Harvard Impacts 2007‐8   

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

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts               

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 


today easily cured by antibiotics and prevented by vaccines killed a full 40 million Europeans.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                AIDS/HIV – Extinction AIDS WILL KILL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IF NOT STOPPED. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated.+It+is+co mparable+only+to+the+Black+Death+of+the+Middle+Ages+in+the+terror+it+evokes+and+the+graves+it+fills.com/mbeki/Kommentare. Last year alone.+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. The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust.of a generation.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. the nice person in the next seat in the bus. Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. 2000.3 million infected worldwide (24. is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification.even the mere living out of a lifetime . the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy.8 million lives went down the drain. With Aids. 18. But Aids is without precedent.000 Africans will die today. in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder. more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone. 43. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood. 85 per cent of them African.85. the vector is humanity itself. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. between 1347 and 1352. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony. AFRICA NEWS. setting a trend that was to become fairly common. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy.+But+Aids+is+without+precedent. patriotism or simply racial pride. as a matter of fact. But unlike the plague. on the other hand.8 million people are already dead. 6. Aids. the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams .+But+unlike+the+plague. 2. July 15. but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far. 4 . IT THREATENS TO EXTINGUISH LIFE ON THE PLANET Mutuma Mathiu.165. During the First World War. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. http://209. The Black Death .rtf+Every+age+has+its+killer. HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim. It is simply a waste. a quarter of the population of Europe.the plague.104/search?q=cache:6tm_9OIp4c8J:www.healtoronto.

but it could temporarily increase the transmission rate and reduce life expectancy of infected persons until the system once again equilibrated. Professors of Population studies at Stanford University. and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug. What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear. the lungs. the new strain might cause death in days or weeks." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts. the virus became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily). In effect it would produce an entirely different disease. 5 . as Temin points out. To do so. The virus has already shown itself to be highly mutable. and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains (as happened in the case of myxopatomis). 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. that seems to slow its lethal course have already been reported. or the intestines were increased. the virus might be spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. Unlike the current version of AIDS. and to a large extent on luck. 1990. however. If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the membranes of the mouth. If. If so. We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate. in this case people. would almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. is worried that a relatively minor mutation could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. 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. might evolve new transmission characteristics. p. But it is likely. THE POPULATION EXPLOSION. on when and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments. the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. for instance. AZT. it might be transmissible through coughs. Infected individuals then would have less time to spread the virus to others. which can take ten years or more to kill its victims.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. Joshua Lederberg.

many of the remainder from fungi and bacteria. p.S. p.Species ANWR DRILLING CAUSES WORLDWIDE SPECIES LOSS STAR TRIBUNE. 2002. is such that as many as a quarter of all species may be lost within 25 years. every one of us depends directly on the Earth's living systems -. behavior matters in this world. 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.the plants. and as many as two-thirds of them by the end of the century -.S. And almost all of the rest have been improved through knowledge gained about other naturally occurring compounds. The hypocrisy is appalling. when it acts badly.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                ANWR Drilling Bad -. All of our food comes directly or indirectly from plants. Our relationship with the Earth. how on earth can nations like Kazakhstan. and more than half of it from just three members of the grass family: corn.a tragedy in terms of the prospects for human progress. The remaining 5 percent. most nations are much poorer than the United States. officials can't afford to protect a special place like ANWR. March 19. Brazil and Vietnam be expected to protect their own special places? IMPACT -SPECIES LOSS GUARANTEES HUMAN EXTINCTION ST LOUIS POST DISPATCH. May 23. animals. U. Lexis (MHBLUE1255) As the Wilderness Society argues.but we seem unable or unwilling to act intelligently on this basic truth. The great majority of medicines also are derived from plants. however. the soil. in ANWR. 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is open for oil and gas exploration. 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 -. Lexis (MHBLUE1256) Whether we realize it or not. wheat and rice. After all. the landscapes we enjoy each day. applied experimentally to the development of other drugs it continues. so if U. 1999. fungi and micro-organisms that have made the air we breathe. 6 . and a truly ignorant way to treat the systems on which we depend wholly for our survival now and in the future. 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. others are encouraged to imitate that bad behavior.

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

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

Moreover. but which constitutes a denial of the most lethal tendencies inherent in the capitalist mode of production. designed to force it into dishonest compromise and eventual loss of resolve. or led to a fatal embrace of Holocaust denial. For the evidence of genocide is just so many deceptions. The ethnic cleansing which has been unleashed in Bosnia and Kosovo. the deliberate and systematic extermination of whole groups of human beings. a fabrication of the allies. that is. constitutes a political betrayal of the struggle for communist revolution by its incorporation into the politics of Holocaust denial. UNLESS WE STOP IT. was not a Jewish catastrophe. this does not justify the claims of Holocaust denial. in which politics. in my view. La Vieille Taupe's "fervor to contest the evidence of its [the Holocaust's] reality by every means possible. the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda. 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. In that sense. Auschwitz. the reaction of the militants of La Vieille Taupe. Hence. Indeed." It is quite true that capital has utilized antifascism to assure its ideological hegemony over the working class. Thus. 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. 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). an undertaking which fatally diverted the scarce resources (material and financial) of Nazi Germany from the battlefields of the imperialist world war. the veritable hallmark of the fundamental irrationality of late capital. Internationalist Perspective. I want to argue that the Holocaust. which could thereby liquidate a part of the petty bourgeoisie with the support of the rest of that same class. For Guillaume. because it so clearly serves their interests in mobilizing the working class to die in the service of democracy. as the reaction of one part of the petty bourgeoisie to its historical demise at the hands of capital by "sacrificing" its other -. and Hiroshima are not merely the names of discrete sites where human beings have been subjected to forms of industrialized mass death. have either degenerated into a crude economism. However. such as Pierre Guillaume. Quite apart from an economism which simply ignores the dialectic between the economy on the one hand. simply cannot. Nonetheless. for example. for example. Auschwitz can only be a myth. is the 9 . and thereby serves as a screen behind which the death-world wrought by capital can be safely hidden from its potential victims. in its own small way. have become an integral part of the social landscape of capitalism in its phase of decadence. objective-real possibilities on the Front of history. Economism. are so many examples of the future which awaits the human species as the capitalist mode of production enters a new millenium. and the political and ideological on the other (about which more later). be comprehended on the basis of a purely economic calculus of profit and loss on the part of "big capital. Kolyma. but rather futural events. the few efforts of revolutionary Marxists to grapple with the Holocaust." While Bordiga's reaction to Auschwitz fails to provide even the minimal bases for its adequate theorization. including the most fraudulent. and Hiroshima. as I will briefly explain. on the alter of anti-fascism. the former being an expression of theoretical bankruptcy. an undertaking welcomed by big capital. but rather an event produced by the unfolding of the logic of capitalism itself. is transformed by Bordiga into a rational calculation of its direct profit interests on the part of the capitalists. confronted by the horror of Auschwitz. a/online Mass death. so many traps laid for anticapitalist radicality. Worse. Auschwitz. nor an atavistic reversion to the barbarism of a past epoch. but synecdoches for the death-world that is a component of the capitalist mode of production in this epoch. And just as surely the ideology of antifascism and its functionality for capital must be exposed by revolutionaries. shaped Amadeo Bordiga's attempt to "explain" the Holocaust. to use concepts first articulated by the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Capitalism Bad – War/All Impacts CAPITALISM IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF EVERY CONFLICT IN THE LAST CENTURY. of the very barbarism of capitalism. the mass death to which Chechnya has been subjected. Kolyma. the prospect for a nuclear war on the Indian sub-continent. of one of the imperialist blocs in the inter-imperialist world war. 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. and genocide. which not only cannot be dissociated from anti-Semitism. the immediate need to extract a profit. Marxist theory has been silent or uncomprehending. in his "Auschwitz ou le Grand Alibi" Bordiga explained the extermination of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. but as the direct outcome of the utilitarian calculation of segments of the petty bourgeoisie and big capital. and in the case of the capitalist class. Kolyma. and Hiroshima are not "past". revolutionary Marxists have so far failed to offer one.part so as to save the rest. which is one of the hallmarks of so-called orthodox Marxism. and the latter a quite literal crossing of the class line into the camp of capital itself. #36 Spring 2000. This latter. Auschwitz. in which events can only be conceived as a manifestation of the direct economic needs of a social class. FUTURE GENOCIDES AND CONFLICTS ARE INEVITABLE. for example. which is based on a crude base-superstructure model (or travesty) of Marxist theory. can only be conceived as a direct and immediate reflection of the economic base.Jewish -.

