P. 1
Planet Debate Impacts

Planet Debate Impacts

|Views: 1.129|Likes:
Publicado porVamsi Potluri

More info:

Published by: Vamsi Potluri on Jun 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/07/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • AIDS/HIV – Extinction
  • AIDS/HIV – Mutations
  • ANWR Drilling Bad -- Species
  • Asian Wars Go Nuclear
  • Biopower -- Extinction
  • Capitalism Bad – War/All Impacts
  • Civil-Military Relations Good – Bacevich & Kohn
  • Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything
  • Climate Change/Warming -- Brandenberg
  • Deference (Judicial) Good -- Readiness
  • Deference (Judicial) Bad -- Extinction
  • Deforestation Bad
  • Democracy Good – Diamond
  • Democracy Good/Democide -- Rummel
  • Economy – Mead, Lewis, Beardon
  • Economy – Zey/Ecxtinction
  • Food Prices – Increase Kills a Billion – Tampa Tribune
  • Growth Bad – War
  • Growth Bad -- Upswing Impact Magnifier
  • Growth Good -- Growth Stops War
  • Growth Good -- Growth Saves Environment
  • Ethnic Conflict -- Shehadi
  • Famine -- Extinction
  • Freedom – Petro
  • Genocide Impacts -- Gurr
  • Hedgemony Bad – Extinction -- Chomsky
  • Hegemony Bad – War – Layne
  • Hegemony Good – Khalilzad
  • Unipolarity Good: Global War (Thayer)
  • Hegemony Good -- Global War (Thayer)
  • Hegemony Good: Global War (Ferguson)
  • Unipolarity Good: Extinction (Smil)
  • Human Rights – Hoffman
  • India Pakistan – Nabi
  • India Pakistan – Washington Times
  • Individual Rights -- Kateb
  • Iran Proliferation Impacts – Sokolsky
  • Iran Proliferation – Schoenfeld
  • Israel Preemption Of Iran – Nuclear War
  • Iran Strikes Bad – World War III
  • Japan Rearm Impacts -- Economy
  • Japan Rearm Impacts -- Iran
  • Japan Rearm Impacts – Nuclear War
  • Japan Rearmament Impacts -- Taiwan
  • Japan Rearmament Impacts -- Terrorism
  • Korean Proliferation Impacts
  • Korean War Impacts – Africa News
  • Korean War Impacts – Economy
  • Middle East War -- Steinbach
  • Middle East War -- Evron
  • Middle East War -- Blank
  • Militarism -- Reardon
  • Minority Rights – Buckley
  • Morality – Watson
  • Morality -- Gewirth
  • NATO Good
  • Nuclear Power Good -- Lovelock
  • Oil Wars – Extinction
  • Ozone Destruction Bad -- Extinction
  • Patriarchy – Reardon
  • Protectionism Bad – Extinction
  • Peace Process – Generally Good
  • Poverty – Gilligan
  • Privacy – Schoenman
  • Proliferation – Utgoff
  • Proliferation – End of the World
  • Proliferation -- Miller
  • Racism -- Memmi
  • Readiness -- Key To Hegemony
  • Readiness – Stops Global War
  • Russian Economy -- David
  • Saudi Arabian Economy -- David
  • Saudi Arabian Civil War -- Pollack
  • Separation of Powers Good –War/Redish
  • Species Loss – Extinction
  • Space Militarization Bad – Robb
  • Statism – Genocide & War
  • Taiwan War Impacts – Hsuing & Straits Times
  • Terrorism (Nuclear) – Easterbrook, Amhed, Haas
  • Terrorism (Bioterrorism) – Steinbrenner & Ochs
  • U.S.-Japan Alliance Good – General War
  • Viruses – Toronto Star
  • Viruses – Franz
  • Viruses – Ryan
  • Water Wars – Nuclear War

Harvard Impacts 2007‐8   

  All the impact cards  you need in one place!      
                      Harvard Debate 

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               

Contents 
Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2  AIDS/HIV – Extinction ........................................................................................................................................................ 4  AIDS/HIV – Mutations ........................................................................................................................................................ 5  ANWR Drilling Bad -- Species ............................................................................................................................................ 6  Asian Wars Go Nuclear ........................................................................................................................................................ 7  Biopower -- Extinction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8  Capitalism Bad – War/All Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 9  Civil-Military Relations Good – Bacevich & Kohn ........................................................................................................... 10  Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything ....................................................................................................................... 11  Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything ....................................................................................................................... 12  Climate Change/Warming -- Brandenberg ......................................................................................................................... 13  Deference (Judicial) Good -- Readiness ............................................................................................................................. 14  Deference (Judicial) Bad -- Extinction ............................................................................................................................... 15  Deforestation Bad ............................................................................................................................................................... 16  Democracy Good – Diamond ............................................................................................................................................. 17  Democracy Good/Democide -- Rummel ............................................................................................................................ 18  Economy – Mead, Lewis, Beardon ..................................................................................................................................... 19  Economy – Zey/Ecxtinction ............................................................................................................................................... 20  Food Prices – Increase Kills a Billion – Tampa Tribune .................................................................................................... 20  Growth Bad – War.............................................................................................................................................................. 21  Growth Bad – War.............................................................................................................................................................. 22  Growth Bad -- Upswing Impact Magnifier......................................................................................................................... 23  Growth Bad -- Upswing Impact Magnifier......................................................................................................................... 24  Growth Good -- Growth Stops War.................................................................................................................................... 25  Growth Good -- Growth Saves Environment ..................................................................................................................... 26  Ethnic Conflict -- Shehadi .................................................................................................................................................. 28  Famine -- Extinction ........................................................................................................................................................... 29  Freedom – Petro ................................................................................................................................................................. 30  Genocide Impacts -- Gurr ................................................................................................................................................... 31  Hedgemony Bad – Extinction -- Chomsky ......................................................................................................................... 32  Hegemony Bad – War – Layne .......................................................................................................................................... 33  Hegemony Good – Khalilzad ............................................................................................................................................. 35  Unipolarity Good: Global War (Thayer) ............................................................................................................................ 36  Hegemony Good -- Global War (Thayer)........................................................................................................................... 37  Hegemony Good: Global War (Ferguson).......................................................................................................................... 38  Unipolarity Good: Extinction (Smil) .................................................................................................................................. 39  Human Rights – Hoffman................................................................................................................................................... 40  India Pakistan – Nabi.......................................................................................................................................................... 41  India Pakistan – Washington Times ................................................................................................................................... 41  Individual Rights -- Kateb .................................................................................................................................................. 42  Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact ..................................................................................................... 43  Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact ..................................................................................................... 44  Iran Proliferation Impacts – Sokolsky ................................................................................................................................ 45  Iran Proliferation – Schoenfeld ........................................................................................................................................... 46  Israel Preemption Of Iran – Nuclear War ........................................................................................................................... 48  Iran Strikes Bad – World War III ....................................................................................................................................... 49  Iran Strikes Bad – World War III ....................................................................................................................................... 50  Japan Rearm Impacts -- Economy ...................................................................................................................................... 52  Japan Rearm Impacts -- Iran ............................................................................................................................................... 53  Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea .................................................................................................................................. 54  Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea .................................................................................................................................. 55  2

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               
Japan Rearm Impacts – Nuclear War ................................................................................................................................. 56  Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression............................................................................................................. 57  Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression............................................................................................................. 58  Japan Rearmament Impacts -- Taiwan................................................................................................................................ 59  Japan Rearmament Impacts -- Terrorism............................................................................................................................ 60  Korean Proliferation Impacts .............................................................................................................................................. 61  Korean War Impacts – Africa News ................................................................................................................................... 62  Korean War Impacts – Economy ........................................................................................................................................ 63  Middle East War -- Steinbach............................................................................................................................................. 64  Middle East War -- Evron................................................................................................................................................... 64  Middle East War -- Blank ................................................................................................................................................... 65  Militarism -- Reardon ......................................................................................................................................................... 66  Minority Rights – Buckley ................................................................................................................................................. 67  Morality – Watson .............................................................................................................................................................. 68  Morality -- Gewirth ............................................................................................................................................................ 68  NATO Good ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69  Nuclear Power Good -- Lovelock ....................................................................................................................................... 71  Oil Wars – Extinction ......................................................................................................................................................... 72  Ozone Destruction Bad -- Extinction.................................................................................................................................. 73  Patriarchy – Reardon ......................................................................................................................................................... 74  Protectionism Bad – Extinction .......................................................................................................................................... 76  Peace Process – Generally Good ........................................................................................................................................ 78  Peace Process – Generally Good ........................................................................................................................................ 79  Poverty – Gilligan............................................................................................................................................................... 80  Privacy – Schoenman ......................................................................................................................................................... 81  Proliferation – Utgoff ......................................................................................................................................................... 82  Proliferation – End of the World ........................................................................................................................................ 82  Proliferation -- Miller ......................................................................................................................................................... 83  Racism -- Memmi ............................................................................................................................................................... 84  Readiness -- Key To Hegemony ......................................................................................................................................... 85  Readiness – Stops Global War ........................................................................................................................................... 86  Russian Economy -- David ................................................................................................................................................. 87  Saudi Arabian Economy -- David....................................................................................................................................... 88  Saudi Arabian Civil War -- Pollack .................................................................................................................................... 90  Separation of Powers Good –War/Redish .......................................................................................................................... 91  Species Loss – Extinction ................................................................................................................................................... 92  Space Militarization Bad – Robb ........................................................................................................................................ 93  Statism – Genocide & War ................................................................................................................................................. 94  Taiwan War Impacts – Hsuing & Straits Times ................................................................................................................. 95  Terrorism (Nuclear) – Easterbrook, Amhed, Haas ............................................................................................................. 96  Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo, Alexander .......................................................................................................................... 97  Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo, Alexander .......................................................................................................................... 98  Terrorism (Bioterrorism) – Steinbrenner & Ochs ............................................................................................................... 99  U.S.-Japan Alliance Good – General War ........................................................................................................................ 100  Viruses – Toronto Star ...................................................................................................................................................... 101  Viruses – Franz ................................................................................................................................................................. 101  Viruses – Ryan ................................................................................................................................................................. 102  Water Wars – Nuclear War............................................................................................................................................... 103 

3

a quarter of the population of Europe.3 million infected worldwide (24.+But+Aids+is+without+precedent. the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams .5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise unwilling participants in a March of the Damned.104/search?q=cache:6tm_9OIp4c8J:www.8 million lives went down the drain.+Aids+does+not+come+at+a+tim e+of+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Every age has its killer. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes and the graves it fills. Aids. 2000. as a matter of fact. is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification.+It+is+co mparable+only+to+the+Black+Death+of+the+Middle+Ages+in+the+terror+it+evokes+and+the+graves+it+fills. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. the vector is humanity itself. Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. Last year alone. http://209.even the mere living out of a lifetime . 2. HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim. 4 . The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust. between 1347 and 1352.000 Africans will die today. Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration. but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far. With Aids. IT THREATENS TO EXTINGUISH LIFE ON THE PLANET Mutuma Mathiu. the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. 6. 18. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated. setting a trend that was to become fairly common. patriotism or simply racial pride. in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder.rtf+Every+age+has+its+killer.healtoronto.the plague. But unlike the plague. It is simply a waste. 85 per cent of them African.85. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy.of a generation. 43. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony. During the First World War. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. today easily cured by antibiotics and prevented by vaccines killed a full 40 million Europeans.165.com/mbeki/Kommentare. AFRICA NEWS.8 million people are already dead. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood.+But+unlike+the+plague. July 15. on the other hand. more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone. The Black Death . It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                AIDS/HIV – Extinction AIDS WILL KILL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IF NOT STOPPED. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. But Aids is without precedent. the nice person in the next seat in the bus.

If so. If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the membranes of the mouth. Joshua Lederberg. THE POPULATION EXPLOSION. The virus has already shown itself to be highly mutable. however. In effect it would produce an entirely different disease. is worried that a relatively minor mutation could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. 5 . would almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. the virus might be spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. as Temin points out." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts. What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear. or the intestines were increased.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                AIDS/HIV – Mutations FAILURE TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF AIDS TRIGGERS MUTATIONS THAT WILL KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily). and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in the case of myxopatomis). We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate. and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug. might evolve new transmission characteristics. and to a large extent on luck. for instance. Unlike the current version of AIDS. but it could temporarily increase the transmission rate and reduce life expectancy of infected persons until the system once again equilibrated. in this case people. 147-8 Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV can be slowed through public education and other measures. that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported. p. AZT. the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. it might be transmissible through coughs. If. that acquiring those abilities would so change the virus that it no longer efficiently infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. 1990. which can take ten years or more to kill its victims. Infected individuals then would have less time to spread the virus to others. But it is likely. the new strain might cause death in days or weeks. the lungs. To do so. Professors of Population studies at Stanford University. on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments.

when it acts badly.S. 1999. All of our food comes directly or indirectly from plants. And almost all of the rest have been improved through knowledge gained about other naturally occurring compounds. After all.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                ANWR Drilling Bad -.a tragedy in terms of the prospects for human progress. officials can't afford to protect a special place like ANWR. however. 6 . every one of us depends directly on the Earth's living systems -. behavior matters in this world. U. May 23. p. wheat and rice.the plants. and more than half of it from just three members of the grass family: corn. Our relationship with the Earth.S. how on earth can nations like Kazakhstan. the landscapes we enjoy each day. so if U. The great majority of medicines also are derived from plants. Lexis (MHBLUE1255) As the Wilderness Society argues. p. animals. It is basically the characteristics of the living organisms that we are squandering that afford the best chances of improving our lives and those of our grandchildren -. others are encouraged to imitate that bad behavior. 2002. It makes no sense to spoil all of that in the name of national security when the Congress won't even dare boost mileage standards. most nations are much poorer than the United States. fungi and micro-organisms that have made the air we breathe. 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is open for oil and gas exploration. is such that as many as a quarter of all species may be lost within 25 years.but we seem unable or unwilling to act intelligently on this basic truth. many of the remainder from fungi and bacteria. Brazil and Vietnam be expected to protect their own special places? IMPACT -SPECIES LOSS GUARANTEES HUMAN EXTINCTION ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH.Species ANWR DRILLING CAUSES WORLDWIDE SPECIES LOSS STAR TRIBUNE. and as many as two-thirds of them by the end of the century -. in ANWR. The hypocrisy is appalling. is a fragile and pristine place that hosts millions of migratory birds and sustains a large caribou herd that is essential to native tribes living in the area. The remaining 5 percent. March 19. the soil. and a truly ignorant way to treat the systems on which we depend wholly for our survival now and in the future. applied experimentally to the development of other drugs it continues. Lexis (MHBLUE1256) Whether we realize it or not.

India. according to the Commerce Department. Landay. p. Japan and South Korea. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year. 7 . “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile.S.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Asian Wars Go Nuclear CONFLICT IN EAST ASIA GOES NUCLEAR Jonathan S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. For America. economy. There are 100. “We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. National Security and Intelligence Correspondent.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan.S. Defense Secretary William S. and North Korea may have a few. too. or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. Are High in Asian Conflicts”. the stakes could hardly be higher. President Clinton. North Korea and South Korea. jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. Numerous U.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers. There are elements for potential disaster. Lexis] Few if any experts think China and Taiwan. exports and resources _ indispensable to the U. a Washington think tank. Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons. Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. cheap labor. March 10. In addition.” said Bates Gill.000 U. 2000 [“Top Administration Officials Warn Stakes for U. director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution. and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its massive markets. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia. a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime.S. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan.

There has been a parallel shift in the right of death.Extinction Michel Foucault. 8 . The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to guarantee an individual's continued existence. Yet wars were never as bloody as they have been since the nineteenth century. optimize. they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone. And through a turn that closes the circle. that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars. or destroying them. making them grow. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended. and multiply it. the West has undergone a very profound transformation of these mechanisms of power. But this formidable power of death-and this is perhaps what accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits-now presents itself as the counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life. and all things being equal. This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply the reverse of the right of the social body to ensure. that endeavors to administer. It is as managers of life and survival.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Biopower -. never before did regimes visit such holocaust on their own populations. working to incite. or develop its life. ed. "Deduction" has tended to be no longer the major form of power but merely one element among others. control. entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. making them submit. optimize. reinforce. maintain. the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. 259-260) (PDBF1940) Since the classical age. and ordering them. monitor. causing so many men to be killed. p. subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. rather than one dedicated to impeding them. as the technology of wars has caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction. and organize the forces under it: a power bent on generating forces. 1984 (THE FOUCAULT READER. of bodies and the race. or at least a tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a lifeadministering power and to define itself accordingly. Rabinow. Director of Institute Francais at Hamburg.

can only be conceived as a direct and immediate reflection of the economic base. This latter. or led to a fatal embrace of Holocaust denial. Auschwitz.part so as to save the rest. Thus. for example. the reaction of the militants of La Vieille Taupe. For Guillaume. because it so clearly serves their interests in mobilizing the working class to die in the service of democracy. including the most fraudulent. for example. of one of the imperialist blocs in the inter-imperialist world war. is transformed by Bordiga into a rational calculation of its direct profit interests on the part of the capitalists. as I will briefly explain. However. FUTURE GENOCIDES AND CONFLICTS ARE INEVITABLE. on the alter of anti-fascism. and Hiroshima are not merely the names of discrete sites where human beings have been subjected to forms of industrialized mass death. but which constitutes a denial of the most lethal tendencies inherent in the capitalist mode of production. a/online Mass death. Auschwitz. Worse. which is based on a crude base-superstructure model (or travesty) of Marxist theory. nor an atavistic reversion to the barbarism of a past epoch. confronted by the horror of Auschwitz. La Vieille Taupe's "fervor to contest the evidence of its [the Holocaust's] reality by every means possible. designed to force it into dishonest compromise and eventual loss of resolve. but synecdoches for the death-world that is a component of the capitalist mode of production in this epoch. that is. The ethnic cleansing which has been unleashed in Bosnia and Kosovo. the prospect for a nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent. a fabrication of the allies." It is quite true that capital has utilized antifascism to assure its ideological hegemony over the working class. it is just such a death-world that constitutes the meaning of one pole of the historic alternative which Rosa Luxemburg first posed in the midst of the slaughter inflicted on masses of conscripts during World War I: socialism or barbarism! Yet. but rather futural events. Auschwitz. Hence. for example. Auschwitz can only be a myth. I want to argue that the Holocaust. Quite apart from an economism which simply ignores the dialectic between the economy on the one hand. While I am convinced that there can be no adequate theory of mass death and genocide which does not link these phenomena to the unfolding of the logic of capital. Internationalist Perspective. objective-real possibilities on the Front of history. and genocide. is the 9 . an undertaking welcomed by big capital. and in the case of the capitalist class. the immediate need to extract a profit. and the political and ideological on the other (about which more later). in its own small way. which is one of the hallmarks of so-called orthodox Marxism. Nonetheless. such as Pierre Guillaume. are so many examples of the future which awaits the human species as the capitalist mode of production enters a new millenium. have either degenerated into a crude economism. which not only cannot be dissociated from anti-Semitism. revolutionary Marxists have so far failed to offer one. in his "Auschwitz ou le Grand Alibi" Bordiga explained the extermination of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. shaped Amadeo Bordiga's attempt to "explain" the Holocaust. as the reaction of one part of the petty bourgeoisie to its historical demise at the hands of capital by "sacrificing" its other -. to use concepts first articulated by the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch.Jewish -. an undertaking which fatally diverted the scarce resources (material and financial) of Nazi Germany from the battlefields of the imperialist world war. UNLESS WE STOP IT. the former being an expression of theoretical bankruptcy. Marxist theory has been silent or uncomprehending. the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda. constitutes a political betrayal of the struggle for communist revolution by its incorporation into the politics of Holocaust denial. and Hiroshima are not "past". in which politics. so many traps laid for anticapitalist radicality. and the latter a quite literal crossing of the class line into the camp of capital itself. Economism. Moreover. which could thereby liquidate a part of the petty bourgeoisie with the support of the rest of that same class. but as the direct outcome of the utilitarian calculation of segments of the petty bourgeoisie and big capital. was not a Jewish catastrophe. in which events can only be conceived as a manifestation of the direct economic needs of a social class. be comprehended on the basis of a purely economic calculus of profit and loss on the part of "big capital. the few efforts of revolutionary Marxists to grapple with the Holocaust. simply cannot. Indeed. but rather an event produced by the unfolding of the logic of capitalism itself. in my view. And just as surely the ideology of antifascism and its functionality for capital must be exposed by revolutionaries." While Bordiga's reaction to Auschwitz fails to provide even the minimal bases for its adequate theorization. #36 Spring 2000. For the evidence of genocide is just so many deceptions. Kolyma. and thereby serves as a screen behind which the death-world wrought by capital can be safely hidden from its potential victims. the deliberate and systematic extermination of whole groups of human beings. such an "explanation" asks us to conceive of genocide not as the complex outcome of the unfolding of the operation of the law of value in the diverse spheres of social life. have become an integral part of the social landscape of capitalism in its phase of decadence. Kolyma.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Capitalism Bad – War/All Impacts CAPITALISM IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF EVERY CONFLICT IN THE LAST CENTURY. and that the Holocaust has been routinely wielded for more than a generation by the organs of mass manipulation in the service of the myth of "democracy" in the West (and by the state of Israel on behalf of its own imperialist aims in the Middle-East). of the very barbarism of capitalism. the veritable hallmark of the fundamental irrationality of late capital. Kolyma. this does not justify the claims of Holocaust denial. and Hiroshima. In that sense. the mass death to which Chechnya has been subjected.

p. the displacement of civilian government by the military and the imposition of military values. and Defense at the University of North Carolina. Kohn is Professor of History and Chair. Americans knew instinctively that militarism was perhaps the foremost threat to their prospect of doing so. Militarism came to be seen in the United States as a threat to freedom and democracy. professor of international relations at Boston University. This fear is rooted in the fear of standing armies and embedded in the US Constitution. pp. it was also seen as having caused German aggression and thus as a force that created foreign threats. 10 . The vision of freedom animating the founders of seventeenth-century Anglo-America and of the eighteenth-century American republic distinguished their purpose from that of the Old World.mit.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Civil-Military Relations Good – Bacevich & Kohn LOSS OF CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILTARY RISKS MILITARISM AND ENDLESS WAR Andrew Bacevich. constantly embroiled in bloody disputes over privilege and power. the erosion of civilian control-distorts if it does not altogether nullify important elements of the American birthright. our present-day military supremacy represents something quite different. The word militarism was invented by European leftist opponents of their government in the eighteen sixties. Princes. Recall that at the outset the New World was intended to be radically and profoundly new. THE NEW AMERICAN MILITARISM: HOW AREMERICANS ARE SEDUCED BY WAR. and perpetual war defined Europe. 2005. In the United States. the expectation that revolutionary advances in military technology might offer a tidy solution to complex problems. November 12. Chapel Hill. All of this-seeing armed force as the preeminent expression of state power and military institutions as the chief repositories of civic virtue. Richard H. War. CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY. One the oldest fears in civil military relations is militarism.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_05fall/kohn. but after World War I. the outsourcing of defense to a professional military elite. perspectives and ideals on the rest of society. http://web. The fear of militarism was articulated in academia and Congress in the nineteen thirties. Determined to preserve their freedom and their experiment in popular self-government. 2005.htm. this fear was expressed primarily toward internal problems. Curriculum in Peace. The absence of these things was to provide a point of departure for defining America. 32-3 In fact. armies.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               

Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything
DON’T ROLL THE DICE – NONE OF THEIR IMPACTS OUTWEIGHS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION John A. Eidsmoe is a Constitutional Attorney, Professor of Law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Colonel with the USAF, 1992 3 USAFA J. Leg. Stud. 35, p. 57-9 Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the wellproportioned columns of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skilful architecture which united national sovereignty with State rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No, if these columns fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them, than were ever shed over the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edifice of constitutional American liberty. It is possible that a constitutional convention could take place and none of these drastic consequences would come to pass. It is possible to play Russian roulette and emerge without a scratch; in fact, with only one bullet in the chamber, the odds of being shot are only one in six. But when the stakes are as high as one's life, or the constitutional system that has shaped this nation into what it is today, these odds are too great to take the risk. YOU MUST UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION Stephen L. Carter, professor of law at Yale, 1-1986 66 B.U.L. Rev. 71, p. 83-4 The fact that any rule can constrain creative freedom is sometimes missed by those who assert that constitutional theories fall into two categories, "interpretive" and "non-interpretive." The error is the assumption that one school assigns to the Constitution a different importance than the other. This simply isn't so. When Aloysius cries "intent of the Framers" and Bernadette ripostes "emergent moral consensus" their disagreement is not over the weight to be assigned to the Constitution, but rather over the rules that will bind the interpreter in the creative act of transforming its symbols into policy. Paul Brest and Laurence Tribe do not respect the Constitution any less than do Robert Bork and Raoul Berger; their argument is over what demands that respect places on the interpreter. Each theorist's view on the best means for channeling the creative imagination of the reader is put forth as a set of interpretive rules.] The crucial question for many constitutional theorists is whether the rules governing interpretation can be set out with clarity sufficient to render constitutional adjudication something other than the judge's imposition of her own value preferences. Those I call "delegitimizers" are of the view that mainstream liberalism cannot resolve this question: liberals, if they seek rules to cabin judicial freedom, are stuck with a Bickelean exaltation of process and a process that occasionally produces repugnant results. The only answer liberals can come up with, so the argument goes, is the fundamental rights form of judicial review, that is, to ignore the process -- and any coherent rules for interpretation that the process might require -- and impose better results. But this of course is what classical liberalism forbids, for there must, in liberal theory, be a way of recognizing law and distinguishing it from simple power. Judges in the liberal state are to enforce this recognizable law. If they do something else -- for example, enforcing their preferences and calling them law -- they are violating the rules that make liberal constitutional adjudication possible. Thus the essence of the critique is not that the fundamental rights jurisprudence reaches substantive results that are good or bad -- such notions are quite irrelevant 54 -- but rather, that liberal political theory cannot explain it. And if even liberals admit that they must sometimes step outside their own system in order to avoid morally repugnant results, then their system must on its own terms be immoral.

