy policy. Expanding the percentage of domestic energy provided by nuclear power will free up oil and gas to sell on the world market. Additionally, the project will provide Iran with thousands of jobs for years to come. The plants will require large teams of construction workers along with specialized architects and engineers. Another plus — the Iranian scientists and engineers who will build and work at the power plants will learn from the experience of their Russian colleagues.
Russia nuclear reactors allow alliances and presence in Middle East and others Armstrong 15 Ian Armstrong Is A Supervisor and Researcher At Wikistrat, The World’S First Crowdsourced Geopolitical Consultancy. He Previously Assisted In Research At Temple University, The University Of Pennsylvania, Scottish Parliament, And Hudson Institute'S Center For Political-Military Analysis, Where He Has Focused On Non-Proliferation And International Energy. His Research Has Been Presented At Conferences At Tufts University And University Of Edinburgh. Ian'S Analysis Has Been Featured At Prominent Outlets Such As Business Insider, Foreign Policy Association, Cbs News, And Realclearenergy., 10-29-2015, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global Risk Insights, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/ NB Though these economic implications are worth considering, they are far overshadowed by the geopolitical impacts of Russia’s nuclear power expansion strategy. The same local governments that may experience economic upticks as a result of Russian-installed NPP’s will also become sutured ot the Russian nuclear industry – and therefore the broader Russian government. To be clear, the influence gained by Russia through each bilaterial nuclear agreement should not be understated. For one, the construction timeline for nuclear power plants is typically long-term, ensuring that Russia will have a presence in any country it signs a nuclear contract with for a minimum of several years. In addition, Moscow has secured special comprehensive contracts with highly strategic countries like Turkey under the premise of “build-own-operate”—a system in which Russia builds, owns, and permanently operates a nuclear power plant. From this perspective, Russian-built nuclear power plants in foreign countries become more akin to embassies – or even military bases- than simple bilateral infrastructure projects. The long-term or permanent presence that accompanies the exportation or Russian nuclear power will afford President Vladmir Putin a notable influence in countries crucial to regional geopolitics. Western influence will subsequently be undermined in crucial ally states like Egypt, Turkey, and Algeria. This now=justified Russian presence abroad will also provide Moscow intelligence opportunities that would otherwise be significantly more difficult and risky. Russian nuclear expertise will also be required in some form for maintenance and operational purposes even in countries that do not sign on for the full build-own-operate package. ¶ All these benefits—significant as a stand alone strategic gains—will be undergirded by the traditional Russian leverage that emerges when nations become dependent on Russia for their energy needs. ¶
Continued Russian presence stabilizes the Middle East Maxim 1-15 Maxim A (expert at Russian International Affairs Council and a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Russia Pulse. He was a Fullbright Visiting Fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Eurasian Russian and East European Studies and ., 1-15-2016, "Russia's Plan for the Middle East," National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-plan-the-middle-east-14908?page=3 NB Moscow’s activity in the Middle East has been on the rise in recent years, but its decision in late September and early October to strike in Syria came as a shock to many. The Kremlin used its air and missile operations—carried out with sophisticated weaponry and in an impressive manner—to demonstrate that Russia is a modern military superpower with a global reach.¶ Whether Russian covert operations for Assad’s army or the 5,240-plus mission flights it has launched—including 145 flyouts of strategic missile-carrying and long-range bomber aviation—were game changers on the ground is still an issue that is debated even within the Russian expert community. Nevertheless, Moscow’s coordinated efforts with regional governments, as well as targeted strikes on key assets of terrorist and rebel groups, accomplished two politically important objectives for Moscow.¶ First, they pushed all the interested players to deal with the Kremlin, which can no longer be treated as “isolated.” Some, such as the Gulf states and Syrian opposition groups, criticize Moscow sharply in public but continue to work behind the scenes through multiple channels. This trend will likely continue to develop as Saudi Arabia becomes one of Moscow’s major Gulf negotiating partners. Others, like the Obama administration, while continuing to disagree on President Bashar al-Assad’s role in the Syrian conflict, have cooperated with the Kremlin on technical issues and matters of mutual security. For instance, even though a confrontational spirit still dominates the relationship, Moscow and Washington are now actively involved in sorting out the groups that should be blacklisted as terrorist from those that can become a part of a future political process in Syria. Second, Moscow’s actions have managed to shift some Western elites’ perception of Assad, especially when contrasted with the rapidly growing threat of the Islamic State. While the Paris atrocities and the shootings in California helped make ISIS the primary concern, Moscow’s military operations in Syria firmly positioned the Kremlin as a leader in the anti-ISIS campaign. It has become clear that including Russia is far more profitable, both politically and operationally, than marginalizing it.¶ All of those developments, however, must be sustained. Given that there are about 150 groups currently on the ground in the Syrian crisis—and the different amounts of leverage that Moscow, Washington, Riyadh, Doha and Tehran have with their respective proxies—practical implementation of a political transition may be impossible. Nonetheless, Moscow’s intent to bring the conflict into the political realm as soon as possible seems real and understandable; carrying it out militarily is a politically costly and demanding enterprise, especially when acting alone.¶ Rhetoric aside, Tehran and Baghdad are tactical partners; few seriously believe they would be willing to help shoulder whatever burden the Russians bring to Syria. Moreover, in his annual question-and-answer session, President Vladimir Putin expressed doubts that Russia needs a full-fledged military base in Syria. Reading between the lines, this means that Moscow is not willing to make long-term security commitments in Syria—at least without clear gains of its own. Nor does it want to get bogged down in regional spats, although the situation Russia now finds itself in suggests quite the opposite.¶ Moscow is not looking for a face-saving exit strategy at this point, but rather one that would allow it to emerge victorious. The Kremlin is likeliest to pursue a Syrian political transition in which Moscow has an equal say with Washington, and its ideas are well-heard and implemented. If the current level of limited cooperation continues between Moscow and Washington, and if the Kremlin doesn’t see any factors threatening to unbalance its accomplishments—such as foreign ground troops—Russia will likely become more cooperative, including on issues regarding Assad’s departure.¶ The turbulent nature of the conflict and the region in general, however, leaves plenty of room for “thunderheads”—uncalculated risks and unexpected developments in the region or elsewhere that can complicate Russia’s strategy. The spiraling confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia is an example. Most of those who advise the Kremlin on the Middle East believe that the ongoing spat between Saudi Arabia and Iran is fundamentally a bitter regional political rivalry which is reinforced by the ideological divide between Sunnis and Shia, not the other way around. The rupture of diplomatic ties merely institutionalized the mutual non-admittance and antagonism that has long found expression in proxy wars across the region.¶ Therefore, contrary to the popular opinion that Russia will interfere on the side of Iran, Moscow will most probably take a neutral stance—despite its strong language condemning Saudi Arabia’s killing of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. But what worries Russia is that a crisis would push Moscow and Washington to make bold moves in the region—one area where coordination between the two capitals is unlikely and the consequences may therefore be dangerous. Besides, if focus moves to the Sunni-Shia nature of the regional conflict, there’s a real risk that ISIS could have a respite from the pain it has recently felt, if not a chance at rebirth as a quasi-state with a violent and populist ideology. With the news that Daesh has obtained surface-to-air missile technology capable of downing civil and military aircraft, fighting the Islamic State becomes even more of a challenge for both Russia and the United States.¶ On a bilateral level, Iran will remain an essential counterpart for Moscow in the war in Syria and the post-war settlement, even though the two states’ interests are not identical. Neither do they completely share interests elsewhere in the Middle East, so their cooperation will continue to be substantial but limited to issues of security. Moscow and Tehran continue to be compelled adversaries and pragmatic allies. Should Iran be relieved from the U.S. sanctions regime over the course of the year, and pursue a more robust policy on the energy market, their relations in 2016 will be marked by more adversity than friendship.¶ Russia’s relations with Turkey will most likely deteriorate further, and could indeed become a major spoiler to a U.S.-Russia settlement on Syria. The initial round public outrage after the downing of the Russian plane, another “thunderhead,” died down eventually. But in the Kremlin, it continued to dominate Moscow’s policy vis-à-vis Ankara. In part, this has to do with the genuine feeling of personal betrayal that the Russian president experienced from the shoot-down, which grew—rightly or wrongly—into an understanding that the current Turkish government is inclined to provocative policies. Turkey, for its part, turned out to be the only player that voiced its disagreement with Russia’s actions through open hostilities of its own. The feeling of resentment, mixed with wounded vanity and a (quite legitimate) sense of insecurity, could drive Ankara toward more aggressive posturing and militarized unilateral actions in its own near abroad. Russia will act on this perception in dealing with Turkey from now on.¶ Moscow will most likely try to restore its ties with Egypt, a country for which it has had special intentions as a regional partner since the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood. Relations with Egypt cooled off after the explosion of the Russian plane over the Sinai Peninsula. Since Moscow and Cairo disagreed over the nature of the accident, with the Egyptians insisting it was not a terrorist attack, Moscow unilaterally suspended Russian tourism to the country and halted what had been a fast-developing economic and military partnership. Nevertheless, Egypt remains an important regional player on Russia’s radar screen, and Moscow hopes to win Egyptian support for its initiatives in the region. Above all, it fits into another major goal for Russia’s Middle East diplomacy in the upcoming year: restoring its image among the region’s Sunni states. Perception of Russia as pro-Shia has become rampant in the region since the start of its campaign in Syria. This has seriously limited many policy options for Moscow, and the Kremlin feels a need to reverse the trend. Soft power projection will consequently become an important facet of Russian foreign policy in the Middle East. Israel may be another topic for Moscow to cautiously explore in 2016. The Israeli-Palestinian talks have become increasingly dysfunctional over the past year; should Moscow feel it has ideas for nudging them along, and senses support for such a nudge, it may become more active diplomatically. But Moscow views Israel in a broader context—as a country with serious military and intelligence capabilities. It will most likely work with the Israelis across a wide range of the regional security agenda, mainly over cooperation on Sunni radical groups and a Syrian peace settlement, while keeping its contacts relatively low-profile.