Jump to content

andrew12345

Member
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Good

About andrew12345

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/21/1992
  1. this thread is three years old
  2. "What is your position on this?" Well, like I said before, the only internal link your plan accesses to complete Russia disarmament is this quote "Second, taking the US nuclear weapons away unilaterally could motivate Russia to make similar, or perhaps even more drastic, reductions in its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons." I just re-read the context of that quote, and it's not specific to TNW's in Turkey. So it's your burden to explain why, if Russia were to go apeshit over 80 TNWs in Turkey they wouldn't get the same message when we removed 120 TNWs from other countries in Europe. And if your position is that Russia wouldn't reduce its own TNWs until the U.S. did the same to *all* countries in Europe, your plan wouldn't solve. "Can you provide me this evidence suggesting otherwise? Pretty please." yeah, this card is pretty good Martin, 00 (David H, Research Director, Nuclear Awareness Project, Nuclear Threat in the Eastern Mediterranean, The Case Against Turkey's Akkuyu Nuclear Plant, June, http://www.cnp.ca/issues/nuc-threat-mediterranean.pdf) It is not surprising that vendor countries such as the United States and Japan, Canada, France and Germany are dismissing proliferation concerns about Turkey in the face of powerful lobbying efforts from their respective nuclear industries. However, the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation through the sale of nuclear reactors to Turkey remains a valid concern. In the short term, the development of a reactor program in Turkey will reduce the legitimacy of the western effort to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear power and nuclear weapons programs. Iran's nuclear weapons capability is only five to ten years away. Similarly, it will provide further incentive for Iraq to revive its nuclear program. It will reinforce Israeli dependence on its nuclear weapons capability. It will weaken Turkey's relationship with NATO as its need for the American nuclear deterrent is reduced. It may lead to clandestine cooperation between Turkey and Pakistan, or possibly even Israel. There is little doubt that Israel collaborated in nuclear weapons development with the former apartheid regime in South Africa.[349] "What about the the other U.S. military forces in Turkey, why would they assume we won't protect them with the rest of our forces?" Well, here's a quote "Some Turkish officials see having physical access to TNWs as part of their bargain with the United States and the other allies for not developing an independent Turkish nuclear arsenal." I guess those Turkish officials don't really care about the other American military forces.
  3. condo You can just call them "disarm cp," "tnw cp," "disad," and "consult japan." I'm pretty sure the United States disarming itself off almost all nuclear weapons is a better step toward a world of no nuclear weapons than is your plan. None of your advantages are specific to TNW's in Turkey - only that removing those TNWs causes a broader disarmament. On your plan, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy contain 120 of the 200 total TNW's. How can the plan overcome this huge solvency deficit? ^insert your response to my question as the answer to your question. I'm going to prove that Turkey isn't important. Your evidence does *not* say removing TNW's from Turkey is important because the rest of the world will suddenly stop wanting to hurt each other, it just says removing TNW's from Turkey would be pretty hard because of the political ramifications. If removing 80 TNWs from Turkey sends a message, removing 120 TNWs from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy sends one too. Probably not, but that's only because your plan doesn't solve the Russia advantage, either Lol, and your plan is zero Uh, I guess you'd have to read evidence that says "if the U.S. removed TNW's from Turkey, Iran would no longer pursue nuclear weapons." I've read evidence suggesting otherwise. Because that assumes a world where Turkey enjoys full nuclear protection from the U.S. and Nato. Your plan is a symbolic gesture that the U.S./ Nato will no longer protect them against regional threats. They'll be forced to start defending themselves. You're right, it assumes that the U.S. bombs Iran before it fully develops the nuke. I'll read more ev on that in the 2NC if necessary. Which scenario? My first argument is that Turkish prolif sets off a chain reaction to countries like Iran, Israel, and other Middle Eastern/ Central Asian countries to start getting more aggressive now that their enemies have nuclear weapons. The other argument is that Turkey, because of its geographical location, is right in the center of a bunch of ethnically and religiously diverse countries. As an American ally, Turkey would be vital to diffusing conflicts before they erupt in that area. Turkey's location makes it vital to oil transportation from all those Middle Eastern/ Asian countries the card talks about. If Turkey got pissed at us, and stopped letting the oil pipelines travel through its borders, the availability of oil would go down and price would go up. I mean, we don't have a "brink" card as per the 1NC. You're welcome to make that argument, though. Because if everyone dies, there won't be an economy anymore. When the U.S. invades the Middle East because dirty Muslims flew a few planes in a couple of buildings, the Muslim world is brought to think that the U.S. wants a religious war - that America hates them *because* they are Muslim. However, America's good relations with Turkey are proof to the Muslim world that the U.S. doesn't have a problem with non-violent, largely secular Muslims - only with extremists. You don't. You consult a foreign country about a hypothetical executive order. Obviously What do you mean? Yeah, if you win that waiting a couple of weeks means that CP won't be able to solve the aff anymore, you should go for that argument.