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

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.


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.


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.


Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Deference (Judicial) Good -. 197) Today. 14 . USAFA Journal of Legal Studies. Were the judiciary willing to pierce the seemingly impenetrable military shell. 1997 / 1998 (8 USAFA J. Leg. Stud. Reviewing the path taken by the Supreme Court to arrive at this point will illuminate the issue at hand. As an institution. the military might not possess the same confidence. Lieutenant Colonel. 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. the military institution stands as a force to be reckoned with by government leaders in the formation of national and military policy and strategy. Gilbert. The federal judiciary contributes to the military confidence of their authority by being unwilling to review cases presenting issues challenging military authority and control.Readiness DEFERENCE IS CRITICAL TO MILITARY CONFIDENCE AND READINESS Michael H. 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. US Air Force.

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

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

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

Stalin. the United States must also be added to this list (see Statistics of Democide). and the 1940-45 indiscriminate bombing of German cities). Yet we have had no war--none--among them. knowingly set in train events leading to the death of millions of others. Moreover. The remaining 30 percent is made up of a diverse Koreans. Even among primitive tribes. Poles (4 percent). But much worse. and children. Oriental. These and other kilomurderers add almost 15. other regimes. This new Power Principle is the message emerging from my previous work on the causes of war and this book on genocide and government . moves toward a joint European military force by France and Germany. particularly World War I and II. they did or do not fight each other (depending on how war and democracy is defined. the most recent constituting Death By Government. we have here a general principle that is gaining acceptance among students of international relations and war. 2001. or those states that have killed innocents by the tens or hundreds of thousands.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. Table 1.5. or buried alive. as shown in table 1.7 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. Pakistanis (largely ethnic Bengalis and Hindus). almost four times the almost 38. the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite.2: China Warlords (1917-1949).. I can now be more specific about this. the amount of killing jumps by huge multiples. was responsible for the death of still millions more killed by his henchman. Germans (4 percent). absolute Power kills absolutely." Table 1. in less than four years of governing they exterminated over 31 percent of their men. Hitler and Pol Pot are of course among these bloody tyrants and as for the others whose names may appear strange. that is.500. the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. Death By Government. although they have fought.000 lives. Their names should forever warn us of the deadly potential of Power. and zero expectation of violence between any of these formerly hostile states. In some 70 years it likely chewed up almost 40. Then there is a much lower percentage of Ukrainians (6 percent).3. These fifteen megamurderers have wiped out over 151. but so is the evidence accumulated in this book.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. are from Asia and the Middle East. by far. almost 170. such massive megamurderers as the Soviet Union and communist China had huge populations with a resulting small annual democide rate. And indeed it has. Indeed." "regime. around 22 percent. war is less likely.edu/powerkills/DBG.000 men. their megamurders are described in detail in Death By Governments. or 84 percent.000 people killed to the democide for this century. or also taking into account forty-eight related territories. some might prefer to say that they rarely fought or fight each other). about one-fourth of the world's population. drowned. As described in Chapter 9 of Death By Government. At the extremes of Power2. Political Scientist. However. saying that a state or regime is a murderer is a convenient personification of an abstraction.000. tortured. women. this would be enough. Some lesser kilomurderers were communist Afghanistan. Russia. starved. Iraq.8 The most absolute Power.000.6 Paradigmatic of this is Western Europe since 1945. In other words. aside from warfare. Most wars are between nondemocracies. even without the excuse of combat Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls. became democratic.000.S. the odds of any Cambodian surviving these four long years was only about 2. Indonesia. The cauldron of our most disastrous wars for many centuries. and its complement Statistics of Democide.000. and Ethiopia. It may come as a surprise to find Mao Tse-tung is next in line as this century's greatest murderers. with Russians next at 24 percent.1 graphically overlays the plot of this on the total murdered. the United Kingdom (primarily due to the 1914-1919 food blockade of the Central Powers in and after World War I. Far above all is gulag--the Soviet In total. and Vietnamese.000. 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. and children. But still. For one thing the number of democratic states in 1993 number around seventy-five. DEATH BY GOVERNMENT. Angola. http://www. Golgotha owes its existence to 12 Power. among us. University of Hawaii.2 alone.S. Figure 1. These assertions are extreme and categorical. then there have been many democracies throughout history. Power has killed over 203.5 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.CHAP1. leads the list. as well fascist Nazi Germany. bombed. Albania. the more it is diffused. As I already have made clear. and Yugoslavia. Yet such has happened. Note that 18 percent of Golgothians are former Europeans. women. slave--labor system created by Lenin and built up under Stalin. or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed. Asians are the largest group while the former Soviet Union has contributed the most of its population. The more constrained the power of governments. Turk subjects. a new nation. some 40 percent. All because they are all democracies.1 shows the occurrence of war between nations since 1816. burned. its inhabitants believed in all the world's religions and spoke all its languages.6 summarizes the most prudent democide results and contrasts them to this century's battle-dead.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Democracy Good/Democide -.6 gives a bar chart of these totals.000. this is historically true of democracies as well.000 people." or . as we move from democratic through authoritarian to totalitarian regimes. this total is still greater than democratic domestic and foreign democide." "government. account for near 128. or modern democracies. 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.000. this land is multicultural and multiethnic.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. helpless citizens or foreigners. that had frequently gone to war (as have France and Germany in recent centuries).000 people. as everyone knows. is Golgotha dominantly Asian? European? What region did most of its dead souls come from.HTM Power kills. the Korean and Vietnam Wars. That is that democracies don't make war on each other. and Cambodians (2 percent). Table 1.000. as well as authoritarian Hungary. the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. or worked to death. Several times more of them. Its demography has yet to be precisely measured and only two rough censuses. while many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers. 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. as shown in figure 1.2 and figure 1. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. including those from all of Eastern Europe except the former USSR. In no case has there been a war involving violent military action between stable democracies3. as the case studies in this book will more than attest. but a plague of Power and not germs. and dead men's Skulls"10 As clear from the megamurderers listed in table 1. from capture to sale in an Arab. And whether considering the classical Greek democracies. Let in Shakespeare's word's "This Land be calle'd The field of Golgotha. 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. China and preceding Mao guerrillas. Czechoslovakia (1945-46). is from the territory of the former Soviet Union. The more power a government has. once those states that had been mortal enemies. The souls of this monstrous pile of dead have created a new land. This belligerence of unrestrained Power is not an artifact of either a small number of democracies nor of our era. frozen. as the arbitrary power of a regime increases massively. Consider first war. the list and its graph of this century's megamurderers--those states killing in cold blood. Croatia (1941-44).R. have so far been taken. The major and better known episodes and institutions for which these and other murderers were responsible are listed in table 1. crushed. women. totalitarian communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions. and Indonesia (1965-87). He ordered the death of millions. The monstrous bloodletting of at least "communist.4. his census and the estimates of explorers also enables us to estimate Golgotha's racial and ethnic composition. Table 1. While most. As can be seen. 1. which is pictured in figure 1. war ceased between them.2. AtatŸrk's Turkey (1919-1923). during the first eighty-eight years of this century. So much for Golgotha and a summary overview of its statistics. Chinese make up 30 percent of its souls. Note immediately in the figure that the human cost of democide is far greater than war for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. the forest democracies of medieval Switzerland. or New World market. but that at the end of that time there would be a European community with central government institutions. beaten.13 18 . hung. such as the top five listed in table 1. For its indiscriminate bombing of German and Japanese civilians. no other megamurderer comes even close to the lethality of the communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during 1975 through 1978. They create an oasis of peace. checked and balanced.2 to 1. Regimes are in reality people with the power to command a whole society.2 bar graphs them. Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Rumania.000 people in this century… In each case. while although for democracies they suffer fewer battle-dead than Putting the human cost of war and democide together. Mexicans.hawaii. where Power is divided and limited. that is the communist U. it seems. and as the ultimate dictator.3 lists the fifteen most lethal regimes and figure 1.9 The dead even could conceivably be near 360. and Uganda. Then there are the kilomurderers. Nor is there any threat of war. Vietnam. For their populations as a whole some less than megamurderers were far more lethal. Of course. non-democracies. Europe has contributed 6 percent of its population to this land of the murdered.000 battle-dead for all this century's international and civil wars up to 1987. Portugal (1926-1982).1. To this I would add that the less democratic two states the more likely that they will fight each other. and children have been shot. Table 1.000 or more men. the highest proportion of any region's population in Golgotha. Consider table 1. knifed.11 But this last census does allow us to rank this land of the murdered sixth in population among the nations of the living. in 1945 one would not find an expert so foolhardy as to predict not only forty-five years of peace.000 of them. Burundi. over twice as many as probably died in some 400 years of the African slave trade. Figure 1.5 Moreover.