¶ At the end of 2015, the Kremlin forecasted and feared that 2016 would bring further political crises in Yemen, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq. Now, with Saudi-Iranian tensions worsening across the Middle East, this scenario seems much more certain. For its part, Moscow will continue to promote its grand vision for the Middle East as a region with a coherent security structure, which would let it cope with its own internal challenges and keep threats from bubbling up from the region, including into Central Asia and the Caucasus. The contours of the current conflict patterns in the region make this vision much harder to promote, let alone implement. The Russian operation in Syria clearly stretches far beyond its regional goals and has much to do with setting the boundaries of what the Kremlin considers a struggle to shape the world order. However, as 2015’s three months of intensive Russian action in the Middle East revealed, Moscow often misses the global forest for the trees. Middle East descent into further conflict means nuclear escalation Kissinger 15 Henry Kissinger, October 16, 2015, Kisinger, served as national-security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford, Wall Street Journal, A Path Out of the Middle East Collapse, http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-path-out-of-the-middle-east-collapse-1445037513 DOA: 10-17-15 NB The debate about whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran regarding its nuclear program stabilized the Middle East’s strategic framework had barely begun when the region’s geopolitical framework collapsed. Russia’s unilateral military action in Syria is the latest symptom of the disintegration of the American role in stabilizing the Middle East order that emerged from the Arab-Israeli war of 1973. In the aftermath of that conflict, Egypt abandoned its military ties with the Soviet Union and joined an American-backed negotiating process that produced peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan, a United Nations-supervised disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria, which has been observed for over four decades (even by the parties of the Syrian civil war), and international support of Lebanon’s sovereign territorial integrity. Later, Saddam Hussein’s war to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq was defeated by an international coalition under U.S. leadership. American forces led the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States were our allies in all these efforts. The Russian military presence disappeared from the region. That geopolitical pattern is now in shambles. Four states in the region have ceased to function as sovereign. Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq have become targets for nonstate movements seeking to impose their rule. Over large swaths in Iraq and Syria, an ideologically radical religious army has declared itself the Islamic State (also called ISIS or ISIL) as an unrelenting foe of established world order. It seeks to replace the international system’s multiplicity of states with a caliphate, a single Islamic empire governed by Shariah law. ISIS’ claim has given the millennium-old split between the Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam an apocalyptic dimension. The remaining Sunni states feel threatened by both the religious fervor of ISIS as well as by Shiite Iran, potentially the most powerful state in the region. Iran compounds its menace by presenting itself in a dual capacity. On one level, Iran acts as a legitimate Westphalian state conducting traditional diplomacy, even invoking the safeguards of the international system. At the same time, it organizes and guides nonstate actors seeking regional hegemony based on jihadist principles: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria; Hamas in Gaza; the Houthis in Yemen. Thus the Sunni Middle East risks engulfment by four concurrent sources: Shiite-governed Iran and its legacy of Persian imperialism; ideologically and religiously radical movements striving to overthrow prevalent political structures; conflicts within each state between ethnic and religious groups arbitrarily assembled after World War I into (now collapsing) states; and domestic pressures stemming from detrimental political, social and economic domestic policies. The fate of Syria provides a vivid illustration: What started as a Sunni revolt against the Alawite (a Shiite offshoot) autocrat Bashar Assad fractured the state into its component religious and ethnic groups, with nonstate militias supporting each warring party, and outside powers pursuing their own strategic interests. Iran supports the Assad regime as the linchpin of an Iranian historic dominance stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean. The Gulf States insist on the overthrow of Mr. Assad to thwart Shiite Iranian designs, which they fear more than Islamic State. They seek the defeat of ISIS while avoiding an Iranian victory. This ambivalence has been deepened by the nuclear deal, which in the Sunni Middle East is widely interpreted as tacit American acquiescence in Iranian hegemony. These conflicting trends, compounded by America’s retreat from the region, have enabled Russia to engage in military operations deep in the Middle East, a deployment unprecedented in Russian history. Russia’s principal concern is that the Assad regime’s collapse could reproduce the chaos of Libya, bring ISIS into power in Damascus, and turn all of Syria into a haven for terrorist operations, reaching into Muslim regions inside Russia’s southern border in the Caucasus and elsewhere. On the surface, Russia’s intervention serves Iran’s policy of sustaining the Shiite element in Syria. In a deeper sense, Russia’s purposes do not require the indefinite continuation of Mr. Assad’s rule. It is a classic balance-of-power maneuver to divert the Sunni Muslim terrorist threat from Russia’s southern border region. It is a geopolitical, not an ideological, challenge and should be dealt with on that level. Whatever the motivation, Russian forces in the region—and their participation in combat operations—produce a challenge that American Middle East policy has not encountered in at least four decades. American policy has sought to straddle the motivations of all parties and is therefore on the verge of losing the ability to shape events. The U.S. is now opposed to, or at odds in some way or another with, all parties in the region: with Egypt on human rights; with Saudi Arabia over Yemen; with each of the Syrian parties over different objectives. The U.S. proclaims the determination to remove Mr. Assad but has been unwilling to generate effective leverage—political or military—to achieve that aim. Nor has the U.S. put forward an alternative political structure to replace Mr. Assad should his departure somehow be realized. Russia, Iran, ISIS and various terrorist organizations have moved into this vacuum: Russia and Iran to sustain Mr. Assad; Tehran to foster imperial and jihadist designs. The Sunni states of the Persian Gulf, Jordan and Egypt, faced with the absence of an alternative political structure, favor the American objective but fear the consequence of turning Syria into another Libya. American policy on Iran has moved to the center of its Middle East policy. The administration has insisted that it will take a stand against jihadist and imperialist designs by Iran and that it will deal sternly with violations of the nuclear agreement. But it seems also passionately committed to the quest for bringing about a reversal of the hostile, aggressive dimension of Iranian policy through historic evolution bolstered by negotiation. The prevailing U.S. policy toward Iran is often compared by its advocates to the Nixon administration’s opening to China, which contributed, despite some domestic opposition, to the ultimate transformation of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The comparison is not apt. The opening to China in 1971 was based on the mutual recognition by both parties that the prevention of Russian hegemony in Eurasia was in their common interest. And 42 Soviet divisions lining the Sino-Soviet border reinforced that conviction. No comparable strategic agreement exists between Washington and Tehran. On the contrary, in the immediate aftermath of the nuclear accord, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the U.S. as the “Great Satan” and rejected negotiations with America about nonnuclear matters. Completing his geopolitical diagnosis, Mr. Khamenei also predicted that Israel would no longer exist in 25 years. Forty-five years ago, the expectations of China and the U.S. were symmetrical. The expectations underlying the nuclear agreement with Iran are not. Tehran will gain its principal objectives at the beginning of the implementation of the accord. America’s benefits reside in a promise of Iranian conduct over a period of time. The opening to China was based on an immediate and observable adjustment in Chinese policy, not on an expectation of a fundamental change in China’s domestic system. The optimistic hypothesis on Iran postulates that Tehran’s revolutionary fervor will dissipate as its economic and cultural interactions with the outside world increase. American policy runs the risk of feeding suspicion rather than abating it. Its challenge is that two rigid and apocalyptic blocs are confronting each other: a Sunni bloc consisting of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States; and the Shiite bloc comprising Iran, the Shiite sector of Iraq with Baghdad as its capital, the Shiite south of Lebanon under Hezbollah control facing Israel, and the Houthi portion of Yemen, completing the encirclement of the Sunni world. In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be treated as your friend no longer applies. For in the contemporary Middle East, it is likely that the enemy of your enemy remains your enemy. A great deal depends on how the parties interpret recent events. Can the disillusionment of some of our Sunni allies be mitigated? How will Iran’s leaders interpret the nuclear accord once implemented—as a near-escape from potential disaster counseling a more moderate course, returning Iran to an international order? Or as a victory in which they have achieved their essential aims against the opposition of the U.N. Security Council, having ignored American threats and, hence, as an incentive to continue Tehran’s dual approach as both a legitimate state and a nonstate movement challenging the international order? Two-power systems are prone to confrontation, as was demonstrated in Europe in the run-up to World War I. Even with traditional weapons technology, to sustain a balance of power between two rigid blocs requires an extraordinary ability to assess the real and potential balance of forces, to understand the accumulation of nuances that might affect this balance, and to act decisively to restore it whenever it deviates from equilibrium—qualities not heretofore demanded of an America sheltered behind two great oceans. But the current crisis is taking place in a world of nontraditional nuclear and cyber technology. As competing regional powers strive for comparable threshold capacity, the nonproliferation regime in the Middle East may crumble. If nuclear weapons become established, a catastrophic outcome is nearly inevitable. A strategy of pre-emption is inherent in the nuclear technology. The U.S. must be determined to prevent such an outcome and apply the principle of nonproliferation to all nuclear aspirants in the region.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Russian Navy
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other Russian nuclear submarines help balance against the US 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 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.
