Jump to content

ktg9616

Member
  • Content Count

    718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Everything posted by ktg9616

  1. When I debated in the MO circuit, I did both. I debated lay when I needed to, and had fun with speed/national-circuit debate when I had the correct judges for it. Part of succeeding is learning how to adapt. I understand that it may seem okay to alienate coaches, teachers, etc, BUT these are the same people that run our tournaments and help things run smoothly. If your area was like mine, we had a good mix between national-circuit style debate and lay/Missouri style debate. Sure, the system "doesn't exist w/o" you, but it also doesn't exist without the people you're trying to alienate through your methods. Also, debate is what you make of it. If you run only open evidence arguments and keep old arguments, it'll be boring. If you cut new non-open source affirmatives, cut a lot of blocks, and create creative negative arguments, you'll have a good time.
  2. I debated in MO for four years, that's blatantly false. The Springfield kids I talked to never were able to run Ks in their district, and had the same issues in their district that you're isolating.
  3. ktg9616

    silly question

    I know the Clayton HS tournament, which is a pretty big state-wide tournament, was cancelled as a result of the potential for a Ferguson decision to be released.
  4. R.I.P. START/CTBT/SKFTA/China Bashing/Jackson Vanik
  5. Why not this? Growth and competitiveness maintains order - econ decline causes great power w4r.Zalmay Khalilzad, 2011,Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, “The Economy and National Security,” National Review, February 8th, Available Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024 Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers.¶ The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.¶ Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.¶ Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments.¶ We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation.¶ The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.¶ American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.¶ As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.¶ Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today.¶ The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. ¶ The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications.¶ As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways.¶ While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done.¶ Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China. ¶ Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.
  6. Framework has kind of transformed over the last few years. People don't really win a LOT on the Fairness/Education debate. FW's become a debate of methodology, aka who's method can best solve the "harms" of the 1AC. Your Role of the Ballot should be to vote for the team that provides the best method for solving the 1AC. So the debate comes down to whether USFG action or bottom-up societal awareness/whatever the 1AC claims is best.
  7. Terrorism is real and political action is necessary to stop it Allison, 10 – professor of government and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard (1/25/10, Graham, “A Failure to Imagine the Worst: The first step toward preventing a nuclear 9/11 is believing it could happen,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/25/a_failure_to_imagine_the_worst?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full) In his first speech to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. President Barack Obama challenged members to think about the impact of a single nuclear bomb.He said: "Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city -- be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people." The consequences, he noted, would "destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life." Before the Sept. 11, 2001, assault on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, who could have imagined that terrorists would mount an attack on the American homeland that would kill more citizens than Japan did at Pearl Harbor? As then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified to the 9/11 Commission: "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon ... into the World Trade Center, using planes as missiles." For most Americans, the idea of international terrorists conducting a successful attack on their homeland, killing thousands of citizens, was not just unlikely. It was inconceivable. As is now evident, assertions about what is "imaginable" or "conceivable," however, are propositions about our minds, not about what is objectively possible. Prior to 9/11, how unlikely was a megaterrorist attack on the American homeland? In the previous decade, al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000 had together killed almost 250 and injured nearly 6,000. Moreover, the organization was actively training thousands of recruits in camps in Afghanistan for future terrorist operations. Thinking about risks we face today, we should reflect on the major conclusion of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission established to investigate that catastrophe. The U.S. national security establishment's principal failure prior to Sept. 11, 2001, was, the commission found, a "failure of imagination." Summarized in a single sentence, the question now is: Are we at risk of an equivalent failure to imagine a nuclear 9/11? After the recent attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, this question is more urgent than ever. The thought that terrorists could successfully explode a nuclear bomb in an American city killing hundreds of thousands of people seems incomprehensible. This essential incredulity is rooted in three deeply ingrained presumptions. First, no one could seriously intend to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack. Second, only states are capable of mass destruction; nonstate actors