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

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

It is widely accepted that the current K-wave. Christopher CHASE-DUNN. result in the outbreak of full-scale warfare between the declining hegemon and the ascending core powers. Modelski and Thompson (1996) present a more complex interpretation of the systemic relationship between economic and war cycles. Although both Goldstein (1991) and Modelski and Thompson (1996) assert that such a global war can (somehow) be avoided. is probably now in the process of beginning a new upturn which will reach its apex around 2025. 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. 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. the picture becomes even grimmer when the influence of long-terni economic cycles is taken into account. AND Bruce PODOBNIK. Beyond merely showing that the K-wave and the war cycle are linked in a systematic fashion. 1983). but it closely resembles Goldstein’s hypothesis. This finding is interpreted as showing that. 1987). Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Lewis and Clark College. specific economic upswings are associated with an increased likelihood of the outbreak of core war. already unravelling. It is also widely accepted that by this period US hegemony. 43 While the onset of a period of hegemonic rivalry is in itself disturbing. Goldfrank. 1989. 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. in The Future of Global Conflict. which entered a downturn around 1967-73. Goldstein’s research suggests that severe core wars are much more likely to occur late in the upswing phase of the K-wave. As an extensive body of research documents (see especially Van Duijn. again. In their analysis. p. while states always desire to go to war. 1999. 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. University of CaliforniaRiverside. they can afford to do so only when economic growth is providing them with sufficient resources. This convergence of a plateauing economic cycle with a period of political multicentricity within the core should. Director of the Institute for Research on World-Systems. 21 . ed. Utilizing data gathering by Levy (1983) on war severity. a second period of economic growth follows a period of global war and the establishment of a new period of hegemony.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad – War AN UPCOMING UPSWING IN THE ECONOMY WILL KILL EVERYONE BY 2025. will have been definitively eroded. Bornschier and Chase-Dunn. Here.

the severity of the war greatly effects the rate of war-induced inflation— in other words. Investment increases on the upswing but. professor of political science. Investors retrench and growth slows down as a consequence. or some combination of the three processes is responsible for ending the upswing. pp. Decades are required to rebuild. Presumably. 1996. over investment results. AND William R. in his view. Severe wars.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad – War GROWTH CYCLES MAKE SEVERE WARS INEVITABLE George MODELSKI. 1987. 22 . His 1988 analysis went some way in summarizing many of the arguments concerning economic long waves and war. Goldstein is careful to distinguish between production and prices. are functions of war. Goldstein’s analysis suggests that this process has gone on since at least 1495. director. Cycles in innovation and investment are viewed as reinforcing the production long wave. THOMPSON. eventually. Center for the Study of International Relations. University of Washington. Another bout of severe war ensues and the cycle repeats itself. Severe wars usher in a phase of stagnation from which the world economy eventually recovers leading to another resurgence of robust economic growth. then the higher the rate of inflation. The lack of clarity on this issue may be traceable to the lack of specification among innovation. 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). Increases in innovation facilitate economic growth but growth discourages further innovation. sees economic upswings increasing the probability of severe wars. As a result. 1988. Indiana University. outlined in figure 2. Leading Sectors and World Powers. War severity increases capability concentration. war. these gains are offset by the losses brought about by wartime distortions and destruction. investment. The ability to wage war makes severe wars more likely. When prices rise. In addition to war.2. While there may be some gains registered in terms of resource mobilization for combat purposes. Other things being equal. investment. 1991a) has probably contributed more than anyone else to reviving the question of how wars and prosperity are linked. Relative capabilities then begin a process of diffusion as they move toward equality among the major powers. Prices. differential rates of innovation and production influence relative capability standings. Economic upswings create economic surpluses and full war chests. professor of political science. This phenomenon is explained in terms of demand increases outstripping supply. consume the surpluses and war chests and put an end to the growth upswing. in turn.3 The basic perspective that emerges from his analyses. real wages decline. the greater the severity. 20-22 Goldstein (1985. 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. inflation occurs. 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. and production.