  4. Text: The United States federal government should completely disarm itself of all nuclear weapons, other than B-61 Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Turkey. We’ll clarify. Text: President Obama should issue an Executive Order to substantially reduce military presence by eliminating all U.S. B-61 Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy. We’ll clarify. Turkey isn’t proliferating now NTI, 09 (Turkey Profile, August, http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/turkey/index.html) Turkey is not known to possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or weapons programs, and is a member in good standing of all of the major treaties governing their acquisition and use.Turkey is also active in proliferation prevention efforts such as the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).[1] While Turkey is situated in a notoriously "dangerous neighborhood"[2] and is often mentioned as a possible proliferation domino should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, it has relied for its security on the nuclear and conventional deterrence provided by U.S./NATO security guarantees for more than half a century. Turkey's dedication to the nonproliferation regime is further solidified by its commitment to the European Union accession process, as prospects for Turkish EU membership would be gravely diminished should Turkey choose to develop nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.[3] Thanks in part to decades of U.S. military aid and cooperation, Turkey has robust conventional defense capabilities, including short-range ballistic missiles. Ankara is also working to procure advanced ballistic missile defense capabilities. Plan forces Turkey to develop an independent nuclear arsenal, turning case Weitz, 10 (Richard, Ph.D, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis, the Hudson Institute, 04/12, http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/turkey/2010/100412A.html) Iran is another issue that could affect the future nuclear weapons policies of Turkey. Thus far, neither the Turkish nor the Iranian government has publicly linked Iran’s nuclear policies and “Turkey’s” nuclear weapons. In principle, the connection could run in various directions. On the one hand, Turkey’s ruling Justice and development party (AKP) deny that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, in which case either the status quo or the elimination of Turkey’s TNWs might be acceptable. On the other hand, those members of Turkey’s national security establishment concerned about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions might either seek to retain the nuclear weapons on Turkish soil as a security hedge or demonstratively eliminate them to encourage Tehran to behave similarly. The United States and other countries might also need to consider how removing the weapons might affect Turkey’s calculations about whether it might develop its own nuclear deterrent, which would contribute to the feared proliferation wave in the greater Middle East that could undermine the non-proliferation agenda of the Obama administration and other NATO governments. Some Turkish officials see having physical access to TNWs as part of their bargain with the United States and the other allies for not developing an independent Turkish nuclear arsenal. Turkish proliferation sparks an arms race in the Middle East and Central Asia Martin, 00 (David H, Research Director, Nuclear Awareness Project, Nuclear Threat in the Eastern Mediterranean, The Case Against Turkey's Akkuyu Nuclear Plant, June, http://www.cnp.ca/issues/nuc-threat-mediterranean.pdf) The proposed development of a nuclear program in Turkey takes place in the highly complex and strained political context of the Middle East. The Middle East is a breeding ground for nuclear-armed confrontation. Israel, Iraq and Iran have already demonstrated their aggressive commitment to the development of nuclear weapons. Moreover they have the advanced missile delivery systems and other means to deliver these weapons. Israel's longstanding possession of nuclear weapons, and its refusal to sign the NPT has been a primary impetus for nuclear weapons development among the states of the region (which can be broadly interpreted to include North Africa, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East, including Turkey). Iraq deliberately subverted the NPT, and Iran is doing likewise, if we are to believe the intelligence agencies of the United States and Israel. The United States continues to rely on its nuclear weapons umbrella for deterrence in the region, with nuclear weapons reportedly stationed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.[305] Since 1945, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Libya have all used chemical weapons. In the 1980s, the international community stood by (and even continued to provide conventional weapons) while Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, as well as its own citizens, Kurdish civilians, in 1988.[306] This sets a chilling precedent for the current willingness of the world community to remain inactive while there is a further spread of nuclear technology in the Middle East. It is worthwhile to briefly review the nuclear capability of Israel, Iran, and Iraq. That gives Iran the green light Martin, 00 (David H, Research Director, Nuclear Awareness Project, Nuclear Threat in the Eastern Mediterranean, The Case Against Turkey's Akkuyu Nuclear Plant, June, http://www.cnp.ca/issues/nuc-threat-mediterranean.pdf) It is not surprising that vendor countries such as the United States and Japan, Canada, France and Germany are dismissing proliferation concerns about Turkey in the face of powerful lobbying efforts from their respective nuclear industries. However, the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation through the sale of nuclear reactors to Turkey remains a valid concern. In the short term, the development of a reactor program in Turkey will reduce the legitimacy of the western effort to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear power and nuclear weapons programs. Iran's nuclear weapons capability is only five to ten years away. Similarly, it will provide further incentive for Iraq to revive its nuclear program. It will reinforce Israeli dependence on its nuclear weapons capability. It will weaken Turkey's relationship with NATO as its need for the American nuclear deterrent is reduced. It may lead to clandestine cooperation between Turkey and Pakistan, or possibly even Israel. There is little doubt that Israel collaborated in nuclear weapons development with the former apartheid regime in South Africa.[349] Extinction Hirsch, 06 (Jorge, Professor of Physics at the University of California--San Diego, “Nuking Iran,” ZNet, 04 10 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=10071) Iran is likely to respond to any US attack using its considerable missile arsenal against US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf. Israel may attempt to stay out of the conflict, it is not clear whether Iran would target Israel in a retaliatory strike but it is certainly possible.If the US attack includes nuclear weapons use against Iranian facilities, as I believe is very likely, rather than deterring Iran it will cause a much more violent response. Iranian military forces and militias are likely to storm into southern Iraq and the US may be forced to use nuclear weapons against them, causing large scale casualties and inflaming the Muslim world. There could be popular uprisings in other countries in the region like Pakistan, and of course a Shiite uprising in Iraq against American occupiers. Finally I would like to discuss the grave consequences to America and the world if the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Americans both on American soil and abroad will be enormously enhanced after these events. And terrorist's attempts to get hold of "loose nukes" and use them against Americans will be enormously incentivized after the US used nuclear weapons against Iran. Second, it will destroy America's position as the leader of the free world. The rest of the world rightly recognizes that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from all other weapons, and that there is no sharp distinction between small and large nuclear weapons, or between nuclear weapons targeting facilities versus those targeting armies or civilians. It will not condone the breaking of the nuclear taboo in an unprovoked war of aggression against a non-nuclear country, and the US will become a pariah state. Third, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will cease to exist, and many of its 182 non-nuclear-weapon-country signatories will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an attack by a nuclear nation. With no longer a taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, any