would be unable to build or use nuclear weapons. Third, terrorists would not be able to deliver a nuclear bomb to an American city. In a nutshell, these presumptions lead to the conclusion: inconceivable. Why then does Obama call nuclear terrorism "the single most important national security threat that we face" and "a threat that rises above all others in urgency?" Why the unanimity among those who have shouldered responsibility for U.S. national security in recent years that this is a grave and present danger? In former CIA Director George Tenet's assessment, "the main threat is the nuclear one. I am convinced that this is where [Osama bin Laden] and his operatives desperately want to go." When asked recently what keeps him awake at night, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates answered: "It's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear." Leaders who have reached this conclusion about the genuine urgency of the nuclear terrorist threat are not unaware of their skeptics' presumptions. Rather, they have examined the evidence, much of which has been painstakingly compiled here by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former head of the CIA's terrorism and weapons-of-mass-destruction efforts, and much of which remains classified. Specifically, who is seriously motivated to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans? Osama bin Laden, who has declared his intention to kill "4 million Americans -- including 2 million children." The deeply held belief that even if they wanted to, "men in caves can't do this" was then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's view when Tenet flew to Islamabad to see him after 9/11. As Tenet (assisted by Mowatt-Larssen) took him step by step through the evidence, he discovered that indeed they could. Terrorists' opportunities to bring a bomb into the United States follow the same trails along which 275 tons of drugs and 3 million people crossed U.S. borders illegally last year. In 2007, Congress established a successor to the 9/11 Commission to focus on terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. This bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism issued its report to Congress and the Obama administration in December 2008. In the commission's unanimous judgment: "it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." Faced with the possibility of an American Hiroshima, many Americans are paralyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism. Either it hasn't happened, so it's not going to happen; or, if it is going to happen, there's nothing we can do to stop it. Both propositions are wrong. The countdown to a nuclear 9/11 can be stopped, but only by realistic recognition of the threat, a clear agenda for action, and relentless determination to pursue it. Util is especially important in context of terrorismNye 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 18-19) The significance and the limits of the two broad traditions can be captured by contemplating a hypothetical case.34 Imagine that you are visiting a Central American country and you happen upon a village square where an army captain is about to order his men to shoot two peasants lined up against a wall. When you ask the reason, you are told someone in this village shot at the captain's men last night. When you object to the killing of possibly innocent people, you are told that civil wars do not permit moral niceties. Just to prove the point that we all have dirty hands in such situations, the captain hands you a rifle and tells you that if you will shoot one peasant, he will free the other. Otherwise both die. He warns you not to try any tricks because his men have their guns trained on you. Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving one, or will you allow both to die but preserve your moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game? The point of the story is to show the value and limits of both traditions. Integrity is clearly an important value, and many of us would refuse to shoot. But at what point does the principle of not taking an innocent life collapse before the consequentialist burden? Would it matter if there were twenty or 1,000 peasants to be saved? What if killing or torturing one innocent person could save a city of 10 million persons from a terrorists' nuclear device? At some point does not integrity become the ultimate egoism of fastidious self-righteousness in which the purity of the self is more important than the lives of countless others? Is it not better to follow a consequentialist approach, admit remorse or regret over the immoral means, but justify the action by the consequences? Do absolutist approaches to integrity become self-contradictory in a world of nuclear weapons? "Do what is right though the world should perish" was a difficult principle even when Kant expounded it in the eighteenth century, and there is some evidence that he did not mean it to be taken literally even then. Now that it may be literally possible in the nuclear age, it seems more than ever to be self-contradictory.35 Absolutist ethics bear a heavier burden of proof in the nuclear age than ever before.
  8. This one is by no means comprehensive (every impact ever), but it's all of the impacts I ever used while Aff. The cards are all pretty recent. -IMPACTS FILE.docx
  9. I really liked the Blaxland 13 card about Senkaku/SCS conflict because it was just so well-warranted and explained. Also, Caldicott
  10. Medicine. I'll be in an accelerated med program next year (which unfortunately means I can't debate due to time constraints )
  11. This aff went really well for us at Jefferson City and Marquette. The solvency evidence is surprisingly good.
  12. I was looking for Mexico Space cooperation literature all year, and at this super lay tournament I decided to make this aff just for teh lols. Posting it here for those that were also curious about space on this topic - Mexico Space 1AC Lay.docx Mexico Space 2AC Blocks.docx
  13. ktg9616