here expressed as an average annual fatality rate in each phase. GOLDSTEIN. Likewise. DESTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY Joshua S. Long Cycles. But in total battle fatalities (severity). I have tabulated six war indicators by phase period (table 11 . points to sensitivities to the exact dating of turning points. the average annual fatality rate was six times higher on upswings than on downswings. Thirty-one wars occurred during upswings.5. 239). American University. Long Cycles. the fatality rate on upswings is still more than four times higher than on downswings for both 1495—1892 and 1495— 1975. Thus hardly any more wars occurred on the upswing phases than the downswings. are usually applied on a large scale only at the beginning of the next long upswing” ([1926] 1935:111).Upswing Impact Magnifier UPSWINGS ARE TWENTY-ONE TIMES DEADLIER THAN DOWNSWINGS Joshua S. Kondratieff argued that “during the recession . then.3. Up through 1892. Categorizing the same fatality data “strictly” by phase period (col.5). .26 The first indicator (col. revolutions. fatalities follow the pattern of upswings and downswings throughout the 481-year span of the data. the main effect is on the twentieth century’s two world wars. which in turn shapes the superstructural factors such as innovation and war that Trotsky called “external. 244-248 The connection between economic phase periods and wars is investigated in several ways.4). it is twenty-one times higher on upswings than downswings. but in face of the existing economic preconditions. however. 23 .4) according to the economic phase period in which the war “mainly” fell (see definitions above. above) are categorized (table 11. With the exception of the (low-fatality) upswing of 1575—94. except for the 1575—94 upswing. Wars. American University. twenty-seven during downswings. The results also show the weakest correlation to be in the period 1495—1620. Not surprisingly. Goldstein. 1988. of the long wave. and six seriously overlapped phase periods (see also table 11.” Specifically.”17 New markets and resources are drawn into the capitalist system “not by accident. 111).27 This indicator is also displayed as a bar chart in figure 11. Professor of International Relations. 29 Kondratieff’s response to Trotsky’s argument was that Trotsky “takes an idealist point of view. column 7). not causes. 4). is a very strong and consistent correlation. 1988.” That is. 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). More severe wars occurred during upswing phases. 3) derives from the list of fatalities (table 11. each overlapping one to two years into an adjacent phase. . Professor of International Relations.29 GROWTH CYCLES CAUSE WAR AND THE USE OF NEW. an unusually large number of important discoveries and inventions in the technique of production and communication are made. if the twentieth century is included. p. Levy’s “great power wars” (class 2. and innovations are thus products. pp.28 in conjunction with the method just discussed.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad -. which. p. there is a clear alternation between upswing and downswing phases. “the most disastrous and extensive wars and revolutions occur” on the upswing of the long wave (p. the internal dynamics of capitalism shape the long wave. The greater severity of war on long wave upswings. Nonetheless.

Distinguished Professor of Sociology AND Director of the Institute for Research on World-Systems at the University of California-Riverside. p. and Kenneth O’REILLY. The development of new communications and transportation technologies increases the speed at which information about changes in military technology diffuses among competing states. 48 In McNeill’s analysis of military technology and military organization. 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. the competition among sovereign states for scarce resources is a constant. 1989. Professor of History at the University of Alaska. Anchorage. in War in the World System. CAUSING MASSIVE WARS Christopher CHASE-DUNN.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Bad -. further driving the trend toward more expensive and more destructive weapons. 24 .Upswing Impact Magnifier GROWTH SUPERCHARGES ARMS RACES. 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.

Development Research Group at the World Bank. a society in which the economy is growing by 5 percent is around 40 percent safer than one that is declining by 5 percent. primary commodity exports are always significant. 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. ed. Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution. in Greed and Grievance. surprising given the attention inequality has received as an explanation of conflict. GROWTH SOLVES INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS Leonard Silk. of course.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Growth Good -. 2000. director. 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 . growth gives hope. currency disequilibrium and unemployment -. racial and nationalist tensions and the violence to which they give rise -. This is. Times Books. cooperation among the major economies in policymaking has become increasingly important. 25 . other things equal. But there are no technical solutions to the economic problems the world is facing. 1992. and in none of these is inequality a significant cause of conflict. unbalanced trade. 2000. and the Struggle for Supremacy. Bringing about economic growth through development assistance is one obvious answer. 126 The question is. whether measured in terms of income or landownership. In this changed world. whereas rapid decline may galvanize people into action. WHILE DOWNSWINGS GREATLY INCREASE RISK OF WAR Paul Collier. and progress made toward their solutions. 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.) GROWTH IS KEY TO PEACEFUL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PREVENTION Indra de Soysa. Anke Hoeffler and I have experimented with well over a hundred variants of our core specification. Berdal and Malone.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. has no effect on the risk of conflict according to the data. Garten. ethnic.riding in different directions and threatening to pull the world economy apart. however. 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. Inequality. A Cold Peace: America. Some see the three major economic powers -. 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. Thus. 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. Nations have found that their policies are now less potent domestically. senior research associate at the International Peace Research Institute. Germany and Japan -. What is most needed is the political will -the will of the United States. The results cannot. 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. But the interdependence resulting from economic integration has greatly reduced the effective autonomy of even large national economies. n11 See Jeffrey E. 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. ed. Presumably. Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University. For example. pp. Nor is our result dependent upon a particular specification. p. Thus. be lightly dismissed. in Greed and Grievance.as well as the social. (By contrast. Germany. With real economic growth the serious problems of world debt. Japan. 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.Growth Stops War GROWTH REDUCES CONFLICT. Berdal and Malone. professor of economics at Oxford.the United States. a Twentieth Century Fund Book. Germany.

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

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                27 .

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. This likelihood increases if a conflict over self-determination escalates into a war between two nuclear states. Lastly. India and Ethiopia. 81 This paper has argued that self-determination conflicts have direct adverse consequences on international security. December. p. and India and Pakistan may fight over Kashmir. or to trade them to others. This can happen in countries where more than one ethnic self-determination conflict is brewing: Russia.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Ethnic Conflict -.Shehadi ETHNIC CONFLICTS WILL ESCALATE TO REGIONAL WARS Kamal Shehadi. Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. will reach frightening levels. The Russian Federation and Ukraine may fight over the Crimea and the Donbass area. for example. the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of individuals or groups willing to use them. Ethnic conflicts may also spread both within a state and from one state to the next. As they begin to tear nuclear states apart. there is a real danger that regional conflicts will erupt over national minorities and borders. ETHNIC SELF DETERMINATION AND THE BREAK UP OF STATES. 28 .