11

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Constitution Good – Outweighs Everything
THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS NUCLEAR WAR – YOU MUST UPHOLD IT Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Oh, March, 2002 http://www.downwinders.org/Kucinich_Peace_p.html "Politics ought to stay out of fighting a war," the President has been quoted as saying on March 13th 2002. Yet Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution explicitly requires that Congress take responsibility when it comes to declaring war. This President is very popular, according to the polls. But polls are not a substitute for democratic process. Attributing a negative connotation here to politics or dismissing constitutionally mandated congressional oversight belies reality: Spending $400 billion a year for defense is a political decision. Committing troops abroad is a political decision. War is a political decision. When men and women die on the battlefield that is the result of a political decision. The use of nuclear weapons, which can end the lives of millions, is a profound political decision. In a monarchy there need be no political decisions. In a democracy, all decisions are political, in that they derive from the consent of the governed. In a democracy, budgetary, military and national objectives must be subordinate to the political process. Before
we celebrate an imperial presidency, let it be said that the lack of free and open political process, the lack of free and open political debate, and the lack of free and open political dissent can be fatal in a democracy. We have reached a moment in our country's history where it is urgent that people everywhere speak out as president of his or her own life, to protect the peace of the nation and world within and without. We should speak out and caution leaders who generate fear through talk of the endless war or the final conflict. We should appeal to our leaders to consider that their own bellicose thoughts, words and deeds are reshaping consciousness and can have an adverse effect on our nation. Because when one person thinks: fight! he or she finds a fight. One faction thinks: war! and starts a war. One nation thinks: nuclear! and approaches the abyss. And what of one nation which thinks peace, and seeks peace? Neither individuals nor nations exist in a vacuum, which is why we have a serious responsibility for each other in this world. It is also urgent that we find those places of war in our own lives, and begin healing the world through healing ourselves. Each of us is a citizen of a common planet, bound to a common destiny. So connected are we, that each of us has the power to be the eyes of the world, the voice of the world, the conscience of the world, or the end of the world. And as each one of us chooses, so becomes the world. Each of us is architect of this world. Our thoughts, the concepts. Our words, the designs. Our deeds, the bricks and mortar of our daily lives. Which is why we should always take care to regard the power of our thoughts and words, and the commands they send into action through time and space. Some of our leaders have been thinking and talking about nuclear war. Recently there has been much news about a planning document which describes how and when America might wage nuclear war. The Nuclear Posture Review recently released to the media by the government: 1. Assumes that the United States has the right to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. 2. Equates nuclear weapons with conventional weapons. 3. Attempts to minimize the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. 4. Promotes nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack. Some dismiss this review as routine government planning. But it becomes ominous when taken in the context of a war on terrorism which keeps expanding its boundaries, rhetorically and literally. The President equates the "war on terrorism" with World War II. He expresses a desire to have the nuclear option "on the table." He unilaterally withdraws from the ABM treaty. He seeks $8.9 billion to fund deployment of a missile shield. He institutes, without congressional knowledge, a shadow government in a bunker outside our nation's Capitol. He tries to pass off as arms reduction, the storage of, instead of the elimination of, nuclear weapons. Two generations ago we lived with nuclear nightmares. We feared and hated the Russians who feared and hated us. We feared and hated the "godless, atheistic" communists. In our schools, each of us dutifully put our head between our legs and practiced duck-and-cover drills. In our nightmares, we saw the long, slow arc of a Soviet missile flash into our neighborhood. We got down on our knees and prayed for peace. We surveyed, wide eyed, pictures of the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We supported the elimination of all nuclear weapons. We knew that if you "nuked" others you "nuked" yourself. The splitting of the atom for destructive purposes admits a split consciousness, the compartmentalized thinking of Us vs. Them, the dichotomized thinking, which spawns polarity and leads to war. The proposed use of nuclear weapons, pollutes the psyche with the arrogance of infinite power. It creates delusions of domination of matter and space. It is dehumanizing through its calculations of mass casualties. We must overcome doomthinkers and sayers who invite a world descending, disintegrating into a nuclear disaster. With a world at risk, we must find the bombs in our own lives and disarm them. We must listen to that quiet inner voice which counsels that the survival of all is achieved through the unity of all.

MORAL OBLIGATION TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION Daryl Levinson, professor of law at University of Virginia, Spring 2000 UC Law Review
Extending a majority rule analysis of optimal deterrence to constitutional torts requires some explanation, for we do not usually think of violations of constitutional rights in terms of cost-benefit

Quite the opposite, constitutional rights are most commonly conceived as deontological sideconstraints that trump even utility-maximizing government action. Alternatively, constitutional rights might be understood as serving rule-utilitarian purposes. If the disutility to victims of constitutional violations often exceeds the social benefits derived from the rightsviolating activity, or if rights violations create long-term costs that outweigh short-term social benefits, then constitutional rights can be justified as tending to maximize global utility, even though this requires local utility-decreasing steps. Both the deontological and ruleutilitarian descriptions imply that the optimal level of constitutional violations is zero; that is, society would be better off, by whatever measure, if constitutional rights were never violated.
analysis and efficiency.

12

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               

Climate Change/Warming -- Brandenberg
WARMING DESTROYS ALL LIFE ON EARTH Dr. John Brandenberg, Physicist, DEAD MARS, DYING EARTH, 1999, p. 232-3

The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuel use continues to power it. Rather than making painful or politically difficult choices such as inventing in fusion or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Let’s imagine that America and Europe are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fall. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs—a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not occur have paid little attention to life on Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and Russia… Suddenly, the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See, I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!” Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be a second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost – as is its water—because of the ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars – red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving.

13

Stud. Reviewing the path taken by the Supreme Court to arrive at this point will illuminate the issue at hand. Lieutenant Colonel. USAFA Journal of Legal Studies. 197) Today. US Air Force.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Deference (Judicial) Good -. Were the judiciary willing to pierce the seemingly impenetrable military shell. the military institution stands as a force to be reckoned with by government leaders in the formation of national and military policy and strategy.Readiness DEFERENCE IS CRITICAL TO MILITARY CONFIDENCE AND READINESS Michael H. the military might not possess the same confidence. 1997 / 1998 (8 USAFA J. As an institution. the military wields pervasive influence that can thwart effective oversight by traditional legislative and bureaucratic processes normally relied upon by the legislative and executive branches. 14 . The federal judiciary contributes to the military confidence of their authority by being unwilling to review cases presenting issues challenging military authority and control. Leg. Its size and penetration into every aspect of American life since the 1950s have made the military an unexpected influence over the nation's domestic and foreign policies. Gilbert.

Extinction JUDICIAL DEFERENCE ENSURES EXTINCTION – OVERSIGHT IS NECESSARY TO CHECK DANGEROUS MILITARY ACTIONS Kellman ‘89 (Barry. United States. Especially in these times when weapons proliferation can lead to nuclear winter. During the decade of history's largest peacetime military expansion (1979-1989). 15 . the clean-up costs are projected to exceed $ 100 billion. 13 these three decisions elevate the task of preparing for war to a level beyond legal accountability.cannot be sustained if our tradition of adherence to the rule of law is to be maintained. the judiciary has disallowed tort accountability for serious and unwarranted injuries. ironically impelled by concerns for "national security. In Allen v. December. A critical analysis of these decisions reveals that the judiciary.that because our adversaries are not restricted by our Constitution. 3 Headlines of fatal B-1B bomber crashes. United Technologies. This Article posits that judicial abdication in this field is not compelled and certainly is not desirable. unknowingly drugged with LSD by the Central Intelligence Agency. We should not break faith with this Nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority. To the contrary. They suggest that determinations of both the ends and the means of national security are inherently above the law and hence unreviewable regardless of the legal rights transgressed by these determinations. Their fears were rooted in history. 10 civilian victims of atmospheric atomic testing were denied a right of tort recovery against the government officials who managed and performed the tests. when soldiers die unnecessarily in the name of readiness: those who control military force must be held accountable under law. This conclusion signals a dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility. Stanley. the judiciary must be willing to demand adherence to legal principles by assessing responsibility for weapons decisions." In three recent controversies involving weapons testing. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that today the peoples of many nations are ruled by the military. 4 the downing of an Iranian passenger plane. more than 17. 1597-1602 In this era of thermonuclear weapons. Finally. 1 Our fears may be rooted in more recent history. a tradition which we believe is firmly embodied in the Constitution. Our strength grows from the resolve to subject military force to constitutional authority. virtually every facility in the nuclear bomb complex has been revealed to be contaminated with radioactive and poisonous materials. could not pursue a claim for deprivation of his constitutional rights. the Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution. . 5 the Navy's frequent accidents 6 including the fatal crash of a fighter plane into a Georgia apartment complex. 2 In the same period. when weapons production can cause cancer. . Their argument -. 7 remind Americans that a tragic price is paid to support the military establishment.000 service personnel were killed in training accidents. Duke Law Journal. The judiciary must rigorously scrutinize military decisions if our 18th century dream of a nation founded in musket smoke is to remain recognizable in a millennium ushered in under the mushroom cloud of thermonuclear holocaust. The legal system can provide a useful check against dangerous military action. we should become more like our adversaries to secure ourselves -. They knew that ancient republics had been overthrown by their military leaders. America must uphold its historical commitment to be a nation of law. In United States v. .. The very underpinnings of constitutional governance are threatened by those who contend that the rule of law weakens the execution of military policy. Other commentaries may distinguish between the specific losses that might have been preventable and those which were the random consequence of what is undeniably a dangerous military program. . in Boyle v. This Article can only repeat the questions of the parents of those who have died: "Is the military accountable to anyone? Why is it allowed to keep making the same mistakes? How many more lives must be lost to senseless accidents?" 8 This Article describes a judicial concession of the law's domain. 9 the Supreme Court ruled that an Army sergeant. As the Supreme Court recognized a generation ago. more so than these three opinions would suggest. notably the Rehnquist Court. has abdicated its responsibility to review civil matters involving the military security establishment. Prof – Depaul. but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Deference (Judicial) Bad -. . Standing at the vanguard of "national security" law. p. 11 the Supreme Court ruled that private weapons manufacturers enjoy immunity from product liability actions alleging design defects.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Deforestation Bad DEFORESTATION CAUSES POLITICAL CONFLICT AND GENOCIDE Thomas Homer-Dixon. population pressure. people try to escape the country any way they can— sometimes on boats as illegal refugees to the United States. encourages pervasive corruption. producing hundreds of thousands of deaths. p. and drought have encouraged attacks by Arab nomads and herdsman on black farming communities.' In Rwanda. In the Philippines. THE UPSIDE OF DOWN: CATASTROPHE. cropland and forest degradation in the country's mountainous interior zones causes chronic poverty that's exploited by a persistent Communist insurgency. 2006.° In the Darfur region of the Sudan. land shortages resulting from population growth and soil degradation were a major underlying reason for the bitter hatreds and violence that led to the horror of the 1994 genocide. forest and soil loss contributes to a relentless economic crisis that erodes all public institutions. as criminal violence and kidnappings for ransom have soared. political scientist & population researcher. and helps sustain vicious fighting between political factions. AND THE RENEWAL OF CIVILIZATION. 16 . CREATIVITY. 150 In Haiti. land scarcity.

the global ecosystem.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Democracy Good – Diamond DEMOCRACY SOLVES NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE. chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. they respect competition. The very source of life on Earth. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. http://www. Democratic countries form more reliable. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. civil liberties. 17 . The experience of this century offers important lessons. GENOCIDE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION Larry Diamond. 1995. open. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. popular sovereignty and openness. Precisely because. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. December.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S. p. Hoover Institution. appears increasingly endangered. with its provisions for legality. property rights. Stanford University. within their own borders.html // Nuclear. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. and enduring trading partnerships. accountability. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. and the rule of law. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.

totalitarian communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions. by far. The major and better known episodes and institutions for which these and other murderers were responsible are listed in table 1. Some lesser kilomurderers were communist Afghanistan. Consider table 1. his census and the estimates of explorers also enables us to estimate Golgotha's racial and ethnic composition. once those states that had been mortal enemies. Iraq.000. Political Scientist. including those from all of Eastern Europe except the former USSR. He ordered the death of millions. burned. Several times more of them.R. hung. and as the ultimate dictator. Then there are the kilomurderers.HTM Power kills. and zero expectation of violence between any of these formerly hostile states. that is. And whether considering the classical Greek democracies. Russia. Indonesia. Oriental. Then there is a much lower percentage of Ukrainians (6 percent)..3 lists the fifteen most lethal regimes and figure 1. and Cambodians (2 percent). is Golgotha dominantly Asian? European? What region did most of its dead souls come from. Figure 1. Czechoslovakia (1945-46). Regimes are in reality people with the power to command a whole society. In evaluating the battle-dead for democracies keep in mind that most of these dead were the result of wars that democracies fought against authoritarian or totalitarian aggression. All because they are all democracies. Yet we have had no war--none--among them.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Democracy Good/Democide -.000 people in this century… In each case. non-democracies. although they have fought.8 The most absolute Power. Pakistanis (largely ethnic Bengalis and Hindus). but that at the end of that time there would be a European community with central government institutions.000. they did or do not fight each other (depending on how war and democracy is defined. crushed. tortured. and Ethiopia. or buried alive.2 to 1. starved. Table 1. the highest proportion of any region's population in Golgotha.S.9 The dead even could conceivably be near 360.11 But this last census does allow us to rank this land of the murdered sixth in population among the nations of the living. its inhabitants believed in all the world's religions and spoke all its languages. and children. and Vietnamese. as the arbitrary power of a regime increases massively. as shown in figure 1. This belligerence of unrestrained Power is not an artifact of either a small number of democracies nor of our era. For one thing the number of democratic states in 1993 number around seventy-five. absolute Power kills absolutely." or . or those states that have killed innocents by the tens or hundreds of thousands. 2001.000 people. the forest democracies of medieval Switzerland. So much for Golgotha and a summary overview of its statistics. while many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers. And indeed it has. that had frequently gone to war (as have France and Germany in recent centuries). Death By Government. 1. the more it is diffused. Turk subjects. the amount of killing jumps by huge multiples. was responsible for the death of still millions more killed by his henchman. Germans (4 percent). It may come as a surprise to find Mao Tse-tung is next in line as this century's greatest murderers.4." "regime. These assertions are extreme and categorical. while although for democracies they suffer fewer battle-dead than Putting the human cost of war and democide together. http://www. beaten. Portugal (1926-1982).2 and figure 1. aside from warfare. These and other kilomurderers add almost 15. knowingly set in train events leading to the death of millions of others. DEATH BY GOVERNMENT. almost four times the almost 38. Power has killed over 203. helpless citizens or foreigners. then there have been many democracies throughout history. Of course.1 graphically overlays the plot of this on the total murdered. In some 70 years it likely chewed up almost 40. However. But much worse.2 also shows the annual percentage democide rate (the percent of its population that a regime murders per year) for each megamurderer and figure 1. Even among primitive tribes. Khmer Rouge Cambodia. or 84 percent. The souls of this monstrous pile of dead have created a new land.S. As I already have made clear. women.000 of them. but this would only be because the full extent of communist killing in China under his leadership has not been widely known in the West. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. around 22 percent. The cauldron of our most disastrous wars for many centuries. While most. Mexicans. To this I would add that the less democratic two states the more likely that they will fight each other. where Power is divided and limited. as everyone knows. Vietnam. it seems.5 Moreover. other regimes. some might prefer to say that they rarely fought or fight each other). At the extremes of Power2.000. or New World market. or worked to death. as shown in table 1. University of Hawaii. but a plague of Power and not germs. with Russians next at 24 percent. as well as authoritarian Hungary.500. that is the communist U. Its demography has yet to be precisely measured and only two rough censuses. and Indonesia (1965-87). the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. Moreover. They create an oasis of peace. this would be enough. Golgotha owes its existence to 12 Power.hawaii. and the 1940-45 indiscriminate bombing of German cities). saying that a state or regime is a murderer is a convenient personification of an abstraction. are from Asia and the Middle East." "government. the most recent constituting Death By Government. Burundi.3. Europe has contributed 6 percent of its population to this land of the murdered. Angola. Figure 1. Their names should forever warn us of the deadly potential of Power. frozen. Croatia (1941-44).2: China Warlords (1917-1949). and Yugoslavia. have so far been taken.6 gives a bar chart of these totals. This new Power Principle is the message emerging from my previous work on the causes of war and this book on genocide and government . knifed. even without the excuse of combat Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls.000 battle-dead for all this century's international and civil wars up to 1987. or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed.000 or more men. the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite.2 bar graphs them. Hitler and Pol Pot are of course among these bloody tyrants and as for the others whose names may appear strange.5 displays two different ways of looking at this: the percent of Golgothians from a particular region and also the percent of a region's 1987 population in Golgotha. in less than four years of governing they exterminated over 31 percent of their men. the United Kingdom (primarily due to the 1914-1919 food blockade of the Central Powers in and after World War I. Table 1. from capture to sale in an Arab. Note immediately in the figure that the human cost of democide is far greater than war for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. this is historically true of democracies as well. If one relaxes the definition of democracy to mean simply the restraint on Power by the 1 mass murder--what I call democide--in this century 4 participation of middle and lower classes in the determination of power holders and policy making. became democratic. Let in Shakespeare's word's "This Land be calle'd The field of Golgotha. their megamurders are described in detail in Death By Governments. such massive megamurderers as the Soviet Union and communist China had huge populations with a resulting small annual democide rate. particularly World War I and II. as well fascist Nazi Germany. Rumania.Rummel DEMOCIDE BY TOTALITARIAN REGIMES HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS AND HAS CAUSED MORE DEATHS THAN ALL THE WARS OF THE 20TH CENTURY RJ Rummel. Table 1. the Korean and Vietnam Wars.000 people. war ceased between them. over twice as many as probably died in some 400 years of the African slave trade. almost 170. It is these people that have committed the kilo and megamurders of our century and we must not lose their identity under the abstraction of "state. some 40 percent. and dead men's Skulls"10 As clear from the megamurderers listed in table 1.6 Paradigmatic of this is Western Europe since 1945. In no case has there been a war involving violent military action between stable democracies3. The more constrained the power of governments.4 lists those men most notorious and singularly responsible for the megamurders of this century these nine men should be entered into a Hall of Infamy. Poles (4 percent).000. Far above all is gulag--the Soviet In total. Chinese make up 30 percent of its souls.6 summarizes the most prudent democide results and contrasts them to this century's battle-dead. moves toward a joint European military force by France and Germany. and children have been shot. For their populations as a whole some less than megamurderers were far more lethal. the United States must also be added to this list (see Statistics of Democide). bombed. the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. China and preceding Mao guerrillas. Nor is there any threat of war. slave--labor system created by Lenin and built up under Stalin. The more power a government has. As can be seen. which is pictured in figure 1. no other megamurderer comes even close to the lethality of the communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during 1975 through 1978.edu/powerkills/DBG. Table 1. among us.000. such as the top five listed in table 1. about one-fourth of the world's population.1. war is less likely.000 lives. and children. women.2 alone. or also taking into account forty-eight related territories. The monstrous bloodletting of at least "communist. In other words.CHAP1. The remaining 30 percent is made up of a diverse Koreans. this total is still greater than democratic domestic and foreign democide. account for near 128. the list and its graph of this century's megamurderers--those states killing in cold blood. checked and balanced. As described in Chapter 9 of Death By Government. in 1945 one would not find an expert so foolhardy as to predict not only forty-five years of peace. as we move from democratic through authoritarian to totalitarian regimes. during the first eighty-eight years of this century. Note that 18 percent of Golgothians are former Europeans.000.000. For its indiscriminate bombing of German and Japanese civilians. I can now be more specific about this. drowned. Indeed.2. Consider first war. Yet such has happened.000 people killed to the democide for this century. and Uganda. as the case studies in this book will more than attest." Table 1. women. Albania. we have here a general principle that is gaining acceptance among students of international relations and war. or modern democracies. this land is multicultural and multiethnic. a new nation. These fifteen megamurderers have wiped out over 151.5. But still. Most wars are between nondemocracies. and its complement Statistics of Democide.13 18 .7 Were all to be said about absolute and arbitrary Power is that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the young and most capable of our species. AtatŸrk's Turkey (1919-1923).1 shows the occurrence of war between nations since 1816. That is that democracies don't make war on each other.000 men.000. is from the territory of the former Soviet Union. the odds of any Cambodian surviving these four long years was only about 2. leads the list. but so is the evidence accumulated in this book. Stalin. Asians are the largest group while the former Soviet Union has contributed the most of its population.

with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . 1992. these neocolonial wars. rich against poor.S. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. once a few nukes are launched. 2000. Prior to the final economic collapse. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death. that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world. escalating it significantly. including U. As the studies showed.and others { } not covered .converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. probably correctly. Senior Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. and perhaps most of the biosphere. 19 . Europe. suffering. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. economic and trading networks and squander material.attacks Taiwan. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. Army. As an example. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. under such extreme stress conditions. 1998 [The Coming Age of Scarcity] Most critics would argue. 2000 (Lieutenant Colonel in the U. we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North. Mead. Chris Lewis. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's. is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. growth skeptic concedes. Liutenant Colonel Bearden. p. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. Without effective defense. The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. the only chance a nation has to survive at all. Or suppose a desperate China . Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Economy – Mead. 2000. forces there. at least for many decades. As the collapse of the Western economies nears. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it.whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States . and even regional nuclear wars. will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization.S. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization. 30 The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression. In addition to immediate responses. in a spasmodic suicidal response. and Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy.will open their eyes to their folly. These wars will so damage the complex. NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY.yahoo. However.com/group/BigMedicine/message/642) Bluntly. or even shrinks? In that case. adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. are almost certain to be released. the United States. Beardon ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Walter Russell. and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth’s 6 to 8 billion people. http://groups. fought to maintain the developed nations’ economic and political hegemony. China. we foresee these factors . Russia. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. Lewis. Summer. biological.

These are the choices. grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season. including extinction. or cells. 20 . have three basic directions in which to move. could the human species. Therefore. whether organizations. During the food crisis of the early 1970s. Humanity’s future is conditioned by what I call the Imperative of Growth. he said. They can grow. societies. The Macroindustrial Era represents growth in the areas of both technology and human development. 1-20-96 On a global scale." He also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of their income on food. a special purpose to the species’ existence. Pinstrup-Andersen noted. Systems. world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year. Zey. There is no guarantee that the human species will survive even if we posit. said Per Pinstrup-Andersen. "Even if they are merely blips. 1998. That's troubling. The Imperative of Growth states that in order to survive. director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington. So. In 1995. p. Professor of Management at Montclair State University. both materially and intellectually. could have alarmingly pernicious side effects. As a result. or temporarily reside in a state of equilibrium. the species innately comprehends that it must engage in purposive actions in order to maintain its level of growth and progress.C. as many have. a principle I will herewith describe along with its several corollaries." he said. stabilization of production/consumption through zero-growth policies. food supplies . any nation. higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food. executive director of the Expansionary Institute. history is littered with races and civilizations that have disappeared without a trace. a natural stage in the evolution of the species’ continued extension of its control over itself and its environment. since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Economy – Zey/Ecxtinction LOSS OF WORLD GROWTH CAUSES HUMAN EXTINCTION Michael G. 34. must grow. In fact. decline.measured by stockpiles of grain . for instance. Choosing any alternative to growth.are not abundant. Seizing the Future. 39-40 However. D. world grain stocks were at 15 percent. Food Prices – Increase Kills a Billion – Tampa Tribune A ONE DOLLAR INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES KILLS 1 BILLION Tampa Tribune. pp. nor does anything mandate that the human species must even continue to exist. our continued existence depends on our ability to continue the progress we have been making at higher and higher levels. Although 5 billion strong. no outside force guarantees the continued progress of the human species. too.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less. the human race. indeed. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.