    SeaOrbiter

    There's the reason this aff is a bad idea
  14. ktg9616

    Best of WI

    Best judge: Nathan Cho Best coach: Nathan Cho Best squad/school: Nathan Cho Best team: Nathan Cho Best aff team: Nathan Cho Best neg team: Nathan Cho Best kritik debater: Nathan Cho Best straight-up policy debater: Nathan Cho Best aff position: Nathan Cho Best negative position: Nathan Cho Most persuasive speaker: Nathan Cho Most helpful person: Nathan Cho Most hardworking debater: Nathan Cho Fastest debater: Nathan Cho Best debater overall: Nathan Cho Novice to watch out for next year: Nathan Cho The best team next year: Nathan Cho Squad to watch out for next year: Nathan Cho Funniest debater: Nathan Cho Most fun debater to judge/watch: Nathan cho Rookie team of the year: Nathan Cho Most underrated team: Nathan Cho Most underrated debater: Nathan Cho Most improved debater: Nathan Cho Most improved team: Nathan Cho
  15. The typical answer to an instrinsicness argument is - 1. Link proves that there is a tradeoff, meaning a logical policymaker can't do both. 2. The judge isn't an overall policymaker, they are just making a decision on the plan vs. the status quo vs. a competitive policy option 3. Their argument is just a question of the link magnitude, not a theoretical reason to reject. Reject the argument, not the team.
  16. Round 1- aff vs 2nr- security Round 2- neg vs Cuba baseball. 2nr was oil prices DA (impact turn to relations advantage. Relations=embargo removal=oil) and Heg turns Round 3- aff vs 2nr- heg turns Round 4- neg vs Cuban ag. 2nr was industrial ag good and Rice DA
  17. ktg9616