regional conflict may go nuclear and expand into global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are million-fold more powerful than any other weapon, and the existing nuclear arsenals can obliterate humanity many times over. In the past, global conflicts terminated when one side prevailed. In the next global conflict we will all be gone before anybody has prevailed. And, US/ Turkish relations are currently strained – the plan would completely alienate Turkey Kibaroglu , 05 (Mustafa , Assistant professor in the department of international relations at Bilkent University. “Isn’t it Time to Say Farewell to Nukes in Turkey?” European Security 14.4, December, Ebsco. The decision to keep US nuclear weapons on Turkish soil owes to a number of political and military considerations. Turkish officials consider nuclear weapons more as political weapons than as having a significant military value and they do not seriously think of contingencies where nuclear weapons could or even should be used. Having said that, they do believe in the deterrent value of US nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey. It is true that the Middle East and adjacent regions are far from being peaceful or stable and that this situation is unlikely to change soon. Adding to the unrest arising from the political situation in Iraq, and the Palestine-Israel conflict, is Iran’s substantial nuclear development program that may have weapons development potential. Uncertainty about Iran’s capabilities as well as its intentions further complicate the threat assessments of Turkish security elite, especially those in the military domain. Hence, retaining the US nukes in Turkey ‘to be on the safe side’ sounds like a better option to them.12 Another fundamental reason why Turkish officials wanted to keep these weapons, at least to date, has to do with the nature and the scope of Turkish-American relations in particular, and Turkey’s place in the Western alliance in general. First and foremost, the deployment of the remaining tactical nuclear weapons in Turkey is believed to strengthen the bonds between the US and Turkey. These bonds were severely strained during and after the crisis in Iraq in late 2002 when the US wanted to deploy tens of thousands of troops in Turkey as part of its war plans against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Turkish Parliament did not approve such a request. Hence, neither party got what it wanted.13 Withdrawing the US nuclear weapons from Turkey in the aftermath of such a delicate period was feared to weaken the bonds in the longstanding strategic alliance (or the ‘partnership’ as many Turkish and American analysts would prefer to term it). Multiple impacts Central Asian war Menon and Wimbush, 07 (Rajan, Monroe J. Rathbone Professor of International Relations, Lehigh University Fellow, New America Foundation and S. Enders, Director, Center for Future Security Strategies, Hudson Institute. “Is The United States Losing Turkey?” Hudson Institute, 3/25, http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/Turkey%20PDF.pdf) If Turkey, a key friend and ally, turns away from the United States, the damage to American interests will be severe and long lasting. Turkey remains exceptionally important to the United States, arguably even more so than during the Cold War. Here are some of the most important reasons why this is true: Turkey is the top of an arc that starts in Israel and wends its way through Lebanon, Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. It abuts, or is proximate to, countries pivotal to American foreign policy and national security, whether because they are allies and friends, adversaries, or loci of instability. Turkey’s critical location means that instability within it could spill beyond its borders, with the unpredictable ripple effects traveling across its neighborhood, particularly the Middle East. That goes nuclear Blank, 99 (Stephen, Director of Strategic Studies Institute at US Army War College, Central Asian Survey (18; 2), “Every Shark East of Suez: Great Power Interests, Policies and Tactics in the Transcaspian Energy Wars”) Thus many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus. And similarly many conditions exist for internal domestic strife if the leadership of any of these governments changes or if one of the many disaffected minority groups revolts. Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their proxies and protégés . One or another big power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe. For instance, in 1993 Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case. This episode tends to confirm the notion that `future wars involving Europe and America as allies will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia’ . 95 Sadly, many such causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian. Precisely because Turkey is a Nato members but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia or if it could, would conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’ s declared nuclear strategies), the danger of major war is higher here than almost every-where elsein the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China. Oil shocks Menon and Wimbush, 07 (Rajan, Monroe J. Rathbone Professor of International Relations, Lehigh University Fellow, New America Foundation and S. Enders, Director, Center for Future Security Strategies, Hudson Institute. “Is The United States Losing Turkey?” Hudson Institute, 3/25, http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/Turkey%20PDF.pdf) Turkey sits astride critical waterways and narrows (the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Bosporus and Dardanelles) that are channels for trade and the flow of energy to global markets. Turkey is a passageway for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, and its Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, is the terminus. Turkey is therefore essential to American efforts to reduce the dependence of Azerbaijan, and potentially Kazakstan and Turkmenistan, on Russia’s energy pipelines. Turkey’s substantial economic and political ties with Georgia and Azerbaijan contribute to the stability of these countries, whose strategic significance far exceeds their standing in commonplace measures of power. Georgia is not only a corridor for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, its stability is under threat because of its testy relationship with Russia and its conflicts with the Russian-supported secessionist statelets, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Azerbaijan is not only a major energy producer, but also a fellow Turkic country, whose territorial dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh could boil over into war, just as it did in the 1990s, possibly igniting a wider conflagration that draws in Turkey (Azerbaijan’s ally) and Russia (Armenia’s patron) and putting the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline at risk. Oil shocks destroy the economy and lead to pre-emptive nuclear war, causing extinction Henderson, 07 (Indian Univ. Associate Professor of Law “Climate Change, Peak Oil, and Nuclear War,” Countercurrents.org 2-24 http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson240207.htm] A steep spike in the price of oil, precipitated perhaps by an attack on Iran or Middle East instability spreading the insurgency to Saudi Arabia, could lead to an economic dislocation paralyzing the global economy. Such a shock coming at the end of cheap oil but before major development of alternative energy economies could mean the end of civilization as we know it. And there is a building new cold war with still potent nuclear power Russia and China reacting to a belligerent, unilateralist America on record that it will use military power to secure vital resources and to not allow any other country to threaten it's world dominance. The world is closer to a final, nuclear, world war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962with a beginning arms race and tactical confrontation over weapons in space and even serious talk of pre-emptive nuclear attack. These three immediate threats to humanity, to each of us now but also to future generations, are inter-related, interact upon each other, and complicate any possible approach to individual solution. The fossil fuel energy path has taken us to a way of life that is killing us and may lead to extinction for humanity and much of what we now recognize as nature. Economic decline causes extinction Bearden 00, U.S. Army - Lieutenant Colonel, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis,” June 24 http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, Accessed 9/11/03 History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals ofweapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, arealmost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched,adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed,rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades. Terrorism – turns their case Menon and Wimbush, 07 (Rajan, Monroe J. Rathbone Professor of International Relations, Lehigh University Fellow, New America Foundation and S. Enders, Director, Center for Future Security Strategies, Hudson Institute. “Is The United States Losing Turkey?” Hudson Institute, 3/25, http://www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/Turkey%20PDF.pdf) Turkey is a democratic and secular Muslim, and its alliance with the United States helps demonstrate that the United States can maintain friendly and productive ties with an array of Muslim countries—that America’s does not oppose Islam per se, but rather the violent extremists who invoke it to justify their violence against innocents and their retrograde, intolerant agenda. This is crucial if the American campaign against terrorism is not to be seen by the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, as Islamic terrorist groups would like it to be, as a war against Islam itself. Text: The United States federal government should enter into binding consultation with Japan and propose that President Obama ought to issue an Executive Order to substantially reduce military presence by eliminating all U.S. B-61 Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Turkey. The United States federal government will allow minor modifications and implement the result of the consultation. We’ll clarify. Genuine consultation is key to the alliance Bergsten et al. 01 . (C. Fred, Director of Peterson Institute for International Economics, PhD from Fletcher. Takatoshi Ito, Professor of Economic Research @ Hitotsubashi University, Marcus Noland, Senior Fellow @ Peterson Institute for International Economics. PhD Johns Hopkins. “No More Bashing: Building a New Japan- United States Economic Relationship” October. http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters_preview/105/7iie2865.pdf) Programmatically, making the alliance work is less a matter of bold new initiatives than of achieving improved consultation between Tokyo and Washington on the whole panoply of international issues that they face. This includes both economic and security issues, as well as each country’s positions in the international institutions. The Armitage Report (IISS 2000) contains numerous specific recommendations along these lines. For example, Washington must accept a greater political role for Japan and understand that there is a difference between genuine consultation and mere forewarning. At the same time, Tokyo should be reminded that global and regional policy initiatives undertaken without prior consultation with Washington – such as the AMF proposal in 1997, and the FTAs that it has launched unilaterally in recent years – are unlikely to succeed. The alternative to making the alliance work would be for Japan to become an autonomous great power. Under current circumstances, without significant regional organizations to mediate festering historical animosities, this would run the risk of destabilizing Asia. Its huge costs, to Japan itself and to the United States as well as to regional and global stability, add strongly to the case for making every effort to restore the Japan- United States relationship – including in the economics sphere – in a modern and normal direction Low US-Japan relations make rearmament inevitable. Okimoto, 98 – Professor of Political Science at Stanford – 1998 (Daniel, “The Japan-America Security Alliance: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century,” http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/japanamerica_security_alliance_prospects_for_the_twentyfirst_century_the/) This is not to say that the Kissinger-Kahn-Gallois prediction will never come true. The further the time horizon is extended, the greater the chances that their forecasts might materialize. What realist theory emphasizes is the potentially powerful impact on Japan of the rise of formidable rivals in the region like China, a unified Korea, or a revanchist Russia. Power shifts involving Japan and its Asian neighbors could turn out to be the most dangerous fault line in Asia. A power inversion, if one took place, could touch off large-scale tremors. Japan might move to acquire military power. Whether such tremors lead to a system-shaking earthquake will depend on a number of factors, not the least of which is JASA's viability. If JASA remains effective, Japan may choose to continue relying the U.S. security umbrella. As long as Japan is comfortable about entrusting its security to JASA, the alliance ought to obviate the need to “go it alone.” If JASA is terminated, however, and Japan feels threatened by a powerful Asian neighbor, Japan is likely to embark on a crash program of rearmament. A lot will depend on the nature of the security threat. China's acquisition of a power projection capability is by itself not necessarily a threat; but the combination of an enhanced military capability and uncertainties about Chinese intentions would be worrisome. Japan rearm causes East Asian wars Thomas, 99 (International Security, Spring, Vol. 23, Issue 4) Certain aspects of U.S. policies, however, including joint research of theater missile defenses (TMD) with Japan, are still potentially problematic. According to security dilemma theory, defensive systems and missions, such as TMD, should not provoke arms races and spirals of tension. In contemporary East Asia, however, this logic is less applicable. Many in the region, particularly in Beijing, fear that new defensive roles for Japan could break important norms of self-restraint, leading to more comprehensive Japanese military buildups later. Moreover, Beijing's focus on preventing Taiwan's permanent separation from China means that even defensive weapons in the hands of Taiwan or its potential supporters are provocative to China. Given the bitter history of Japanese imperialism in China and Taiwan's status as a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945, this certainly holds true for Japan. Extinction. The Straits Times, 00 (Singapore), “No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, lexis The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. 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. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. Gen Ridgeway recalled that the biggest mistake the US made during the Korean War was to assess Chinese actions according to the American way of thinking. "Just when everyone believed that no sensible commander would march south of the Yalu, the Chinese troops suddenly appeared," he recalled. (The Yalu is the river which borders China and North Korea, and the crossing of the river marked China's entry into the war against the Americans). "I feel uneasy if now somebody were to tell me that they bet China would not do this or that," he said in a recent interview given to the Chinese press. Russia Advantage New Start makes your Russia advantage non-inherent NSN, 10 (National Security Network, “A 21st Century START, ” 6/04, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1620) Every expert witness that has appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its hearings on the New START treaty has endorsed ratification of the accord. With the full support of the military leadership of the United States behind it, it is, in the words of former Republican Secretary of Defense and longtime nuclear expert James Schlesinger, "obligatory" for the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. The New START accord makes America more secure through its extensive, streamlined verification regime and the strategic stability that the agreement ensures. This agreement has also helped facilitate broader U.S.-Russian cooperation, leading to valuable overflight privileges for U.S. troops heading to Afghanistan and most importantly, enhanced legitimacy in strengthening the global nonproliferation regime and reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. In a post 9/11 world, our national security cannot remain entrenched in a Cold War, 20th Century framework. This treaty helps guide our national security policies into the 21st Century and its ratification is essential to our national security. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership-to include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our strategic nuclear deterrent. For nearly 40 years, treaties to limit or reduce nuclear weapons have been approved by the U.S. Senate by strong bipartisan majorities. This treaty deserves a similar reception and result-on account of the dangerous weapons it reduces, the critical defense capabilities it preserves, the strategic stability it maintains, and, above all, the security it provides to the American people."