University of CaliforniaRiverside. As an extensive body of research documents (see especially Van Duijn. 1999. It is widely accepted that the current K-wave. already unravelling. other theorists consider that the possibility of such a core war is sufficiently high that serious steps should be taken to ensure that such collective suicide does not occur (Chase-Dunn and O’Reilly. It is also widely accepted that by this period US hegemony. Beyond merely showing that the K-wave and the war cycle are linked in a systematic fashion. 1987). a second period of economic growth follows a period of global war and the establishment of a new period of hegemony. Here. result in the outbreak of full-scale warfare between the declining hegemon and the ascending core powers. Director of the Institute for Research on World-Systems. 1983). in The Future of Global Conflict. Bornschier and Chase-Dunn. which entered a downturn around 1967-73. 1989. This finding is interpreted as showing that. Goldstein’s research suggests that severe core wars are much more likely to occur late in the upswing phase of the K-wave. 21 . again. p. Although both Goldstein (1991) and Modelski and Thompson (1996) assert that such a global war can (somehow) be avoided. the picture becomes even grimmer when the influence of long-terni economic cycles is taken into account. 43 While the onset of a period of hegemonic rivalry is in itself disturbing. specific economic upswings are associated with an increased likelihood of the outbreak of core war. but it closely resembles Goldstein’s hypothesis. they can afford to do so only when economic growth is providing them with sufficient resources. if history truly does repeat itself. a first economic upswing generates the economic resources required by an ascending core state to make a bid for hegemony. will have been definitively eroded. the 50 to 60 year business cycle known as the Kondratieff wave (K-wave) has been in synchronous operation on an international scale for at least the last two centuries. AND Bruce PODOBNIK. while states always desire to go to war. Goldfrank. This convergence of a plateauing economic cycle with a period of political multicentricity within the core should. In their analysis.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad – War AN UPCOMING UPSWING IN THE ECONOMY WILL KILL EVERYONE BY 2025. Utilizing data gathering by Levy (1983) on war severity. is probably now in the process of beginning a new upturn which will reach its apex around 2025. ed. Goldstein (1988) demonstrates that there is a corresponding 50 to 60 year cycle in the number of battle deaths per year for the period 1495-1975. Modelski and Thompson (1996) present a more complex interpretation of the systemic relationship between economic and war cycles. Christopher CHASE-DUNN. Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Lewis and Clark College.

these gains are offset by the losses brought about by wartime distortions and destruction. Goldstein also raises the question of how these economic/war cycles impact the distribution of capabilities among the major powers. What is not exactly specified is whether innovation. The lack of clarity on this issue may be traceable to the lack of specification among innovation. Decades are required to rebuild. Goldstein is careful to distinguish between production and prices. As a result. investment. Relative capabilities then begin a process of diffusion as they move toward equality among the major powers. all three factors share some responsibility for generating the fluctuations in capability concentration. His 1991 analysis is one of the more sophisticated empirical studies to emerge after nearly a century of controversy (spatiotemporal boundaries: world system from the mid-eighteenth to the midtwentieth centuries). and production. When prices rise. are functions of war. Increases in innovation facilitate economic growth but growth discourages further innovation. professor of political science. real wages decline. the greater the severity. investment. 1987.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad – War GROWTH CYCLES MAKE SEVERE WARS INEVITABLE George MODELSKI. Presumably. Center for the Study of International Relations. War severity increases capability concentration. inflation occurs. Another bout of severe war ensues and the cycle repeats itself. over investment results. Investors retrench and growth slows down as a consequence. AND William R. the severity of the war greatly effects the rate of war-induced inflation— in other words. 22 . eventually. This phenomenon is explained in terms of demand increases outstripping supply. The ability to wage war makes severe wars more likely. Prices.2. His 1988 analysis went some way in summarizing many of the arguments concerning economic long waves and war.3 The basic perspective that emerges from his analyses. in his view. While there may be some gains registered in terms of resource mobilization for combat purposes. Severe wars usher in a phase of stagnation from which the world economy eventually recovers leading to another resurgence of robust economic growth. or some combination of the three processes is responsible for ending the upswing. director. Leading Sectors and World Powers. then the higher the rate of inflation. 20-22 Goldstein (1985. differential rates of innovation and production influence relative capability standings. THOMPSON. University of Washington. war. 1988. Yet he also notes that production (production waves are said to precede war/price waves by some ten to fifteen years) is already stagnating toward the end of the upswing. Cycles in innovation and investment are viewed as reinforcing the production long wave. 1991a) has probably contributed more than anyone else to reviving the question of how wars and prosperity are linked. 1996. sees economic upswings increasing the probability of severe wars. in turn. pp. outlined in figure 2. Investment increases on the upswing but. In addition to war. Severe wars. Indiana University. consume the surpluses and war chests and put an end to the growth upswing. professor of political science. Other things being equal. Economic upswings create economic surpluses and full war chests. Goldstein’s analysis suggests that this process has gone on since at least 1495.

then. DESTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY Joshua S. 239). Professor of International Relations. points to sensitivities to the exact dating of turning points. fatalities follow the pattern of upswings and downswings throughout the 481-year span of the data. and innovations are thus products. Professor of International Relations. and six seriously overlapped phase periods (see also table 11. an unusually large number of important discoveries and inventions in the technique of production and communication are made. Levy’s “great power wars” (class 2. of the long wave. each overlapping one to two years into an adjacent phase. GOLDSTEIN. p.4).3. 244-248 The connection between economic phase periods and wars is investigated in several ways. The greater severity of war on long wave upswings. Wars.27 This indicator is also displayed as a bar chart in figure 11. More severe wars occurred during upswing phases. I have tabulated six war indicators by phase period (table 11 . above) are categorized (table 11. here expressed as an average annual fatality rate in each phase. Long Cycles. the internal dynamics of capitalism shape the long wave. which in turn shapes the superstructural factors such as innovation and war that Trotsky called “external. column 7).”17 New markets and resources are drawn into the capitalist system “not by accident. Categorizing the same fatality data “strictly” by phase period (col. because long-term economic expansion aggravates the international struggle for markets and raw materials while domestically sharpening the struggle over the distribution of the fruits of that economic growth ([1928] 1984:95). the main effect is on the twentieth century’s two world wars. 23 .” That is. American University. With the exception of the (low-fatality) upswing of 1575—94.Upswing Impact Magnifier UPSWINGS ARE TWENTY-ONE TIMES DEADLIER THAN DOWNSWINGS Joshua S. it is twenty-one times higher on upswings than downswings. Long Cycles. revolutions. . Up through 1892.29 GROWTH CYCLES CAUSE WAR AND THE USE OF NEW. 1988. American University. but in face of the existing economic preconditions. except for the 1575—94 upswing. 4). 1988.28 in conjunction with the method just discussed. are usually applied on a large scale only at the beginning of the next long upswing” ([1926] 1935:111). . the fatality rate on upswings is still more than four times higher than on downswings for both 1495—1892 and 1495— 1975. Not surprisingly. there is a clear alternation between upswing and downswing phases. 111). twenty-seven during downswings. which. “the most disastrous and extensive wars and revolutions occur” on the upswing of the long wave (p. Goldstein.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad -. 3) derives from the list of fatalities (table 11. Kondratieff argued that “during the recession . is a very strong and consistent correlation.26 The first indicator (col. Nonetheless.4) according to the economic phase period in which the war “mainly” fell (see definitions above. 29 Kondratieff’s response to Trotsky’s argument was that Trotsky “takes an idealist point of view. Likewise. the average annual fatality rate was six times higher on upswings than on downswings. p.” Specifically. Thus hardly any more wars occurred on the upswing phases than the downswings. pp. Thirty-one wars occurred during upswings.5. But in total battle fatalities (severity). The results also show the weakest correlation to be in the period 1495—1620.5). if the twentieth century is included. however. not causes.

the competition among sovereign states for scarce resources is a constant. 48 In McNeill’s analysis of military technology and military organization.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad -. in War in the World System. but the availability of resources to engage in warfare and to fund arms races is an upward trend sustained by the growth of industrial production in the context of the world market. further driving the trend toward more expensive and more destructive weapons. The increasing availability of resources for war and the application of scientific research and development and national education systems to military technology lead to escalation of rounds of competition for superior arms capabilities among core states. The development of new communications and transportation technologies increases the speed at which information about changes in military technology diffuses among competing states.Upswing Impact Magnifier GROWTH SUPERCHARGES ARMS RACES. Anchorage. and Kenneth O’REILLY. p. 24 . Distinguished Professor of Sociology AND Director of the Institute for Research on World-Systems at the University of California-Riverside. 1989. CAUSING MASSIVE WARS Christopher CHASE-DUNN. Professor of History at the University of Alaska.

cooperation among the major economies in policymaking has become increasingly important. Nor is our result dependent upon a particular specification. GROWTH SOLVES INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS Leonard Silk. p. affect other countries more strongly and produce sharp and often unwelcome changes in the trade and payments balances and exchange rates that link them with others. growth gives hope. other things equal. surprising given the attention inequality has received as an explanation of conflict. primary commodity exports are always significant. director. 25 . in Greed and Grievance. professor of economics at Oxford. however. in Greed and Grievance. currency disequilibrium and unemployment -. of course.) GROWTH IS KEY TO PEACEFUL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PREVENTION Indra de Soysa. n11 See Jeffrey E. be lightly dismissed.can be contained. Countries with higher per capita wealth are far less likely to suffer internal conflict and are more likely to exhibit strong democracy—which is widely seen as promoting peace and conflict resolution. Germany. What is most needed is the political will -the will of the United States.riding in different directions and threatening to pull the world economy apart. 126 The question is. renewed efforts at promoting economic growth and democratic institutions seem to be the best long-term strategy for creating what UNESCO has termed “a culture of peace” in the developing world. Presumably. and in none of these is inequality a significant cause of conflict. ed. the measures of inequality have proved to be significant in explaining economic growth and so are evidenfly not so noisy as to lack explanatory power. Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution. 97-98 The only result that supports the grievance approach to conflict is that a prior period of rapid economic decline increases the risk of conflict. Germany and Japan -. Germany. ed. senior research associate at the International Peace Research Institute. Some see the three major economic powers -. a society in which the economy is growing by 5 percent is around 40 percent safer than one that is declining by 5 percent.Growth Stops War GROWTH REDUCES CONFLICT. Japan. 1992. This is. A Cold Peace: America. Each 5 percent of annual growth rate has about the same effect as a year of education for the population in reducing the risk of conflict. Japan and other major industrial countries to deal more effectively with their own problems and the will of all the major developed countries to work together for a common end . The results cannot. Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University. But the interdependence resulting from economic integration has greatly reduced the effective autonomy of even large national economies. Anke Hoeffler and I have experimented with well over a hundred variants of our core specification. Garten. The most important challenge for economic cooperation in the years ahead will be to keep the world economy growing at a vigorous and sustainable pace. Berdal and Malone.as well as the social. 2000. In this changed world. ethnic. pp.the United States. unbalanced trade. How can a country escape from resource dependence and manage to innovate? Economic growth is vital because the raising of per capita income proxies innovative capabilities. But there are no technical solutions to the economic problems the world is facing. Inequality. Thus. whether measured in terms of income or landownership. For example. whereas rapid decline may galvanize people into action. a Twentieth Century Fund Book. racial and nationalist tensions and the violence to which they give rise -. Thus. Development Research Group at the World Bank. and progress made toward their solutions. 2000. Times Books. and the Struggle for Supremacy. WHILE DOWNSWINGS GREATLY INCREASE RISK OF WAR Paul Collier. Berdal and Malone. 1992 / 1993 Foreign Affairs But slow growth in the world economy now makes the danger of a reversion to beggar-thy-neighbor policies a real one. With real economic growth the serious problems of world debt. (By contrast. Nations have found that their policies are now less potent domestically. has no effect on the risk of conflict according to the data.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Good -. Bringing about economic growth through development assistance is one obvious answer.

The bigger ground for concern is pollution out of desperation: the resort by the poorest to shortsighted forms of agriculture or industry. ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION IS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH THROUGH GROWTH Jack Hollander. In the developed countries. 2003. In general. to be sure. or may be so desperate in the face of population growth and poverty that they permit actions.Growth Saves Environment GROWTH STOPS PEOPLE FROM DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT TO SURVIVE Bill Emmott. Editor-in-Chief of The Economist. p.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Good -. the gap between rich and poor countries in biodiversity conservation investments is enormous. including measures such as the Clean Water Act. such as deforestation. 20:21 Vision. A few extreme environmentalists raise concern about any and all economic growth in poor countries. and it has been confirmed by the actual experience of many affluent countries. not poverty. whose robust economic growth and unequaled affluence have stimulated and supported ever stricter environmental protection. Professor of Energy & Resources at Berkeley. This despite the fact that both the biological diversity and threats to that diversity in poor countries are often much greater than in rich countries. that free and affluent people will take action to protect their environment when they perceive an important problem and believe there is an effective solution. for poor countries may be unable to deal safely with toxic pollutants. such as the burning of coal and other dirty fuels in Chinese homes and factories. the average investment in protected areas is about $1. 193-194 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) embodies many of this book’s themes and can even be seen as one of its major focal points. involving huge expenditures of public and private money. 183-184. rising incomes bring better control of environmental damage. for in the short term that growth could bring on new environmental challenges. Nor could the act have come out of an impoverished country. that have a damaging influence on the global climate. Scientists. It is probably the most far-reaching environmental statute ever adopted by any nation. In these pages the emphasis has been on the historical experience of the United States. as Chapter ii will argue. and the unique Endangered Species Act. This link was recognized as a principle by the Brundtland report. The Real Environmental Crisis. 2003. whereas in the poor countries the average investment is only $161. and legislators played important roles. vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. but at bottom the Endangered Species Act belongs to the American people. He continues… Whether in affluent or developing countries. pp. in the absence of any other means of survival. 268 Inequality may also bring a risk of environmental degradation. In fact. Such a mandate. the link between economic growth and environmental quality is vital. Such environmental advances come out of affluence. 26 . The act is solidly grounded in the moral commitment of the American people to preserve their environment and is a demonstration of the claim. could not have come out of a country whose citizens were not dedicated to environmental quality. But it would surely be intolerably selfish to deny poor countries advancement on those grounds. made throughout this book. pp. environmentalists. the Clean Air Act.687 per square kilometer.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                27 .

Ethnic conflicts may also spread both within a state and from one state to the next. India and Ethiopia.Shehadi ETHNIC CONFLICTS WILL ESCALATE TO REGIONAL WARS Kamal Shehadi. 28 . or to trade them to others. for example. 1983. The conflict may also spread by contagion from one country to another if the state is weak politically and militarily and cannot contain the conflict on its doorstep. p.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Ethnic Conflict -. will reach frightening levels. As they begin to tear nuclear states apart. ETHNIC SELF DETERMINATION AND THE BREAK UP OF STATES. This can happen in countries where more than one ethnic self-determination conflict is brewing: Russia. there is a real danger that regional conflicts will erupt over national minorities and borders. and India and Pakistan may fight over Kashmir. Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. 81 This paper has argued that self-determination conflicts have direct adverse consequences on international security. the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of individuals or groups willing to use them. Lastly. This likelihood increases if a conflict over self-determination escalates into a war between two nuclear states. The Russian Federation and Ukraine may fight over the Crimea and the Donbass area. December.

com/foods004. famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people! Although famines have occurred at various times in the past. nine of these areas are in serious decline.. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal.htm) As a result grain prices are the highest on record.even wars. The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. This precarious situation is also without historical precedent! 29 . floods and storms--could be catastrophic. the Peruvian anchovy catch--the largest in the world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing.N. In fact. However. “On the Horizon: Famine. In the early 1970s.” September/October. If this happens on a global scale. the next couple of years will be critical..Extinction FOOD INSECURITY CAUSES GLOBAL INSTABILITY. the new famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible! Is it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases. Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is happening today? Where is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse before they get better. M. Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-. AND BILLIONS OF DEATHS – THREATENING EXTINCTION Winnail. WAR. Lester Brown. Worldwatch Institute's president. Ph. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts.'s studies.. all 17 major fishing areas in the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. According to the U.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Famine -.. and the demands of an exploding population? These are pushing the world's resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an ominous series of potential global crises at the same time! However. writes. With world food stores dwindling. 1996 (Douglas S.D.kurtsaxon. grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world.. "No other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices. Wars. we will be in deep trouble.P. It's troubling because seafood--the world's leading source of animal protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. The realization that we may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one .H. http://www. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor. droughts and shrinking grain stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. especially for agriculture. poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge.

p. despotism. TOLEDO LAW REVIEW. However. and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare. Ask Solzhenitsyn. That road leads to chaos. 30 .” Thus. it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. professor of law. then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. tyranny. Ask Milovan Djilas. echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty. Spring 1974. if one believes in freedom as a supreme value.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. In sum. and the end of all human aspiration. one may still insist.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Freedom – Petro EVERY INVASION OF FREEDOM MUST BE REJECTED Sylvester Petro. Wake Forest University. 480.

The state. the state. Prohibition of genocide and affirmation of its opposite. But I am not concerned with the characteristics of the state but rather the essence of the state – the people. 40 One of the most enduring and abhorrent problems of the world is genocide. is nothing but the combined will of all its people. as in contemporary Cambodia. HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AS A REMEDY FOR GENOCIDE. This abstract concept of the state may at first glance appear meaningless. 31 . nor is it rooted in any one. occasionally it is the winners vs. according to Kelsen. Those in power give the political system its character. or nation. sometimes only certain groups are targeted. genocide is a universal concern. The culprit changes: sometimes it is a specific state. Since virtually every social group is a potential victim. according to Kelsen. Sometimes people are eliminated regardless of national origin – the Christians in Roman times. the vanquished in international conflicts. Sometimes whole nations vanish – the Amerindian societies after the Spanish conquest. Genocide concerns and potentially effects all people. People make up a legal system. class. as in Nazi Germany. Sometimes a large part of the total population is eradicated. p. the value of life. or those in power in a state. Genocide is ultimately a threat to the existence of all. Harff-Gur. 1981. Northwestern. With genocide eventually there will be no people.e.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Genocide Impacts -. i. which is neither particular to a specific race. one whose practical implications necessarily outweigh possible theoretical objections and as such should lift it above prevailing ideologies or politics. and in its crudest form the stronger against the weaker. because in reality not all people have an equal voice in the formation of the characteristics of the state. And sometimes religious groups are persecuted – the Mohammedans by the Crusaders. Without a people there would be no state or legal system.Gurr GENOCIDE OUTWEIGHS ALL IMPACTS B. Politics is the expression of conflict among competing groups. ethnocentric view of the world. are an eternal ethical verity. True.

The basic principle is that hegemony is more important than survival. This. no one can foretell. and Hitlers. Which trajectory will dominate. and bring a measure of peace and justice and hope to the world that is. but the US again blocked negotiations. 32 . 231-2 Throughout history it has been recognized that such steps are dangerous. In June. acting rationally within a lunatic doctrinal framework as it threatens survival. it is rational to proceed nonetheless on the assumptions of the prevailing value system. The US was joined in its abstention in 1999 by Israel. remains the only'one of the 66 member states to oppose launching formal negotiations on outer space. 2003. however. right now. "The U. the other dedicated to the belief that "another world is possible. rejecting the call of SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan that member states overcome their lack of "political will" and work toward a comprehensive accord to bar militarization of space. in accord with the historical standard for dominant states and other systems of concentrated power….S. and institutions. By now the danger has reached the level of a threat to human survival. evolution progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros. the US has refused to join the rest of the world in reaffirming and strengthening the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 to reserve space for peaceful purposes. Bertrand Russell once expressed some somber thoughts about world peace: After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies. Genghis Khans. in 2000 by Micronesia as well. pp. a crucial difference today is that the stakes are far higher. Linguists Professor @ MIT.Chomsky HEGEMONY THREATENS HUMAN SURVIVAL Noam Chomsky." in the words that animate the World Social Forum. HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL." Reuters reported in February. which are deeply rooted in existing institutions." Again. But as observed earlier. As noted earlier. Washington blocked negotiations at the UN Conference on Disarmament during the sessions that opened in January 2001. For the same reasons. The concern for such action. China again called for banning of weapons in outer space. The pattern is familiar throughout history.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hedgemony Bad – Extinction -. and peace will return . What matters is whether we can awaken ourselves from the nightmare before it becomes all-consuming. articulated in UN resolutions calling for "Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. No doubt the projection is accurate on some dimension beyond our realistic contemplation. with its short-term benefits to elite interests.. I believe is a passing nightmare. within the reach of our opportunity and our will. For such reasons. Hardly novel. that makes good sense if hegemony. immediately after it was learned that the world had barely been saved from a war that might have "destroyed the Northern Hemisphere." the Bush administration effectively vetoed yet another international effort to prevent the militarization of space.' One can discern two trajectories in current history: one aiming toward hegemony. challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought. is ranked above survival in the scale of operative values. in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life. the principle has been amply illustrated in the past half-century. action. so far maintained." is motivated by widespread recognition that Washington intends to breach this barrier.

geration to note that the need to defend America 's perceived interest in maintaining a security framework in which economic interdependence can flourish has become the primary post-Cold War rationale for expanding its security commitments in East Asia and in Europe. To do so. and other countries-.tional security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recently has suggested.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Bad – War – Layne US HEGEMONY LEADS TO A NEVER ENDING CYCLE OF WARS IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A STABLE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM – AS AN OFFSHORE BALANCER WE COULD PREVENT THIS Christopher Layne. clearly recognized that economic interdependence could lead to strategic overextension: Our commerce is so universal and so penetrating that scarcely any question can arise in any part of the world without involving British interests. For did we not strictly limit the principle of intervention we should always be simultaneously engaged in some forty wars. threats to the new security frontier will be apprehended: "Uncertainty leads to self-extension. Japan. for example.nineteenth-cenury British statesman Lord Rosebery.ture "that would span the entire {Eurasian} continent. rather circumscribes the field of our actions. however. and control over. 18 Of course.ing because each time the United States pushes its security interests outward. 15 iss. 2. instead of widening. it must continually enlarge the geographic scope of its strategic responsibilities to maintain the security of its already established interests. It is not. Summer. however.mately will embrace Russia." 16 Core and periphery are interdependent strategically." 17 There is a suggestive parallel between late Victorian Britain and the United States today. India. that NATO expansion is just the first step toward creating an American-dominated "Trans Eurasian Security System" {TESS}. proquest] Indochina and Bosnia demonstrate how the strategy of preponderance expands America 's frontiers of insecurity. this process becomes self-sustain. an exag. The posited connection between security and economic interdependence requires the United States to impose order on. This consideration. the turbulent frontier in the periphery is constantly expanding. that ulti. As the political scientist Robert H. the United States does not. To preserve a security framework favorable to interdependence.S. The late. Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. while the core remains constant. 1998 [World Policy Journal. intervene everywhere. Former na. 33 . it is an exaggeration to sug-gest that the strategy of preponderance will involve the United States in 40 wars simultaneously. however. “Rethinking American grand strategy: Hegemony or balance of power in the twentyfirst century?” vol. in fact. One does not overstate in arguing that this expansion is potentially limitless. China. intervention anywhere. Johnson observes. the international system. the logic underlying the strategy of preponderance can be used to justify U.a security struc. which leads in turn to new uncertainty and further self-extension.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                34 .

<continued…> Under the third option. and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. the security of every nation in the world. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. rather than cooperating with each other. if it should so decide. to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry. would be harmed.S. in the past. The Washington Quarterly 1995 What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. First. Britain and France fear such a development. including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. stabilizing the region. standard of living. investments in these regions. Higher oil prices would reduce the U. Rand Corporation.an unlikely prospect -. The same is also true of Japan. perhaps reducing U. protection.S.Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. Iran and Iraq have. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself.S. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia. On balance.especially since unification -. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oil-importing nations. and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. To preclude this development. Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. If this happened. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. gross domestic product. China.S. the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. But it would be a mistake to assume that U. Given Japanese technological prowess. exports and imports and jeopardizing U. In the Persian Gulf. and world economies. the cost of necessary adjustments might be high.S. increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. free markets. U. Similarly. including the United States. withdrawal could not. Such a development would threaten U. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States. Germany -. Korea. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -. Given a U. such as nuclear proliferation. the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. perhaps by purchase. interests.S. U. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. and the rule of law.to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. Russia. U.in the region. European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated.S. their own nuclear weapons.democracy. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. Without U. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. In Western and Central Europe. European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. both sought regional hegemony. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. Without U. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany. conflict.S.S. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum. and hostile hegemony in East Asia. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities. Indonesia. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. protection. and potential new regional powers such as India. result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Finally. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. Second. <continued…> The extension of instability. including a global nuclear exchange. China. the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. and precluding its domination by rival powers. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states.S.S. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future.S. the Saudis might seek to acquire. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. withdrawal from the world. Europe. If the United States stayed out of such a war -. in the long run. and low-level conflicts. Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil.would be the natural leading power. This could result in arms races. 35 .Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Good – Khalilzad Zalmay Khalilzad. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined. Besides. With the shifting balance of power among Japan. it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly. it could gain a significant capability to damage the U. with the domination of Europe or East Asia.

respect for international property rights. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves. Today. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U. maximizes efficiencies and growth. most notably France and West Germany. power behind it. The U. power. the United States assists the countries in need. and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Missouri State University. spreading democracy helps maintain U. more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization. Without U. Indeed they do. Indeed. the U. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power-Rome. Abandoning the positions of his youth. Indonesia and Australia. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology. which are facilitated through American primacy. flood. In addition. Thayer.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. U. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. politics. particularly the poorest states in the Third World. LIBERTY. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Unipolarity Good: Global War (Thayer) US HEGEMONY KEY TO PEACE. November/December. along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States CONTINUES Third. South Korea and Japan.S. the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. primacy. a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank. it is important to note what those good things are. the United States. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles.S. and mobility of capital and labor markets. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. earthquake. Fourth and finally. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world." Consequently. the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster. The first has been a more peaceful world. Britain or the United States today.S. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. a robust monetary regime. p. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. leadership. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade. the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce. 36 . in general. With its allies. once states are governed democratically. de facto. typhoon or tsunami. Lexis THROUGHOUT HISTORY. The National Interest. India and Pakistan. has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. And so. Rather.S. in seeking primacy. drought. Professor Defense & Strategic Studies. During the Cold War. such as in Darfur.S. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. helping to ensure military prowess. power. increasing respect for human rights. Israel and Egypt.S.S.3 So. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. volcanic eruption. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second. it is because they are more open. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal. as the world's police. AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH Bradley A. 2006.