Wars.P.. 1996 (Douglas S..H. AND BILLIONS OF DEATHS – THREATENING EXTINCTION Winnail.Extinction FOOD INSECURITY CAUSES GLOBAL INSTABILITY. With world food stores dwindling. http://www. 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. the Peruvian anchovy catch--the largest in the world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing. In the early 1970s.. If this happens on a global scale. Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-. WAR. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal.” September/October. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor. "No other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices.htm) As a result grain prices are the highest on record. poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge.even wars.kurtsaxon. “On the Horizon: Famine. Ph. nine of these areas are in serious decline. droughts and shrinking grain stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. 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. all 17 major fishing areas in the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. Lester Brown. This precarious situation is also without historical precedent! 29 .. we will be in deep trouble. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts. especially for agriculture. The realization that we may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one .D. grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world. In fact.'s studies.. It's troubling because seafood--the world's leading source of animal protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. M. Worldwatch Institute's president. floods and storms--could be catastrophic. 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. According to the U.com/foods004. 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. the next couple of years will be critical. writes.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Famine -.N. famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people! Although famines have occurred at various times in the past. However.

” Thus. Ask Milovan Djilas.” 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. 480. Spring 1974.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Freedom – Petro EVERY INVASION OF FREEDOM MUST BE REJECTED Sylvester Petro. if one believes in freedom as a supreme value. despotism. TOLEDO LAW REVIEW. and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare. and the end of all human aspiration. Wake Forest University. echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty. one may still insist. tyranny. That road leads to chaos. p. then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. In sum. 30 . However. Ask Solzhenitsyn. 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.

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

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

intervention anywhere.a security struc. The late. and other countries-. This consideration. It is not. that ulti. however. 1998 [World Policy Journal. and control over. which leads in turn to new uncertainty and further self-extension. 33 . while the core remains constant. the turbulent frontier in the periphery is constantly expanding. that NATO expansion is just the first step toward creating an American-dominated "Trans Eurasian Security System" {TESS}. 15 iss. “Rethinking American grand strategy: Hegemony or balance of power in the twentyfirst century?” vol. the United States does not.nineteenth-cenury British statesman Lord Rosebery. Japan.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. threats to the new security frontier will be apprehended: "Uncertainty leads to self-extension.ture "that would span the entire {Eurasian} continent. rather circumscribes the field of our actions. 18 Of course.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. it is an exaggeration to sug-gest that the strategy of preponderance will involve the United States in 40 wars simultaneously. For did we not strictly limit the principle of intervention we should always be simultaneously engaged in some forty wars.mately will embrace Russia. As the political scientist Robert H. instead of widening. the international system. this process becomes self-sustain. the logic underlying the strategy of preponderance can be used to justify U. Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. for example. it must continually enlarge the geographic scope of its strategic responsibilities to maintain the security of its already established interests. Former na. 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.S. One does not overstate in arguing that this expansion is potentially limitless. To do so. however. To preserve a security framework favorable to interdependence. 2. Summer. The posited connection between security and economic interdependence requires the United States to impose order on. an exag.ing because each time the United States pushes its security interests outward.tional security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski recently has suggested. however." 16 Core and periphery are interdependent strategically. in fact. proquest] Indochina and Bosnia demonstrate how the strategy of preponderance expands America 's frontiers of insecurity. intervene everywhere. India." 17 There is a suggestive parallel between late Victorian Britain and the United States today. China. Johnson observes.

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                34 .

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

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

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

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

Somalia.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. of a smallish (and particularly a landlocked) state would have been a relatively inconsequential matter in global terms. Bosnia and Herzegovina. “Be careful what you wish for. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder” . In today’s interconnected world such developments command universal attention and prompt costly military and humanitarian intervention: prominent recent examples include Afghani stan. Congo. University of Manitoba. or chronic dysfunction. long-lasting fragmentation that would be inimical to economic progress and greatly exacerbate many of today’s worrisome social and environmental trends. p. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. and Sudan. 39 . who would step in to defuse the most threatening ones? As Niall Ferguson has warned. 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). 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. Liberia. About 2 billion people already live in countries that are in danger of collapse. “605–643 (DECEMBER 2005). Distinguished Professor. A century ago a failure. Sierra Leone. Were a number of such state failures to take place simultaneously in a world without any dominant power. Iraq.

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

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

In their withering. parochial matter. any legitimate government which has an effect on them must do so insofar as it can. They are the real revolutionaries. 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. Constitution is devoted.S. (Michael Walzer has already made this point in just and Unjust Wars[ 1977]. in dealing with foreigners. They are fundamental considerations that can wither through complacent or irritable inattention. Further. The emphasis is on the death of millions of individuals. The subjects of illegitimate governments—for example. Princeton. The theory of the just war and elementary notions of common humanity may disallow any policy that risks or causes massive ruin. 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. a legitimate government must not inflict massive ruin. If political freedom institutionally survived the use of nuclear weapons. The users of nuclear weapons would have engaged in a revolution against freedom. 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. 42 . The justification is that these platitudes of individualism are not really platitudes. but universalist in nature. 116-7 I have rehearsed platitudes. perhaps destroyed irretrievably. even if positive claims to increased well-being may be nationally confined. the way is eased for massive ruin and for the possibility of extinction. Professor of Politics. government rhetoric invokes freedom as the value that may be defended by nuclear weapons. Freedom is the term used to refer to all those rights to which the U. 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.Kateb INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS NECESSARY TO STOP DESTRUCTION VIA THE NUCLEAR STATE George Kateb. Notice what underlies the pretended right to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. the people of despotic states—are covered equally by this imperative: the claim to individual rights is not an enclosed. THE INNER OCEAN. If officials of a legitimate government use nuclear weapons or threaten to do so. and whether or not their people suffer retaliation. In the case of the United States. Kven though their own government does not acknowledge and protect their rights. its essence would have been spiritually maimed. p. they would simply be enlisted in mass death.) Above all. but the underlying moral principles of the American political system independently and clearly do so. From these considerations— presumably the considerations that guide our lives—the absolute impermissibility of using nuclear weapons emerges.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Individual Rights -. 1992.