Strong Russian navy northern fleet deters NATO and US militarization in the arctic 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 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
Arctic war goes nuclear -- independently spills over to global security 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
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.
Satellites need nuclear power cells because they last much longer than solar cells in space and provide vital heat for electronics to work – the aff effectively ends space ex from the past 50 years
David 11 ~Leonard, David (Space Insider Columnist. Reporting on space activities for over 50 years. Has been honored internationally and recognized By the royal Aeronautical Society- award for best space submission at the aerospace journalist convention in Engalnd in 2006. 2010 Winner of the prestigious National space club press award, presented this honor during the club's annual robert H. Goddard Memorial Dinner in April 2011 that was held in Washington, DC.). "50 Years of Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft: It All Started with Satellite Transit 4A." Space.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 09 Aug. 2016. http://www.space.com/12118-space-nuclear-power-50-years-transit-4a.html.** Consider this a nuclear blast from the past – all the way back to the AND nuclear maxim for the space community: "Nukes do it all night!"
Space col solves extinction
Newitz 13 (Annalee, Ph.D. in American Studies, Knight Science Journalism Fellowship from MIT, co-founded multiple science and technology magazines, Tech Culture Editor at the technology site Ars Technica, 5.15.13, "Escape Plans: Why do we need a space program? Because Earth isn’t going to be a safe place in the long term," http://www.slate.com/articles/health'and'science/science/2013/05/surviving'the'next'mass'extinction'humans'will'need'to'leave'earth'for'space.html, Accessed: 7.15.16)VW Today, we have solid evidence that confirms environmental changes like these can be blamed AND a lot weirder, than what you see in most science fiction stories.
Space col solves resource wars and overpopulation
- bracketed for gendered language Alleyne 10 (Richard, senior general news reporter and science correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, 8.9.10, "Stephen Hawking: mankind must move to outer space within a century," http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7935505/Stephen-Hawking-mankind-must-move-to-outer-space-within-a-century.html, Accessed: 7.15.16)VW The human race must look to outer space within the next century or it will AND in favour of manned, or should I say 'personed', space flight."
10/15/16
SEPOCT- DA- South Africa Energy
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 8 | Opponent: Other | Judge: Other South Africa wants to push nuclear energy because it’s reliance on coal has curtailed economic growth EWN 15 Eye-Witness News reporting from Department of Energy. http://ewn.co.za/2015/12/27/South-Africa-initiates-nuclear-power-procurement-process NB JOHANNESBURG - South Africa has started a process that could lead to it adding up to 9,600 megawatts of nuclear power to its national grid, the department of energy said on Sunday. The department said the cabinet had earlier this month given the green light to issue a request for proposals from the nuclear industry, which would be put to the cabinet for approval before a request was issued for formal bids. It gave no time-frame for the process but the broader plan to boost nuclear power extends over the coming 15 years. Africa’s most industrialised economy, which relies heavily on coal for electricity, has been grappling with power shortages that have curtailed economic growth, and the Treasury in October set aside 200 million rand to consider the costs, benefits and risks of building more nuclear power stations. Yet the costs of nuclear power make it a controversial option. Analysts estimate the nuclear project will cost as much as R1 trillion, sparking criticism from opposition parties of the expense and of construction agreements being made behind closed doors. Former Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene pledged that the nuclear programme would be transparent and his successor Pravin Gordhan has said his office would ensure that South Africa stuck to fiscal prudence, including on any deals relating to the building of nuclear power stations. In Sunday’s statement the department of energy said it was committed to cost effectiveness and transparency, adding it would ensure that the process is done within the government’s fiscal policy framework. South Africa has one nuclear power plant, the Koeberg station near Cape Town. Nuclear solves environmental concerns and benefits South Africa’s economy Omarjee 7-19 Lameez Omarjee, (Energy Journalist) 7-19-2016, "The case for nuclear energy," Fin24, http://www.fin24.com/Economy/the-case-for-nuclear-energy-20160719 NB “Nuclear is the cheapest and most environmentally friendly option for Africa,” said Viktor Polikarpov, vice president of the sub-Saharan Africa region of Russian nuclear firm Rosatom. African countries are facing a trilemma when it comes to energy generation. This includes the security of supply, and the impact on the environment and the economy, he explained. “The cost of electricity generated by nuclear is cheapest compared to coal,” he added. Nuclear power has the potential to bring about sustainable development across industries and have a positive socio-economic impact by creating job opportunities and developing skills in communities, he said. Nuclear power generation also adds benefits in other fields such as medicine, isotopes, radiation and water desalination. “By 2050, the total capacity of nuclear power plants will double,” said Polikarpov. A lot of countries are expressing an interest in nuclear programmes, added Oliver Bard, nuclear project director of EDF South Africa. This is because power is imperative for macro-economic development. “There can be no human development without efficient access to power,” he said. Nuclear energy sources can provide power 20 years and beyond. It is also “one of the solutions” to diversify a country’s energy mix. Countries are also looking to nuclear energy as an independent solution for supply, making them more self-reliant and less dependent on other countries for energy, he explained.
South Africa has a strong nuclear program and this spills over to help other programs Omarjee 7-19 Lameez Omarjee, (Energy Journalist) 7-19-2016, "The case for nuclear energy," Fin24, http://www.fin24.com/Economy/the-case-for-nuclear-energy-20160719 NB “Africa is not new to nuclear and nuclear is not new to Africa,” said Polikarpov. There are currently eight countries building nuclear energy infrastructure and South Africa already has a nuclear power generating plant at the Koeberg Power Station in the Western Cape. Nuclear, should be an efficient way to tap base load needs, for the growing energy demands of Africa’s growing population, and economic growth, he said. “South Africa has a strong situation to lead development of nuclear in Africa,” said Bard. The country has the infrastructure, industry and skills. Building a nuclear programme will give momentum for the process across the continent, said Bard. The Koeberg Power Station has been operating for 32 years, added David Nicholls, Chief Nuclear Officer at Eskom. The cost of operating the station for a year comes to 20c/KWH. This is as much as Eskom pays for coal, to make coal-fired power, he said. The problem with existing coal-fired power stations is that as they get older they become more costly to maintain, and they yield poorer performance.