  5. ok, and will you defend that the plan happen in the present tense, without a chance that it be struck down in the future?
  6. 1. Out of the 200 TNWs in Europe, only 80 exist in Turkey. Can you quote a piece of evidence that indicates that removing the 80 TNWs in Turkey would causes a larger arms reduction? 2. Besides the "strengthening" the NPT and better relations with Russia, are there any other internal links to prolif in the 1ac? 3. Would any of your authors disagree that complete nuclear disarmament is a good thing? 4. As far as I can tell, the only quote supporting the idea that Russia would magically destroy its TNW's as a result of the plan is this "Second, taking the US nuclear weapons away unilaterally could motivate Russia to make similar, or perhaps even more drastic, reductions in its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons." Why is this true?
  7. here's the 1nc - 2000 words. i guess we'll do 2000 constructive and 1200 rebuttals ASPEC a) Interp and violation- The aff must specify a particular agent of the USfg, and they don’t. voter because it allows them to spike out of politics and perception DA’s, and makes agent CPs non competitive. T - Social Services Social services exclude educational assistance – here’s a case list S.1321, 05 [A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on telephone and other communications, http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/091506leg1.pdf] For this purpose, social services are defined as services directed at helping people in need, reducing poverty, improving outcomes of low-income children, revitalizing low-income communities, and empowering low-income families and low-income individuals to become self-sufficient, including: (1) child care services, protective services for children and adults, services for children and adults in foster care, adoption services, services related to the management and maintenance of the home, day care services for adults, and services to meet the special needs of children, older individuals, and individuals with disabilities (including physical, mental, or emotional disabilities); (2) transportation services ; (3) job training and related services, and employment services; (4) information, referral, and counseling services; (5) the preparation and delivery of meals, and services related to soup kitchens or food banks; (6) health support services; (7) literacy and mentoring programs; (8) services for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and substance abuse, services for the prevention of crime and the provision of assistance to the victims and the families of criminal offenders, and services related to the intervention in, and prevention of, domestic violence; and (9) services related to the provision of assistance for housing under Federal law. Social services does not include a program having the purpose of delivering educational assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 or under the Higher Education Act of 1965. violation- the aff increases funding for education c) voter for limits – education is an entirely different literature base that skews predictable negative strategy. Prefer our interpretation because it has a predictable, limited case list T - Poverty a) Social services are targeted and means tested BGCBC, 08 [blaenau Gwent County Borough Council “Social Services,” http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/5359.asp] Social Services only provide support to vulnerable people with particular social care needs who are eligible for that support. Social Services use ‘eligibility criteria’ to decide in a fair way who should be given priority for support and help. the aff affects people regardless of income c) voter for limits – the aff literally removes the phrase “persons living in poverty” from the resolution. Our interpretation ensures that the social service be targeted to a specific group of people States CP The 50 states and all relevant territories should fully and unconditionally fund public education and give students, teachers and communities the liberty to shape their own education. All necessary accountability measures and standards in the educational system will be removed. This action will not be struck down by the federal government. We’ll clarify. Politics Cap and trade will pass now, but just barely. Republican support is key Shiner, 6/07 (Meredith, Senate Dems look for consensus on energy bill, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=152087D7-18FE-70B2-A8E7BBE74DA80834) "My position has been we should definitely move ahead with the legislation we reported from our committee and if we're able to do more than that, we should certainly do that as well," Bingaman said. "I tend to think the two issues are somewhat separate, and I think people are going to vote on climate change—or cap-and-trade legislation—pretty much on the basis of what they're position is on that." Both the Bingaman and Kerry-Lieberman proposals include provisions for off-shore drilling, which will have to be re-evaluated in wake of the Gulf oil spill. Sen. Lindsey Graham—once a co-sponsor on the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill—lamented Monday that the White House and congressional response to the oil spill crisis is taking the potential legislation further away from accomplishing its goal energy independence. "The president has walked back quite a bit from domestic exploration," Graham told reporters. "Rolling back policy the way that they're moving is going to make it harder to put this combination together. The way they've done the bill, it's more of a climate bill than an energy independence bill." Graham also acknowledged that the April 20 deepwater rig explosion will make it even harder to be aggressive on drilling. "I understand why now would be a bad time to take a vote on a comprehensive bill that included an expansion of drilling," Graham added. Reid has asked for his committee chairmen to submit their proposals by July 4, and he’d like to have a vote before the August recess if he can find 60 votes. "It's hard for me to imagine any senator returning to their home state in August and having to explain to their constituents that Congress didn't act to respond to this crisis in the Gulf, " a committee aide said. "This will likely be the last opportunity to legislate on energy so I can't imagine senators wanting to see this opportunity pass them by." Republicans oppose all education spending U.S. News, 09 (Education's Slice of the Stimulus Pie, 1/29, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2009/01/29/educations-slice-of-the-stimulus-pie.html) Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the House Committee on Education and Labor's ranking Republican member, agrees that the educational gaps Miller speaks of exist. He and other Republicans disagree, however, that spending federal dollars to try to close them will actually stimulate the economy. McKeon says it is not the federal government's responsibility to pick up the slack for states that mismanaged their budgets. Though McKeon supports increasing federal funding for Title 1, IDEA and Pell grants, he says the Democrats should follow the traditional appropriations process. McKeon is not alone in his dislike for the stimulus proposal: Not a single House Republican voted in favor of the measure Wednesday evening. Instead of spending on education, the package, McKeon says, should have focused more on private-sector job creation. "Helping Americans get back to work so they can pay rent, purchase groceries, or buy a house is what will stimulate our failing economy, not sending more children to preschool," McKeon says. Cap and trade solves warming Pierce, 07 (Richard, Professor of Law, George Washington University, Environmental Law, Summer, Lexis) Unlike a rigid and archaic command and control system, either a cap and trade systemor a globally-coordinated carbon tax has the potential to induce billions of individual contributors of global warming gas emissions all over the world to adopt voluntarily the most cost-effective combinations of increased energy efficiency, use of renewables, and other technologies that do not generate global warming gases, such as nuclear power plants and clean coal power plants that include carbon sequestration. Warming destroys biodiversity Oshita, 07 (Stephanie, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Management, The University of San Francisco, University of San Francisco Law Review, Summer 2007, p. 10 (PDEN0375) A temperature rise of a few degrees does not seem that worrisome; we experience larger fluctuations in a single day in a single location. But a few degrees increase in the global average temperature is troubling, resulting in: higher high temperatures, nights that do not cool off, hotter summers, and winters that are not cold enough to generate much snow or to keep glaciers intact. Compared to pre-industrial times, before humans rapidly extracted large amounts of carbon from the bowels of the Earth and released them into the atmosphere, the planet has experienced a global average temperature increase of roughly 1 [degrees] C. We are already experiencing the impacts of that warming. As climate models predict, impacts will increase as global temperature increases. For example, we know that species have already shifted their ranges toward the poles and higher up into hills and mountains over the past several decades. If the increase in global average temperature exceeds 1.5 to 2.5 [degrees] C (3 to 5 [degrees] F) relative to the recent average temperature, up to thirty percent of plant and animal species are projected to face extinction. A similar increase in temperature would also lead to freshwater shortages for billions of people, as well as decline in food production in lower latitudes. A slightly higher temperature increase of just 2 to 3 [degrees] C (from present levels) would lead to expanded wildfires and the widespread death of coral reef systems around the world's oceans. Extinction Warner, 94 (Paul, Department of Int'l Politics and Foreign Policy at American University, Politics and Life Sciences. August. Pg. 177) Massive extinction of species is dangerous because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the US National Research council, "the ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette with our collective future as the stakes. Consult Japan The United States federal government should enter into binding consultation with Japan and propose that the United States federal government ought to fully and unconditionally fund public education and give students, teachers and communities the liberty to shape their own education. All necessary accountability measures and standards in the educational system will be removed.The United States federal government will allow minor modifications and implement the result of the consultation. We’ll clarify. Genuine consultation is key to the alliance Bergsten et al. 01 . (C. Fred, Director of Peterson Institute for International Economics, PhD from Fletcher. Takatoshi Ito, Professor of Economic Research @ Hitotsubashi University, Marcus Noland, Senior Fellow @ Peterson Institute for International Economics. PhD Johns Hopkins. “No More Bashing: Building a New Japan- United States Economic Relationship” October. http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters_preview/105/7iie2865.pdf) Programmatically, making the alliance work is less a matter of bold new initiatives than of achieving improved consultation between Tokyo and Washington on the whole panoply of international issues that they face. This includes both economic and security issues, as well as each country’s positions in the international institutions. The Armitage Report (IISS 2000) contains numerous specific recommendations along these lines. For example, Washington must accept a greater political role for Japan and understand that there is a difference between genuine consultation and mere forewarning. At the same time, Tokyo should be reminded that global and regional policy initiatives undertaken without prior consultation with Washington – such as the AMF proposal in 1997, and the FTAs that it has launched unilaterally in recent years – are unlikely to succeed. The alternative to making the alliance work would be for Japan to become an autonomous great power. Under current circumstances, without significant regional organizations to mediate festering historical animosities, this would run the risk of destabilizing Asia. Its huge costs, to Japan itself and to the United States as well as to regional and global stability, add strongly to the case for making every effort to restore the Japan- United States relationship – including in the economics sphere – in a modern and normal direction Low US-Japan relations make rearmament inevitable. Okimoto, 98 – Professor of Political Science at Stanford – 1998 (Daniel, “The Japan-America Security Alliance: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century,” http://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/japanamerica_security_alliance_prospects_for_the_twentyfirst_century_the/) This is not to say that the Kissinger-Kahn-Gallois prediction will never come true. The further the time horizon is extended, the greater the chances that their forecasts might materialize. What realist theory emphasizes is the potentially powerful impact on Japan of the rise of formidable rivals in the region like China, a unified Korea, or a revanchist Russia. Power shifts involving Japan and its Asian neighbors could turn out to be the most dangerous fault line in Asia. A power inversion, if one took place, could touch off large-scale tremors. Japan might move to acquire military power. Whether such tremors lead to a system-shaking earthquake will depend on a number of factors, not the least of which is JASA's viability. If JASA remains effective, Japan may choose to continue relying the U.S. security umbrella. As long as Japan is comfortable about entrusting its security to JASA, the alliance ought to obviate the need to “go it alone.” If JASA is terminated, however, and Japan feels threatened by a powerful Asian neighbor, Japan is likely to embark on a crash program of rearmament. A lot will depend on the nature of the security threat. China's acquisition of a power projection capability is by itself not necessarily a threat; but the combination of an enhanced military capability and uncertainties about Chinese intentions would be worrisome. Japan rearm causes East Asian wars Thomas, 99 (International Security, Spring, Vol. 23, Issue 4) Certain aspects of U.S. policies, however, including joint research of theater missile defenses (TMD) with Japan, are still potentially problematic. According to security dilemma theory, defensive systems and missions, such as TMD, should not provoke arms races and spirals of tension. In contemporary East Asia, however, this logic is less applicable. Many in the region, particularly in Beijing, fear that new defensive roles for Japan could break important norms of self-restraint, leading to more comprehensive Japanese military buildups later. Moreover, Beijing's focus on preventing Taiwan's permanent separation from China means that even defensive weapons in the hands of Taiwan or its potential supporters are provocative to China. Given the bitter history of Japanese imperialism in China and Taiwan's status as a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945, this certainly holds true for Japan. Extinction. The Straits Times, 00 (Singapore), “No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, lexis The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. 