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

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

Taiwan) will have powerful cause to question Washington's security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam. 45 . Executive Director. and Egypt. if the U.S. 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. POLICY REVIEW. and Just Cause. October/November 2003. 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. Similarly. much more iffy. nuclear.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Iran Proliferation Impacts – Sokolsky IRANIAN PROLIFERATION CAUSES GLOBAL PROLIF AND NUCLEAR WAR Henry Sokolsky. p.html If nothing is done to shore up U.org/publications/policyreview/3447161. Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends. Turkey. it would be much. Washington's worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile.hoover. or near-nuclear-armed nations. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions. http://www. Kosovo.S. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would be spring-loaded to go nuclear. 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. perhaps. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track. In addition. but with more nations like France. with nuclear options of their own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. That agreement was supposed to have prevented North Korea from producing plutonium for nuclear warheads. which has influence over North Korea. the administration of U.S.html] The multiple missile firings Wednesday by North Korea shattered Pyongyang's moratorium on such launches. to talk directly with Pyongyang”. Senior Staff Writer – Asahi News. President Bill Clinton. The policy of setting moratoriums on North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile development programs was an initiative of the administration of U. mainly through the United Nations Security Council.S.S. and North Korea began openly manufacturing plutonium.asahi. For the time being. The Agreed Framework was no longer functional.S. 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. In Perry's view. Bush suspected that North Korea was secretly planning to produce weapons-grade material through uranium enrichment. In the worst-case scenario. 7/7. Following the launch of the Taepodong-1 ballistic missile in 1998. defense secretary. 2006 [“Japan must lobby U. That led to greater mistrust between the United States and North Korea. However. which could develop into a framework for regional security. After the nuclear crisis that emerged on the Korean Peninsula in 1994. President George W.com/english/Heraldasahi/TKY200607070248. William Perry. a former U. North Korea has produced enough plutonium since 2003 for six to eight nuclear warheads. Last fall. Pyongyang announced that it possessed nuclear weapons. the Bush administration has rejected bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang. Although the North Korean threat has grown.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – North Korea A. currency. including the counterfeiting of U. In 2005. US-JAPAN ALLIANCE IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE THE NORTH KOREAN CRISIS Masaru Honda. could be the next to go. Instead. Japan and the United States plan to tighten the noose around North Korea. visited North Korea and reached a deal in which Pyongyang agreed to freeze missile launches in exchange for continued assistance. However. However. the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework in 1994. the six-party talks. The moratorium on North Korea's nuclear weapons development has already broken down. http://www. 54 . a joint statement was released after the six-party talks that called on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons development plan. the United States started up the six-party talks by bringing in China. and imposed economic sanctions. Washington got fed up with North Korea's covert activities.

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

S. in my view. http://www. 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. 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. A terrorist threat should.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Japan Rearm Impacts – Nuclear War REARM TRIGGERS NUCLEAR CONFLICT Morton H.nautilus. 56 . 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.org/archives/library/security/papers/Halperin-US-Japan. Halperin. 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. Over the longer run. 2000 [“The Nuclear Dimension of the US-Japan Alliance”. national security policy is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. Director of Policy Planning at State Department.pdf] However.

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

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

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

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

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

The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the constant danger of an invasion from the north. she test-fired a medium range missile over Japan.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. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for the non-reunification of the country. 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. 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. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. 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. Early this year. it is extremely difficult to conclude. 62 . surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by warplanes from both sides. p. However. 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. Although the DPRK regards herself as a developing country. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. No visitor moves around alone without government escort. In the DPRK. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. She points out that the north has dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. for example. Last year. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean territorial waters. a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in fishing nets. Whether this is really so. a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. There have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. 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. an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US. apart from America itself. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its "running dog" South Korea. Naturally. military tension between the hard-line communist north and the American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. 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. the world is anxious that military tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse on earth. December 25. Ever since the end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s. Japan and South Korea. It is therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea. 1999. The border line is littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines. online Lusaka . It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or buildup in the north through spy satellites. The DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Korean War Impacts – Africa News WAR ON THE PENNINSULA WILL END LIFE ON EARTH AFRICA NEWS.

could unleash waves of refugees. or even the fear of war. p. War. 2003. and possibly Japan. SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST.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. destroying the stability that is the prerequisite for economic development. October 30. 17 Failure to reach a negotiated solution could trigger a war in Northeast Asia. 63 . The economies of South Korea and Japan would be hard hit. and the ripples would spread through China as well. bringing untold devastation to both North and South Korea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                70 .

mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen. Venice. to hide the political embarrassment of global warming. 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. little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. that greenhouse gases and temperatures both are rising. Even if they were right about its dangers. climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people. is amplified. including London. and in some ways are like a planetary disease. The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming.uk/commentators/article61727. such as the Kyoto Treaty. warming is more than twice as great as here in Europe and in summertime. Whatever doubts there are about future climates. which is global warming. winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. Director of the Marine Biological Society. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver. http://comment. because. oxygen. but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide.000 years. as did more than 20. available. and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists. that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. But with six billion. but by then the sea will have risen seven metres. But in the Arctic. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas. and prefers to listen to the Greens. 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. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway.now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet. the disappearance of Arctic ice or the Amazon forest. So what should we do? We can just continue to enjoy a warmer 21st century while it lasts. global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's kilometre-high glaciers. 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.ece Sir David King. We are tough and it would take more than the climate catastrophe to eliminate all breeding pairs of humans. Not only the Arctic is changing. 2004. the Green lobbies and the media. in 30 years. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm. let us use the small input from renewables sensibly.000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. will then be no more than a point on the ocean surface. The Green lobbies. THE INDEPENDENT. Calcutta. PhD Medicine – London School of Hygiene – Fellow of the Royal Society. and according to Swiss meteorologists. since he spoke. When. new evidence of climate change the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far. that will stretch our grandchildren to the limit. But we do not have 50 years. which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners. in the 18th century. When that happens. rejects their warnings and advice. the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation. wind. only one billion people lived on Earth. and even if we act successfully in amelioration. I find it sad and ironic that the UK. few options remain.Lovelock RENEWED NUCLEAR POWER INVESTMENT PREVENTS OTHERWISE INEVITABLE EXTINCTION James Lovelock. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300. the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately. goal of so many explorers. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources.000 to one. New York and Tokyo. True. enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world. Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. its 71 . As individual animals we are not so special. we may die even sooner.the one safe. we can not continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables. He may even have underestimated. and make cosmetic attempts. seem more concerned about threats to people than with threats to the Earth. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds. The prospects are grim. May 24. These fears are unjustified. like a fire. not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its well being. whether from greenhouse gases. Gaia. We have stayed in ignorance for many reasons. It may take a disaster worse than last summer's European deaths to wake us up. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. there will still be hard times. and failed to notice. and this is what I fear will happen in much of the world. and for the world. Worse still. The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time. its white reflecting ice. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger. Their grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat. energy source . Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction. It was a warning of worse to come. the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1. but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. is accelerating and almost no time is left to act. Extra heat from any source. burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide. and growing. civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear . and they are not. and Most of us are aware of some degree of warming. may become dark sea that absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight. was far-sighted to say that suggests it could be even more serious. imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars. their biodiversity. the Government's chief scientist. and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Nuclear Power Good -. but through civilisation we redeem ourselves and become a precious asset for the Earth.co.independent. if we burn crops grown for fuel this could hasten our decline. Global warming. as in war. What makes global warming so serious and so urgent is that the great Earth system. 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 2100.000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer. tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time. By all means. p. the area of the US. their impact was small enough for it not to matter what energy source they used. what is at risk is civilisation. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. and its effects are more than additive. as we piled on fuel. there are no doubts least because through our eyes the Earth has seen herself in all her glory. The North Pole. is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback. which should have given priority to global warming. Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of southern Florida under water.