10/22/16
SEPOCT- DA- Taiwan Fossil Shift
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 1 | Opponent: Gilmour SW | Judge: Martin Sigalow Nuclear power reduces air pollution which hurts quality of life Biello 13 – David, writes for the scientific American, Internally Cites James Hansen, Professor at Columbia University (“How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming” http:www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/) In addition to reducing the risk of nuclear war, U.S. reactors have also been staving off another global challenge: climate change. The low-carbon electricity produced by such reactors provides 20 percent of the nation's power and, by the estimates of climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, avoided 64 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also avoided spewing soot and other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved some 1.8 million lives. And that's why Hansen, among others, such as former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, thinks that nuclear power is a key energy technology to fend off catastrophic climate change. "We can't burn all these fossil fuels," Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be burned. "Coal is almost half the global emissions. If you replace these power plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors you could do a lot of pollution reduction quickly." Indeed, he has evidence: the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and ‘80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. The world needs to drop its global warming pollution by 6 percent annually to avoid "dangerous" climate change in the estimation of Hansen and his co-authors in a recent paper in PLoS One. "On a global scale, it's hard to see how we could conceivably accomplish this without nuclear," added economist and co-author Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, where Hansen works. Taiwanese air pollution uniquely risks cancer exposure Cheng 93 - Chao-chan Cheng is Professor, Sun Yat-sen Center for Policy Studies, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC. Known as Akira Harimoto, Dr. Cheng is a native of Taiwan and a naturalized Japanese citizen. Abstract: Taiwan and Japan have faced similar environmental problems at comparable stages in their economic development, and have passed through similar stages in the development of their systems of environmental law. Three phases in the development of environmental law making are distinguished: preparatoryf, ormative and developed. This article compares the relative progress of Taiwan and Japan through these stages, and suggests that Taiwan may benefit by studying Japan's analogous prior experiences with pollution prevention and environmental law. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AIR and WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS IN TAIWAN AND JAPAN Copyright @ 1993 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Association
Air pollution is also severe and getting worse. Citing an EPA report, one article noted that "the spread of NO2, CO, 03, dust, and SO 2 in the Taipei Basin, including Taipei City and Taipei County, is such that these areas are now classified as third-level control regions (pollution most severe), primarily because automobile exhausts do not readily dissipate." 65 The sources and variety of pollutants are increasing too. For instance, in May of 1991 airborne dioxin pollution in Nan-Tzu Kaohsiung caused by the burning of electrical cables affected more than two thousand students and teachers of the K'o-Liao Elementary School. 66 In an accident affecting even more people, a chloride leak at the Handy Chemical Corporation Ltd. in Kaohsiung caused more than seven thousand people to seek emergency treatment in April 1992.67 Radioactive steel bars were discovered in the structure of a building on Long Chiang Street in Taipei in September 1992.68 Finally, in May 1992 the burning of waste circuit board material resulted in a second dioxin air pollution emergency near the K'o-Liao Elementary School which affected more than six hundred students at the school. The manufacturer of the circuit boards, Wu's Printed Circuit Company Ltd., was punished by the Kaohsiung City Bureau of Environmental Protection. 69 Furthermore, most of these types of pollution have measurable impacts on public health. For instance, the Public Sanitary Institute of Taiwan University estimates that because of exposure to high levels of benzene in vehicle exhausts, the cancer rate for students riding motorcycles is between 19/106 and 130/106, and between 66/106 and 130/106 for workers riding motorcycles.70
The plan increases emissions – they shift to coal not renewables Chen 12 Y.H. Henry Chen (Taiwan Business Topics magazine’s associate editor and reporter. Prior to joining Taiwan Business Topics magazine in 2014, Tim was a frequent contributor, focusing primarily on issues related to energy, economy and technology), "Non-Nuclear, Low-Carbon, or Both? The Case of Taiwan," MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, December 2012 AZ Under the non-nuclear policy scenario, fossil-based generation will replace part of the lost electricity output, and this will lead to an increase in Taiwan’s total CO2 emissions, as shown in Figure 7a. While electricity sectors, especially coal-fired power, will contribute to most of the additional emissions, a slight increase in emissions from other industrial sectors reflects that electricity input is substituted by other fossil-based energy input. Figure 7b shows that Taiwan’s total CO2 emissions may increase by more than 3.5 relative to BAU levels from 2035 onwards. The emissions increase is not trivial, which suggests that when pursuing the non-nuclear policy, it is also important to consider effective measures that could curb CO2 emissions. Coal turns case – power plants spew radioactive coal ash that multiple studies confirm is worse than nuclear waste Hvistendahl 16 Hvistendahl, Mara. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste". Scientific American. N. p., 2016. Web. 23 Aug. 2016. Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * See Editor's Note at end of page 2 At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or hig her than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants. McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. Global warming definitively causes extinction Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/) Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!
10/14/16
SEPOCT- K- Orientalism
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 1 | Opponent: Gilmour SW | Judge: Martin Sigalow Ethical shaming of Taiwan is a psychological tool to reaffirm the moral superiority of West – this othering is the root of colonial logic and reproduces endless cold wars Pan 12 ChengXin, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Deakin University, “Knowledge, Desire And Power In Global Politics: Western Representations of China’s Rise”, pg 48-51, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2012 AW The ‘China threat’ paradigm is a discursive construct closely linked with Western/American colonial desire and historical experience. It reflects the inability or at least unwillingness of the Western/American self to make sense of China beyond their own fear and realpolitik trajectories. In doing so, its ethnocentric representation of China provides the West with a measure of strategic familiarity and moral certainty, thus reaffirming the self-imagination of the West. The imagination of an external ‘threat’ or Other has long been instrumental to the formation and maintenance of self-identity.” In the logic of what Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri call ‘colonialist representations', the difference of the Other, first having been pushed to the extreme, ‘can be inverted in a second moment as the foundation of the Self. In other words, the evil, barbarity, and licentiousness of the colonized Other are what make possible the goodness, civility, and propriety of the European Self’. They go on to say that ‘Only through opposition to the colonized does the metropolitan subject really become itself.” The threatening imagery of ‘wilderness’ in the early periods of American nation-building served a similar purpose in that it helped maintain America’s “New World mythology’. As James Robertson notes, “there is no New World without wilderness. If we are to be true Americans (and thus part of that New World and its destiny), there must be wilderness. The symbol is an imperative for our real world’.” The construction of self-identity through the discourses of threat, Otherness and wilderness perhaps culminated in the poetics and politics of the Cold War, “an important moment in the (re)production of American identity'.” In this process, discourses of international relations and foreign policy played a central role. They helped create and police boundaries and Otherness so that a unified self could be identified and protected. As Campbell notes, “The constant articulation of danger through foreign policy is thus not a threat to a state's identity or existence: it is its condition of possibility. While the objects of concern change over time, the techniques and exclusions by which those objects are constituted as dangers persist’.” In this sense, although the Cold War was a pivotal moment in the Western/American construction of threat, such a discursive practice is not confined to the Cold War.” It is, as noted before, embedded in the modern quest for certainty, and the Cold War mentality is only a historically specific manifestation of that ongoing modern colonial desire. Not surprisingly then, the Cold War's end did little to disrupt the discursive ritual of constructing Otherness. If anything, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the ‘Evil Empire’ demanded more threats, simply because their very absence would become a threat to the coherence and unity of the West/the US. Without clearly identifiable enemies, ‘there can be no overarching ontology of security, no shared identity differentiating the national self from threatening others, no consensus on what—if anything— should be done.” For this reason, Mearsheimer quite accurately predicted that “we will soon miss the Cold War'.” Mearsheimer’s prediction certainly rang true within a number of US government agencies and institutions, most notably the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whose very identity and institutional certainty had hinged on fighting the Cold War Communist “Other’. If the ‘Communist threat' no longer existed, the Pentagon would find it a lot harder to justify its massive military spending, if not its very raison d'être. More importantly, if history had indeed been won and there was little left to fight for, would the moral leadership of the US ‘as a force for good in the world’ still be in demand?” In the words of Huntington: ‘if there is no evil empire out there threatening those principles, what indeed does it mean to be an American, and what becomes of American national interests?” Would the West, a ‘highly artificial’ construct, be able to survive?" Worse still, might the rest of the world, now no longer in need of the ‘indispensable nation', break loose or even turn around and resent the latter’s hegemony? In this context, it became imperative for the West to continue invoking threat, which would also help counter the internal danger of ‘declining strength, flagging will and confusion about our role in the world’.” Hence the persistent colonial desire for a threatening Other, which by now is not only a source of paranoia, but also one of secret fascination. Clearly mindful of this Western paradoxical affection for enemy, Georgi Arbatov, Director of a Moscow think tank, told a US audience the year before the collapse of the Berlin Wall: “We are going to do something terrible to you—we are going to deprive you of an enemy'.” Arbatov was no doubt correct to imply that for the US living without an identity-defining enemy would be terrible indeed, but he only got half right. For the “enemy’ qua enemy to the US is often not determined by that “enemy' itself. Rather, as noted before, it is primarily a category in the colonial desire built into the modern American selfimagination. Consequently, ‘To prove that we are menaced is of course unnecessary... it is enough that we feel menaced’.“That is, it is not up to the “enemy' to decide whether or not it can cease to be an enemy. While the USSR as a specific threat might have gone, the ‘emotional substitute' of fear in the Western/American self-imagination lived on, always eager and able to find its next monster to destroy. As a consequence, the post-Cold War period witnessed a proliferation of freshly minted threats, ranging from Robert Kaplan's famous ‘Coming Anarchy’ thesis through Mearsheimer’s ‘Back to the Future' scenario to Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations' prediction.” Meanwhile the emergence of the Iraq threat in the waning days of the Cold War temporarily allowed George Bush Snr. to regain ‘a whole plateful of clarity’ about ‘good and evil, right and wrong’. “Yet, for many anxious strategic planners, to best demonstrate why the US should remain an indispensable nation, the most indispensable enemy had to be China. The “beauty' of this mega threat lies in its apparent ability to satisfy the colonial desire of Western/American self on both strategic and moral grounds. Strategically, China's vast size would be the most obvious and convenient justification for the often expensive strategic programmes pursued by Washington. This was true even in the midst of the Cold War when America's main obsession was with the Soviet Union. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to build an antiballistic-missile (ABM) system. McNamara was personally opposed to such a system, believing that it could be easily countered by a slight increase in the number of Soviet offensive missiles. But unable to challenge the President's order, McNamara gave a speech, which, after stating all the reasons why an ABM was a bad idea, concluded that the US still needed one to defend against an attack by China. Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke walked into McNamara's office later that day and asked, ‘China bomb, Bob?” McNamara simply replied: ‘What else am I going to blame it on?” The end of the Cold War has only further cemented China's role as the indispensable threat. Representing a most suitable strategic target for the tools at hand, China, as Bruce Cumings explains, has basically become “a metaphor for an enormously expensive Pentagon that has lost its bearings since the end of the Cold War) and that requires a formidable “renegade state” to define its mission (Islam is rather vague, and Iran lacks necessary weight)’.“Only in the aftermath of ‘September 11’ was China temporarily let off the hook, when terrorism in general, and the more tangible ‘Axis of Evil' in particular, served an essentially similar function of reassuring American self-identity and certainty.” As well as helping sustain the military-industrial complex, the China threat also has moral and political utility for the vitality of Western self-image. Beijing's continued existence as an authoritarian regime contributes both to the self-congratulatory image of ‘democratic peace’ in the West in general, and to the need for American leadership and moral authority in particular. Insofar as China reminds us that ‘history is not close to an end’,” the US-led West can continue to be called upon by the oppressed for moral leadership. Facing a China-led coalition of the world's despotic regimes, the enlargement of the Western self to form a league of democracies can be relatively easily justified, perhaps even with a measure of urgency. * In short, the moral challenge posed by China serves as a valuable discursive site where the Western/American self can continue to be coherently imagined, constructed and enacted. American liberalism and humanitarian efforts are a ruse – they undergird broader cultural imperialism and hegemonic domination – “doing the right thing” is wrong Gauding 14 (Madonna, freelance writer, illustrator and book designer living in St. Louis, “Dangerous beliefs: US moral superiority and our right to world hegemony,” Occasional Planet, June 19, 2014, http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2014/06/19/our-dangerous-belief-in-our-moral-superiority-and-our-right-to-economic-and-military-hegemony/, Accessed 9/17/16) In the windowless rooms of American corporate media, the assumption of U.S. hegemony is echoed on the alphabet TV channels and in the main U.S. government propaganda source—the New York Times. We are an “exceptional” nation—the underlying narrative goes, repeated recently by President Obama and Vice President Biden at their respective West Point and Naval Academy graduation speeches. We have an obligation to dominate the world because we are the most humanitarian people on Earth. We are the only true defenders of freedom and democracy. Therefore, when we invade a country we live out our destiny. We depose “evildoers,” liberate nations, and generously gift them with our superior way of life. America’s right to world hegemony is assumed in every foreign policy article in the New York Times, because total economic and military domination is the core mission of American foreign policy. The current administration’s overt and covert military actions—in Africa, Ukraine, Russia, Europe, South America, the Middle East, and now the Far East, in at least 134 countries—are supported without question, mostly because there’s not a lot of journalism going on in corporate media. The world is jealous of us As proof of our consummate narcissism and sense of national superiority many of us bought the absurd idea that terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because they were “jealous of our way of life.” The Bush cabal surely laughed themselves sick at how easy it was to manipulate the gullible American public. Of course it’s easy when most Americans, deep down, believe we are the envy of the world—even those of us dwelling in doublewides and living on food stamps. What is frightening to me is not the jingoistic narcissism, which is bad enough, but that most of us have a seriously distorted and deluded view of our country. We don’t have a clue what our government is doing in the shadows, in our name—and on our dime—and we don’t really care. We are happy to go to air shows and watch a thundering display of military might. We feel good to be associated with, and to be part of, such raw power—the largest and most lethal military in the world. If presented with a detailed history of the violence and bloodshed perpetrated by the United States since the end of World War II, most of us will reject it because it doesn’t support our fantasy of our innate goodness and moral superiority. If we are killing someone somewhere in the world, we argue, it must be for a good reason. Because we are good people—the best. Our faith based politics Most Americans have, what I call a “faith-based” politics. They “believe” in their country, and they “believe” in President Reagan, President Clinton, President Bush(s), or President Obama—fill in the blank. When liberal Democrats are faced with the reality that President Obama is using drones to bomb the shit out of adults and children in the Middle East and Africa, including American citizens, they believe he is “protecting us from terrorists,” “terrorists” being the anonymous, politically useful bogeymen invented by the Bush administration and the CIA. Those unlucky children and adults who were attending a wedding are unfortunate “collateral damage.” We ponder for a second and conclude that Obama has made a wise and rational decision. It’s “worth it,” we decide, if we can be comfortable and safe at home, and we don’t have to “put our troops in harms way.” We remain comfortable because we never have to look at a gruesome image of a shellshocked mother holding the bleeding, mutilated body of her child who was alive just minutes ago. When it is revealed (not in mainstream media) that Obama is backing an illegal, Nazi infested, Neocon inspired coup in Ukraine, and providing the newly installed U.S. puppet government with money and weapons with which to kill its own people, the administration falsely justifies its actions (in the mainstream media) as necessary to thwart Vladimir Putin who is depicted as a madman, threatening to overrun Ukraine and possibly even Europe itself. The New York Times is the main reporter of these fabrications which depict Putin as an evil cartoon character. The public generally buys these lies because they “believe” in Obama, or they “believe” Russians and Putin are evil, or both. Those who believe in Obama decide “He must have a good reason.” “I believe in his wisdom and judgment,” they say. It’s super easy to sell Americans on the existence of “evildoers” as Bush liked to call them. For White House spin-doctors, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Cut your cable—rock your world It’s amazing how irrational we are. We filter reality through our belief systems, and reject out of hand any information that contradicts the myths we cling to. Obama understood this well, noting that some rural folks “cling to their guns and their religion.” He was vilified for having this truthful insight. We all, at times, find ourselves clinging to something instead of facing reality, because, often, reality is too overwhelming, too frightening, too difficult to handle. Our ignorance and myopic view of the world exists in an era when there is a massive amount of alternative, independent, and non-corporate media available online, both within this country and without. If you like to read books, no problem, you can find alternative views at your local library where left leaning librarians still stock the shelves with good stuff. I cut my cable (best thing I ever did) and have been spending a lot of time learning about current events outside the echo chamber of U.S. mainstream media. I’ve read and watched left-leaning news accounts from within the United States and Canada, and from many other countries, including Russia, France, Australia, Iran and the UK. I’ve been enlightened by credible reporting from scholars, independent journalists, and news sources from areas of the world where the United States is trying to dominate and control. It’s not surprising that they often radically contradict the reporting and analysis in U.S. corporate media. In corporate media, the massive U.S. military budget, and blanket domestic surveillance is sold to the exceedingly gullible American public as necessary to KEEP YOU SAFE™. The bloated military industrial complex is enriching corporations, and that massive surveillance is being used to keep corporations and banks safe from you—as potentially desperate, angry, unemployed citizens or an anti-corporate, anti-Wall Street, anti-war political activists. Wall-to-wall, domestic surveillance exists to quell domestic unrest, as does the increasingly disturbing militarization of the police. No doubt, with Too-Big-To-Fail, insolvent banks still running amok, DHS is getting ready for the next Big One—a financial meltdown that will dwarf that of 2008. R2P If we invade other countries, the official line goes, it is because we have a “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)” those who are being oppressed by evil “bogeymen.” The “humanitarian” R2P is to liberal democrats what the Project for the New American Century is to Neocon Republicans. Both are cover stories for attacking another country to achieve economic and geopolitical hegemony. We label these countries “rogue nations” because they refuse to accept U.S. corporate and military dominance, and—more importantly—they refuse to accept the dollar as their reserve currency. And of course it doesn’t hurt that those “rogue nations” may be sitting on a shitload of oil or natural gas. Up until its recent failed attempt to eject Russia out of Crimea, the US has invaded, raped and pillaged and taken what it wants around the world—in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. Now we have our sights set on Africa, Eurasia and China. That the current rogue dictator du jour might oppress his