    Dredging

    Port dredging was THE BOMB. I ran it the entire year with a trade advantage and a navy advantage. The problem with inherency is two fold: 1. that states are doing the projects on their own. But if you have a strong "federal role key" card (which were abundant when I ran it) then you're set. 2. Big ports are being improved. It's true that Miami and savannah are being improved, among others. But a good dredging aff will argue that small ports are key, otherwise all the trade will be diverted to the largest ports which causes congestion. So the 200something other ports that we have are still key.
  18. eh.. Scottish independence results in British disarmament—solves proliferationFargo 2012 (Matthew Fargo is an intern at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Independence for Scotland and Disarmament for the United Kingdom: Or, the Law of Unintended Consequences,†Date is date accessed, July 27, http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nuclearweapons/articles/independence_for_scotland_and_disarmament_for_the_united_kingdom_or_the_law_of_unintended_consequences/index.html) A mixture of geography and nationalism has set the stage in the United Kingdom for a referendum in 2014 that will ask voters a straightforward question with complex consequences: Should Scotland be an independent nation?¶ A complicating factor for the referendum is that while the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a recognized nuclear weapon state in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the strategic nuclear weapons forces which it possesses are all located on submarines based in Scotland. The majority party in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish National Party, has declared that if they achieve independence in 2014, they would call for the unilateral removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland.¶ British nuclear forces are comprised solely of four Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines, each armed with up to sixteen Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. With ten warheads on each missile and a single Vanguard submarine deployed at a time, the United Kingdom maintains 160 operational warheads, and has declared that it will not exceed a maximum of 225 operational warheads at a given time.¶ The possibility of Scottish independence brings into serious question the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent. According to William Walker, there is no other existing submarine base in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland that would be able to host the United Kingdom’s Vanguard ballistic missile submarines. As the referendum nears and it becomes clearer whether it is likely to pass, there will undoubtedly be a more vigorous search for other basing alternatives within the U.K. Ministry of Defense and Parliament.¶ It has also been reported that an independent Scotland would find it difficult to field much in the way of a modern military force on par with countries of approximately the same size in Europe. Although the Scottish National Party has opposed the membership of an independent Scotland in NATO for years, First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond may change course in order to ensure the future security of Scotland. Defense experts in the U.K. have speculated that Scotland would be unable to bar British nuclear submarines from its bases if it expects to become a full member of NATO.¶ Meanwhile, the United Kingdom continues to debate the wisdom of building new ballistic missile submarines at an estimated cost of £25 billion ($39.6 billion). The British American Security Information Council established an independent commission to examine the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear forces and found that the elimination of Trident from the military budget would save approximately £1.6 billion ($2.5 billion) annually for the next fifty years.¶ Although studies have been conducted into potential alternatives, Defense Secretary Liam Fox announced in 2011 that plans to begin a “like for like†replacement of the existing ballistic submarine force are already underway but the final decision will not be made until 2014.¶ The United Kingdom’s maintenance of continuous at-sea deterrence has existed since the 1960s, but alternatives such as creating a dual-use submarine force to replace the aging Trident system or maintaining a far cheaper non-deployed strategic force have been suggested. However, there is an even better solution – British nuclear disarmament.¶ The future of the United Kingdom’s strategic forces has been debated in Parliament in the past. Some Members of Parliament have declared that nuclear weapons “serve no useful or practical purpose†defending the United Kingdom from “the most pressing threat currently facing the U.K.†– terrorism. Furthermore, although the United Kingdom envisions its strategic forces as an independent nuclear deterrent, it continues to rely on the United States for technical support and cooperation. Defense Secretary Fox has insisted that, "Policy remains that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at-sea deterrence is right for the U.K." In his autobiography, former Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote that, “In the final analysis, I thought giving [Trident] up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defense.â€Â¶ British disarmament would also divorce the power and prestige of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council from the possession of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the United Kingdom would be the first Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognized nuclear weapons state to fulfill its NPT Article VI obligation to “pursue negotiations in good faith…to nuclear disarmamentâ€.¶ Although this would only be a small step toward total global nuclear disarmament, it could serve as an important example for moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons cannot rebuild ailing economies, cannot bridge cultural divides, cannot defend against terrorism, and no longer serve the national interests of the United Kingdom.¶ Let Trident rust in peace. British disarm solves extinction – inevitable without itMilne et al 2002 (Sir Hugh Beach has served as Master General of the Ordnance of the British Armed Forces and director of the Council for Arms Control. John Finney is Professor of Physics at University College London. Previously he has been Chief Scientist at the ISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, and Science Coordinator of the European Spallation Source Project. Tom Milne is a researcher at the London Office of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Sebastian Pease FRS is a physicist specializing in various aspects of nuclear energy. He is a former Director of the UKAEA’s Culham Laboratory and of the controlled fusion research programme. From 1942-46 he worked on operational research at the Headquarters of RAF Bomber Command. Sir Joseph Rotblat FRS, co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize, is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of London. He worked on the Manhattan Project “An End to UK Nuclear Weapons,†http://www.britishpugwash.org/documents/end-to-uk-nuclear-weapons.pdf) What good has this exceptional effort done the UK? A previous British Pugwash report 2 concluded that even at the height of the Cold War, Britain’s nuclear weapons had no influence on the course of events. They deterred no enemy. An independent British nuclear force was rationalized as a “second centre of decision†that would give the Soviet Union pause should it doubt American willingness to use nuclear weapons in Europe’s defence. But at no time did the British arsenal constitute more than two per cent of the total nuclear arsenal available to NATO, and it was never reasonable to think that the UK would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in circumstances that the US would not. No allied country depended on UK nuclear weapons and no serious consideration was given to the use of these weapons in any of the wars in which the UK has been involved (Suez, Falklands/Malvinas, Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia). The report’s conclusion, that Britain could dispense forthwith with its nuclear weapons, was based not on the fact that the Cold War is over, but on the uselessness of the weapons during the entire period since the Montebello test. Subsequent events have not altered the basis for this conclusion: it holds good today.