MAINTENANCE OF US HEGEMONY VITAL TO GLOBAL STABILITY Bradley A. In contrast. primacy is secured because America.S. As a consequence.Global War (Thayer) RETRENCHMENT FROM US PRIMACY DISASTROUS – INCREASES WARS AND INSTABILITY Bradley A. a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world. Washington cannot call a "time out". the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced. on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom. 2006. then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. 37 . that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Indeed. must be avoided. Lexis But retrenchment. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. p. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. Indeed. The National Interest. This requires a physical. predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. history shows that threats must be confronted. Lexis A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U.S. at present. in any of its guises. it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States. as Barry Posen has noted. rogue states or rising powers. does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. 2006. This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders. Missouri State University. a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home".Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Good -. retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. Thayer. commands the "global commons"--the oceans. it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. The National Interest. November/December. and it cannot hide from threats. in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. Whether they are terrorists. away from American soil. Allies are a great asset to the United States. thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies. Indeed. And when enemies must be confronted. If the United States adopted such a strategy. a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. November/December. p. and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased. Professor Defense & Strategic Studies. Missouri State University. Thus. homeland and American global interests. while denying those common avenues to its enemies. U. Professor Defense & Strategic Studies. Thayer.

loss of leadership causes multiple nuclear wars. Be careful what you wish for. that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century.html So what is left? Waning empires. systemic global instability. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates. frontier--its critics at home and abroad must 38 . Hoover Institution. or even a return to the good old balance of power.hoover. Professor. too. less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. aircraft carriers. September-October 2004 (“A World Without Power” – Foreign Policy) http://www.org/publications/digest/3009996. terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas. For the world is much more populous--roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Incipient anarchy. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. A coming retreat into fortified cities. and magnifies all impacts Niall Ferguson. In Latin America. it would inevitably become a less open society. History. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities. now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite.S.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Hegemony Good: Global War (Ferguson) Impact . who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons. limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions. Technology has upgraded destruction. For more than two decades. visit. the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. labor. while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Stanford University. Meanwhile. the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. and cruise liners. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder. and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world. Religious revivals. wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U. say. beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir. so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew. Houston or Chicago. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. Meanwhile. The trouble is. Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible. unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Technology has transformed production. With ease. The reversal of globalization-which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. School of Business. targeting oil tankers. In Africa. except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. or do business. of course. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. New York University and Senior Fellow. increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. religious orders. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis.

“605–643 (DECEMBER 2005). 39 . It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. Congo. and there are no convincing signs that the number of failing and nearly failed states will diminish in the future (Foreign Policy/Fund for Peace 2005). And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder” . or chronic dysfunction. p. A century ago a failure. Liberia. and Sudan. Iraq. Sierra Leone. Somalia. In today’s interconnected world such developments command universal attention and prompt costly military and humanitarian intervention: prominent recent examples include Afghani stan.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Unipolarity Good: Extinction (Smil) A GLOBAL LEADER IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVILIZATIONAL COLLAPSE Vaclav Smil. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 31(4): “The Next 50 Years: Unfolding Trends. who would step in to defuse the most threatening ones? As Niall Ferguson has warned. 640 The absence of a globally influential power in a world dominated by forces of globalization would be akin to the retreat of Roman power that stood behind the centuries of coherent civilization extending from Mauritania to Mesopotamia: a chaotic. of a smallish (and particularly a landlocked) state would have been a relatively inconsequential matter in global terms. long-lasting fragmentation that would be inimical to economic progress and greatly exacerbate many of today’s worrisome social and environmental trends. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Were a number of such state failures to take place simultaneously in a world without any dominant power. About 2 billion people already live in countries that are in danger of collapse. “Be careful what you wish for. University of Manitoba. Distinguished Professor.

this problem is more widespread than terrorist violence and invariably makes women insecure as well as second-class citizens in every corner of the world. the "war on terrorism" will only succeed in creating new generations of warriors. including food. or any other status. and medical care. Clearly. social. yet no "war" on violence against women is being waged. but the "war on terrorism" seems to sideline any serious discussions. gender. More than a billion of the world's six billion people live on less than one dollar a day. halving the number of people without access to clean water along with many others. 40 . Yet more than three thousand African children die of malaria each day. For hundreds of millions of people in the world today. How can we eradicate violent challenges to the existing world order if education is not universal? Without education and peaceful exchanges between peoples. extreme poverty. Many governments have adopted the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015. This includes not only civil and political rights but also economic. Many additional examples could be given. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the entire human rights framework is based on the indivisibility of human rights. According to the World Bank. True security depends on all of the world's peoples having a stake in the international system and receiving the basic rights promised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every human being is entitled to a standard of living that allows for their health and wellbeing. the most important source of insecurity is not a terrorist threat but grinding. HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY. Why is terrorism given more attention than the scourge of violence against women? Millions of women are terrorized in their daily lives. along with any serious action on the other pressing causes of human insecurity. p. If some of the resources and attention devoted to the "war on terrorism" were diverted to the eradication of world poverty or eliminating violence against women. 932-935.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Human Rights – Hoffman BILLIONS WILL DIE WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION Paul Hoffman. shelter. Only a tiny percentage of the twenty-six million people infected with HIV/AIDS have access to the health care and medicine they need to survive. the availability of primary education for all children. and cultural rights. Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International. these goals will not be achieved. regardless of race. The goals include targets for child and infant mortality. The discrepancy between these human rights promises and the reality of life for more than one-sixth of the world's people must be eliminated if terrorism is to be controlled. religion. in part because the "war on terrorism" is shifting attention and resources away from long-term development issues. would the world be more secure? There is no easy answer to this question. November 2004.

2003. The Director of Central Intelligence. and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. July 13.com/Letters/2001/July/13/05. the Department of Defense. http://www. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. India Pakistan – Washington Times INDIA-PAKISTAN WAR MEANS EXTINCTION Ghulam Nabi Fai. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965.pakistanlink. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir. a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. Kashmiri American Council. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. 1 The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. INDIA-PAKISTAN SUMMIT AND THE ISSUE OF KASHMIR. September 8. 2001. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                India Pakistan – Nabi INDIA PAKISTAN WAR WILL TRIGGER A NUCLEAR WINTER Dr. 41 . p. or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. p. WASHINGTON TIMES.html The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. Ghulam Nabi. Executive Director.

From these considerations— presumably the considerations that guide our lives—the absolute impermissibility of using nuclear weapons emerges. government rhetoric invokes freedom as the value that may be defended by nuclear weapons. They are fundamental considerations that can wither through complacent or irritable inattention. a legitimate government must not inflict massive ruin.Kateb INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS NECESSARY TO STOP DESTRUCTION VIA THE NUCLEAR STATE George Kateb. Kven though their own government does not acknowledge and protect their rights. but universalist in nature. its essence would have been spiritually maimed. parochial matter. 1992.) Above all. In their withering. 116-7 I have rehearsed platitudes. The users of nuclear weapons would have engaged in a revolution against freedom. The subjects of illegitimate governments—for example. If political freedom institutionally survived the use of nuclear weapons. in dealing with foreigners.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Individual Rights -. 42 . Yet how can there be consistent faith in rights when masses of people become passive victims? American citizens would not be acting to defend their freedom. perhaps destroyed irretrievably. even if positive claims to increased well-being may be nationally confined. Professor of Politics. THE INNER OCEAN. They are the real revolutionaries.S. but the underlying moral principles of the American political system independently and clearly do so. Freedom is the term used to refer to all those rights to which the U. the people of despotic states—are covered equally by this imperative: the claim to individual rights is not an enclosed. any legitimate government which has an effect on them must do so insofar as it can. how can there be consistent faith in rights when mass death is inflicted on others? The theory of rights recognizes no difference between one's fellows and foreigners so far as negative moral entitlements are concerned: everyone has an equal claim not to have rights violated. and whether or not their people suffer retaliation. p. If officials of a legitimate government use nuclear weapons or threaten to do so. Further. they would simply be enlisted in mass death. In the case of the United States. The theory of the just war and elementary notions of common humanity may disallow any policy that risks or causes massive ruin. Notice what underlies the pretended right to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. (Michael Walzer has already made this point in just and Unjust Wars[ 1977]. the officials have so grossly violated the principles of the system that they must be understood as having intended its moral destruction and therefore to have created a situation in which a revolution against them is abstractly justified in behalf of the very system they have subverted. Princeton. Individualism in the form of personal and political rights bars a government whose legitimacy rests on acknowledging and protecting those rights from acting in any way that risks or causes massive ruin at home or that threatens or inflicts it abroad. The emphasis is on the death of millions of individuals. the way is eased for massive ruin and for the possibility of extinction. Constitution is devoted. The justification is that these platitudes of individualism are not really platitudes.

Such weakness has many ramifications. credibility would suffer.edu/sfs/programs/nssp/documents/Byman%20Testimony%20for%20HASC%2009. harm economic growth. S. These countries are not on the verge of civil war. and close ties among the clerical establishment. Center for Peace and Security Studies. armed. http://www. Such an intervention in turn could prompt Iran's rivals to step up their interference in the country. THE FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. with the conflict generating tens of thousands of deaths and even more refugees and internally displaced people. In addition. But even a democratic or military government is likely to be weak and would find it difficult to stop violence within its territory. A nuclear-armed Iran would be far harder to the United States to coerce. Tehran has vital strategic interests in Iraq. Should violence grow. Iraq could also splinter into three or more fragments or collapse completely. Iranian intervention may increase dramatically as it seeks to help its Shi'a coreligionists (particularly those among their ranks friendly to Tehran).Saddam Iraq on the United States.05. On the other hand. 2005.pdf The biggest risk is that a nuclear weapon would make Iran more confident and aggressive. Director. It is even possible that a new military dictator could take power.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact Iranian prolif causes it to intervene in Iraq Daniel Byman. Truly massive civil strife is a possibility. Because many in the Arab world will blame problems in the post.S.S. particularly if it leads to an all-out sectarian civil war.edu/sfs/programs/nssp/documents/Byman%20Testimony%20for%20HASC%2009. the United States.pdf The future of Iraq is uncertain in the near-term let alone the long-term. with jihadists from outside the country fanning the flames of sectarian violence. September 8. thus escalating the crisis. history. Iran is also likely to maintain a strong influence in Iraq. THE FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. 43 . http://www. U.georgetown. A weak Iraq could also emerge as a major haven for anti-U.georgetown. 2005.2 8. riding into Baghdad with the support of Iraqi soldiers trained. and recruited by the United States to fight the local insurgents. increase pressure on the Arab kingdoms of the Persian Gulf.05. September 8. Center for Peace and Security Studies. reinforced by ideology. Georgetown. Already European counterterrorism officials are gravely concerned with the influence of veteran jihadists when they return from Iraq. or bolster terrorism against Israel secure in the knowledge that it is protected from U. Georgetown. and neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Pakistan appears to have used a similar calculus in its decision to escalate the Kashmir insurgency and support anti-India terrorism after it developed its nuclear program. Tehran could become more aggressive in Iraq or Afghanistan. Director. IRANIAN INTERVENTION IN IRAQ CAUSES CRISIS ESCALATION AND COMPLETE STATE COLLAPSE Daniel Byman.2 8. jihadists who use the country as a new Afghanistan and send terrorists on missions to Europe. Sunni-Shi'a tension will continue. regardless of the accuracy of various allegations. retaliation by its atomic arsenal. but even a small number of terrorists sent could dramatically increase civil strife. and make the regimes hesitant to embrace political reform. Iraq could emerge as a model of democracy for a region that is one of the least free in the world.

p. 1 Ousting Saddam Hussein might have more far-reaching consequences than most people imagine.S. ".Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation Impacts – Byman + Terminal Impact THAT CAUSES VIOLENT MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT DETROIT NEWS. and to his own people. None would foster American national interests. The possible splintering of Iraq as a result of U. March 2002. with unpredictable results. http://www.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and." and Ezar Weissman.S. is abominable..S. a nuclear escalation. September 22. if the familiar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U. Upheavals would probably metastasize. Nevertheless. as the Iraqis did. complicity) is not reversed soon. they possessed little in common. one may argue that without the "rigor" imposed from Baghdad. Of course. what he has done to Kuwait. Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional..for whatever reason. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. briefly. and even the threat of nuclear war. Israel no longer needs U. But such statelets would probably not be independent for long. if not for all out nuclear war.ca/articles/STE203A.the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration. Seymour Hersh warns. once unthinkable except as a last resort. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U. military action might radically destabilize the Middle East. at the very least. Such an outcome would do nothing to promote American national interests.html Meanwhile. These three constituent parts were soldered together after World War I. "Should war break out in the Middle East again. DC Iraq Coalition.S. they have been held together only through the heavy hand of the Sunni center." 44 . In the words of Mark Gaffney.. or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel. nuclear targeting strategy. would now be a strong probability.globalresearch. 2002. the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations. Hussein is very much in that Sunni dictatorial tradition. spy secrets.. into three independent statelets. MIDDLE EAST WAR GOES NUCLEAR John Steinbach. Iraq is divided into three parts: the Shiite south. Much larger and more powerful neighbors would likely gobble each of them up soon enough. ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO PEACE.. and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use. Historically. Iraq might dissolve. the Sunni center and the Kurdish north. A fragmented Iraq would introduce radical instability into the Middle East political system. During most of the last 75 years. the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing.

p. http://www. October/November 2003. In addition.org/publications/policyreview/3447161. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam. Taiwan) will have powerful cause to question Washington's security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. but with more nations like France. Executive Director.html If nothing is done to shore up U. Iran's acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could prompt one or more of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. Washington's worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions. and Just Cause.hoover. Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. it would be much.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation Impacts – Sokolsky IRANIAN PROLIFERATION CAUSES GLOBAL PROLIF AND NUCLEAR WAR Henry Sokolsky. Operation Iraqi Freedom. much more iffy. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would be spring-loaded to go nuclear. if the U. Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view military options through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with Iraq.S. Kosovo. Similarly. perhaps. with nuclear options of their own. In such a world. fails to hold Pyongyang accountable for its violation of the NPT or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons while appearing to reward its violation with a new deal--one that heeds North Korea's demand for a nonaggression pact and continued construction of the two light water reactors--South Korea and Japan (and later. 45 . nuclear. and Egypt. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track.S. Turkey. POLICY REVIEW. or near-nuclear-armed nations. it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends.

This was not long after Teheran tested its Shahab-3 missile--to the yawns of the international community--and then displayed the missile in a military parade with banners draped from it reading. These are the implications of launch-on-warning. to protect its populace. or design--would inevitably place an intolerable strain on Israel's freedom of military movement. surface-to-air defense--to ensure that the feat performed by Israel's air force in 1981. But whether or not Sneh should have spoken out. dispersion.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation – Schoenfeld IRANIAN PROLIFERATION LEADS TO ISRAELI LAUNCH ON WARNING AND NUCLEAR WAR COMMENTARY. "unnecessary chatter" could heighten the likelihood of Israel's being targeted for attack. could not easily be repeated. It is a nightmarish prospect.S. Iran and Iraq would be under tremendous pressure to launch their missiles first--to "use them or lose them. however. this would not offer much reassurance.. and in a nuclear environment it would not have the luxury of waiting to assess the damage from a first strike before deciding how to respond. and aware that Israel would no doubt try to hit them preemptively. For the purpose of considering this eventuality. the chairman of the Knesset's foreign-affairs and security committee. This past September. Lacking secure second-strike forces of their own. Israel is a tiny country. what this scenario leads to is the prospect of both sides' moving to a permanent position of hairtrigger alert. not because he was wrong but because. but at a broader range of targets--communications facilities. "Israel should be wiped from the map"--to still more yawns by the international community. 46 . and for which it was universally condemned at the time. would have to punch first. hardening. miscalculation. in any future crisis. Clearly. p." In other words. such a posture presents grave problems. and unlike the U. and take a no less heavy toll on civilian morale. say. some of which it might well miss. the option he referred to may be less viable than it once was. storage bunkers. the question has arisen of what forcible steps Israel might take in order to deny nuclear weapons to its enemies. Ephraim Sneh. December 1998. And it would have to strike not only at missile sites. Iran or Iraq. spoke publicly of the possibility that the IDF might be compelled to "deliver a conventional counterstrike or preemptive strike" against Iranian atomic facilities. Even so. we may assume that Israel has indeed developed a secure retaliatory force of the kind Tucker saw as essential to stability. Sneh was roundly criticized at home for his remarks. air bases. Israel. explained. including by the United States. once again. and all other critical nodes--so as to paralyze the enemy and thus rule out the possibility of attack. Both Iran and Iraq have already taken measures--concealment. what then? To reduce its vulnerability--enemy missiles can arrive within ten minutes from firing--Israel may well be compelled to adopt a "launch-on-warning" posture for both its conventional and nuclear forces. If preemption is largely ruled out as an option. as Uzi Landau. Unlike its neighbors. at the first hint from satellite intelligence or some other means that a missile fusillade was being prepared from. a general in the Israeli army reserves and a leading member of the opposition Labor party. Thus. 146 Now. The possibility that nuclear war might break out at any moment--by accident.

with South Asia having gone nuclear in the last decade. Iran today presents the more dangerous proliferation challenge. Survival. and with even North Korea’s presumed arsenal apparently being tolerated (or at least not severely opposed) by the international community. and more likely. But the real arguments are threefold. p. and three former Soviet republics as well as South Africa actually denuclearized after the Cold War. Vol. 2006. Ahmadinejad’s unrepentant calls for Israel to be wiped off the map underscore the existential threat a nuclear weapon in Iran’s hands would pose to that country. In one sense. Thankfully. 69 Notwithstanding North Korea’s sales activity. First. this is because the process of Iranian proliferation is still in the present tense – in contrast to the past tense in North Korea. 48. it again seemed likely that many states would obtain the bomb. Given this record. with the world’s five permanent UN Security Council members having the bomb. over the past one to two decades. Second. Iran could become emboldened in other aggressive ways by possession of a bomb. even as the world watched the entire process unfold right before its collective eyes. Tehran could be emboldened by knowing that retaliation against its aggression could become more difficult if it had a nuclear deterrent. India. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and other groups has not only directly led to violence against Israel and American military forces in Saudi Arabia. as did most Arab states. but it is largely a status-quo country. IISS Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation. starting with the fact that Muslims already have the bomb (in Pakistan and India) which counters the notion that fairness somehow requires that we allow another country with a large Islamic population to obtain a nuclear capability. some might say. Spring. In particular. The dangers Iran presents to Western interests are complex and growing. would increase the risks much more.1.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                IRANIAN PROLIFERATION BAD – MANY REASONS Kurt M. and North Korea have in recent years created a dangerous momentum that threatens to blow the lid off these past accomplishments and lead to a rampantly proliferating world. CSIS & Brookings. However. regional leadership aspirations and support for liberation struggles seeking change through terrorist means. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be one more serious blow against a nuclear-nonproliferation effort that has taken numerous hits of late. there is at least some remote possibility that Iran would give nuclear capabilities to a terrorist group under extreme circumstances. where non-proliferation efforts have failed. It could threaten its neighbors in the region. Campbell & Michael E. O’Hanlon. but also to violence against Jewish populations in Latin America. But most European powers and America’s East Asian allies showed remarkable restraint throughout this period. After all. 47 . 2006. earlier forecasts of the nonproliferation regime’s demise have not come to pass. by contrast. why not simply tolerate a Mideast Muslim counter to Israel presumed nuclear capability? There are many responses to this flawed way of thinking. HARD POWER: THE NEW POLITICS OF NATIONAL SECURITYp. After the Cold War ended. North Korea sits on a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons. President Kennedy and other observers in the 1960s thought the world might have a couple dozen nuclear powers by now. it could step up support for violence against Israel or US and other Western military forces in the Persian Gulf region. 228-9 It is worth underscoring why an Iranian nuclear weapon would be such a bad thing. only the former Taliban government in Afghanistan rivaled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. maintain a revolutionary fervour. Any re-emergence of Pyongyang’s spent reunification dreams is held in check by the mighty deterrent forces wielded by its much more powerful neighbours. some of which govern territory or resources that Iran claims. seeking little more today than to keep its regime in power and its enemies at bay. Iran’s acquisition of the bomb. Iran now appears to be having a hand in helping Iraqi insurgents improve the improvised explosive devices they have used with such deadly effect against coalition troops and indigenous security forces in Iraq. No. Iran’s religious leaders. IRANIAN PROLIF POSES MORE SERIOUS THREAT OF WAR THAN NORTH KOREA – LESS LIKELY TO BE DETERRED AND RESTRAINED Mark Fitzpatrick. Third. Pakistan.

and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly more devastating nuclear attack. a regime change will ensue. civilian or otherwise. [Continues…] Why a Nuclear Attack on Iran Is a Bad Idea Now that we have outlined what is very close to happening. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will storm into Iraq. and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. However. and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons. will stop them with nuclear weapons.COM/ORIG/HIRSCH. CAN A NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN BE AVERTED. resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. let us discuss briefly why everything possible should be done to prevent it. and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. chemical. and missile facilities in Iran with conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons in a lightning surprise attack. NOVEMBER 21.-Israeli attack. leaving no Iranian nuclear program.S. Iran will no longer threaten Israel.S. enough to erase Earth's population many times over. bombs were nuclear. and a pro-Western government will emerge. the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran.ANTIWAR. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb.S. In a best-case scenario. it will happen without warning. the U. and popular uprisings in Pakistan. In a worst-case scenario. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years. and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact.S.S. even in the best-case scenario. The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. 48 . the U. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U. Saudi Arabia. the U. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U. and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons. Unlike in the case of Iraq. the long-term consequences are dire. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Israel Preemption Of Iran – Nuclear War AN ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN CAUSES A GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Jorge Hirsch. they will certainly be used again. will succeed. HTTP://WWW.PHP?ARTICLEID=8089 The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. 2005. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. will destroy all nuclear. In the short term. The Middle East will explode.

strategically central expanse of land. Bush signaled a significant backdown. It is well prepared for a new Holy War. The West extends new offers of economic cooperation in the development of Iran's oil and gas infrastructure and Iran is slowly welcomed into the community of the World Trade Organization and cooperation with the West. I don't believe that non-transparent [sic] regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon. A US preemptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass. so long as it respects NPT and IAEA conditions. Clear from a reading of their public statements and their press. Iran is a vast." The same day at Davos. It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles. given the geopolitical context. Iran declares an immediate embargo of deliveries of its 4 million barrels of oil a day. # The IAEA refers Iran to the UN Security Council. The Pentagon's awesome war machine. that is. the White House knows this. There are some 2 million Shi'ite Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Asia Times. The mullahs in Iran slowly loose influence. http://www. Rice's State Department expressed concern the Russian-Iran talks were a stalling ploy by Tehran. it would mark a point of no return in international relations. The Iran response includes activating trained cells within Lebanon's Hezbollah. . with well over 70 million people and one of the fastest population growth rates in the world. and a new regional relaxation of tensions opens the way for huge new economic development in the entire Middle East region. Jan 31. It threatens to sink a large oil super-tanker in the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz. "However. Israel would be the closest potential target. has significantly lowered the threshold of nuclear war. is permitted to develop a small arsenal of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the growing military threat in its area posed by the US from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Emirates. if the world does not join it against the US-Israeli action.html] The question then is. "total spectrum dominance" is powerless against the growing "asymmetrical war" assaults around the globe.atimes. Iran activates trained sleeper terror cells in the Ras Tanura center of Saudi oil refining and shipping. Should Iran be brought before the UN Security Council for violations of the NPT and charges of developing weapons of mass destruction. At that point there are several possible outcomes. William Engdahl..The latest Iranian agreement to reopen talks with Moscow on Russian spent fuel reprocessing has taken some of the edge off of the crisis for the moment. the Iranian government knows well what cards its holds and what not in this global game of thermonuclear chicken. "The Russians came up with the idea and I support it . The Eastern province of Saudi Arabia around Ras Tanura contains a disenfranchised Shi'ite minority. perhaps even of a global nuclear conflagration. including. Even with sagging popularity. Its mountainous terrain makes any thought of a US ground occupation inconceivable at a time the Pentagon is having problems retaining its present force to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. such as former National Security Council heads. # Iran. choking off 40% of all world oil flows.000 remaining US troops and civilian personnel. Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear strike on Iran. and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for much of OPEC oil. Brent Scowcroft or even Zbigniew Brzezinski. 49 . desirable as it is. on the urging of Cheney. is extremely unlikely in the present circumstances. launches a calculated counter-strike using techniques of guerrilla war or "asymmetrical warfare" against US and NATO targets around the world. as now. 2006 [“A high-risk game of nuclear chicken”. for the reasons stated above.nuclear strike. which has historically been denied the fruits of the immense Saudi oil wealth. On Friday.Geopolitical risks of nuclear war .Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Strikes Bad – World War III STRIKES RISK NUCLEAR WORLD WAR III F. prepared for such a possibility. the strike range would not reach the territory of the US. an air attack bombing of Iran's presumed nuclear sites. Iran's asymmetrical response also includes stepping up informal ties to the powerful Hamas within Palestine to win them to a Holy War against the US-Israel "Great Satan" Alliance. The danger of the initial strategy of preemptive wars is that. World War III begins in a series of miscalculations and disruptions. such as an economic embargo on Iran. stating. A new government in Israel pursues a peace policy in Palestine and with Syria. Bush added.. Iran included. the US is left with little option but to launch the unthinkable . Shi'ites do most of the manual work in the Saudi oilfields. The question is whether their faction within the US power establishment today is powerful enough to do to Bush and Cheney what was done to Richard Nixon when his exercise of presidential power got out of hand. from a posture of defense to offense. This scenario. with deployment of nuclear weapons.com/atimes/Middle_East/ HA31Ak02. a subject neither the Bush administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about. making up 40% of Aramco's workforce. which proposes increased monitoring of the reprocessing facilities for weapons producing while avoiding sanctions. In short. for the first time since 1945. Iran. No ground troops are used and it is proclaimed a swift surgical "success" by the formidable Pentagon propaganda machine. # Bush. who clearly understand the deadly logic of Bush's and the Pentagon hawks' preemptive posture. when someone like Iran calls the US bluff with a formidable response potential. at least for the moment. it includes activating considerable Iranian assets within Iraq. The strait has two 1-mile-wide channels for marine traffic. The timetable for that is likely some time about March-May. Rice told the World Economic Forum that Iran's nuclear program posed "significant danger" and that Iran must be brought before the UN Security Council. along with China and ElBaradei of the IAEA. Israel faces unprecedented terror and sabotage attacks from every side and from within its territory from sleeper cells of Arab Israelis. Washington is trying to appear "diplomatic" while keeping all options open. Bush announced publicly that he backed the Russian compromise." At the same time. It is Saudi Arabia's main export route. There are saner voices within the US political establishment. In essence. separated by a 2-mile-wide buffer zone. it seems quite probable that Russia and China will veto imposing sanctions. after a new Israeli government is in place. potentially in de facto alliance with the Sunni resistance there targeting the 135. Rumsfeld and the neo-conservative hawks. This is unlikely for the reasons stated above. Iran would be allowed to develop its full fuel cycle nuclear program and its sovereignty is respected. I do believe people ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power. what will Washington do? The fundamental change in US defense doctrine since 2001. decides to activate Conplan 8022. like India and Pakistan. more than double the land area of France and Germany combined. as well as by Israel's nuclear force.

for the first time in 12 years? Because it is well aware of moral choices that its members may face. forces.S.) Conscientious objection to the threat and use of nuclear weapons is a moral choice. Even if the nuclear weapons used are small. nuclear weapons policies became known.pdf]. To disobey orders and laws and to leak information are difficult actions that entail risks. has just declared that it will defend Israel militarily against Iran if needed. should have a nuclear weapons arsenal." That is the present and future role of the U. but are not likely to elicit a meaningful response or a change in plans and are a far cry from forceful action. Presumably this includes a scenario where Israel would initiate hostilities by unprovoked bombing of Iranian facilities. But if we make the wrong choices. He knew that he would face prosecution for breaking the law. and his great past achievements forgotten.S.pdf]. A telltale sign that this is the plan is the recent change in the stated mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory. References to the old mission are nowhere to be found in the current Los Alamos documents. [4]. Why right now. because they are likely to cause escalation of the conflict they violate the principle of proportionality and will cause unnecessary suffering. it will be a one-way downhill slide toward a bottomless pit.php?articleid=8577] The U.S. many principled individuals have done it in the past and will continue to do it in the future ( see [1]. public support for military action will quickly disappear. it is likely that such an attack would provoke a violent reaction from Iran and lead to the severe escalation of hostilities. the fall into the abyss can be averted by choices made by each and every one of us. [9]. [2] are a start. and Colin Powell is disgraced. forces in Iraq were not greeted with flowers. But not choosing is not an option. nuclear arsenal. to keep information secret or to leak it. Once the American public becomes fully aware that military action against Iran will include the planned use of nuclear weapons. [3]. The ultimate goal is that no nation other than the means of delivery possible bear a particularly heavy burden of moral responsibility. All Americans could have voiced their opposition to these policies and demand that they be reversed. just as the U. Feb 20. In anticipation of it.America's Collective Responsibility Blaming the administration or the military for crossing the nuclear threshold is easy.pdf].S.com/orig/hirsch.S. may be facing a difficult moral choice at this very moment and in the coming weeks.pdf]. nukes Iran. The U. calling for public hearings. widely respected and admired at the time he was appointed secretary of state in 2001. 2006 [“America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss”. the Los Alamos mission statement has been recently changed to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to protect our homeland from terrorist attack. leading in a few months or a few decades to global nuclear war and unimaginable destruction. [4]. [6]. which is being increasingly addressed in non-mainstream media. and many will succeed. [7]. as it did with Iraq's Osirak. to be achieved through threat (deterrence) and use of nuclear weapons.S. Professor of Physics at the University of California San Diego. It is not impossible that the U.The Nuclear Abyss . a military analyst. are choices for each individual to make – extremely difficult choices that have consequences. But it is utterly . The media will carry a heavy burden of responsibility. including underground installations that can only be destroyed with low-yield nuclear bunker-busters. We may never know which choices prevented it if it doesn't happen. [2]. that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran was a possibility given the Bush administration's new policies. attack with nuclear weapons. [4]. [2]. Their voices have not been heard. Even U.The United States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in which it will enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear weapons." To follow orders or to disobey orders. but responsibility will be shared by all Americans. [2] [. The nuclear abyss may turn out to be a steep precipice or a gentle slope. This is a big world 50 .pdf] when the new U. and delivered the pivotal UN address that paved the way for the U. [5]. And so will future generations. Colin Powell was an American hero. and Iran would respond with missiles targeting Israel.S. Members of Congress could have raised the question forcefully. and it hopes to deter certain actions. [8]). where nuclear weapons are developed. and customs that make up the law of armed conflict. [3] [. thus saving lives. Today.pdf] its members and civilian employees what the consequences are of violating provisions concerning the release of information about the nuclear capabilities of U.S. That will sound ridiculous once the U. akin to the moral choices faced by Colin Powell and Dan Ellsberg. http://www. The mission of LANL used to be described officially as "Los Alamos National Laboratory's central mission is to reduce the global nuclear danger" [1] [. All Americans knew. We will have entered a path of no return. and passing new laws or resolutions. he chose to follow orders despite his own serious misgivings.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Strikes Bad – World War III US ATTACK ON IRAN RISKS A GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR AND THE COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION Jorge Hirsch. including civilian employees. So far they have failed to do so and are derelict in their responsibility to their constituents. [2]. Anything could get the ball rolling.Men and women in the military forces. . established that "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. demanding public discussion of the administration's plans. crosses the nuclear threshold against a non-nuclear country. which the United States helped to create. Those who contribute their labor to the scientific and technical infrastructure that makes nuclear weapons and their . U. perhaps only in the hundreds [.antiwar. The paths these two men followed were radically different. Either way. many more countries will strive to acquire nuclear weapons. . [6].S.S. The Nuremberg Tribunal. improbable. The use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country can be argued to be in violation of international law. The mainstream media could have effectively raised public awareness of the possibility that the U. which in turn would lead to the use of larger nuclear weapons by the U. [8]. but the nuclear threshold will have been crossed. common standards of morality ([1]. [3]. the principle of just war.S. provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. [5]). no matter how small. Letters to the president from some in Congress [1]. Their voices have barely been heard U. Up to the moment the first U. intervention is likely to be further bombing of Iran's facilities. But courageous men and women are not easily deterred. the principle of proportionality. So far. Scientific organizations and organizations dealing with arms control and nuclear weapons could have warned of the dangers associated with the Iran situation. So far.S. [3]. planners may hope that it will deter Iran from responding. or should have known. cannot be predicted with certainty. Scientists and engineers responsible for the development of nuclear weapons could have voiced concern [. would use nuclear weapons against Iran. military law recognizes that there is no requirement to obey orders that are unlawful. [7]. they have chosen to almost completely hide the issue. will succeed in its goal. [5].The Military's Moral Dilemma . A great catastrophe will have been averted. we will know what they were. His courageous and principled action earned him respect and gratitude. In February 2003. played a significant role in ending the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon Papers. Witness the current uproar over cartoons and try to imagine the resulting upheaval in the Muslim world after the U.S. indicating that the change was deliberate and thorough. policies that directly involve the fruits of their labor. nuclear bomb explodes.S. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will usher in a new world order. but was convinced it was the correct moral choice. The Navy has just reminded [.S. Iran's reaction to a U. they have not done so ([1].S. invasion of Iraq the following month. Such nuclear weapons may cause low casualties. Once the U. But there are still choices to be made. Daniel Ellsberg.S.S. even in a world where wars are fought with sticks and stones. . However. and potential casualties in the hundreds of thousands. most Americans believe the Iraq invasion was wrong. his future destroyed. starts throwing mini-nukes around. Still.

The United States could also devote a significantly higher proportion of its national wealth to this problem in two ways. the president has finally called for a significant increase in the size of the ground forces—the warriors who are actually shouldering much of the burden in this conflict. http://www. Both efforts were successful in ending the violence and creating the preconditions for peace and political and economic imperfect: much of the ethnic cleansing had already been accomplished in both areas before the United States intervened with armed force. Success in Iraq. Inaction. however: in 1995 in Bosnia and in 1999 in Kosovo. If the United States allows Iraq to slide into full-scale civil war. and soldiers and Marines are not interchangeable beans. and Rwanda. in Somalia led to a larger civil war in which radical Islamists took control of most of the country by the end of 2006. The United States can and should sustain larger ground forces than it now has. It will strengthen America’s position around the world. characterized by the collapse of the central government and the widespread mobilization of the population in internal conflict. One clear lesson of post–Cold War conflicts is that ignoring civil wars is dangerous and can generate grave. Additionally. Internal strife in Iraq has already generated a large displaced population within the country and significant refugee flows into neighboring lands. This report will address in greater detail some of the ways of making more forces available for this struggle. Success will give the United States critical leverage against Iran. Consequently. If this war were the vital national priority that it should be. 51 . and the troops required to control such conflicts are larger than the U. And success will convert a violent. and European forces in strength in Bosnia and Kosovo has ended the killing and prevented that conflict from spreading throughout the region. destabilizing important states in the Middle East and creating a fertile ground for terrorism. Above all . have opposing interests in how the conflict is settled. indeed humiliation.000 of them are in Iraq at the moment. Many others are engaged in vital tasks in the United States and elsewhere from which they could not easily be moved. successive American administrations allowed the conflicts to continue without making any serious attempts to control or contain them. In Rwanda. the introduction of U. The United States has faced ethno-sectarian conflict on at least five occasions in the past fifteen years. to control ethnically and religiously motivated civil wars on two occasions.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iraq Civil War A FULL-SCALE CIVIL WAR WILL LEAD TO A REGIONAL WAR. however. Neither of these arguments is valid. The United States has the military power necessary to control the violence in Iraq. January 5. The main purpose of the report that follows is to consider in detail what amount of armed force would be needed to bring the sectarian violence in Baghdad down to levels that would permit economic and political development and real national reconciliation. as civil wars often do intervened. chaotic region in the heart of the Middle East and on the front line of the Sunni-Shiite divide into a secure state able to support peace within its borders and throughout the region.S. the armed forces of the states neighboring Bosnia and Kosovo were much more directly involved in the struggle than those of Iraq’s neighbors. In Somalia. civil war and genocide also spread. The results have been disastrous.asp American forces in Iraq today are engaged in the pivotal struggle of our age.aei. There are more than 1 million soldiers in the active and reserve ground forces. both to support operations in Iraq and to be prepared for likely contingencies elsewhere. as it threatened to do in the 1990s. much of sub-Saharan Africa in widespread conflict and death. where our inability to contain conflict in Iraq is badly tarnishing our stature. they say. have already made clear their determination to enter Iraq and its struggles if America withdraws and the conflict escalates into greater sectarian violence or civil war. and only 140. 2007. There can be no question that victory in Iraq is worth defeat would be catastrophic. LEADERSHIP Kagan.S. In late December. the levels of violence and death as a proportion of the population were much higher than they have been in Iraq. however. along with its allies. CHOOSING VICTORY: A PLAN FOR SUCCESS IN IRAQ. the conflict took a new turn as Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia in support of the . It is possible to contain ethno-sectarian civil wars. Those neighbors. but only by ending them.S. military could possibly deploy. In the Balkans. Iraq’s diverse neighbors. the consequences will be epochal. which is now positioning itself to become the regional hegemon after our anticipated defeat. failure in Iraq now will likely lead to regional war. however. Some now argue that victory is beyond our grasp. First. A civil war has become a regional war. the United States could commit many more soldiers to the fight. we should reflect on the fact that the United States between 2001 and 2006 has committed only a small proportion of its total national strength to this struggle . involving Congo and. Inaction in considerable American effort or that Afghanistan in the 1990s led to the rise of the Taliban and its support for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda—and therefore indirectly to the 9/11 attacks. Before turning to that consideration. The United States has recently internationally recognized transitional government. sectarian conflicts. unintended consequences for America’s future security. America cannot (or should not) involve itself in civil. TRIGGING GENOCIDE AND COLLAPSING U. however. both Sunni and Shia.org/publications/pubID. on the other hand.25396/pub_detail. would transform the international situation. indeed. American Enterprise Institute. Afghanistan.

America's third-largest trading partner. “Markets Biggest Threat To Peace. senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. U. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn’t money. thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt. and the rules change. Task Force members agree that this relationship must rest on the premise that a healthy Japanese economy serves America's economic and geopolitical interests. Despite its decade-long stagnation. then the market headed south big time. THE ALLIANCE IS KEY TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Laura D’Andrea Tyson. 1998 [Los Angeles Times. p. even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. Too bad. ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES WORLD WAR Walter Russell Mead. It was blood: World War II. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. Former Economic Advisor to the Clinton Administration and total MILF. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. That’s the thing about depressions. undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin’s power in Russia. stocks began to collapse in October. to be exact. Economic Policy Toward Japan”] The ongoing changes within Japan's economy provide both American policymakers and businesses with opportunities to craft a new economic relationship between Japan and the United States. not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire. At the bottom. There were similar horror stories worldwide. It’s the financial markets. Let the world economy crash far enough.” 52 . Japan remains the largest economy in Asia. 2000 [Council on Foreign Relations. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. the president and the Congress seem determined to spend the next six months arguing about dress stains.S. “Future Directions for U. and its major ally in the Asia-Pacific region. B. staged a rally. They aren’t just bad for your 401(k).” August 23.S.Economy A. millions of people lost their jobs.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts -. the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted. We stop playing “The Price is Right” and start up a new round of “Saving Private Ryan. The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years. M1] Even with stock markets tottering around the world.

http://classified. so that nations can work together to have Iran drop its nuclear ambitions through closely coordinated pressure. 11.S. it would be only natural for Japan and the United States to have differences on some issues. Washington’s worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile. to the U. a professor of law at the University of Tokyo. and Just Cause.S. particularly the Bush administration. and the world in stabilizing the broader international relationship with Iran. must put on the table a more positive vision for Iran if Iran takes steps to stop its nuclear ambitions. Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view military options through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm.htm] "Japan can be very helpful.S." he said.? Of course that is determined between leaders. nuclear. Fumiaki Kubo.S. And while developments since the Sept. 2001. THE US – JAPAN RELATIONSHIP IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE IRANIAN NUCLEARIZATION Takashi Kitazume. "Essentially today.japantimes. Kosovo." he added. Europe has offered just carrots and America has only offered sticks. Europeans have to be a little bit more threatening about what the potential consequences of continued nuclear provocation are. noted that Japan is not alone in trying to engage Iran commercially. potentially. IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION LEADS TO NUCLEAR WAR Henry Sokolski. it is unclear whether the Japanese public will support it.S. noted that even though they are close allies. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with Iraq.S.S. Japan's public opinion toward the U. Calder agreed that public opinion is vital for security policy. Japan-U. In fact. 2003 [“Taking Proliferation Seriously”. If we are to be successful .Iran A. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam.html/] If nothing is done to shore up U. B. is not so favorable. Operation Iraqi Freedom.policyreview. But in the short term.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts -." he said. relations need more work”. and Egypt. to alter their strategies. if the U. and the U. In addition. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track.org/oct03/sokolski_print. "Will the Japanese people be ready for an expanded role of Japan in the security alliance with the U. Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would be spring-loaded to go nuclear. March. Japan and the U. 2005 [“Despite improvement. Similarly. Turkey. . senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. terrorist attacks suggest that Japan will move in the direction of playing a greater role in the bilateral security alliance." he said. as the "odd man out. http://www. he added. fails to hold Pyongyang accountable for its violation of the npt or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons while appearing to reward its violation with a new deal — one that heeds North Korea’s demand for a nonaggression pact and continued construction of the two light water reactors — South Korea and Japan (and later. Kubo also pointed out that while government-to-government ties have improved dramatically. it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends. Taiwan) will have powerful cause to question Washington’s security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. but with more nations like France. Staff Writer Japan Times. it would be much.S.com/ads/kkc/2005/kkc20050303b. Calder said." he said. with nuclear options of their own.. many other countries have major projects in Iran.S. much more iffy. In such a world. Iran’s acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could prompt one or more of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. . Japan would be well advised to postpone its project to develop the Azadegan oil field in southern Iran. or near-nuclear-armed nations. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions. "The only way we're going to have success vis-a-vis Iran would be for Europe. Kurt Campbell. the crucial issue is the nuclear program. with the U. but also needs to be something that is more broadly persuasive to the people of both nations. 53 . he noted. perhaps.

S. mainly through the United Nations Security Council. the six-party talks.html] The multiple missile firings Wednesday by North Korea shattered Pyongyang's moratorium on such launches. a former U. Following the launch of the Taepodong-1 ballistic missile in 1998. In 2005. and imposed economic sanctions. the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework in 1994. The policy of setting moratoriums on North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile development programs was an initiative of the administration of U. including the counterfeiting of U. 2006 [“Japan must lobby U. Senior Staff Writer – Asahi News.S. That agreement was supposed to have prevented North Korea from producing plutonium for nuclear warheads. Although the North Korean threat has grown. However. North Korea has produced enough plutonium since 2003 for six to eight nuclear warheads.asahi. Washington got fed up with North Korea's covert activities. President Bill Clinton. which could develop into a framework for regional security. The moratorium on North Korea's nuclear weapons development has already broken down. 54 . Bush suspected that North Korea was secretly planning to produce weapons-grade material through uranium enrichment. Instead. The Agreed Framework was no longer functional. a joint statement was released after the six-party talks that called on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons development plan.com/english/Heraldasahi/TKY200607070248. In Perry's view. currency. and North Korea began openly manufacturing plutonium.S.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea A. visited North Korea and reached a deal in which Pyongyang agreed to freeze missile launches in exchange for continued assistance. President George W.S. However. could be the next to go. Last fall. After the nuclear crisis that emerged on the Korean Peninsula in 1994. 7/7. For the time being. the Bush administration has rejected bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang. However. That led to greater mistrust between the United States and North Korea. Japan and the United States plan to tighten the noose around North Korea. the United States started up the six-party talks by bringing in China. defense secretary. gaining the total cooperation of China and Russia--two key players on the council as well as the six-party talks--will not be easy. Pyongyang announced that it possessed nuclear weapons. William Perry. which has influence over North Korea. the administration of U. In the worst-case scenario.S. US-JAPAN ALLIANCE IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE THE NORTH KOREAN CRISIS Masaru Honda. http://www. to talk directly with Pyongyang”.

had "no intention of invading" North Korea.S.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea B.-South Korean joint military exercises scheduled to begin on March 4. but said the region was at an "historical turning point.S. the North fired a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday wrapped up a four-day tour of Japan. short-range missile system and was "fairly innocuous.North Korea has repeated warnings to its citizens and military that it believes the United States is preparing to launch a large-scale attack on it. an act many believe was designed to upstage the inauguration of new South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun. or East Sea. (MiG incursion) The North has also threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the fighting of the Korean War. 2003 [“N." Powell said Tuesday. China -. China and South Korea during which he lobbied Asian leaders to support a multi-lateral approach to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. And there are countries who have considerable influence with the North Koreans who will continue to apply pressure. 2/26." the statement. Powell repeated the U. "We also made it clear that if they begin reprocessing (nuclear material). And we're making sure that is communicated to them in a number of channels." Powell would not be drawn on how would Washington react if Pyongyang did begin reprocessing but did say that the U. Tensions on the peninsula have been ratcheting up over the past few weeks with North Korea becoming increasingly provocative. U.missile/index. Powell described North Korea's missile launch as "not surprising". we and the international community will offer them many things that they want. as "reckless war moves" designed to "unleash a total war on the Korean peninsula with a pre-emptive nuclear strike". The North also called on South Koreans to "wage a nationwide anti-U." In another development Tuesday.cnn.html] PYONGYANG." he said. consistently saying it is seeking a diplomatic and political solution to the increasing tensions sparked by Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear program. position that it had no intention of invading North Korea and had no plans to impose fresh economic sanctions on the impoverished communist nation." Turning point Roh himself avoided mention of the incident at his swearing in. Korea warns of nuclear conflict”. (Roh sworn in) Last week." He called the security environment "rather unsettling" and urged Pyongyang to "abandon nuclear development.S. including a pre-emptive nuclear strike. FAILURE TO SOLVE NORTH KOREA RESULTS IN NUCLEAR WAR CNN. says. North Korea (CNN) -. China says the United States must deal with Pyongyang equally on a one-to-one basis. it changes the entire political landscape. 55 ." "If it renounces its nuclear development program." The United States denies it has any plans to attack North Korea. Roh added. and anti-war struggle to frustrate the U.a key ally and aid donor to the North -. On Monday.S.appeared to remain unconvinced. "This is the time to make a determined effort to safeguard peace and have it firmly rooted on the peninsula. a North Korean MiG-19 fighter briefly flew into South Korean air space."The situation of the Korean Peninsula is reaching the brink of a nuclear war. Pyongyang cites upcoming U. moves for a nuclear war. http://www. issued by the official Korean Central News Agency.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/25/nkorea. political pressure still has a role to play. Pyongyang accused Washington of flying a spy plane into North Korean airspace. While Japan and South Korea indicated they might support a regional initiative to sway Pyongyang. "We believe diplomatic.S. saying the test appeared to be of an old.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – Nuclear War REARM TRIGGERS NUCLEAR CONFLICT Morton H.S.pdf] However. 56 .nautilus. in my view. A second danger will continue to be that Russian missiles will be fired on the United States by accident or as a result of unauthorized action. Over the longer run. Halperin. 2000 [“The Nuclear Dimension of the US-Japan Alliance”. national security policy is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.org/archives/library/security/papers/Halperin-US-Japan. Director of Policy Planning at State Department. become a matter of serious concern only if there is much wider dispersal of nuclear weapons among states stemming from an open collapse of the nonproliferation regime. http://www. A terrorist threat should. The most immediate danger is that India and Pakistan will stumble into a nuclear war following their nuclear tests and their apparent determination to deploy nuclear forces. these threats will be eclipsed by the danger that the non-proliferation regime will collapse and other states will develop nuclear weapons. any realistic appraisal of nuclear dangers would suggest that neither rogue states/terrorist groups nor a deliberate Russian attack is the right focus if the goal of U.

p. his work in the Soviet foreign intelligence service (KGB). and his actions since assuming the presidency of Russia on January 1.heritage. the United States must continue to strengthen its relationship with its ally Japan to ensure a balance of power in Northeast Asia — and also encourage Tokyo to improve relations with Moscow in an effort to loosen Sino-Russian ties. the Pentagon must make sure the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review balances U. 426] Of equal concern is the possible reemergence of an authoritarian dictatorship in Russia under President Putin or a successor. 2000. and systematic leader. determined to assure that Russia is. and of democracy.S. in his words. 57 . This is especially true of China's ever-expanding and mutually profitable relationships with the Russian military and its military production and research entities. 8/15. the Chinese Communist Party has revived direct relations with the Communist Party in Russia and also ties between the Chinese and Russian parliaments. thereby increasing the risk that it will become more aggressive internationally. but the evidence to date suggests that Russia is gradually moving toward a more autocratic path.' Putin declares his support for political democracy and movement toward a market-oriented economy. Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. forces to address both the unconventional terrorist threat and the big-power challenge represented by a Russia-China strategic partnership. As the Chinese government develops relations with the Putin government. 2005 [“China: The Gathering Threat”. provide many opportunities to cultivate allies in Russia and to fan suspicion of the U. Putin would attempt to maintain a Potemkin democracy for the purpose of deceiving the major democracies. whether ultranationalist or Communist.org/Press/Commentary/ed081505a. The ever-closer relationship between Russia and China strengthens the author itarian tendencies within Russia.cfm] First.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression A. 2005 [“An Alarming Alliance: Sino Russian Ties Tightening”. Putin is an intelligent.S. all coordinated from the Chinese side through its Communist Party. B. http://www. disciplined. These multiple relationships. Our in-depth analysis of President Putin has included insights into his personal development. so that they would continue providing needed economic support for Russia. Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation. As Russia moved toward dictatorship." under a "dictatorship of law" and that Russia has a major role in the world. SINO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS TRIGGER RENEWED RUSSIAN AGGRESSION Constantine Menges. a "strong state. Second. STRENGTHENING THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE IS CRITICAL TO LOOSEN SINO-RUSSIAN TIES Peter Brookes.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts – Russian Aggression C. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modern market economies and free societies. Moreover.S. or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1065. a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies. have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors. and Western jobs would be created. Moreover.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. world stability. The U. but also the U. Iran. Turkey. Moreover. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south.heritage. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services. if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed. Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.cfm] Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U. the threat to Ukraine. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable. a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky. but for peace. And. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995).S. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21st century. it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. and the Middle East. of course. January 25. 1996 [“The New ‘Great Game’: Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”. 58 . THIS CAUSES GLOBAL CONFLICT WHICH ESCALATES INTERNATIONALLY Ariel Cohen. and its allies. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS. http://www. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. tens of thousands of U.S. Russian imperialists.S. the Mediterranean Sea. and security. and Afganistan will increase. if successful.

Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape.-Japan alliance represents a significant hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem. security interests guarantees that the Chinese leadership cannot afford to miscalculate the consequences of an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. 2000 [“Regional Fallout: No One Gains in War Over Taiwan”. When China conducted provocative missile tests in the waters around Taiwan in 1996. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. If China were to retaliate. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. east Asia will be set on fire. With the US distracted. raising in Chinese minds the possibility that Japan might offer logistical and other support to its ally in the event of hostilities.S. THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE IS CRITICAL TO STOP CHINESE AGGRESSION AGAINST TAIWAN Yukio Okamoto. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway. short of using nuclear weapons.truce or a broadened war. B.Taiwan A. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. 2002 [Washington Quarterly 25. a strong and close tie between Japanese and U.raise the possibility of a nuclear war. hostilities between India and Pakistan. the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. the Philippines and. Security Adviser to Japanese Cabinet. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and --horror of horrors -. action. In the region. Singapore. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. June 25.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts -.S. Japan seconded the U. THIS CAUSES EXTINCTION The Straits Times. 59 . In south Asia. Japan. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. this means South Korea. could enter a new and dangerous phase. there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle. the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups into nearby waters as a sign of its disapproval of China's belligerent act. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. The alliance backs up Japan's basic stance that the two sides need to come to a negotiated solution.2 p. president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. Even though intervention is only a possibility. Both Japan and the United States have clearly stated that they oppose reunification by force. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Lexis] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. to a lesser extent. 59-72] The U. In his book The Korean War.S. we would see the destruction of civilisation. commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War.

Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible consequences.Terrorism A. For example. multilateral peace settlement. Americans were reminded in the most profound way that. B. not surprisingly. it seems to me Japan has changed its security role in a very impressive way. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclearconflict possibilities. With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already many years old. Those alliances which fostered timely. only the interests of the Palestinians—as defined by the PLO—seem to have been left out. our people began to review our alliance relationship abroad in terms of whether or not they contributed directly to helping deal with a current problem. conflict has escalated to nuclear forms. Only such a paradigm would allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration and the outer limits of human destructiveness. it has exactly those qualities. US – JAPAN ALLIANCE IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE TERRORISM Daily Yomiuri. Of course.42-3] Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale war between states. our territory is vulnerable to attacks. p. whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria retaliate against Israel. the entire region is ablaze.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearmament Impacts -. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the Soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue. the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon. Therefore. In response to the public mood. How might such far-reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. 1987 [“Terrorism and Global Security”. Secondly. ranging from a nuclear attack upon a non-nuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. 60 . 2001. there are permanent military campaigns that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities. Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. On the eve of the proposed signing of the peace agreement. one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear-weapons state on the planet. the consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human. Public grief in Israel over the many thousands dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. LN] On September 11. such a war would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations. As we look at the alliance with Japan. Second Edition. steadfast support in dealing with this new problem of international terrorism have been highly evaluated in the United States. Before long. consider the following scenario: Early in the 1990s. 2003 [11/18. exactly. like other countries. What. tangible. and all countries in the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. TERRORISM CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR CONFLICT – THE ULTIMATE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION Louis Rene Beres. half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli cities. Here. Israel and its Arabstate neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive.

fathered projects in mining and zirconium production that should by now have ended. 2006. 230 There are several reasons why such an arsenal poses a grave risk. Second. if North Korea someday collapses. NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR ASSISTANCE VITAL TO SUCCESSFUL IRANIAN PROGRAM Mark Fitzpatrick. Spring. HARD POWER: THE NEW POLITICS OF NATIONAL SECURITYp. the greater its odds of successfully delivering a nuclear warhead against Seoul or another population center (even in the United States. Survival. China and the A. Third. Should war then result. probably by means other than missile attack).1. CSIS & Brookings. each of which reflects more generic concerns described earlier. 2006. South Africa and Southeast Asia. Finally. however. aside from illicit exports by Chinese and Russian entities. the more bombs North Korea possessed. its nuclear materials could fall into the hands of those who would sell them to the highest bidder.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Korean Proliferation Impacts NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION BAD: MANY REASONS Kurt M. 65 To date. Russia’s nuclear assistance now appears to be narrowly limited to the Bushehr power reactor. First. Iran’s main sources of sensitive nuclear technology have been Russia. which would in turn weaken global nonproliferation more broadly. US/ROK deterrence could be weakened if North Korea thought it had a nuclear trump card. North Korean nuclear weapons could start a nuclear domino effect in Northeast Asia. possibly provoking Japan. 48. IISS Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation. O’Hanlon. No. and Taiwan.Q. North Korea is one of the few remaining potential sources of nuclear technology available to Iran today. save for two grand. Khan and his lieutenants are out of business and responsible governments and international organisations have squeezed other black marketers throughout Europe.Q. North Korea might sell some nuclear technology or even materials to terrorists or other states. p. A. 61 . South Korea. Khan network. and China cut off all new nuclear cooperation under US pressure in 1997. Campbell & Michael E. Vol.

The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. for example. Whether this is really so. the world is anxious that military tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. In the DPRK. surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. It is therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea. Naturally. military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. Early this year.If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and probably reduce earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. it is extremely difficult to conclude. a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. However. a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US. Japan and South Korea. Ever since the end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s. December 25. apart from America itself. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines. p. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than anywhere else in the World. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. 62 . It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or buildup in the north through spy satellites. There have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. the intension of the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. online Lusaka . North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea. Last year. she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan. Although the DPRK regards herself as a developing country. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. 1999. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Korean War Impacts – Africa News WAR ON THE PENNINSULA WILL END LIFE ON EARTH AFRICA NEWS. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. A foreign visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum alert for any eventuality. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. America has vast economic interests in South Korea.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Korean War Impacts – Economy A NORTH KOREAN WAR WILL COLLAPSE ASIAN ECONOMIES Brad Glosserman is director of research at Pacific Forum CSIS. or even the fear of war. could unleash waves of refugees. p. bringing untold devastation to both North and South Korea. and the ripples would spread through China as well. 2003. and possibly Japan. 17 Failure to reach a negotiated solution could trigger a war in Northeast Asia. The economies of South Korea and Japan would be hard hit. destroying the stability that is the prerequisite for economic development. War. October 30. SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST. 63 .

In the words of Mark Gaffney." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes.. at the very least." and Ezar Weissman. complicity) is not reversed soon.Evron MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY CAUSES NUCLEAR ESCALATION Yair Evron.for whatever reason. the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations. or the combination of technical failure and human error. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U. the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing.. Such a misperception could cause a rapid escalation. if the Arab-Israeli peace process fails to advance and in particular were the situation to return to the level of conflict that preceded the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO PEACE. There also exist processes of escalation that are totally distinct from technical failure. would now be a strong probability. 64 .Steinbach MIDDLE EAST WAR GOES NUCLEAR John Steinbach. The outcomes can be divided into two major categories of events: misperception of an enemy action that is mistakenly understood as a conventional or nuclear attack on the state’s nuclear bases or on the state in its entirety. Seymour Hersh warns.ca/articles/STE203A. the intensity of the conflict could reinforce the potential for errors of perception among decisionmakers. The probability of erroneous decisions is therefore higher. These factors are liable to yield disastrous outcomes. The latter case is most often the function of the erroneous interpretation of various enemy actions. http://www. or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel. The second category comprises the escalation from a conventional war to the use of nuclear weapons. for example. once unthinkable except as a last resort.globalresearch. ".S.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and. nuclear targeting strategy. The persistence of intense conflicts in the Middle East will of course contribute to the potential danger of misperceptions.S. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988. A high level of conflict tends to promote the tendency of decision-makers to view the other side’s actions with great concern.the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration.. if not for all out nuclear war. if the familiar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U. These factors center on technical failures of warning systems.. Israel no longer needs U. Hence. DC Iraq Coalition. in some cases. 1994 [“Israel’s Nuclear Dilemma”.. March 2002. 123-4] The potential risks involved in the functioning of the superpowers’ C3 may recur in the Middle East and." Middle East War -. and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use. deriving from misperception of the enemy’s behavior.html Meanwhile. as the Iraqis did. spy secrets. Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional. p. and even the threat of nuclear war.S. Professor of International Relations at Tel Aviv University.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Middle East War -. with apparently greater intensity. and which derive exclusively from human error. "Should war break out in the Middle East again. a nuclear escalation.

Further opportunities to start these civil wars or use such weapons must be firmly deterred and discouraged. Rather than choose peace and democracy. p. February 2001. we now should see with whom we are dealing and the multiple fronts of the real Middle East war.Blank WMDS WILL BE USED IN MIDDLE EAST CIVIL WARS Stephen Blank. professor. every form of conflict along the spectrum from rock throwing to nuclear war can take place. Arafat and his allies have chosen war and hatred. Strategic Studies Institute. In today's Middle East. Israel and the United States should act together to make sure that they never get to make another similar choice. US Army War College. WORLD & I. 65 .Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Middle East War -. 118 After seven or more years of America's best efforts. Governments there have long since used weapons of mass destruction in other states' civil wars.

that we can be protected from preventable harm and cared for in times of disaster without enduring greater harm. and reduced living conditions to circumstances that of themselves were lethal. Some feminists argue that these characteristics hold the greatest possibilities Alternative approaches are an urgent necessity. Women's experiences and feminine values are sources of such alternatives. and health care of any kind. potential nuclear annihilation. leaving in ashes people's hopes for even a minimal standard of life. Yet. as more people of the world fall into poverty. fundamental education. that human dignity and integrity will be respected." Each of these expectations has been the focus of major United Nations reports and declarations on development. However. with its advancing weapons development. 21-25 The very weapons we have developed to defend our security are themselves a threat to our security in the potential consequences of their use in combat and in the actual processes of their development and testing. housing.Reardon MILITARISM CAUSES EXTINCTION Betty Reardon. and ecological collapse toward the achievement of a truly just world peace and authentic global security. 1993. has also further diverted resources from social and human purposes as it escalates to the point of the possibility of total destruction. They help to point out that we must attend to the obstacles to these expectations in an integrated. Inflation is rampant. adequate food. uncared for children roam the streets of the world's great cities. But little public heed has been paid. Yet. Most of these are women. p. national. Until we understand the connections among these four expectations and the other global problems deriving from their frustration. arms production and Apartheid and racism in various forms impede the social development of many indigenous peoples. unemployment is increasing. Arms development cannot be relied upon to prevent aggression and warfare. Fourth. The 1991 war in the Persian Gulf and the 1992 war in a disintegrating Yugoslavia took uncounted numbers of civilian lives. produced hundreds of thousands of refugees. potable water. WOMEN AND PEACE—FEMINIST VISIONS OF GLOBAL SECURITY. to move us from the present condition of continuous armed conflict. repressive systems that deny the personal well being and human rights of ethnic groups and political dissenters. and disarmament and security. local conflicts rage that daily impose death and suffering on noncombatants as well as armed forces. that the basic needs of life will be met. and personal well-being and possibilities for individual and social development will not be impeded by traditional customs. on the contrary. The arms produced for national defense have been used to maintain racist. comprehensive fashion based on an understanding of the interrelationships among them. millions are without clean. Feminine Characteristics as Approaches to Peace and Security The discussions in this book and elsewhere of the need for women's participation in public affairs are essentially a call to valorize those feminine characteristics that are conducive to peace and comprehensive approaches to security. the environment. in a highly militarized world. neither the world nor any of its people will be secure. social structures. or global levels. eroding rather than assuring our expectation of protection or "defense. A case can be made that. Next. A flourishing trade in conventional arms fuels the flames of these conflicts and consumes resources in a truly incendiary manner. Yet a review of the Declaration of the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination against Women provides a list of a broad and tragic range of impediments to women's personal well-being that still prevail throughout the world.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Militarism -. and armed conflict. or political policies at local. Third. a UN consultant. that the life and well-being of the Earth’s peoples will not be harmed as a consequence of imbalanced security policies. The technological arms race. 66 . preparation for war. trafficking encourage armed conflict. human rights. women's movements and initiatives are insisting that we must turn our attention to meeting these four fundamental expectations that constitute authentic security.

one might have called workaday anti-Semitism. I remember a perfect expression of what I am talking about. It means merely that there is general acquiescence in the proposition that indifference to the rights of minorities can mutate. and during this century has done so. The change doesn't mean (no change ever will) the end of ethnic-oriented derisive humor. in any case. It was a private lunch. to genocide. A distinguished public figure remarked casually that he would today leave the table in protest if he heard spoken such aninadversions on the Jews as were routinely spoken at his father's table when he was a boy. 1990. No doubt the most immediate cause of this sea change was the Holocaust. nationally renowned conservative writer.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Minority Rights – Buckley FAILURE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TRIGGERS GENOCIDE William Buckley. 24 A second change has to do with what. even though much of it is selfconsciously surreptitious m tone. 67 . now virtually eradicated or vastly diminished. p. WHAT WE OWE OUR COUNTRY.

68 . Morality -. The important point is not that he lets these persons die rather than kills them. p. one distributes available food in equal shares even if everyone dies. it was King’s opponents who were responsible because their intervention operated as the sufficient conditions of the riots and injuries. (PDNSS1622) An example of this principle may help to show its connection with the absolutist thesis. 38. 1977. EVEN IF IT MEANS OUR OWN DEATH Watson. Chicago. 118-9. There is a strict analogy here between adhering to moral principles for the sake of being moral. By the principle of the intervening action. so that her correlative right remains absolute. The ultimate test always harks back to the highest principle – recant or die. but one looks always to the highest light. or that he intends their deaths obliquely but not directly. riots. Martin Luther King. The point is rather that it is only through the intervening lethal actions of the terrorists that his refusal eventuates in many deaths. That an action is necessary to save one’s life is no excuse for behaving unpatriotically or immorally if one wishes to be a patriot or moral. the reply would be that these rights cannot justifiably be secured at the price of the rights of blacks. 1994. was repeatedly told that because he led demonstrations in support of civil rights. The ultimate test always harks back to the highest principle – recant or die – and it is pathetic to profess morality if one quits when the going gets rough. Since the moral responsibility is not the son’s. philosophy professor. The moral world contains pits and lions. if a prisoner of war undergoing torture is to be a (perhaps dead) patriot even when reason tells him that collaboration will hurt no one. or that he does not harm them but only fails to help them.Gewirth JUST LIKE MARTIN LUTHER KING WASN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE OF WHITE SUPREMACISTS. WORLD HUNGER AND MORAL OBLIGATION. ABSOLUTISM AND ITS CONSEQUENTIALIST CRITICS. King might also have replied that the Republic would not be worth saving if the price that had to be paid was the violation of the civil rights of black Americans. It follows from the principle of the intervening action that it is not the son but rather the terrorists who are morally as well as causally responsible for the many deaths that do or may ensue on his refusal to torture his mother to death. and adhering to Christian principles for the sake of being Christian. pp. As for the rights of other Americans to peace and order. No principle of morality absolves one of behaving immorally simply to save one’s life or nation. it does not affect his moral duty not to torture his mother to death. however. and deaths that ensued and that were shaking the American Republic to its foundations. One may even have to sacrifice one’s life or one’s nation to be moral in situations where practical behavior would preserve it.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Morality – Watson WE MUST ACT MORALLY. philosophy professor. For example. Washington University. if one is to be moral. Jr. Similarly. he remains silent. WE AREN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF INTERVENING ACTORS Alan Gewirth. he was morally responsible for the disorders.

In fact. American economic interests in Europe— as a leading market for U. the alliance has begun to develop two important new functions. the United States could easily be drawn into a future major war in Europe.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                NATO Good COLLAPSE OF NATO CAUSES MULTIPLE ESCALATORY NUCLEAR WARS John Duffield. By damping the security dilemma and providing an institutional mechanism for the development of common security policies. the pessimists failed to consider NATO's capacity for institutional adaptation. whose states had often been bitter rivals in the past. p. Assistant Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia. NATO has contributed to making the use of force in relations among the countries of the region virtually inconceivable. moreover. NATO has helped stabilize Western Europe. Most importantly. 766-7] Initial analyses of NATO's future prospects overlooked at least three important factors that have helped to ensure the alliance's enduring relevance. NATO still serves to secure its members against a number of actual or potential dangers emanating from outside their territory. but also the relatively new concerns raised by conflicts in neighboring regions. In addition to strong transatlantic historical and cultural ties. In all these ways. it works to prevent such conflicts from arising at all by actively promoting stability within the former Soviet bloc. Second. 1994 [Political Science Quarterly 109:5. NATO pessimists overlooked the valuable intra-alliance functions that the alliance has always performed and that remain relevant after the cold war. First. Above all. But even the United States has a significant stake in preserving a peaceful and prosperous Europe. the consequences of which would likely be even more devastating than those of the past. And. These include not only the residual threat posed by Russian military power. at a deeper level. NATO clearly serves the interests of its European members. given the existence of nuclear weapons. they underestimated the extent to which external threats sufficient to help justify the preservation of the alliance would continue to exist. Since the end of the cold war. products. and as the host for considerable direct foreign investment by American companies — remain substantial.S. as a source of valuable imports.11 69 . NATO is increasingly seen as having a significant role to play in containing and controlling militarized conflicts in Central and Eastern Europe. If history is any guide.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                70 .

civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear . but through civilisation we redeem ourselves and become a precious asset for the Earth. its 71 . He may even have underestimated.Lovelock RENEWED NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT PREVENTS OTHERWISE INEVITABLE EXTINCTION James Lovelock. and for the world. may become dark sea that absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight. we can not continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables. and growing. since he spoke. little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas. as we piled on fuel. Not only the Arctic is changing. burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. that will stretch our grandchildren to the limit. The scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100. Gaia. New York and Tokyo. Global warming. Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction. So what should we do? We can just continue to enjoy a warmer 21st century while it lasts. its white reflecting ice. Extra heat from any source. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation. wind. worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. like a fire. new evidence of climate change the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far. torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's kilometre-high glaciers. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources. and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice. But in the Arctic. and this is what I fear will happen in much of the world. in 30 years. But we do not have 50 years. goal of so many explorers. What makes global warming so serious and so urgent is that the great Earth system. the area of the US. not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its well being. We have stayed in ignorance for many reasons. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds. as did more than 20. in the 18th century. True. 2004. and even if we act successfully in amelioration. their impact was small enough for it not to matter what energy source they used. that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited.now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300. and Most of us are aware of some degree of warming. Even if they were right about its dangers. Calcutta. to hide the political embarrassment of global warming. The prospects are grim. enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world. imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars. PhD Medicine – London School of Hygiene – Fellow of the Royal Society. which should have given priority to global warming. which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners.000 years. When that happens. As individual animals we are not so special. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm. and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. The North Pole. Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. energy source . p. But with six billion. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway. is amplified. Venice. tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time.ece Sir David King. and failed to notice. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. few options remain. the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately. mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen. what is at risk is civilisation. It was a warning of worse to come. and make cosmetic attempts. We are tough and it would take more than the climate catastrophe to eliminate all breeding pairs of humans. there will still be hard times. winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. Worse still. was far-sighted to say that suggests it could be even more serious.000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide. but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20. and prefers to listen to the Greens. Whatever doubts there are about future climates. and they are not. The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming. The Green lobbies. available. seem more concerned about threats to people than with threats to the Earth. which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists. important among them is the denial of climate change in the US where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. and its effects are more than additive. These fears are unjustified. there are no doubts least because through our eyes the Earth has seen herself in all her glory. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver. rejects their warnings and advice. whether from greenhouse gases.000 to one.co.the one safe. By all means. May 24. oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger. global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. that greenhouse gases and temperatures both are rising.independent. THE INDEPENDENT. which is global warming.uk/commentators/article61727. the disappearance of Arctic ice or the Amazon forest. Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of southern Florida under water. only one billion people lived on Earth. climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people. Director of the Marine Biological Society. warming is more than twice as great as here in Europe and in summertime. the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1. Their grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat. as in war. we may die even sooner. http://comment. their biodiversity. When. and in some ways are like a planetary disease. The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time. I find it sad and ironic that the UK. It may take a disaster worse than last summer's European deaths to wake us up. and according to Swiss meteorologists. let us use the small input from renewables sensibly. including London. the Government's chief scientist. because. the Green lobbies and the media.000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer. but by then the sea will have risen seven metres. such as the Kyoto Treaty. if we burn crops grown for fuel this could hasten our decline. will then be no more than a point on the ocean surface. not There is a chance we may be saved by an unexpected event such as a series of volcanic eruptions severe enough to block out sunlight and so cool the Earth.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Nuclear Power Good -. is accelerating and almost no time is left to act. is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback.

while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US. This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world. the US military and intelligence services have grown to become bureaucracies of unrivaled scope. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy. p. the result could be the destruction not just of industrial civilization. foreign or domestic. any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an “assault on the vital interests of the United States” and would be “repelled by any means necessary. the US military apparatus grew exponentially. and durability. or its allies. its agents. power. including military force. ostensibly in response to the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945. or engaged in direct or indirect military action.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Oil Wars – Extinction OIL WARS CAUSE EXTINCTION Richard Heinberg. 230 Today the average US citizen uses five times as much energy as the world average. But after the end of the Cold War the American military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. but of humanity and most of the biosphere. The Carter Doctrine. 2003. If all-out competition is pursued with the available weapons of awesome power. their implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification for their continued existence.” In the past 60 years. The Party’s Over: Oil. During the Cold War. Rather. Even citizens of nations that export oil – such as Venezuela and Iran – use only a small fraction of the energy US citizens use per capita. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. 72 . core faculty member at New College of California. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national groups opposing that hegemony. it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a total of 19 countries and stationed troops. War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. declared in 1980. in dozens of others. made it plain that US military might would be applied to the project of dominating the world’s oil wealth: henceforth.

org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp. A supernova occurring 30 light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone layer for several years.This was the biggest extinction event in the last 500 million years. 73 . Permian Extinction.the Supernova explosion.priweb. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destruction. these problems could cause widespread destruction of life. and researchers want a theory that is scientifically rigorous.htm Lastly.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Ozone Destruction Bad -. a new theory has been proposed. Therefore.large amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus “global and atmospheric cooling. http://www. all these theories are possible but also have many faults and create much controversy in determining if it is the one exact theory which will explain this historic mass extinction.” With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species.Extinction OZONE DESTRUCTION EMPIRICALLY CAUSED MASS EXTINCTIONS ON EARTH Paleontological Research Institute. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured.

largescale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend. Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Director of the Peace Education Program at Teacher’s College Columbia University. 30-2 (PDNSS6401) In an article entitled “Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War” (1983). Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial. to distance one’s character from that of women. the positioning of military bases on foreign soil. Reardon.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Patriarchy – Reardon PATRIARCHY IS THE ROOT OF THE WAR SYSTEM Betty A. why are discussions in our national forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is badly needed . She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies.” that patriarchal assumptions are simply “human nature. p. training of military personnel. which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used. . the rise in the number of national security states. violent world that in spite of the decline of the cold war and the slowing of the military race between the superpowers is still staring into the abyss of nuclear disaster. Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay—all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. 13 the militarization of diplomacy. instantly or eventually.” then we are locked into a lie. ‘intelligence’ networks. intervention—both overt and covert. torture. and supply of hardware to. all the water. to shed the sacred blood of the hero. paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. and training of police. (Spretnak 1983) These cultural tendencies have produced our current crisis of a highly militarized. all the soil. Since a major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions. To prove dominance and control. A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance. Melbourne. to survive the toughest violent initiation. spheres of influence derived from their supply. 74 . Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. But there is no longer any battlefield. to all living things. and the interlocking and the international nature of the military order which even defines the major rifts in world politics. Neither are they solely economic. which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to “strut their stuff” as we watch with increasing horror. Australia: These then are the outward signs of militarism across the world today: weapons-building and trading in them. . the despoilation of the planet. If we believe that war is a “necessary evil. not parity. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking. all the air. as described by a leading feminist in an address to the Community Aid Abroad State Convention. more and more countries coming under direct military rule. 1993.

But there is no consolation whatsoever in this posthuman scenario. assistant professor of Environmental Affairs and Humanities. The events of which I speak would undo. But the irony must not be missed. or an ecological virus of global proportions. The logic of all things finite permits catastrophe only up to a point. the more people. must unleash a global Armageddon on a scale that will admit to no swift and easy population resurgence thereafter. What this has meant is that the more epidemics. Dartmouth. within a human generation or less. or whimper – however one view the generic calamity – it might be a blessing. p. Tragedy invokes biological success. the more people. will admit to no succession. There must come a time when one inferno will actually prevent us from repopulating. the dreams and miracles of the most recent several hundred million years of biological activity. the more disasters. eventual extinction. and pesticide-resistant insects.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Population – Tobias OVERSHOOT CAUSES TOTAL GLOBAL EXTINCTION THROUGH BIODICDE AND NUCLEAR CONFLICT Michael Tobias. Such ineluctable confluences of human numbers following the wake of human self-destruction. the more rapid the human population resurges. For those who temporarily survive this vague and distant bang. 1998. crime. viruses. 408 The second pattern of millennial long waves is analogous to mutational bacteria. The will mean. A nuclear holocaust. 75 . a shorter and shorter period between undulations of disaster and rebound. The more disasters. namely. for example. of course. beyond which a tragedy too vast. WORLD WAR III: POPUALTION AND THE BIOSPHERE AT THE END OF THE MILLENNIUM. one that has totally closed the ecological circle of attrition. war and infant mortality.

WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS. More fundamentally. The protectionist is not against the use of every kind of force.thus. it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. If mankind is to survive. fear of challenge. the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970. journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization possible. In the late 19th Century. Check on how the issue is being taught in the schools. The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. facing only a mild recession.free-market. the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition . and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports . Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. member of the British Parliament. the real producers may as well be on different planets." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE TRADE A century and a half ago French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial. When trade is cut off entirely. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace. to crush his rival. The depression in turn led to World War II. monetary devaluation. 121 The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true. The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West. Within a year. "for a nation to specialize in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home. trade and foreign exchange controls. is the only solution. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. followed by citizen action. and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. In 1930." In the 20th century. US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act. then these primeval fears must be defeated. p. the market place is a most humane institution. or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. But to trade is to become 76 . Free trade is too important an issue to leave in the hands of politicians. 1996. the tireless effort of productive men and women has been spent trying to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce and trade.html TRADE WARS: BOTH SIDES LOSE When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B". we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free trade. "For thousands of years. economist. and the jealous envy of genius.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism. effectively moving communities farther apart. Widespread public understanding of this issue. ." WHAT CAN YOU DO? Silence gives consent. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. and specialization increases output. and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. . and that it is important to your future.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Protectionism Bad – Extinction PROTECTIONISM MEANS EXTINCTION MILLER AND ELWOOD International Society for Individual Liberty 1988 http://www. and there should be no consent to the current waves of restrictive trade or capital control legislation being passed. even warfare. which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries. after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace). "Over the same span of history. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . The protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change." he said. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution." Protectionism Bad – War (Spicer) PROTECTIONISM CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR Michael Spicer. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt. that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. etc. a period that also saw no major wars. That being so.a major factor leading to the American Civil War. rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to them.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               
interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

77

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Peace Process – Generally Good
THE PEACE PROCESS IS KEY TO PREVENT REGIONAL WAR Zaki Chehab, Arab Political Journalist, 2006

[“War – Who can stop it now?”, Jul 24th, http://www.newstatesman.com/200607240016]
There is a lesson that Israel needs to learn from its failure to prevent Hezbollah's missiles from raining down on its cities, even though its military has recourse to US-made Patriot missiles which, in theory, should divert or stop them. The message is that the only way forward is a long-term solution that will bring justice to the Palestinians and peace to Lebanon and Israel. And this can be achieved only by "an honest broker": that is to say, one who can and will enforce a just peace plan on both Israel and the Palestinians. Israel must not be given preferential treatment. Forcing the weak party (the Palestinians or the Lebanese) to accept deals will ensure that those deals do not last. The key to resolving the crisis in the region is not, as the US president, George W Bush, suggests, simply to release the captured soldiers. Nor does the answer lie in plans such as those outlined by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for the deployment of a European or international force on the border between Lebanon and Israel. This would provide only a partial solution. Behind the current crisis is the long-term crisis: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Only a revival of the peace process, marked by a genuine commitment from Israel (which must be guaranteed by the United States, the United Nations and Europe and based on the "road map"), will give the Palestinians a ray of hope that the end of the occupation is in sight.

PEACE PROCESS IS KEY TO LASTING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Roy Balleste, Associate Law Library Director at Nova Southeastern University School of Law, 2004 [Revista de Derecho Puertorriqueno 43 Rev. D.P. 249 “The International Status of Jerusalem: The Legacy of Lasting Peace”p. 275-6]
Once again, I am reminded of the words of St. Thomas Aquinas. He stated that "friends need not agree in opinion, but only upon such goods as conduce to life, and especially upon such as are important; because dissension in small matters is scarcely accounted dissension." Cooperation for success is the key to a permanent solution for the legal status of Jerusalem. As of 18 February 2003, the city of Jerusalem was still called "the key to peace." Now there is a constant mention by the media of a new agreement or 'road map' for the final settlement of peace in the region. President George W. Bush recently announced the potential establishment of a road map for peace. If this plan is finally implemented, Jerusalem will be discussed when phase three of the plan is implemented in 2005. The only remaining comment to be made concerns the entry into force of any proposed new agreement. Whether this or any other agreement will work is a matter of excitement. Since failure by either party will be enough to prevent a resolution, it will be a matter of some anxiety to see whether sufficient cooperation is gathered, and in what sort of timetable. Finally, it has been my attempt to create an analysis, to inform and propose. Not to end, but to provide an additional alternative. I have analyzed international legal issues pertaining Jerusalem with a high conviction that the application of international legal agreements is the proper method of resolving most difficult international disagreements, no matter what they might be. In the end, a common goal should be achieved: the resolution of the Jerusalem question, an indispensable goal with international legal implications. In my humble opinion, there is little understanding about the legal significance of the city, and yet Jerusalem represents an invaluable asset for humanity. It is the most "potential" place on the planet for the creation of new peace, and its religious significance is a remainder to future generations of the accomplishment of human beings in the pursuit of world peace. But above all, the legal framework of Jerusalem may become its greatest legacy to humanity, the legacy of lasting peace.

78

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Peace Process – Generally Good
PEACE PROCESS IS KEY TO STOP REGIONAL INSURGENT TERRORISM Financial Times, 2006

[“Two preconditions for hope in the Middle East”, London (UK): Jul 19, p. 19, PROQUEST]
The election of Hamas both illustrated the dangers of democracy without a stable political foundation and that the Palestinians could not be a real peace partner. So, however, did Israeli unilateralism and reliance on isolation of the Palestinians. Israel's efforts to drive Hamas from political power simply made things worse. Isolated and impoverished Palestinians became more extreme; Iran, Syria and outside extremists gained more footholds; and Mahmoud Abbas, the PA's new leader, became weaker. Israel's extraordinary sensitivity to casualties and hostages made it vulnerable in other ways. The IDF invasion of Gaza and attacks on Hamas further radicalised younger and more militant Palestinians and they - not politicians or their parents - have the guns and ability to carry out attacks. Two things must happen if thereis to be any real hope. First, the United Nations must help Lebanon disarm Hizbollah, stop it receiving further arms from Iran and Syria and halt its military aid to Hamas. Brokering a ceasefire and another hollow UN peacekeeping force will have only a cosmetic impact, at best. Second, the Quartet group of Middle East mediators must put severe pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians: on Israel, to halt unilateral expansion into the West Bank and aid moderate Palestinian voices; on the Palestinians, to understand that aid and support are tied to either Hamas changing or going. This must be followed by a "road map" that confronts both sides with a true peace plan, specific final settlement proposals and a time schedule. Half measures and conventional diplomacy have all the value of putting lipstick on a pig and will be neither Halal nor Kosher. THE PEACE PROCESS IS KEY TO DEMOCRACY PROMOTION States News Service, 2006 [“BUSH RENEWS U.S. COMMITMENT TO PEACE IN MIDDLE EAST” 7-22 LN] America remains committed to lasting peace in the Middle East. The United States and our partners will continue to seek a return to the road map for peace in the Middle East, which sets out the pathway to establishing a viable democratic Palestinian state that will live in peace with Israel. We will continue to support moderate leaders, like Palestinian Authority President Abbas. We will continue to call on Hamas to end its acts of terror. And now, more than ever, the Palestinians need leaders who are not compromised by terror and who will help the Palestinian people provide a future for their children based on regional peace and security. In the long-term, this peace will come only by defeating the terrorist ideology of hatred and fear. The world's best hope for lasting security and stability across the Middle East is the establishment of free and just societies. America and our allies will act decisively because we know our security is at stake in this struggle and we know the cause of freedom will prevail.

79

000 deaths). equally immersed. This is. in effect. concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society.000 deaths per year from armed conflict. GILLIGAN PHD PSYCHIATRY – HARVARD PROFESSOR 1998 (Cited by Mumia “A Quiet and Deadly Violence”) http://www. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer. on the average. and so on. in effect. and every single year. throughout the world. such as the deaths we attribute to homicide.S. and every single year. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure. --(Gilligan. two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. the equivalent of an ongoing. corporate. all the more insidious. unending. or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade. throughout the world. is invisible to us and because of its invisibility. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals. and the U. This form of violence. and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U. In other word. Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School. MD. or genocide. as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths. on the average. the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575.S. as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year cause by structural violence compare with about 100. Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic.iacenter.. of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Dr.R (232 million). J.org/violence. two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. in fact accelerating.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Poverty – Gilligan POVERTY IS THE EQUIVALENT TO A WOULD-BE THERMONUCLEAR WAR BETWEEN THE FORMER-USSR AND THE US EVERY 15 YEARS. in fact accelerating. soldiers in warfare. which continues year after year. the equivalent of an ongoing. and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices. every fifteen years. 1935-1945). By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society. including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year. These are not acts of God.S. James Gilligan observes.htm We live. p 195-196. it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence. unending. ruling-class protected media. in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence. such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths. This is. not covered by any of the majoritarian. capital punishment. the Vietnam war (possibly two million. suicide. James Gilligan. thermonuclear war. 19541973). VIOLENCE: REFLECTIONS ON OUR DEADLIEST EPIDEMIC. 80 . and to a deeper degree. as contrasted by those who are above them. thermonuclear war. perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade. 2000.

81 . people have a right to a private life. PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF PRIVACY. In other words.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Privacy – Schoenman PRIVACY IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT TYRANNY Ferdinand Schoeman. (DRGCL/B1128) Benn suggests that part of our notion of a person as free is that he is subject to the authority and scrutiny of others only within reasonable and legally safeguarded limits. p. 1984. Professor of Philosophy. University of South Carolina. and can be thought to have obligations to promote the welfare of society only if these obligations have been voluntarily assumed or if especially pressing reasons are operative. People can be held socially accountable only for respecting the rights of others. George Orwell’s novel 1984 presents one picture of what life would be like in a society which did not limit itself in the way Benn prescribes.21.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Uzbekistan. Fall. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped. widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons. 87-90 In sum. nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips. but the very life on earth. Deputy Director of the Strategy. p. With most. and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis.dsi.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Proliferation – Utgoff NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CAUSES EXTINCTION Victor Utgoff. the world may even be a more polite place than it is today. we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. rejecting a policy aimed at the domination of one by another. Nuclear weapons are able to destroy not only what has been created by mankind throughout the past centuries. political and ideological.html (MHHAR2216) Proliferation of nuclear weapons on the planet is the major threat to the survival of humanity. http://www. SURVIVAL. Forces. In the epoch of nuclear disarmament it is necessary to work out a new world conception based on the principles of refraining from the threat or use of force. 1997.2002. if not all. Proliferation – End of the World PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND THREATENS SURVIVAL Alla Karimova. 82 .it/proceed/cast97/karimova. but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.uspid.unimi. as well as of respect of every nation's rights to self-determination: social. Possibilities of a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Creation in Central Asia. and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand.

the Nazi's killed millions of Jews even though the Holocaust took resources away from their war effort. say. In the 21st century the only leaders whom we should recognize as legitimate are those who were democratically elected. This would obviously be intolerable to France. if France did not sign.Miller THE GREATEST RISK OF EDXTINCTION IS FROM PROLIFERATION James D. we should deal with them based upon what is in our own best interests.S. It's too late to stop the Chinese from gaining the ability to decimate us.S. The more countries which sign the treaty. We should demand that countries like Iraq. Once the U. We should further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy.True..com/comment/comment-miller012302. His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach.S. 2002. but for the next ten years or so it is not too late to stop some of our other rivals. the signatories of which would agree to: • only trade with countries which have signed the treaty. France and Britain allowed Nazi Germany's military power to grow until Hitler was strong enough to take Paris. America should create a treaty. The U. To make trade sanctions an effective weapon the U. 83 . With dictatorships. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons. We shouldn't demand that China abandon her nuclear weapons. http://www. and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. however. Under this approach. and chemical weapons. Our conventional forces might even be made impotent by a nuclear-armed foe.S. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Normal trade sanctions. Smith College. any country which violated America's policy on weapons proliferation would face almost a complete economic boycott.S. and. the greater the pressure on other countries to sign. would be willing to give up his life for the opportunity to hit America with nuclear missiles. but rather because her existing stockpile of atomic missiles would make it too costly for us to threaten China. If it's politically impossible for America to use military force against currently non-hostile dictators then we should use trade sanctions to punish nations who don't agree to our proliferation policy. If we simply don't trade with a nation other countries will sell them the goods that we used to provide. Iran. Libya. with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up his weapons. however. January 23.shtml The U. We can't rely upon deterrence to prevent an atomic powered dictator from striking at us. America seems to be doing little while many of our foes acquire the strength to destroy U. there exist evil men in the world who would gladly sacrifice all other goals for the opportunity to commit mass murder. This is not because China has proved herself worthy to have the means of mass annihilation. What is truly shocking. p. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritize protecting us all from atomic. should reinterpret international law to give no rights to tyrants. not even the right to exist. biological. do not provide the punishing power necessary to induce dictators to abandon their arms.nationalreview. and • not trade with any country which violates our policy on weapons proliferation. As September 11th also shows. however. believe that if only the U.S. The U. Germany initially signed this treaty then nearly every other country would be forced to do so. we would probably have been unwilling to expel them from Kuwait. For example. NATIONAL REVIEW.S. Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U. We should have an ethically based foreign policy towards democratic countries. cities. Once most every country has signed. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millions of us. It's obviously in our self-interest to prevent as many dictators as possible from acquiring the means to destroy us. the U.S. Miller. Remember. professor of economics.S. should take not even the slightest unnecessary chance that some dictator. they would be unable to trade with the U.S. the world's cultural elites would be shocked and appalled if we took preventive military action against countries that are currently doing us no harm. Germany and France adopted the treaty every European nation would have to sign or face a total economic collapse.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Proliferation -. or perhaps even a European city. or Germany. needs to deploy secondary boycotts. What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders. and Germany alone could use our economic power to dictate the enforcement mechanism of a treaty designed to protect against Armageddon. is that America is doing almost nothing while countries that have expressed hatred for us are building weapons of mass destruction.. What about the rights of those countries I have proposed threatening? America should not even pretend to care about the rights of dictators. we should be entirely Machiavellian. for example. perhaps a dying Saddam Hussein. Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt.

But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Racism -. One day." says the Bible. the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. There are those who think that if one is strong enough. it is a contract. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. this is debatable. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. 84 . In short. RACISM. however implicit it might be. the roles will be reversed. 1997 [Albert. Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris.Memmi RACISM MUST BE REFUSED – ITS REFUSAL IS A PRECONDITION FOR MORALITY AND FOR THE CONTINUATION OF SOCIETY. perhaps. SOMEDAY YOU MAY TOO BE THE STRANGER WHO WILL BE IN NEED OF RESPECT Memmi. It is an ethical and a practical appeal -. "that you were once a stranger in Egypt. the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality.indeed. 165 (DRGCL/B1046)] Of course." which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. "Recall. p.

org/Research/ MissileDefense/BG1394.heritage. Heritage Foundation.Key To Hegemony READINESS IS CRUCIAL FOR HEGEMONY Jack Spencer.Heritage Foundation) http://www. Therefore. thereby preserving peace. Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security @ the Institute for International Studies.cfm Military readiness is vital because declines in America’s military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests. 85 . 2000 (The Facts About Military Readiness -.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Readiness -. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest.S. inevitably leading to U.

Spring 1997. Instead. 1998 [Wyatt. territory. It will be expensive in money and lives. 188-9] America's most vital interest therefore. The last three-quarters of the twentieth century strongly suggest the opposite conclusion: major war is more likely to come when satisfied states neglect their defenses and fail to take active part in the preservation of peace. The diminution of U. p.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Readiness – Stops Global War PROACTIVE DETERRENCE SOLVES WWIII Barnes. It is vital to understand that the current relatively peaceful and secure situation is neither inevitable nor immutable. But peace does not keep itself. although one of the most common errors in modern thinking about international relations is the assumption that peace is natural and can be preserved merely by having peace-seeking nations avoid provocative actions.S. British appeasement before the world wars facilitated aggression. READINESS SOLVES GLOBAL CONFLICT Donald Kagan. ORBIS. p. and most devastating means of changing the balance of international power. We are now supremely powerful and can enforce peace by intervening before a limited war spreads. and likelihood of war would be infinitely greater than the cost of continuing to uphold the existing 86 . it would be critical step in undermining the stability of the international situation. Professor of History and Classics at Yale.S. most expensive. but is essential to preserve peace. The cost of the resulting upheaval in wealth. Retired General Partner and Purple Heart. power and thus not be a neutral act that would leave the situation as it stands. But post-Cold War instability makes a proactive U.S. STRATEGIC REVIEW. Calculations based on the absence of visible potential enemies would immediately be made invalid by America's withdrawal from its current position as the major bulwark supporting the world order. is maintaining the general peace for war has been the swiftest. 31] Edward Olsen's article in Strategic Review said that our forces should leave Northwest Asia and center our military posture on U. It reflects two conditions built up with tremendous effort and expense during the last half century: the great power of the United States and the general expectation that Americans will be willing to use that power when necessary. 1997 [Donald. Fall 1998. in stability. policy essential. The alternative is World War III. and the American people must be prepared to pay that cost.

Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. p. Russia retains some 20.000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more. If conditions get worse. If war erupts. the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. In a society where. and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. however. From 1989 to the present.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Russian Economy -. Within Russia. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. and wages. the consequences would be even worse. making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of antiAmerican groups and states. increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. power devolves to the periphery. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Russia's 89 republics. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership. krais. republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. -. civil war is likely. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. political scientist. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia.personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. it is not at all clear which side the military would support. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war. Should Russia succumb to internal war. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial. housing. however. January/February 1999. a second civil war might produce another horrific regime.even though in decline -. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow.does 87 .David RUSSIAN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CAUSES A CIVIL WAR THAT ESCALATES AND GOES NUCLEAR Steven David. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life.foreignaffairs.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. particularly attacks on nuclear plants. what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all. and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism.html If internal war does strike Russia. A major power like Russia not suffer civil war quietly or alone. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far).org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars. unemployment scarcely existed. http://www. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force. With the economy collapsing. But with the Communist Party out of office. Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Meanwhile. economic deterioration will be a prime cause. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. food. Draftees serve closer to home. nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing. Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken. it reached 9. and medical care. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. ten years ago. the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay. So far. Damage from the fighting. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month).

communications between the Guard and the military are kept to a minimum. the Saudi military presents another possible source of division.could now fuel an insurrection.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars. They enjoy substantial support in the cities and among the younger generation.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Saudi Arabian Economy -. only to return home and find a government of questionable Islamic purity in a state 88 . the royal family -. Saudi Arabia is extremely vulnerable to internal war. the government has incurred large deficits since 1983. To prevent a coordinated coup. Led by different members of the royal family. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. While dividing the military in this way may make it more difficult for a discontented prince to seize power at the head of a united army. The government thinks that the damage done to the economy by failing to raise taxes or make major spending cuts is less dangerous than the alternative.foreignaffairs. Struggling to cope with these problems. 15. Fabulous oil wealth has been a mixed blessing for Saudi Arabia. making an interruption in its flow even more dangerous. there seems little hope of major cuts in expenditures. This extremist opposition is no longer just made up of the lower classes and fringe elements that violently took over Mecca's Grand Mosque in 1979. Instead. it includes well-educated members of the middle class. p. political scientist. Meanwhile. and called for the creation of a consultative council to assist the king in governing. Even if all of these demands are met (so far only the last has been addressed). there is even less hope for Saudi Arabia -.000 reserves). especially those with religious educations who found no jobs waiting for them on graduation. Islam. questioned the royal family's business dealings. January/February 1999. the outcome will be catastrophic not just for the United States but for the world. Oil has spared the Saudi government from the need to tax its citizens. many of them from the Najd region -.000 today.html AS LIKELY as is conflict in Mexico. as a result.the traditional power base of the royal family. it also means that a struggle in the royal family could pit the armed forces against the Guard. global dependence on Saudi oil will only increase in coming years. the military. Saudi Arabia's per capita GDP plunged from $ 17. the religious threat to the regime will persist. That might not have become a problem had oil prices not begun to drop in the 1980s. but this has the side effect of enhancing their distinct identities.the oil economy. which might alienate large portions of the population. http://www. The same factors that have kept its regime in power -. Sunni Muslim religious leaders have launched unprecedented challenges to the royal family. the two forces pursue distinct missions and draw on separate segments of the population: the regular military gets its recruits mostly from cities and towns while the Guard uses rural tribesmen. the estimated $ 65 billion it spent on the Gulf War only exacerbated matters. But if the economy continues to deteriorate. the regime has never learned to convince its subjects to sacrifice for the good of the state (nor have the citizens learned to weather privation). Since the Gulf War.000 full time. Meanwhile. The timid Saudi government must constantly buy the people's loyalty with material comforts. the government will have to make hard choices that could rock the Saudi state. when the Saudi government welcomed "infidel" troops from the West. Rather than reduce its reliance on oil.000 early in that decade to around $ 7. even as oil revenues plummet (oil export earnings are expected to shrink from $ 43 billion in 1997 to just over $ 29 billion in 1998). But as long as the royal family continues to benefit from government spending by receiving lavish kickbacks from foreign contractors. Always afraid of a coup. Meanwhile. Religion in Saudi Arabia also does more to undermine the current regime than to prop up its legitimacy. Saudi rulers have split the military into the regular armed forces (roughly 100. Unemployment among high school and university graduates rose to an alarming 25 percent. And their ranks are swollen with the hundreds of disgruntled Saudi volunteers who fought a holy war against the Russians in Afghanistan. Sunni notables have urged the government to sever ties with non-Muslim countries.000 men) and the National Guard (30.David SAUDI ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES INTERNAL DESTABILIZATION AND CIVIL WAR Steven David.and if the kingdom succumbs to civil war. in the face of increased expenses the Saudi economy has become more and more dependent on it. A country built on contradictions.

Complicating matters still further are the 500. A power struggle in the royal family over succession to the throne. And all this occurred at a time when the United States was less dependent on foreign petroleum than it is now. the oil fields will be a likely battle site. As the above suggests. For either side to cripple oil production would not be difficult. Stanching the flow of Saudi oil would devastate the United States and much of the world community. production could be delayed for several more months until workers were convinced it was safe to return. or disenchantment in the military with the royal family's selfish behavior could all set off a major conflagration. which in turn exacerbates divisions in the armed forces. its declining ability to buy their support may ignite a renewal of their violent protests. the mere threat of diminished oil supply can cause panic buying. and 50 percent (in just 15 days) in 1990. it is the gravest threat imaginable to American interests. The real risk lies not with the onshore oil wells themselves. would have a massive and protracted impact on the price and availability of oil worldwide. and infighting. As the central government runs out of cash. economy even now. The bad economy intensifies religious extremism.S. Saudi Arabia suffers from the fact that the various threats to domestic peace all reinforce one another. gas lines. while non-Persian Gulf supplies are expected to diminish.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                where the standard of living had plummeted. national hysteria. Global demand for oil (especially in Asia) will increase in the coming decades. Destruction of these facilities would paralyze production and take at least six months to repair. If unconventional weapons such as biological agents were used in the oil fields. with reserves estimated at 25 percent of the world's total. Short of physical attack. causing spiraling inflation and a decline in savings rates that plagues the U. squabbles over shares of an ever-shrinking economic pie. which are spread over a 100-by-300 mile area. Cutting the Saudi pipeline today would cause a severe worldwide recession or depression. but in the country's dependence on only a few critical processing sites. as belligerents seek the revenue and international recognition that come with control of petroleum.000 Saudi Shiites in the oil-rich east. A crisis in the planet's largest oil producer. 150 percent in 1979. 89 . Prices for oil shot up 400 percent in 1973. Trillions of dollars were lost worldwide. In a Saudi civil war. The oil shocks of the 1970s threw the United States into recession. As the disruptions of 1973 and 1979 showed. The catalyst for civil war can therefore come from one of several different sources. whose 1980 riots shook the foundations of the Saudi regime.

Nor do they depend on the amount of oil that the United States itself imports from the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. which the Saudis use to stabilize and control the price of oil by increasing or decreasing production as needed. July/August. The Persian Gulf region has as much as two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves. the price of oil in general would shoot through the ceiling. http://www. Because of the importance of both Saudi production and Saudi slack capacity. probably causing a global downturn at least as devastating as the Great Depression of the 1930s.a figure expected to increase rather than decrease in the future.S. Brookings.html America's primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large. 2003. Saban Center for Middle East Policy. destroying the American economy along with everybody else's. roughly 25 percent of the world's oil production comes from the Persian Gulf. but it also has a majority of the world's excess production capacity. if not worse. with Saudi Arabia alone responsible for roughly 15 percent -. U. and its oil is absurdly economical to produce. interests do not center on whether gas is $2 or $3 at the pump. This fact has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories leveled against the Bush administration during the run-up to the recent war.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Saudi Arabian Civil War -. Direct or Research. and if that foundation were removed. Today. Saudi Arabia is not only the world's largest oil producer and the holder of the world's largest oil reserves. with a barrel from Saudi Arabia costing anywhere from a fifth to a tenth of the price of a barrel from Russia.org/20030701faessay15401/kenneth-m-pollack/securing-thegulf. So the fact that the United States does not import most of its oil from the Persian Gulf is irrelevant: if Saudi oil production were to vanish.Pollack SAUDI INSTABILITY CAUSES GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE Kenneth Pollack. The reason the United States has a legitimate and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive. plentiful oil.foreignaffairs. or whether Exxon gets contracts instead of Lukoil or Total. 90 . the global economy would collapse. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. the sudden loss of the Saudi oil network would paralyze the global economy.

However. The widespread violations of individual rights that took place when President Lincoln assumed an inordinate level of power. but for the system established by separation of powers. the Constitution has attempted to prevent such misuses of power by the executive. 472-3 In any event.J. p. But imagine a situation in which a President. Law Clerk at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But the question is whether we wish to take that risk. common sense should tell us that the simultaneous division of power and the creation of interbranch checking play important roles toward that end. and Elizabeth Cisar. Arguably as egregious were the threats to basic freedoms that arose during the Nixon administration. 449. one should not demand a great showing of the likelihood that the feared harm would result. concerned about his failure to resolve significant social and economic problems at home. and may have to stand for reelection in the future. are well documented. To underscore the point.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Separation of Powers Good –War/Redish Collapse of constitutional balance of power risks tyranny and reckless warmongering Martin Redish. no defender of separation of powers can prove with certitude that. the reason for that may well have been the resilience of our political traditions. "I told you so. it would be political folly to be overly smug about the security of either representative government or individual liberty. Although in neither instance did the executive's usurpations of power ultimately degenerate into complete and irreversible tyranny. no one wants to be forced into the position of saying. given the obvious severity of the harm that might result. for example." 91 . but for the existence of separation of powers. the war was an extremely popular endeavor. Although it would be all but impossible to create an empirical proof to demonstrate that our constitutional tradition of separation of powers has been an essential catalyst in the avoidance of tyranny. 1991 41 Duke L. In actuality. among the most important of which is separation of powers itself. In summary. one need imagine only a limited modification of the actual scenario surrounding the recent Persian Gulf War. tyranny would be the inevitable outcome. at this particular point in time. It remains unproven whether any governmental structure other than one based on a system of separation of powers could avoid such harmful results. In any event. Indeed. has callously decided to engage the nation in war. the political history of which the Framers were aware tends to confirm that quite often concentration of political power ultimately leads to the loss of liberty. simply to defer public attention from his domestic failures. Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern. Because the Constitution reserves to the arguably even more representative and accountable Congress the authority to declare war. if we have begun to take the value of separation of powers for granted. we need only look to modern American history to remind ourselves about both the general vulnerability of representative government. For just as in the case of the threat of nuclear war. the President was presumably elected by a majority of the electorate. when the power of the executive branch reached what are widely deemed to have been intolerable levels. thought by many to be a politically and morally justified exercise. his authority as Commander in Chief to engage the nation in war would be effectively dictatorial. To be sure. and the direct correlation between the concentration of political power and the threat to individual liberty. Given both the relatively limited cost imposed by use of separation of powers and the great severity of the harm sought to be avoided.

PLAN B 2. This loss of species is weakening the web of life. principally through the loss of tropical rainforests. p. we are in effect burning one of the great repositories of genetic information. one species has evolved.but we seem unable or unwilling to act intelligently on this basic truth. It is basically the characteristics of the living organisms that we are squandering that afford the best chances of improving our lives and those of our grandchildren -. 1999. leading to irreversible changes in the earth's ecosystem. many of the remainder from fungi and bacteria. the soil. and if it continues it could tear huge gaps in its fabric. animals. For the first time in the earth's long history. wheat and rice. Unlike previous extinction events. fungi and micro-organisms that have made the air we breathe. which were caused by natural phenomena. applied experimentally to the development of other drugs it continues. the landscapes we enjoy each day. And almost all of the rest have been improved through knowledge gained about other naturally occurring compounds. May 23. insect control. 95 We are now in the early stage of the sixth great extinction.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Species Loss – Extinction ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH. The great majority of medicines also are derived from plants. Species of all kinds are threatened by habitat destruction. Our descendents may one day view the wholesale burning of this genetic library much as we view the burning of the library in Alexandria in 48 BC 92 . is such that as many as a quarter of all species may be lost within 25 years. Our relationship with the Earth. All of our food comes directly or indirectly from plants. and more than half of it from just three members of the grass family: corn. seed dispersal. SPECIES LOSS THREATENS PLANETARY SURVIVABILITY AND DIVERSITY Lester Brown.a tragedy in terms of the prospects for human progress. and as many as two-thirds of them by the end of the century -. every one of us depends directly on the Earth's living systems -.0 – RESCUING A PLANET UNDER STRESS AND A CIVILIZATION IN TROUBLE. they diminish the services provided by nature. however. this one is of human origin. if that is the right word. and a truly ignorant way to treat the systems on which we depend wholly for our survival now and in the future. 2006. such as pollination. Lexis (MHBLUE1256) Whether we realize it or not. Earth Policy Institute. and nutrient cycling. to where it can eradicate much of life. As we burn off the Amazon rainforest. As various life forms disappear. p.the plants.

Winter. Even if our potential adversaries were unable to build a competing force. p. Senator. leaving them at an unprecedented disadvantage. and much of that power resides in our ability to use space for military applications. they could still position deadly satellites disguised as commercial assets near or in the path of our most vital military satellites. it is that a future more like the second scenario will prevail.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Space Militarization Bad – Robb SPACE MILITARIZATION CAUSES WAR Chuck Robb. By encouraging potential adversaries to deploy weapons into space that could quickly destroy many of these systems. our targeters on satellite photos. The first is that Americans would. 93 . Our troops rely on weather satellites. The United States is currently the preeminent world military power. lose the most from a space-based arms race. A large percentage of our military communications now passes through space. a space-based arms race would render many of these more vulnerable to attack than they are today. 84] If history has taught us anything. It defies reason to assume that nations would sit idle while the United States invests billions of dollars in weaponizing space. and virtually all of our new generations of weapons on the Global Positioning System satellites for pin-point accuracy. This second scenario suggests three equally troubling consequences. 1999 [The Washington Quarterly. in a relative sense.

UPROOTING THE WAR SYSTEM. 94 . and all action is premised on this perspective. 1990. Kuper documents the most horrific exterminations in this century. Rather. War is the external manifestation of state violence. There are many other social problems caused.edu. http://www. War is not simply a byproduct of the state system. The state is not the only way to embody and sustain unequal power and privilege: it is a particular way involving bureaucracies for administration and military forces for defending against external and internal enemies. p. sustained or aggravated by the state. there is no sign that any steps to re-examine or transform the state system are being taken by state elites. the United Nations) to intervene against even the most well documented genocidal killing. maintaining the 'integrity' of the state system is more important for state elites than intervening against genocide.' One of the most telling indictments of the state system is found in Leo Kuper's book Genocide. These problems stem essentially from the system of unequal power and privilege which the state both is part of and sustains. but are also precarious in the representative democracies.html Is the state system really so bad? War is the most obvious indictment of the system. The reason for this reluctance is the concern for the autonomy of the state. so the destructiveness of war makes little difference. including suppression of dissent. to be moderated and regulated when it becomes too dangerous to populations. war is part and parcel of the state system. As wars have become more destructive. Political freedoms are not only at a premium under military dictatorships and state socialism. and this alone should be enough to justify questioning the state.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Statism – Genocide & War A STRONG STATE MAKES GENOCIDE AND WAR INEVITABLE Brian Martin is associate professor in Science. especially in relation to 'national security. Technology and Society at the University of Wollongon. What is damning of the state system is the reluctance of governments (and of that assemblage of state actors. including the killing of the Jews by the Nazis.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/uw07. State elites (and many others) see the world as a state-structured world. In short. Political repression is its internal form. This should not be surprising. and the activities of spy agencies and secret police. the massacre of the Bangladeshis by the Pakistan army in 1971 and the extermination in Cambodia beginning in 1975.uow. state support for corporate elites.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Taiwan War Impacts – Hsuing & Straits Times U. some form of life may still be found in the combatant nuclear giants. short of using nuclear weapons. there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later. “We rather have it proven that we trade but failed [to stop it[ even by force. Straits Times. each armed with its own nuclear arsenal. Japanese Nobel laureate (for literature) Ohe Because of its alliance relationship. with its present military capability and modest defense expenditures (about U. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests. 359-60 But decision-makers cannot afford such luxury. than be accused [by our disgruntled compatriots and posterity] of not trying to stop Taiwan from going independent. 25. In his book The Korean War.-China-Japan triad. From the ashes of such a nuclear conflict. to a lesser extent. 21ST CENTURY WORLD ORDER AND THE ASIA PACIFIC. Singapore’s Senior Minister. With the US distracted. Singapore. 2000. there would be absolutely nothing left in Japan or Taiwan or in the conflict’s wake.” Earlier. I raised the issue of stability within the U. June. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. 95 . $15 billion annually0. professor of politics and international law at NYU. In south Asia. president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. No one gains in war over Taiwan] (PDNSS2115) THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO -THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. Apparently. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. the Philippines and. it cannot be ruled out entirely. well-meaning analysts raise the question whether China. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. for China puts sovereignty above everything else. once told a pen pal that he was fearful of the outcome of a conflict between the United States and China over the question of Taiwan. China and the United States. can or cannot take Taiwan by forces. there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. he figured. could enter a new and dangerous phase: Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway. that the Taiwan power kege could ignite a conflagaration that would engulf the entire region. we would see the destruction of civilization.S. Often-times.S. It might even embroil the United States in a nuclear holocaust that nobody wants. Japan would be embroiled in a conflict that it did not choose that might escalate into a nuclear holocaust.S. Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war. Kohaburo argued. this means South Korea. many in Japan have apprehensions about the stability. precisely with the U. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang. commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War. There would be no victors in such a war. Kenzaburo. 2001. But this is the wrong question to pose. issued a grave warning presumably directed at all government leaders. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability. In the region. a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy. hostilities between India and Pakistan.-CHINA WAR OVER TAIWAN GOES NUCLEAR James Hsiung. east Asia will be set on fire. If China were to retaliate. While the prospect of a nuclear Annaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable. Lee Kuan Yew. which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. But. for instance. Japan. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. including the United States. the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass. p.-Japan alliance in view.S. Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. As the late patriarch Deng Xiapoing put it.

such an attack could cost trillions of dollars in damages. especially suicidal terrorists. In addition to the immediate horrific devastation. to people of the United States and Western Europe. we will all be losers. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. http://www.ahram. a hundred million Muslims would die as U. Haas A NEW WMD TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE U. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another.cfr. "Extinction!" 8/26. senior editor with THE NEW REPUBLIC. But I think. 2004 [Al-Ahram Weekly. THIS WILL ESCALATE TO MASS EXTINCTION VIA GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Mohamed Sid-Ahmed. President. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.html. major gaps in policy remain.S.pdf A nuclear attack by terrorists against the United States has the potential to make the terrorist attacks of September 11. Council on Foreign Relations.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Nuclear) – Easterbrook. WILL TRIGGER A GLOBAL DEPRESSION Richard Haas. 96 .org/content/publications/attachments/NucTerrCSR. November 2001. say. This could lead to a third world war. and international programs to secure nuclear weapons and the materials to make them. A NUCLEAR TERROR ATTACK ON THE U. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet.htm] What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails. police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights. http://weekly.S. Bush and Democratic challenger Senator John F. Although. because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington. Despite several U. Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal. no.00. in the 24 hours that followed. 2001. look like a historical footnote. PREVENTING CATASTROPHIC NUCLEAR TERRORISM. tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. p.S. www. if I could leave you with one message. March 2006.eg/2004/705/op5. the U.org. WILL TRIGGER RETALIATION THAT WILL KILL 100 MILLION PEOPLE Greg Easterbrook. from which no one will emerge victorious. President George W. government has yet to elevate nuclear terrorism prevention to the highest priority. during the 2004 presidential campaign. Kerry agreed that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons worried them more than any other national security threat.cnn. (UNDRG/C324) Terrorists may not be held by this. in the current environment or anything like it. 705. Amhed. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries. Societies would close in on themselves. it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members. of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate.S.S. it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. this war will be without winners and losers. potentially sparking a global economic depression.

Depending on the potency of the device the loss of life could be in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions). the religionization of politics. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. We all should have a pretty clear idea of what would follow a nuclear weapon's detonation in any of the world's major cities. weak punishment of terrorists. you still could be upset about what's not happening: doing the utmost to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack. Former President of Mexico Director. the destruction of property in the trillions of dollars. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. In short. "Terrorism myths and realities. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism. despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago. 25 Even if you agree with what's being done in the war on terror. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director.g. 2006. that on September 11. double standards of morality. the erosion of authority and government unstoppable and the disruption of global trade and finance unprecedented. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. Unlike their historical counterparts. biological. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns." 8/28] Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. FORBES. radiological. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national. January 9. p. regional and global security concerns. Alexander THIRD. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. Likewise. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Why are the United States and Israel. therefore. chemical. 2003 [The Washington Times. Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo. TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION Yonah Alexander. 97 . we could practically count on the beginning of another dark age. the escalation in conflicts and violence uncontrollable. Israel and its citizens. 2001. It is not surprising. A NUCLEAR TERRORIST ATTACK WILL TRIGGER EVERY IMPACT SCENARIO Ernesto Zedillo. thus far at least.

nuclear weapons the size of suitcases. whether through rogue nations or via black-market thugs from the former Soviet Union. 98 . There is no appeasing this enemy. We face the possibility of our civilization being destroyed. so one small nuclear device could kill billions. it would not hesitate to retaliate. and they will lay waste to every human life they can in the process. A NUCLEAR TERRORIST EVENT WOULD CATALYZE AN ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WARKILLING BILLIONS. 6] But the terrorists are no mere political sideshow. If America thought Russia had used nuclear weapons against it.each of which could kill more than 100. as surely as we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2004 [Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism. Despotism. with recent advances in technology and the ongoing instability in the Middle East and around the world. As you read these words. Lewis 02 (Michael. the danger may be worse than ever.tripod. Fox News Political Analyst.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo. they will stop at nothing in their quest to destroy the United States. the threat they represent is every bit as grave as the one we experienced during World War II or the Cold War. Armageddononline. and Liberalism. the evildoers are plotting the disruption of our lives.000 people.htm) Russia created around 250 suitcase bombs . pg. Webmaster for Armageddon Online. the destruction of our property. Though it manifests itself differently.com/nuclear. Alexander TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION & OUTWEIGHS WAR Sean Hannity. the murder of our families. According to a Soviet defector called Aleksander Lebed it has lost track of more than 100 . Many of these bombs were distributed and hidden in hostile countries. indeed. Today or tomorrow. Possibly the worst effect of a terrorist nuclear device would be that it could trigger a nuclear war. fanatical extremists could come in possession of suitcase nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers virtually forever. are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. since there is no way to measure it reliably. 2002 [“Biological Weapons must be Abolished Immediately. could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations. chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. While a "nuclear winter. decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit. InfoTrac] Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction. there is an obvious.the risk runs in the other direction. Chemical Weapons Working Group Member. "Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses. it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Potentially worse than that.freefromterror.html] Of all the weapons of mass destruction.ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use . Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE. the genetically engineered biological weapons. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated. Most of the damage occurs immediately. as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. whatever they may be.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Bioterrorism) – Steinbrenner & Ochs BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION John D. Steinbrenner. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. 99 . Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior. Nobody really knows how serious a possibility this might be." Winter. they are easier to control. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because. many without a known cure or vaccine.net/other_articles/abolish. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive. Biological weapons. the killing will probably never end. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. by contrast. the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. The use of a pathogen. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. Like the Holocaust. can get out of control very easily. pathogens do both of these things. With nuclear and biological weapons. weapons are not. The aftereffects. once a localized chemical extermination is over. bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. it is over. But for a few pathogens . A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. on the other hand. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions." resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons.” June 9. http://www. Hence. For most potential biological agents. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. for instance. 1997 [Foreign Policy. Brookings Senior Fellow. while they can also kill millions of people outright. BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM CAUSES EXTINCTION Richard Ochs.

does not yet exist. Foreign Policy Studies. An overview of aftereffects on the United States of an abrogation of the alliance runs along similar lines. September. director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution. 21] In the context of East Asia. it would also lose a friend--a wealthy. THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE PREVENTS EAST ASIAN CONFLICT Michael Mochizuki. President Clinton. Landay. Senior Fellow.S. and loyal friend. Any sign that these two powers are at odds during a crisis might tempt the provocative state to escalate tensions. Neither of these conditions is likely to be met for decades. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations. exploring potential alternatives to the alliance is worthwhile. a Washington think tank. treaty abrogation would result in a security vacuum that could be filled in only one of three ways. Are High in Asian Conflicts”. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year.S. 2002 [Washington Quarterly 25. how closely Japan is in step with the United States will be an important factor in the calculations of potential aggressors.S. and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. mature. National Security and Intelligence Correspondent. The United States would lose access to the facilities on which it relies for power projection in the region. including the region's existing and incipient nuclear forces.S. The alternatives also seem certain to increase the likelihood of war in the region.S. India.” said Bates Gill. The second is to establish a regional collective security arrangement. Numerous U. not decrease it-the only reason that Japan would want to leave the U. p. North Korea and South Korea. Defense Secretary William S.000 U. For Japan. There are elements for potential disaster. None of the three possible replacements for the JapanU. There are 100.S. In other words. March 10. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. Neither Japan nor the United States has a desire to alter the treaty obligations. or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. 100 . Nevertheless. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile. Japan Quarterly p. In addition. negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. 1996 [Brookings. Much more importantly. The third option.-Japan Security Treaty. 71-2] Fifty years have passed since Japan and the United States signed the original security treaty and more than 40 years have passed since the current 1960 treaty came into force. The first is armed neutrality. which would mean the development of a Japan ready to repel any threat. UN-based security system. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. In the absence of a robust. the stakes could hardly be higher.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                U. Security Adviser to Japanese Cabinet. cheap labor. alliance is realistic. ready to deploy at a moment's notice to preserve peace and stability in the region.-Japan alliance. Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its massive markets.-Japan Alliance Good – General War THE ALLIANCE IS KEY TO SOLVE CONFLICT Yukio Okamoto. This will increase the possibility of miscalculation and war. is for Japan's security to be the responsibility of a permanent UN military force. Japan and South Korea. This option would require that the major powers in Asia accept a reduction of their troop strengths down to Japanese levels and accept a common political culture--democracy. much less abrogate the alliance. too. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan. 2000 [“Top Administration Officials Warn Stakes for U. the odds of a peaceful resolution of crises will be greater when the United States and Japan stand together. CONFLICT IN EAST ASIA GOES NUCLEAR Jonathan S. For America. relations between the giant countries of Asia would become uncertain and competitive--too precarious a situation for the United States and the world.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers.2 p. jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. and North Korea may have a few. Lexis] Few if any experts think China and Taiwan. if only to illuminate why it is likely to survive. economy.S.S. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia. Such a force. “We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan. the one outlined in the U. a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. of course. Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons. according to the Commerce Department. exports and resources _ indispensable to the U.

for a moment. Pg." The planet. Chief Biological Scientist. 101 . animal species and human species. because our fertile imagination does not begin to match all the tricks that nature can play. if Surat had aroused a different airborne microbe. and the world might now be mourning a "new Black Death. 1994. x As Nobel laureate Josh Lederberg stated. p. Viruses – Franz VIRUSES ARE THE NUMBER ON THREAT TO HUMAN SURVIVAL David Franz.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Viruses – Toronto Star EMERGING VIRUSES THREATEN PLANETARY EXTINCTION The Toronto Sun. There will be more surprises. 2005. Had such a microbe been unleashed. Suppose that the headliner germ had been a new strain of Ebola that dissolves internal organs into a bloody tar or the mysterious "X" virus that killed thousands in the Sudan last year. in fact. might be an entirely different and emptier place altogether. Imagine. was another sharp warning of our species' growing vulnerability to infectious disease. The single biggest threat to [hu]man’s continued dominance is the virus." beyond the waning reach of antibiotics. October 16. a so-called "emerging virus. The survival of humanity is not preordained. but are built into the ecological relations between viruses. MICROBE. Midwest Research Institute. M6 (MHHARV4837) Nor did the media go beyond Surat and explain how this largely inconsequential epidemic. a kind of false alarm in a much larger microbial saga. “Pandemics are not acts of God. the final death toll might have been millions.

and rodents. Each adult inhales bout 10. and mammals.or water-borne epidemics. The qualifier is needed because the end of human civilization might not require the death of all its members. from plants to reptiles. but a crystalline entity that came to earth on a meteorite from outer space. Even sexually transmitted disease. the worry of a species threat is far greater than with rabies. syringes and needles. I have called it Virus X. which infect an incredible range of life. Has any virus. VIRUS X: TRACKING THE NEW KILLER PLAGUES OUT OF THE PRESENT AND INTO THE FUTURE. or almost everybody. The Andromeda strain was not a virus at all. is yes – though the emergence of such catastrophic lethality is rare. Given a few minutes in a crowded room. Could such lethal agents every take the second step. fish. which has long proved its capability to cause pandemics. RNA. such as AIDS. it would have to kill everybody. can be controlled by mechanical prophylaxis and a reduction in promiscuity. occasional reports of survivors are now appearing. with the Sin nombre hantavirus. the infected individual will. 102 . an expert at the Pasteur Institute. for example. and we cannot avoid inhaling one another’s expired discharges.000 liters of air each day. can be interrupted by appropriate recognition and introduced measures of hygiene. jackals. coyotes. For this reason. In the opinion of Herve Bourhy. it is more likely to be a virus. Food. and the Zairian Ebola virus was a close rival. We know some of the explanations. and imbibed carbon and oxygen from its environment. ever caused such lethality? The answer. and blood-borne infections by control of contaminated supply. But to threaten our species. Notable among present-day viruses that spread with high levels of contagion by the aerosol route are the rhinoviruses and corona viruses that cause common colds. and it will emerge from the diversity of life on earth. If ever an extinction strain does threaten the human species. with X the logical derivative of extinction. This was seen most tragically and historically in the switch from bubonic to pneumonic plague during the Black Death. However. or to provoke a near enough catastrophe to destroy human civilization. though. A member of the genus Lyssa viruses. unfortunately. including those with such huge lethality. from which it is capable of infecting a wide variety of mammals. or any other infectious agent. What would be the likely properties of such a virus? To cause our extinction. by coughing or sneezing. replicating as the perfect nanomachine. Could anybody conceive a more sinister expression of aggressive symbiosis? The virus is programmed to infect the centers in the animal brain that induce uncontrollable rage. We should be very thankful that the manner of spread precludes the virus from ever causing a human pandemic. transmit the microbe to many of the others present. We are all familiar with the rapid spread of the influenza virus. It was devoid of DNA. which means “frenzy” rabies is one of over one hundred members of the family of Rhabdoviridae. This was the case. with 90 percent fatality to the people it infected. though they might infect large numbers of people. fail in practice to become pandemic. while also replicating in the salivary glands to best spread the contagion through the provoked frenzy of biting. First. p. But this is a misnomer. 1998. it infected. with HIV-1 and Ebola.” after the bestselling thriller by Michael Crichton. the human rabies virus lives in a symbiotic cycle with bats. crustaceans. Rabies was uniformly lethal in humans for at least four thousand years of history until Louis Pasteur discovered the first vaccine treatment. a virus would need to combine the infectivity of influenza with the lethality of HIV-1 or Ebola Zaire.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Viruses – Ryan VIRAL SPREADS RISK EXTINCTION Frank Ryan. An infection directly contracted from an animal or biting insect will never pose such a problem because the numbers infected will be limited by the extent of the contact. from the Greek lyssa. As far as we are aware – and one always has to quality extrapolation based on past experience with caution – the only route of contagion likely to prove universally threatening to humanity would be person-to-person spread by the respiratory route. or even protein. HIV-1 still appears almost uniformly lethal. 367 In virological circles such a doomsday virus is often referred to as “the Andromeda strain. MD. The potential for respiratory spread of a plague microbe is unique. Virus X would need to take two steps. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. particularly foxes. and become sufficiently contagious to infect all or virtually all of the human species? The reassuring fact is that the vast majority of emerging viruses.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Water Wars – Nuclear War WATER WARS GO NUCLEAR Weiner.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. Already in the Middle East. Princeton. the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours. tram North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. Prof. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some at the 60. ‘90 The Next 100 Years p.270 If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. one explosion may lead to the other. 103 .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarga
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->