own people is really of no concern to this administration or any other, whether Republican or Democrat. But it provides good cover and plays well at home. In reality, there’s never been a compliant dictator that the U.S. didn’t like—Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein (before he was non-compliant), both Duvaliers in Haiti, Noriega in Panama, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines, King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia, Karimov of Uzbekistan, Berdimuhamedow of Turkmenistan, Déby of Chad, Hosni Mutbarak in Egypt—you get the idea. The big secret is that the United States government really doesn’t like democracy. We prefer iron fists who keep the people in line, while the nation’s wealth is siphoned off for the price of a generous monthly deposit in a Swiss or London bank account. We are told we have a massive military and hundreds of bases around the world, because we have to protect “American interests.” But, we are never quite sure what those interests are, so we mentally fill in the blanks. But it’s not our interests that are being protected, it’s their interests—the tiny fraction of the population, the elites, who choose our presidents, and run our country (and often, as we have experienced, run it into the ground). Moreover, the illusion of debate as an ethical, liberal curriculum is what renders invisible the enormous history of violence that makes the convergence of this space possible – their sentimental rhetoric is a double standard UC Berkeley ‘10 (“The University, Social Death, and the Inside Joke,” Anonymous UC Berkeley student, http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100220181610620) m leap Universities may serve as progressive sites of inquiry in some cases, yet this does not detract from the great deal of military and corporate research, economic planning and, perhaps most importantly, social conditioning occurring within their walls. Furthermore, they serve as intense machines for the concentration of privilege; each university is increasingly staffed by overworked professors and adjuncts, poorly treated maintenance and service staff. This remains only the top of the pyramid, since a hyper educated, stable society along Western lines can only exist by the intense exploitation of labor and resources in the third world. Students are taught to be oblivious to this fact; liberal seminars only serve to obfuscate the fact that they are themselves complicit in the death and destruction waged on a daily basis. They sing the college fight song and wear hooded sweatshirts (in the case of hip liberal arts colleges, flannel serves the same purpose). As the Berkeley rebels observe, “Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of meaning.”43 Our conception of the social is as the death of everything sociality entails; it is the failure of communication, the refusal of empathy, the abandonment of autonomy. Baudrillard writes that “The cemetery no longer exists because modern cities have entirely taken over their function: they are ghost towns, cities of death. If the great operational metropolis is the final form of an entire culture, then, quite simply, ours is a culture of death.”44 By attempting to excel in a university setting, we are resigning ourselves to enrolling in what Mark Yudoff so proudly calls a cemetery, a necropolis to rival no other. Yet herein lies the punch line. We are studying in the cemeteries of a nation which has a cultural fetish for things that refuse to stay dead; an absolute fixation with zombies. So perhaps the goal should not be to go “Beyond Zombie Politics” at all. Writes Baudrillard: “The event itself is counter-offensive and comes from a strange source: in every system at its apex, at its point of perfection, it reintroduces negativity and death.”45 The University, by totalizing itself and perfecting its critiques, has spontaneously generated its own antithesis. Some element of sociality refuses to stay within the discourse of the social, the dead; it becomes undead, radically potent. According to Steven Shaviro’s The Cinematic Body, “zombies mark the dead end or zero degree of capitalism’s logic of endless consumption and ever expanding accumulation, precisely because they embody this logic so literally and to such excess.”46 In that sense, they are almost identical to the mass, the silent majorities that Baudrillard describe as the ideal form of resistance to the social: “they know that there is no liberation, and that a system is abolished only by pushing it into hyperlogic, by forcing it into excessive practice which is equivalent to a brutal amortization.”47 Zombies do not constitute a threat at first, they shamble about their environments in an almost comic manner and are easily dispatched by a shotgun blast to the face. Similarly, students emerge from the university in which they have been buried, engaging in random acts of symbolic hyperconsumption and overproduction; perhaps an overly enthusiastic usage of a classroom or cafeteria here and there, or a particularly moving piece of theatrical composition that is easily suppressed. “Disaster is consumed as cheesy spectacle, complete with incompetent reporting, useless information bulletins, and inane attempts at commentary:”48 Shaviro is talking about Night of the Living Dead, but he might as well be referring to the press coverage of the first California occupations. Other students respond with horror to the encroachment of dissidents: “the living characters are concerned less about the prospect of being killed than they are about being swept away by mimesis – of returning to existence, after death, transformed into zombies themselves.”49 Liberal student activists fear the incursions the most, as they are in many ways the most invested in the fate of the contemporary university; in many ways their role is similar to that of the survivalists in Night of the Living Dead, or the military officers in Day. Beyond Zombie Politics claims that defenders of the UC system are promoting a “Zombie Politics”; yet this is difficult to fathom. For they are insistent on saving the University, on staying ‘alive’, even when their version of life has been stripped of all that makes life worth living, when it is as good as social death. Shaviro notes that in many scenes in zombie films, our conceptions of protagonist and antagonist are reversed; in many scenes, human survivors act so repugnantly that we celebrate their infection or demise.50 In reality, “Zombie Politics are something to be championed, because they are the politics of a multitude, an inclusive mass of political subjects, seeking to consume brains. Yet brains must be seen as a metaphor for what Marx calls “the General Intellect”; in his Fragment on Machines, he describes it as “the power of knowledge, objectified.”51 Students and faculty have been alienated from their labor, and, angry and zombie-like, they seek to destroy the means of their alienation. Yet, for Shaviro, “the hardest thing to acknowledge is that the living dead are not radically Other so much as they serve to awaken a passion for otherness and for vertiginous disidentification that is already latent within our own selves.”52 In other words, we have a widespread problem with aspiring to be this other, this powerless mass. We seek a clear protagonist, we cannot avoid associating with those we perceive as ‘still alive’. Yet for Baudrillard, this constitutes a fundamental flaw: "at the very core of the 'rationality' of our culture, however, is an exclusion that precedes every other, more radical than the exclusion of madmen, children or inferior races, an exclusion preceding all these and serving as their model: the exclusion of the dead and of death."53 In Forget Foucault, we learn the sad reality about biopower: that power itself is fundamentally based on the separation and alienation of death from the reality of our existence. If we are to continue to use this conception, we risk failing to see that our very lives have been turned into a mechanism for perpetuation of social death: the banal simulation of existence. Whereas socialized death is a starting point for Foucault, in Baudrillard and in recent actions from California, we see a return to a reevaluation of society and of death; a possible return to zombie politics. Baudrillard distinguishes himself as a connoisseur of graffiti; in Forget Foucault, he quotes a piece that said “When Jesus arose from the dead, he became a zombie.”54 Perhaps the reevaluation of zombie politics will serve as the messianic shift that blasts open the gates of hell, the cemetery-university. According to the Berkeley kids, “when we move without return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war.”55 Baudrillard’s words about semiotic insurrectionaries might suffice: "They blasted their way out however, so as to burst into reality like a scream, an interjection, an anti-discourse, as the waste of all syntatic, poetic and political development, as the smallest radical element that cannot be caught by any organized discourse. Invincible due to their own poverty, they resist every interpretation and every connotation, no longer denoting anyone or anything."56
Reject the 1AC’s moral superiority as a thinly veiled instance of cultural imperialism – imposition of a universal model of humanity is deployed in racialized global counterinsurgencies that eventually purge all life for inevitable imperfections Evans 10 Brad Evans, Lecturer in the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds and Programme Director for International Relations, “Foucault’s Legacy: Security, War, and Violence in the 21st Century,” Security Dialogue vol.41, no. 4, August 2010, pg. 422-424, sage
Imposing liberalism has often come at a price. That price has tended to be a continuous recourse to war. While the militarism associated with liberal internationalization has already received scholarly attention (Howard, 2008), Foucault was concerned more with the continuation of war once peace has been declared.4 Denouncing the illusion that ‘we are living in a world in which order and peace have been restored’ (Foucault, 2003: 53), he set out to disrupt the neat distinctions between times of war/military exceptionalism and times of peace/civic normality. War accordingly now appears to condition the type of peace that follows. None have been more ambitious in map- ping out this war–peace continuum than Michael Dillon and Julian Reid (2009). Their ‘liberal war’ thesis provides a provocative insight into the lethality of making live. Liberalism today, they argue, is underwritten by the unreserved righteousness of its mission. Hence, while there may still be populations that exist beyond the liberal pale, it is now taken that they should be included. With ‘liberal peace’ therefore predicated on the pacification/elimination of all forms of political difference in order that liberalism might meet its own moral and political objectives, the more peace is commanded, the more war is declared in order to achieve it: ‘In proclaiming peace . . . liberals are nonetheless committed also to making war.’ This is the ‘martial face of liberal power’ that, contrary to the familiar narrative, is ‘directly fuelled by the universal and pacific ambitions for which liberalism is to be admired’ (Dillon and Reid, 2009: 2). Liberalism thus stands accused here of universalizing war in its pursuit of peace: However much liberalism abjures war, indeed finds the instrumental use of war, especially, a scandal, war has always been as instrumental to liberal as to geopolitical thinkers. In that very attempt to instrumentalize, indeed universalize, war in the pursuit of its own global project of emancipation, the practice of liberal rule itself becomes profoundly shaped by war. However much it may proclaim liberal peace and freedom, its own allied commitment to war subverts the very peace and freedoms it proclaims (Dillon and Reid, 2009: 7). While Dillon and Reid’s thesis only makes veiled reference to the onto- theological dimension, they are fully aware that its rule depends upon a certain religiosity in the sense that war has now been turned into a veritable human crusade with only two possible outcomes: ‘endless war or the transformation of other societies and cultures into liberal societies and cul- tures’ (Dillon and Reid, 2009: 5). Endless war is underwritten here by a new set of problems. Unlike Clausewitzean confrontations, which at least provided the strategic comforts of clear demarcations (them/us, war/peace, citizen/soldier, and so on), these wars no longer benefit from the possibility of scoring outright victory, retreating, or achieving a lasting negotiated peace by means of political compromise. Indeed, deprived of the prospect of defining enmity in advance, war itself becomes just as complex, dynamic, adaptive and radically interconnected as the world of which it is part. That is why ‘any such war to end war becomes a war without end. . . . The project of removing war from the life of the species becomes a lethal and, in principle, continuous and unending process’ (Dillon and Reid, 2009: 32). Duffield, building on from these concerns, takes this unending scenario a stage further to suggest that since wars for humanity are inextricably bound to the global life-chance divide, it is now possible to write of a ‘Global Civil War’ into which all life is openly recruited: Each crisis of global circulation . . . marks out a terrain of global civil war, or rather a tableau of wars, which is fought on and between the modalities of life itself. . . . What is at stake in this war is the West’s ability to contain and manage international poverty while maintaining the ability of mass society to live and consume beyond its means (Duffield, 2008: 162). Setting out civil war in these terms inevitably marks an important depar- ture. Not only does it illustrate how liberalism gains its mastery by posing fundamental questions of life and death – that is, who is to live and who can be killed – disrupting the narrative that ordinarily takes sovereignty to be the point of theoretical departure, civil war now appears to be driven by a globally ambitious biopolitical imperative (see below). Liberals have continuously made reference to humanity in order to justify their use of military force (Ignatieff, 2003). War, if there is to be one, must be for the unification of the species. This humanitarian caveat is by no means out of favour. More recently it underwrites the strategic rethink in contemporary zones of occupation, which has become biopolitical (‘hearts and minds’) in everything but name (Kilcullen, 2009; Smith, 2006). While criticisms of these strategies have tended to focus on the naive dangers associated with liberal idealism (see Gray, 2008), insufficient attention has been paid to the contested nature of all the tactics deployed in the will to govern illiberal populations. Foucault returns here with renewed vigour. He understood that forms of war have always been aligned with forms of life. Liberal wars are no exception. Fought in the name of endangered humanity, humanity itself finds its most meaningful expression through the battles waged in its name: At this point we can invert Clausewitz’s proposition and say that politics is the continuation of war by other means. . . . While it is true that political power puts an end to war and establishes or attempts to establish the reign of peace in civil society, it certainly does not do so in order to suspend the effects of power or to neutralize the disequilibrium revealed in the last battle of war (Foucault, 2003: 15). What in other words occurs beneath the semblance of peace is far from politically settled: political struggles, these clashes over and with power, these modifications of relations of force – the shifting balances, the reversals – in a political system, all these things must be interpreted as a continuation of war. And they are interpreted as so many episodes, fragmentations, and displacements of the war itself. We are always writing the history of the same war, even when we are writing the history of peace and its institutions (Foucault, 2003: 15). David Miliband (2009), without perhaps knowing the full political and philo- sophical implications, appears to subscribe to the value of this approach, albeit for an altogether more committed deployment: NATO was born in the shadow of the Cold War, but we have all had to change our thinking as our troops confront insurgents rather than military machines like our own. The mental models of 20th century mass warfare are not fit for 21st century counterinsurgency. That is why my argument today has been about the centrality of politics. People like quoting Clausewitz that warfare is the continuation of politics by other means. . . . We need politics to become the continuation of warfare by other means. Miliband’s ‘Foucauldian moment’ should not escape us. Inverting Clausewitz on a planetary scale – hence promoting the collapse of all meaningful distinctions that once held together the fixed terms of Newtonian space (i.e. inside/outside, friend/enemy, citizen/soldier, war/peace, and so forth), he firmly locates the conflict among the world of peoples. With global war there- fore appearing to be an internal state of affairs, vanquishing enemies can no longer be sanctioned for the mere defence of things. A new moment has arrived, in which the destiny of humanity as a whole is being wagered on the success of humanity’s own political strategies. No coincidence, then, that authors like David Kilcullen – a key architect in the formulation of counterinsurgency strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan, argue for a global insurgency paradigm without too much controversy. Viewed from the perspective of power, global insurgency is after all nothing more than the advent of a global civil war fought for the biopolitical spoils of life. Giving primacy to counter- insurgency, it foregrounds the problem of populations so that questions of security governance (i.e. population regulation) become central to the war effort (RAND, 2008). Placing the managed recovery of maladjusted life into the heart of military strategies, it insists upon a joined-up response in which sovereign/militaristic forms of ordering are matched by biopolitical/devel- opmental forms of progress (Bell and Evans, forthcoming). Demanding in other words a planetary outlook, it collapses the local into the global so that life’s radical interconnectivity implies that absolutely nothing can be left to chance. While liberals have therefore been at pains to offer a more humane recovery to the overt failures of military excess in current theatres of operation, warfare has not in any way been removed from the species. Instead, humanized in the name of local sensitivities, doing what is necessary out of global species necessity now implies that war effectively takes place by every means. Our understanding of civil war is invariably recast. Sovereignty has been the traditional starting point for any discussion of civil war. While this is a well-established Eurocentric narrative, colonized peoples have never fully accepted the inevitability of the transfixed utopian prolificacy upon which sovereign power increasingly became dependent. Neither have they been completely passive when confronted by colonialism’s own brand of warfare by other means. Foucault was well aware of this his- tory. While Foucauldian scholars can therefore rightly argue that alternative histories of the subjugated alone permit us to challenge the monopolization of political terms – not least ‘civil war’ – for Foucault in particular there was something altogether more important at stake: there is no obligation whatsoever to ensure that reality matches some canonical theory. Despite what some scholars may insist, politically speaking there is nothing that is necessarily proper to the sovereign method. It holds no distinct privilege. Our task is to use theory to help make sense of reality, not vice versa. While there is not the space here to engage fully with the implications of our global civil war paradigm, it should be pointed out that since its biopolitical imperative removes the inevitability of epiphenomenal tensions, nothing and nobody is necessarily dangerous simply because location dictates. With enmity instead depending upon the complex, adaptive, dynamic account of life itself, what becomes dangerous emerges from within the liberal imaginary of threat. Violence accordingly can only be sanctioned against those newly appointed enemies of humanity – a phrase that, immeasurably greater than any juridical category, necessarily affords enmity an internal quality inherent to the species complete, for the sake of planetary survival. Vital in other words to all human existence, doing what is necessary out of global species necessity requires a new moral assay of life that, pitting the universal against the particular, willingly commits violence against any ontological commitment to political difference, even though universality itself is a shallow disguise for the practice of destroying political adversaries through the contingency of particular encounters. Necessary Violence Having established that the principal task set for biopolitical practitioners is to sort and adjudicate between the species, modern societies reveal a distinct biopolitical aporia (an irresolvable political dilemma) in the sense that making life live – selecting out those ways of life that are fittest by design – inevitably writes into that very script those lives that are retarded, backward, degenerate, wasteful and ultimately dangerous to the social order (Bauman, 1991). Racism thus appears here to be a thoroughly modern phenomenon (Deleuze and Guattari, 2002). This takes us to the heart of our concern with biopolitical rationalities. When ‘life itself’ becomes the principal referent for political struggles, power necessarily concerns itself with those biological threats to human existence (Palladino, 2008). That is to say, since life becomes the author of its own (un)making, the biopolitical assay of life necessarily portrays a commitment to the supremacy of certain species types: ‘a race that is portrayed as the one true race, the race that holds power and is entitled to define the norm, and against those who deviate from that norm, against those who pose a threat to the biological heritage’ (Foucault, 2003: 61). Evidently, what is at stake here is no mere sovereign affair. Epiphenomenal tensions aside, racial problems occupy a ‘permanent presence’ within the political order (Foucault, 2003: 62). Biopolitically speaking, then, since it is precisely through the internalization of threat – the constitution of the threat that is now from the dangerous ‘Others’ that exist within – that societies reproduce at the level of life the ontological commitment to secure the subject, since everybody is now possibly dangerous and nobody can be exempt, for political modernity to function one always has to be capable of killing in order to go on living: Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity; massacres have become vital. . . . The principle underlying the tactics of battle – that one has to become capable of killing in order to go on living – has become the principle that defines the strategy of states (Foucault, 1990: 137). When Foucault refers to ‘killing’, he is not simply referring to the vicious act of taking another life: ‘When I say “killing”, I obviously do not mean simply murder as such, but also every form of indirect murder: the fact of exposing someone to death, increasing the risk of death for some people, or, quite simply, political death, expulsion, rejection and so on’ (Foucault, 2003: 256). Racism makes this process of elimination possible, for it is only through the discourse and practice of racial (dis)qualification that one is capable of introducing ‘a break in the domain of life that is under power’s control: the break between what must live and what must die’ (Foucault, 2003: 255). While kill- ing does not need to be physically murderous, that is not to suggest that we should lose sight of the very real forms of political violence that do take place in the name of species improvement. As Deleuze (1999: 76) duly noted, when notions of security are invoked in order to preserve the destiny of a species, when the defence of society gives