¶ Not only have UK nuclear weapons been of no military value, they are dangerous to possess. There could be accidents and at times of great international tension the weapons could attract pre-emptive strikes. Use of nuclear weapons by the UK would invite disastrous nuclear counterattack.3 And each country that retains or acquires nuclear weapons serves, directly or indirectly, as an incentive for other nations to do likewise. The UK is legally committed to nuclear disarmament, moreover, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an undertaking reaffirmed in unequivocal language at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.¶ The current report discusses options open to the UK government in the areas of nuclear arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament. Chapter 2 reviews the state of the UK nuclear weapons programme, Chapter 3 addresses the prospects for multilateral disarmament, and Chapter 4 discusses existing UK disarmament policy. Because present UK public opinion favours nuclear disarmament only in conjunction with disarmament by other countries, it seems unlikely that the decommissioning of Trident could be achieved in the short run. Chapter 5 deals, therefore, with opportunities for action that, in political terms, may be more readily achievable. These are: 1. an intensification of the present policy of seeking multilateral disarmament; 2. unilateral reduction of the UK nuclear arsenal; 3. a commitment not to develop or procure a nuclear successor to Trident. These courses of action are not mutually exclusive. However, our major recommendation is option 3: that the UK government should decide and announce that no successor nuclear weapons system will be developed or procured to replace Trident when it is decommissioned in about 20 years’ time.¶ A decision not to develop a nuclear successor to Trident would be comparable in the nuclear weapons context to the decision by the UK in 1956 that it would no longer develop offensive chemical and biological weapons.4 The UK’s chemical and biological weapons facilities now concentrate their work entirely on defensive measures, including means of enforcing the international chemical and biological weapons conventions that prohibit possession of these weapons. In this way the UK has made a significant contribution to reducing the threat from chemical and biological weapons. It is our main conclusion that by taking a similar approach in the nuclear field, ending development of UK nuclear weapons and intensifying UK efforts to address the political and technical problems confronting multilateral disarmament, the UK would make a significant contribution to reducing the global nuclear threat and, in doing so, increase national security.
  19. Here it is for everyone else - Ocean policy causes partisan backlash – Republican backlash, industry lobbying, bureaucracy, and administration overreach.Eilperin 12 (Juliet Eilperin, House of Representatives reporter for the Washington Post, 10/28/12, “National ocean policy sparks partisan fight,†http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html, Keerthi, Acc 6/7/14) Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy, showing that polarization over environmental issues doesn’t stop at the water’s edge.¶ For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights.¶ Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use.¶ The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue — the country’s patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users.¶ The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed.¶ Still, activists invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition.¶ During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that “opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences.â€Â¶ Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was “like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms.†An environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him.¶ The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick.¶ “The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. What’s not to love?†Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination.¶ Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore.¶ When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be “a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.â€Â¶ In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country — the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific — to set up regional bodies to offer input.¶ White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. “It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans.â€Â¶ House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the administration’s broad definition of what affects the ocean — including runoff from land — could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because “all water going downhill goes into the ocean. . . . That potential could be there.â€Â¶ The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate.¶ Two influential groups — anglers and energy firms — have joined Republicans in questioning the administration’s approach.¶ In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy “could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.†The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later.¶ “Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down,†said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nation’s major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final implementation plan is released, after the election.¶ The National Ocean Policy Coalition — a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests — has galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests.¶ Brent Greenfield, the group’s executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about “the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity.â€Â¶ Sarah Cooksey, who is Delaware’s coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantic’s regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books. “No government wants another layer of bureaucracy,†she said.¶ In Southerland’s reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman “Ocean Enemy #1†and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses.¶ Southerland declined to comment for this article.¶ Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is “the first issue I’ve seen that’s become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.â€
×
×
  • Create New...