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. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. Gen Ridgeway recalled that the biggest mistake the US made during the Korean War was to assess Chinese actions according to the American way of thinking. "Just when everyone believed that no sensible commander would march south of the Yalu, the Chinese troops suddenly appeared," he recalled. (The Yalu is the river which borders China and North Korea, and the crossing of the river marked China's entry into the war against the Americans). "I feel uneasy if now somebody were to tell me that they bet China would not do this or that," he said in a recent interview given to the Chinese press. Kappeler K Imagining government action abdicates us of responsibility to act through an externalization of violence, making it inevitable Kappeler 95 , (Susanne, Associate Professor at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Al-Akhawayn University, The Will to Violence: The Politics of Personal Behaviour, pg. 10-12) ‘We are the war’ does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society – which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the notion of ‘collective irresponsibility’, where people are no longer help responsible for their actions, and where the conception of universal responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsibly for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective ‘assumption’ of responsibility. Yet our habit of focusing on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility – leading to the well known illusion of our apparent ‘powerlessness’ and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called political disillusionment. Single citizens – even more so those of other nations –have come to feel secure in their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina or Somalia – since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croation president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own political decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls ‘organized irresponsibiilty’, upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers. For we tend to think that we cannot ‘do’ anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of ‘What would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defense?’ Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself teds to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as ‘virtually no possibilities’: what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN – finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like ‘I want to stop this war’, ‘I want military intervention’, ‘I want to stop this backlash’, or ‘I want a moral revolution.’‘We are this war’, however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our ‘non-comprehension: our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we ‘are’ the war in our ‘unconscious cruelty towards you’, our tolerance of the ‘fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don’t’ – our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the ‘others’. We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape ‘our feelings, our relationships, our values’ according to the structures and the values of war and violence. Giving up our individual political agency reduces us to instruments of the state, authorizing war and genocide – our life is only as valuable as our contributions to the herd Beres, 94 (Louis Rene, Professor of International Law at Purdue University, Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. Law 1, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, SELF-DETERMINATION, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SURVIVAL ON PLANET EARTH) The State requires its members to be serviceable instruments, suppressing every glimmer of creativity and imagination in the interest of a plastic mediocrity . Even political liberty within particular States does nothing to encourage opposition to war or to genocide in other States. Since "patriotic self-sacrifice" is demanded even of "free" peoples, the expectations of inter-State competition may include war and the mass killing of other peoples. In the final analysis, war and genocide are made possible by the surrender of Self to the State. Given that the claims of international law 35 are rendered [*14] impotent by Realpolitik, this commitment to so-called power politics is itself an expression of control by the herd. Without such control, individuals could discover authentic bases of personal value inside themselves, depriving the State of its capacity to make corpses of others. The herd controls not through the vulgar fingers of politics but by the more subtle hands of Society. Living without any perceptible rewards for inner direction, most people have discovered the meaning of all their activity in what they seek to exchange for pleasure. Hence, meaning is absorbed into the universal exchange medium, money, and anything that enlarges this medium is treated as good. According to this model, finality of life is not, as Miguel de Unamuno wrote, "to make oneself a soul," 36 but rather to justify one's "success" to the herd. Instead of seeking to structure what Simone Weil, who was strongly influenced by Unamuno, calls "an architecture within the soul," we build life upon the foundations of death. Thus does humankind nurture great misfortune. The alternative is to vote negative as an endorsement of local transformative practices over the affirmative’s disempowering call on the state. The ballot is recognition that every individual has the power to change things. Conceiving of violence as an issue of personal-choice is a necessary precondition for creating a non-violent society. The aff’s mega-sphere of action fails because it’s impossible to change other people’s behaviors – localized action is key Kappeler 95 (Susanne, Associate Professor at Al-Akhawayn University, The Will to Violence: The politics of personal behavior, Pg.5-6) A politics aiming at a change in people's behavior would require political work that is very much more cumbersome and very much less promising of success than is the use of state power and social control. It would require political consciousness-raising- politicizing the way we think- which cannot be imposed on others by force or compulsory educational measures. It would require a view of people which takes seriously and reckons with their will, both their will to violence or their will to change. To take seriously the will of others however would mean recognizing one's own, and putting; people's will, including our own, at the centre of political reflection. A political analysis of violence needs to recognize this will, the personal decision in favor of violence- not just to describe acts of violence, or the conditions which enable them to take place, but also to capture the moment of decision which is the real impetus for violent action. For without this decision there will be no violent act, not even in circumstances which potentially permit it. It is the decision to violate, not just the act itself, which make a person a perpetrator of violence-just as it is the decision not to do so which makes people not act violently and not abuse their power in a situation which would nevertheless permit it. This moment of decision, therefore, is also the locus of potential resistance to violence. To understand the structures of thinking and the criteria bywhich such decisions are reached, but above all to regard this decision as an act of choice, seems to me a necessary precondition for any political struggle against violence and for a non-violent society. Case 1. Social services perpetuate and legitimize the capitalist order Hall, 02 (Peter, Bartlett Professor of Planning and Regeneration, University College London; President, Regional Studies Association; “internationally renowned authority on economic, demographic, cultural, and management issues” related to urban studies; Special Adviser on Strategic Planning to the British Government; Member, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Urban Task Force, 2002, Cities of tomorrow, p. 368-69) At the same time, a specifically Marxian view of planning emerged in the English-speaking world. To describe it adequately would require a course in Marxist theory. But, in inadequate summary, it states that the structure of the capitalist city itself, including its land use and activity patterns, is the result of capital in pursuit of profit. Because capitalism is doomed to recurrent crises, which deepen in the current stage of late capitalism, capital calls upon the state, as its agent, to assist it by remedying disorganization in commodity production, and by aiding the reproduction of the labor-force. It thus tries to achieve certain necessary objectives: to facilitate continued capital accumulation, by ensuring rational allocation of resources; by assisting the reproduction of the labor-force through the provision of social services, thus maintaining a delicate balance between labor and capital and preventing social disintegration; and by guaranteeing and legitimating capitalist social and property relations. As Dear and Scott put it: “In summary, planning is a historically-specific and socially-necessary response to the self-disorganizing tendencies of privatized capitalist social and property relations as these appear in urban space.” In particular, it seeks to guarantee collective provision of necessary infrastructure and certain basic urban services, and to reduce negative externalities whereby certain activities of capital cause losses to other parts of the system. 2. Single issue movements fail - capitalism can’t be reformed Herod 07 (James, Associate of the University of Massachusetts-Boston, Getting Free, Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salz...Ed/PrintEd.htm) Single-Issue Campaigns We cannot destroy capitalism with single-issue campaigns , yet the great bulk of radicals’ energy is spent on these campaigns. There are dozens of them: campaigns to defend abortion rights, maintain rent control, halt whaling, prohibit toxic dumping, stop the war on drugs, stop police brutality, stop union busting, abolish the death penalty, stop the logging of redwoods, outlaw the baby seal kill, ban genetically modified foods, stop the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, stop global warming, and on and on. What we are doing is spending our lives trying to fix a system that generates evils faster than we can ever eradicate them. Although some of these campaigns use direct action (e.g., spikes in the trees to stop the chain saws or Greenpeace boats in front of the whaling ships to block the harpoons), for the most part the campaigns are aimed at passing legislation in Congress to correct the problem. Unfortunately, reforms that are won in one decade, after endless agitation, can be easily wiped off the books the following decade, after the protesters have gone home or a new administration comes to power. These struggles all have value and are needed. Could anyone think that the campaigns against global warming, to free Leonard Peltier, or to aid the East Timorese ought to be abandoned? Single-issue campaigns keep us aware of what's wrong and sometimes even win gains. But in and of themselves, they cannot destroy capitalism, and thus cannot really fix things. It is utopian to believe that we can reform capitalism. Most of these evils can only be eradicated for good if we destroy capitalism itself and create a new civilization. We cannot afford to aim for anything less. Our very survival is at stake. There is one single-issue campaign I can wholeheartedly endorse: the total and permanent eradication of capitalism. 3. The plan’s reliance on the state dooms it to failure Holloway 05 (John, professor at Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences at the Autonomous University of Puebla, Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?, 5 April 05, http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=98) The second way of thinking about the expansion and multiplication of insubordinations is to say, ‘No, they should not be all harnessed together in the form of a party, they should flourish freely, go whatever way the struggle takes them.’ This does not mean that there should be no coordination, but it should be a much looser coordination. Above all, the principal point of reference is not the state but the society that we want to create.The principal argument against the first conception is that it leads us in the wrong direction. The state is not a thing,it is not a neutral object: it is a form of social relations, a form of organisation, a way of doing things which has been developed over several centuries for the purpose of maintaining or developing the rule of capital. If we focus our struggles on the state, or if we take the state as our principal point of reference, we have to understand that the state pulls us in a certain direction. Above all, it seeks to impose upon us a separation of our struggles from society, to convert our struggle into a struggle on behalf of, in the name of. It separates leaders from the masses, the representatives from the represented; it draws us into a different way of talking, a different way of thinking. It pulls us into a process of reconciliation with reality, and that reality is the reality of capitalism, a form of social organisation that is based on exploitation and injustice, on killing and destruction. It also draws us into a spatial definition of how we do things, a spatial definition which makes a clear distinction between the state’s territory and the world outside, and a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners.It draws us into a spatial definition of struggle that has no hope of matching the global movement of capital. There isone key concept in the history of the state-centred left, and that concept is betrayal. Time and time again the leaders have betrayed the movement, and not necessarily because they are bad people, but just because the state as a form of organisation separates the leaders from the movement and draws them into a process of reconciliation with capital. Betrayal is already given in the state as an organisational form. Contention Three: Multiple conditionality is good a) neg flex – strategic development depends on multiple options. No flexibility means the 2ac can use tricks and add ons to mute the entire 1nc strategy increases 2ac critical thinking – forces the aff to make good arguments, strategically c) key to real world education, because real policy makers are always adjusting and readjusting their policy alternatives d) counter interp – we get three condo advocacies e) reject the argument, not the team
  8. doritosguy and hadoken can judge if devane wants them to, though i suspect they'll just troll
  9. alright, so the judges are Get Cho Uh, anon764, Rhizome, Akillu, and DML. i can post the 1nc whenever the last few questions get answered
  10. But wouldn't rich students who attend public schools also be affected by your plan? So you'll defend imaginary implementation by the USfg in the present tense? Is it ever possible that the plan be struck down later? What piece of evidence says that alleviating one instance of neo-liberalism destroying the education system solves millions of lives? If the plan doesn't save millions of lives, how many does it save? Is your value advocacy your plan text? Isn't the point of being negative to prove that any part of your plan text is bad? Why can't I prove your "value advocacy" to be wrong with multiple different arguments?
×
×
  • Create New...