sanction to very real acts of violence that are justified in terms of species necessity, that is when the capacity to legitimate murderous political actions in all our names and for all our sakes becomes altogether more rational, calculated, utilitarian, hence altogether more frightening: When a diagram of power abandons the model of sovereignty in favour of a disciplinary model, when it becomes the ‘bio-power’ or ‘bio-politics’ of populations, controlling and administering life, it is indeed life that emerges as the new object of power. At that point law increasingly renounces that symbol of sovereign privilege, the right to put someone to death, but allows itself to produce all the more hecatombs and genocides: not by returning to the old law of killing, but on the contrary in the name of race, precious space, conditions of life and the survival of a population that believes itself to be better than its enemy, which it now treats not as the juridical enemy of the old sovereign but as a toxic or infectious agent, a sort of ‘biological danger’. Auschwitz arguably represents the most grotesque, shameful and hence meaningful example of necessary killing – the violence that is sanctioned in the name of species necessity (see Agamben, 1995, 2005). Indeed, for Agamben, since one of the most ‘essential characteristics’ of modern biopolitics is to constantly ‘redefine the threshold in life that distinguishes and separates what is inside from what is outside’, it is within those sites that ‘eliminate radically the people that are excluded’ that the biopolitical racial imperative is exposed in its most brutal form (Agamben, 1995: 171). The camp can therefore be seen to be the defining paradigm of the modern insomuch as it is a ‘space in which power confronts nothing other than pure biological life without any media- tion’ (Agamben, 1995: 179). While lacking Agamben’s intellectual sophistry, such a Schmittean-inspired approach to violence – that is, sovereignty as the ability to declare a state of juridical exception – has certainly gained wide- spread academic currency in recent times. The field of international relations, for instance, has been awash with works that have tried to theorize the ‘exceptional times’ in which we live (see, in particular, Devetak, 2007; Kaldor, 2007). While some of the tactics deployed in the ‘Global War on Terror’ have undoubtedly lent credibility to these approaches, in terms of understanding violence they are limited. Violence is only rendered problematic here when it is associated with some act of unmitigated geopolitical excess (e.g. the invasion of Iraq, Guantánamo Bay, use of torture, and so forth). This is unfortunate. Precluding any critical evaluation of the contemporary forms of violence that take place within the remit of humanitarian discourses and practices, there is a categorical failure to address how necessary violence continues to be an essential feature of the liberal encounter. Hence, with post-interventionary forms of violence no longer appearing to be any cause for concern, the nature of the racial imperative that underwrites the violence of contemporary liberal occupations is removed from the analytical arena. Fiat is illusory, reps come first as they affect the way we think about the world and shift policy outcomes Crawford 2 Neta Crawford, PhD MA MIT, BA Brown, Prof. of poli sci at Boston University, “Argument and Change in World Politics”, p. 19-21 Coherent arguments are unlikely to take place unless and until actors, at least on some level, agree on what they are arguing about. The at least temporary resolution of meta-arguments regarding the nature of the good (the content of prescriptive norms); what is out there, the way we know the world, how we decide between competing beliefs (ontology and epistemology); and the nature of the situation at hand (the proper frame or representation) must occur before specific arguments that could lead to decision and action may take place. Meta-arguments over epistemology and ontology, relatively rare, occur in instances where there is a fundamental clash between belief systems and not simply a debate within a belief system. Such arguments over the nature of the world and how we come to know it are particularly rare in politics though they are more frequent in religion and science. Meta-arguments over the “good” are contests over what it is good and right to do, and even how we know the good and the right. They are about the nature of the good, specifically, defining the qualities of “good” so that we know good when we see it and do it. Ethical arguments are about how to do good in a particular situation. More common are meta-arguments over representations or frames about how we out to understand a particular situation. Sometimes actors agree on how they see a situation. More often there are different possible interpretations. Thomas Homer-Dixon and Roger Karapin suggest, “Argument and debate occur when people try to gain acceptance for their interpretation of the world”. For example, “is the war defensive or aggressive?”. Defining and controlling representations and images, or the frame, affects whether one thinks there is an issue at stake and whether a particular argument applies to the case. An actor fighting a defensive war is within international law; an aggressor may legitimately be subject to sanctions. Framing and reframing involve mimesis or putting forward representations of what is going on. In mimetic meta-arguments, actors who are struggling to characterize or frame the situation accomplish their ends by drawing vivid pictures of the “reality” through exaggeration, analogy, or differentiation. Representations of a situation do not re-produce accurately so much as they creatively represent situations in a way that makes sense. “mimesis is a metaphoric or ‘iconic argumentation of the real.’ Imitating not the effectivity of events but their logical structure and meaning.” Certain features are emphasized and others de-emphasized or completely ignored as their situation is recharacterized or reframed. Representation thus becomes a “constraint on reasoning in that it limits understanding to a specific organization of conceptual knowledge.” The dominant representation delimits which arguments will be considered legitimate, framing how actors see possibilities. As Roxanne Doty argues, “the possibility of practices presupposes the ability of an agent to imagine certain courses of action. Certain background meanings, kinds of social actors and relationships, must already be in place.” If, as Donald Sylvan and Stuart Thorson argue, “politics involves the selective privileging of representations, “it may not matter whether one representation or another is true or not. Emphasizing whether frames articulate accurate or inaccurate perceptions misses the rhetorical import of representationhow frames affect what is seen or not seen, and subsequent choices. Meta-arguments over representation are thus crucial elements of political argument because an actor’s arguments about what to do will be more persuasive if their characterization or framing of the situation holds sway. But, as Rodger Payne suggests, “No frame is an omnipotent persuasive tool that can be decisively wielded by norm entrepreneurs without serious political wrangling.” Hence framing is a meta-argument.
10/14/16
SEPOCT- NC- Kant
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Brentwood WJ | Judge: Terrence Lonam Applied Kantianism is key to abstract over the state’s influences on our desires towards a universal demand for equality within civil society. FARR 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). “Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?” JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. One of the most popular criticisms of Kant’s first exploring its emancipatory potential. Individuals must form a state, from this states have freedom from each other to secure their citizens freedoms- unilateral force is unjustified HODGSON 12 Hodgson, Louis-Philippe. "Realizing External Freedom: The Kantian Argument for a World State." Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications. University Park: Penn State University (2012): 101-34. Why is existing side freedom is violated The standard is maintaining an international system of equal outer freedom
Self Defense A. Willing away nuclear power necessarily wills away the possibility of fissile material for nukes, which destroys a states right to will self defense DOYLE 10 Doyle, Thomas E. "Kantian nonideal theory and nuclear proliferation." International Theory 2.01 (2010): 87-112. Kantian nonideal theory all relevant actors.
9/17/16
SEPOCT- NC- Kant 2
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Octas | Opponent: Cambridge OS | Judge: Kymn, Hu, Sigalow Revisionist quantum mechanics goes neg KAKU 11 Kaku, Michio. "Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate." Big Think. N.p., 13 Apr. 2011. Web. 31 July 2016. http://bigthink.com/videos/why-physics-ends-the-free-will-debate. Newtonian Determinism says AND uncertainty in whatever we do. Self-consciousness requires us to will universal independence KORSGAARD 96 Christine Korsgaard. “The Sources of Normativity.” Lecture 3. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. 1996. Gender modified. http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/k/korsgaard94.pdf Kant defines a free will AND from re - flective rejection.
Analytic (8) Willing away nuclear power necessarily wills away the possibility of fissile material for the threat of nukes, which destroys a states right to will self defense DOYLE 10 Doyle, Thomas E. "Kantian nonideal theory and nuclear proliferation." International Theory 2.01 (2010): 87-112. Kantian nonideal theory AND
obligates all relevant actors.
Individuals must form a state, from this states have freedom from each other to secure their citizens freedoms- unilateral force is unjustified HODGSON 12 Hodgson, Louis-Philippe. "Realizing External Freedom: The Kantian Argument for a World State." Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications. University Park: Penn State University (2012): 101-34. Why is existing side by sid AND right to freedom is violated
10/22/16
SEPOCT- T- Implementation
Tournament: Bronx | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Scarsdale ML | Judge: Koh, Kymn, Tripathy A. Interpretation: On the 2016-17 SEP-OCT LD topic, the affirmative must defend implementation of a policy to legally ban the production of nuclear power . To clarify, the affirmative burden is to prove the desirability of a postfiat policy option Prohibit as defined by Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/prohibit Formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority: laws prohibiting cruelty to animals (prohibit someone/something from doing something) Formally forbid a person or group from doing something: (Of a fact or situation) prevent (something); make impossible: the budget agreement had prohibited any tax cuts Nuclear Power is defined by Merriam Webster As Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear20power energy that is created by splitting apart the nuclei of atoms OED defines ought as “Used to indicated a desirable or expected state”
Ground 2. Topic Lit
Fairness Competing Interps
10/22/16
SEPOCT- T-Production
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pingry AG | Judge: Monica Amestoy Nuclear power includes energy power and energy for weapons TFD 16 An Atomic, The Legal Dictionary 2016 "Nuclear Power," TheFreeDictionary, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuclear+Power NB A form of AND of nuclear energy. Violation- Standards:
Topic Lit. 2. Grammar 3. Depth.
9/18/16
SEPOCT- T-Spec Bad
Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pingry AG | Judge: Monica Amestoy A. Interp: If the aff defends a prohibition on the production of nuclear power, they must defend that all countries prohibit the production of nuclear power. To clarify, they can’t advocate that a certain country or subset of countries prohibit nuclear power.
Limits 2. topic lit Herbst 07 “New Debate Over Nuclear Option,” Moira Herbst, 3/26/07, Bloomberg. In recent years AND to nuclear power.