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

a new theory has been proposed.htm Lastly.the Supernova explosion. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured.priweb. 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. 73 .Extinction OZONE DESTRUCTION EMPIRICALLY CAUSED MASS EXTINCTIONS ON EARTH Paleontological Research Institute. and researchers want a theory that is scientifically rigorous. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species. Permian Extinction. 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. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destruction. http://www. Therefore.large amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus “global and atmospheric cooling.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Ozone Destruction Bad -. these problems could cause widespread destruction of life.” With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer.

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

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

The protectionist is not against the use of every kind of force. the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". That being so. Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to them.free-market. . 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. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . The depression in turn led to World War II. etc. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I." WHAT CAN YOU DO? Silence gives consent. trade and foreign exchange controls. monetary devaluation. p. "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. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt. 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. effectively moving communities farther apart. Send them a copy of this pamphlet.html TRADE WARS: BOTH SIDES LOSE When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B". More fundamentally. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution." In the 20th century. US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act. In the late 19th Century. "Over the same span of history. member of the British Parliament. 1996. The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule. it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. 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." 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. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace. or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. the real producers may as well be on different planets. a period that also saw no major wars. The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West. the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition . 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." Protectionism Bad – War (Spicer) PROTECTIONISM CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR Michael Spicer.thus. and specialization increases output. and the jealous envy of genius. 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. If mankind is to survive. the market place is a most humane institution. that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. "For thousands of years. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Widespread public understanding of this issue. followed by citizen action. then these primeval fears must be defeated. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true. and that it is important to your future. The protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. facing only a mild recession. we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free trade. Free trade is too important an issue to leave in the hands of politicians.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism. and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. even warfare.a major factor leading to the American Civil War. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. 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. after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace). Check on how the issue is being taught in the schools. to crush his rival. In 1930.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. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970. fear of challenge. and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports . When trade is cut off entirely. economist. over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. . Within a year. rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets." he said. journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization possible. short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS. But to trade is to become 76 . is the only solution.

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.


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.


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.


Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Peace Process – Generally Good

[“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.


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

21. PHILOSOPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF PRIVACY. p. 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. people have a right to a private life. 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. 1984.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Privacy – Schoenman PRIVACY IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT TYRANNY Ferdinand Schoeman. Professor of Philosophy. (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. In other words. University of South Carolina. 81 .

Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped. nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips. Nuclear weapons are able to destroy not only what has been created by mankind throughout the past centuries. Forces.html (MHHAR2216) Proliferation of nuclear weapons on the planet is the major threat to the survival of humanity. 1997. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Uzbekistan. 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. http://www. the world may even be a more polite place than it is today. but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. p. political and ideological. SURVIVAL. as well as of respect of every nation's rights to self-determination: social. Deputy Director of the Strategy.2002. 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. if not all. we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s.unimi.dsi.uspid.it/proceed/cast97/karimova. widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons. 87-90 In sum. rejecting a policy aimed at the domination of one by another. and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis. Fall. With most. 82 . but the very life on earth.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Proliferation – Utgoff NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CAUSES EXTINCTION Victor Utgoff. Proliferation – End of the World PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND THREATENS SURVIVAL Alla Karimova.

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

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

Therefore. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest.org/Research/ MissileDefense/BG1394.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. Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security @ the Institute for International Studies. involvement in combat. Heritage Foundation.Heritage Foundation) http://www. thereby preserving peace.heritage. 2000 (The Facts About Military Readiness -. 85 . inevitably leading to U.Key To Hegemony READINESS IS CRUCIAL FOR HEGEMONY Jack Spencer.S.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Readiness -. potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests.

We are now supremely powerful and can enforce peace by intervening before a limited war spreads. Professor of History and Classics at Yale. It will be expensive in money and lives. territory. But post-Cold War instability makes a proactive U. 188-9] America's most vital interest therefore. policy essential. Spring 1997. 31] Edward Olsen's article in Strategic Review said that our forces should leave Northwest Asia and center our military posture on U. It is vital to understand that the current relatively peaceful and secure situation is neither inevitable nor immutable. 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. Retired General Partner and Purple Heart.S. British appeasement before the world wars facilitated aggression. The alternative is World War III.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Readiness – Stops Global War PROACTIVE DETERRENCE SOLVES WWIII Barnes. READINESS SOLVES GLOBAL CONFLICT Donald Kagan. and most devastating means of changing the balance of international power.S. most expensive.S. p. and the American people must be prepared to pay that cost. ORBIS. 1997 [Donald. and likelihood of war would be infinitely greater than the cost of continuing to uphold the existing 86 . 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. The diminution of U. it would be critical step in undermining the stability of the international situation. 1998 [Wyatt. p. Fall 1998. But peace does not keep itself. power and thus not be a neutral act that would leave the situation as it stands. but is essential to preserve peace. Instead. is maintaining the general peace for war has been the swiftest. 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. 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. in stability. STRATEGIC REVIEW. The cost of the resulting upheaval in wealth.

would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Should Russia succumb to internal war. civil war is likely. what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -. even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience.html If internal war does strike Russia. however. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken. and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. January/February 1999. and wages. making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of antiAmerican groups and states.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Russian Economy -. the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. unemployment scarcely existed. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Russia retains some 20. But with the Communist Party out of office.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation.even though in decline -. Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. housing. nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. food. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay.foreignaffairs. republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing. Russia's 89 republics. it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show. the consequences would be even worse. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If conditions get worse. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force. Draftees serve closer to home.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. however. but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership.000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more. So far. and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. particularly attacks on nuclear plants. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism. political scientist. If war erupts. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. From 1989 to the present.David RUSSIAN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CAUSES A CIVIL WAR THAT ESCALATES AND GOES NUCLEAR Steven David.does 87 . the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. With the economy collapsing. the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war. 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). it reached 9. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial. http://www.personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. and medical care. the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. p. power devolves to the periphery. ten years ago. -. Within Russia. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. 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. In a society where. Meanwhile. economic deterioration will be a prime cause. Damage from the fighting. krais. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars. the estimated $ 65 billion it spent on the Gulf War only exacerbated matters. it also means that a struggle in the royal family could pit the armed forces against the Guard. communications between the Guard and the military are kept to a minimum. in the face of increased expenses the Saudi economy has become more and more dependent on it. Struggling to cope with these problems. Saudi Arabia's per capita GDP plunged from $ 17. Meanwhile. And their ranks are swollen with the hundreds of disgruntled Saudi volunteers who fought a holy war against the Russians in Afghanistan. the government has incurred large deficits since 1983. 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. the military. The same factors that have kept its regime in power -. Since the Gulf War. Islam. A country built on contradictions. But if the economy continues to deteriorate. which might alienate large portions of the population. They enjoy substantial support in the cities and among the younger generation. http://www.could now fuel an insurrection. Led by different members of the royal family. Fabulous oil wealth has been a mixed blessing for Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers have split the military into the regular armed forces (roughly 100.000 today.000 reserves). when the Saudi government welcomed "infidel" troops from the West.David SAUDI ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES INTERNAL DESTABILIZATION AND CIVIL WAR Steven David. Religion in Saudi Arabia also does more to undermine the current regime than to prop up its legitimacy. the government will have to make hard choices that could rock the Saudi state. questioned the royal family's business dealings. January/February 1999. Even if all of these demands are met (so far only the last has been addressed). Oil has spared the Saudi government from the need to tax its citizens. it includes well-educated members of the middle class.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). there is even less hope for Saudi Arabia -. 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 regime has never learned to convince its subjects to sacrifice for the good of the state (nor have the citizens learned to weather privation). p. The timid Saudi government must constantly buy the people's loyalty with material comforts.000 men) and the National Guard (30. the Saudi military presents another possible source of division. only to return home and find a government of questionable Islamic purity in a state 88 . Meanwhile. Always afraid of a coup. the religious threat to the regime will persist. Sunni notables have urged the government to sever ties with non-Muslim countries. But as long as the royal family continues to benefit from government spending by receiving lavish kickbacks from foreign contractors. 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. That might not have become a problem had oil prices not begun to drop in the 1980s. global dependence on Saudi oil will only increase in coming years. political scientist.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Saudi Arabian Economy -. as a result.foreignaffairs. the outcome will be catastrophic not just for the United States but for the world. Meanwhile.the oil economy. Saudi Arabia is extremely vulnerable to internal war. the royal family -.html AS LIKELY as is conflict in Mexico. Instead. 15.000 full time. many of them from the Najd region -. Sunni Muslim religious leaders have launched unprecedented challenges to the royal family.the traditional power base of the royal family. making an interruption in its flow even more dangerous. To prevent a coordinated coup. but this has the side effect of enhancing their distinct identities. Rather than reduce its reliance on oil. and called for the creation of a consultative council to assist the king in governing. there seems little hope of major cuts in expenditures. especially those with religious educations who found no jobs waiting for them on graduation. 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.and if the kingdom succumbs to civil war. Unemployment among high school and university graduates rose to an alarming 25 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise. January 9. thus far at least. Depending on the potency of the device the loss of life could be in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions). therefore. biological. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. Unlike their historical counterparts. regional and global security concerns.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Terrorism (Nuclear) – Zedillo. A NUCLEAR TERRORIST ATTACK WILL TRIGGER EVERY IMPACT SCENARIO Ernesto Zedillo. Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director. 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. "Terrorism myths and realities. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. p. 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. including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. 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]. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national. Why are the United States and Israel. such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism. that on September 11. In short. Alexander THIRD. to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. the religionization of politics. 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. the destruction of property in the trillions of dollars. 2003 [The Washington Times. 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. 25 Even if you agree with what's being done in the war on terror. Former President of Mexico Director. 2001. TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION Yonah Alexander. and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. double standards of morality. weak punishment of terrorists." 8/28] Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed. chemical. FORBES.g. we could practically count on the beginning of another dark age. as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons. you still could be upset about what's not happening: doing the utmost to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack. 97 . the erosion of authority and government unstoppable and the disruption of global trade and finance unprecedented. 2006. the escalation in conflicts and violence uncontrollable. Israel and its citizens. It is not surprising. radiological.

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

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

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

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

But this is a misnomer. and rodents. can be interrupted by appropriate recognition and introduced measures of hygiene. which has long proved its capability to cause pandemics. and mammals. unfortunately. Even sexually transmitted disease. for example. from plants to reptiles. the infected individual will. particularly foxes. crustaceans. 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. or almost everybody. Virus X would need to take two steps. the worry of a species threat is far greater than with rabies. from which it is capable of infecting a wide variety of mammals. MD. p. from the Greek lyssa. In the opinion of Herve Bourhy. coyotes. and blood-borne infections by control of contaminated supply. or to provoke a near enough catastrophe to destroy human civilization. which means “frenzy” rabies is one of over one hundred members of the family of Rhabdoviridae. 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. 102 . with 90 percent fatality to the people it infected. But to threaten our species. it would have to kill everybody. or any other infectious agent. and we cannot avoid inhaling one another’s expired discharges. transmit the microbe to many of the others present. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. or even protein. RNA. 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. Food. syringes and needles. Given a few minutes in a crowded room. HIV-1 still appears almost uniformly lethal. The potential for respiratory spread of a plague microbe is unique. though. A member of the genus Lyssa viruses. with HIV-1 and Ebola. This was seen most tragically and historically in the switch from bubonic to pneumonic plague during the Black Death. We should be very thankful that the manner of spread precludes the virus from ever causing a human pandemic. with the Sin nombre hantavirus. occasional reports of survivors are now appearing. VIRUS X: TRACKING THE NEW KILLER PLAGUES OUT OF THE PRESENT AND INTO THE FUTURE. an expert at the Pasteur Institute. 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. can be controlled by mechanical prophylaxis and a reduction in promiscuity. by coughing or sneezing. while also replicating in the salivary glands to best spread the contagion through the provoked frenzy of biting. including those with such huge lethality. For this reason. It was devoid of DNA. 367 In virological circles such a doomsday virus is often referred to as “the Andromeda strain. it infected.000 liters of air each day. and imbibed carbon and oxygen from its environment. Rabies was uniformly lethal in humans for at least four thousand years of history until Louis Pasteur discovered the first vaccine treatment. The Andromeda strain was not a virus at all. such as AIDS. 1998. jackals. Has any virus. The qualifier is needed because the end of human civilization might not require the death of all its members. I have called it Virus X.” after the bestselling thriller by Michael Crichton. What would be the likely properties of such a virus? To cause our extinction. and it will emerge from the diversity of life on earth. though they might infect large numbers of people. the human rabies virus lives in a symbiotic cycle with bats. fish. ever caused such lethality? The answer. 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. but a crystalline entity that came to earth on a meteorite from outer space.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Viruses – Ryan VIRAL SPREADS RISK EXTINCTION Frank Ryan. and the Zairian Ebola virus was a close rival. We know some of the explanations. a virus would need to combine the infectivity of influenza with the lethality of HIV-1 or Ebola Zaire. it is more likely to be a virus. fail in practice to become pandemic. which infect an incredible range of life. We are all familiar with the rapid spread of the influenza virus. is yes – though the emergence of such catastrophic lethality is rare. First. with X the logical derivative of extinction.or water-borne epidemics. Could such lethal agents every take the second step. However. This was the case. If ever an extinction strain does threaten the human species. Each adult inhales bout 10. replicating as the perfect nanomachine.

the Change Bomb.270 If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. one explosion may lead to the other.Planet Debate 2007‐8 Harvard Impacts                Water Wars – Nuclear War WATER WARS GO NUCLEAR Weiner.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. Prof. Princeton. 103 . 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. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. ‘90 The Next 100 Years p. tram North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. And in a world as interlinked as ours. Already in the Middle East.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful