Sunteți pe pagina 1din 111

Performance

Briefs

Topic: Nuclear Proliferation



PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

2 | P A G E

Contents
Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Affirmation ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Negation ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Cards ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Affirmation ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Unilateral force prevents proliferation .......................................................................................... 14
Nuclear Proliferation can cause a Nuclear Winter ..................................................................... 20
A Nuclear Winter will affect the Whole World ............................................................................. 26
Nuclear Weapons harm for the Whole World ............................................................................. 30
Nuclear Weapons are Harmful to the Whole World ................................................................... 32
Nuclear Arms Represent World Power ....................................................................................... 42
Negation ............................................................................................................................................... 51
Unilateral military force decreases domestic freedoms. ........................................................... 52
Unilateral military force will destabilize the Middle East............................................................ 56
Unilateral military force destabilizes Asia .................................................................................... 62
Unilateral military force will have economic repercussions. ..................................................... 75
Unilateral military force hurts U.S international standing. ......................................................... 82
Unilateral military force increases terrorism................................................................................ 86
Unilateral military force promotes a U.S military-industrial complex. ...................................... 93
Contentions ............................................................................................................................................. 96
Affirmation ........................................................................................................................................... 97
Contention 1: Unilateral Military Force Prevents Nuclear Proliferation ................................... 98
Contention 2: Nuclear Proliferation leads to Nuclear War and Nuclear Winter ..................... 99
Contention 3: Nuclear Winter is Harmful For the Whole World .............................................. 100
Contention 4: Nuclear Weapons Are Harmful to the World .................................................... 101
Contention 5: The United States Can Eradicate Nuclear Weapons ...................................... 102
Contention 6: Nuclear Arms Represent World Power ............................................................. 103
Contention 7: Nuclear Proliferation Hurts American World Power ........................................ 104
Negation ............................................................................................................................................ 105
Contention 1: Unilateral military force will cause economic detriments for the United States.
........................................................................................................................................................ 106
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

3 | P A G E

Contention 2: Unilateral military force will hurt U.S hegemony. ............................................. 107
Contention 3: Better alternatives to unilateral military force. .................................................. 108
Contention 4: Unilateral military force will not solve the India/Pakistan crisis. ..................... 109
Contention 5: Unilateral military force will not solve the North Korean crisis. ...................... 110
Contention 6: Unilateral military force creates a military industrial conflict. .......................... 111
















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

4 | P A G E


Analysis


















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

5 | P A G E

With the growing tensions in the Middle East this is a topic which lends to a great
discussion on what the United States can and actually should do in reaction to potential
nuclear threats such as Iran or North Korea. As such a current and topically relevant
resolution, this is a great way to start out the year and will definitely allow for meaningful
debate.
Before we dive into the logistics of winning on either AFF or NEG, we first need
to establish some clarity with the resolution. While the NFL has given us a fairly
concrete motion, great leeway can be found with the ambiguity of unilateral military
force and prevent nuclear proliferation. Firstly, unilateral military force of course
means that the United States will be entering into this combat with solely US troops but
what will these troops entail? Will any other nations, committees, or organizations be
included in the decision making or in covering the expense? And what will the exact
target of these missions be? These are the major questions which present themselves
with the merely the first three words of the topic. To begin answering such questions as
best as we can, we must observe a combination of past precedent and future trends,
which is more important in this instant than any other topic, due to the great transition of
military tactics from the beginning of the War on Terror to this current day. With that
unilateral military force can fairly be defined as either actual boots on the ground or
drone combat, the Aff would most probably lean to drones and Neg to boots.
Furthermore, the mention of a solid American force, no assumptions can be drawn on
the political support behind such military decisions. Thus, if any arguments arise on the
expenditure or planning of the task force, both Aff and Neg ought to stick to their guns
(pun intended), as Aff can state that with the growing influence of the UN in managing
international troops and the US in seeking global support in the movement of our troops,
that an international consensus will be achieved when using Unilateral military force by
the United States to prevent nuclear proliferation. On the other hand, the Neg can also
make the obvious claim under the definition that it is indeed a unilateral US force and
the US acts in its own interests due to our status of Global Policeman and so, the US
will step on the worlds toes diplomatically and crush the American economy. Lastly,
tying in with both unilateral military force and prevent nuclear proliferation the
debater needs to determine what the general target of the military force will be, nuclear
development centers, entire countries, blockades, etc. Also, as nuclear proliferation is
simply the spread of nuclear technology beyond the core of nuclear countries, the
bounds of military action must be determined as a means of clarifying the confines of
the round. Due to the subject being the United States both sides ought to concede the
United States has a vested interest in keep nuclear arms out of anti-US organizations
and bodies, but countries such as Israel provide minimal threats to the American people
and so would not be the target of unilateral military force. So, the limitation for targets
of the military force ought to be the generic anti-American entities or entities with the
express intent of detonating said WMDs. The addition of intent is necessary because
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

6 | P A G E

nuclear fallout requires a single ignition and so any currently country out of the control of
American diplomatic regulation is a also an American threat. This sums up the
clarification sections and ought to set you all on the path to answering the major
questions of this resolution.























PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

7 | P A G E



Affirmation


























PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

8 | P A G E

Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent
nuclear proliferation
Starting with the Affirmation, a clear sense of morality is assumed, as the United
States is supposedly intervening to stop to massive death toll with nuclear fallout.
However a few offensives can be taken with the affirmation of this topic: moral,
humanitarian, and diplomatic issues. Nuclear proliferation, while will not always lead to
nuclear fallout, the more warring people with nuclear weapons, the greater the chance
someone will hit the button. With this mindset in our scope of reference, the great
underlying moral issues of nuclear weapons takes hold. At Hiroshima 66,000 of 225,000
Japanese citizens died due to the nuclear bomb, being a single city with a nuclear
weapon far cruder in comparison to modern weapons, the ramifications of modern
nuclear fallout on millions of global citizens is a clear moral incentive to mitigate nuclear
proliferation. On a similar note, the humanitarian issue of nuclear proliferation is another
of great concern but with limited impacts outside the individual region. With countries
such as Iran and Syria using WMD programs to maintain the power of their regimes,
conversely Iraq and Egypt who gave up their programs ended up losing control of their
regimes. Thus nuclear proliferation goes hand-in-hand with the development of
militaristic regime. With intervention and the prevention of full nuclear proliferation, the
United States can help continue to promote human rights and lessen the abuse of
power with regimes. Furthermore, many of these regimes use the bombs and weapons
against their own people, so even if the nuclear weapon does not start complete nuclear
winter, any use of a nuclear weapon is bad, and by placing human rights as a priority
unilateral military force is definitely a preferred option.
Lastly, on a less pathos route, the world is run by diplomacy and the interaction
and balance of international powers. If any system or country were to be thrown off with
more or less power, international relations would be strained and the ramifications
would not be ideal. Within the confines of this specific topic, if a militaristic country were
to break the current system of nuclear regulation, then the carefully balanced nuclear
dtente would be useless as it takes but one missile to rain mayhem. So, if a nation
such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, North Korea or Chechnya, were to obtain a
standard weapon of mass destruction to rival those of the United States, then lines
would be drawn and US diplomatic relations with Russia and China would be placed
under tremendous pressure, leading the quick escalation in firepower involved and
factors at stake. Thus is the Affirmation can balance a combination of the moral,
humanitarian, and diplomatic issues involved with this resolution, their case will surely
be the bomb and send the opponent up in a mushroom cloud.


PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

9 | P A G E



Negation



















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

10 | P A G E

Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent
nuclear proliferation
With the Arab Springs revolutions and various societal upheavals around the
world, more and more countries around the world are falling victim to destabilization.
This phenomenon, while perhaps beneficial towards democratic processes, are
increasing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation by rogue or belligerent nations, or even
nuclear proliferation at the hands of terroristic elements. Thus, with increases in
potential nuclear weapons around the world, the crux of the debate relies on what to do
next.
As the resolution centers around the concept of unilateral military force, the
Negatives role in this debate would be to prove that this type of action, constituting on a
usual basis, military invasion, overwhelming action against one country, and military
force on an enormous scale, is underwhelmingly ineffective, detrimental, costly and
overall not the right tool for the job.
With the massive collateral damage from the military campaigns in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Vietnam as well as examples by other countries, it is easy to see that for
general populations, unilateral military force is not beneficial. Likewise, the majority of
these actions have been criticized as illegal and almost similar to a Nuremberg esque
crime. Alongside international ramifications, we have potential economic ramifications
for the United States, with defense spending costs soaring and with wastefulness on at
an all-time high, another invasion or large military campaign would only hurt our
economy as well as promote an even greater military-industrial complex within the
United States. These detriments should be the Negatives bread and butter in this case
for positive ground.
For the negatives benefit, the most straightforward approach might be the best.
Lay judges would respond very well to statistics from collateral damage, civilians killed,
and potential human rights abuses that could arise from unilateral military force.
Likewise, the economic ramifications could be very persuasive as they would surely hit
home as these ramifications make a large impact on the U.S economy. It is possible to
run the case that nuclear proliferation would be beneficial as well, seeing the old
theories of Mutually Assured Destruction and the like coming into play. In that case, if
the negative can establish that nuclear proliferation is beneficial, then they could even
try and turn the affirmatives arguments, saying that yes, unilateral force is effective, but
stopping nuclear proliferation is bad.
Overall, the list of possibilities for the negative goes on and on as evidence
denouncing unilateral military force is abundant and the arguments are many in number.
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

11 | P A G E

Thus, for the negative, the focus should be on exactly why unilateral military force is
above all, not a feasible option, with perhaps less emphasis on justification.
In this debate, unilateral military force is most likely going to constitute a large military
campaign, led by a single nation (hence unilateral). This broad assertion categorizes
most infantry movements and naval/air actions as military force so this broad definition
should be beneficial to the negative. The negative wants to narrow down the definition
to a tee as to garner all the detriments of large military campaigns for positive negative
ground whilst avoiding groups of the military who provide benefits for the affirmative.
Justified can be utilizes by the negative in a number of ways. If the case stresses the
loss of lives, moral intrusion and injustices of unilateral military force, then justified can
mean what is morally accepted to be fair, or even giving each their due. This is a nice
mirror of potential affirmative cases that try and prove that stopping nuclear proliferation
saves lives (which in fact, the negative can prove that unilateral military forces takes
more lives and more rights). If the impacts on the case rest with something else, such
as economic ramifications, the negative might be better off utilizing a cost benefit
analysis from the perspective of the United States.
Nuclear Proliferation can be a bit hairy, depending on how the two sides present their
definitions. The job of each side is to define what exactly constitutes proliferation. The
affirmative might argue that the acquisition of a nuclear weapon would count as
proliferation, and thus, unilateral military force would be justified in that circumstance.
However, the negative might argue that the simple creation of uranium or plutonium
enriching facilities in any country is grounds for unilateral military force and thus the
United States is not justified in using unilateral military force. It is up to each and every
individual team to adjust this line accordingly.









PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

12 | P A G E



Cards
















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

13 | P A G E




Affirmation

















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

14 | P A G E

Unilateral force prevents proliferation
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, military force and political
incentives are the most important factors in limiting nuclear proliferation. Thus unilateral military
force WILL prevent nuclear proliferation.
"Part I: What Is Being Done to Halt the Spread of Nuclear Weapons." Part I: What Is Being
Done to Halt the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. IAEA, n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Safeguards2/part1.html
There are several factors which can discourage countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The
most crucial is removing or diminishing the political incentives for a State to acquire nuclear
weapons. This may be accomplished through formal military alliances, security guarantees,
regional nuclear weapons treaties, undertakings by NWSs not to use nuclear force against
those not possessing them and offers of assistance in the event of the threat or the use of force
against a given State.
Another positive factor has been the prospect that a country can obtain improved access to
nuclear technology if it makes a commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. This may have a
bearing for countries wishing to make use of nuclear power and to those seeking improved
access to the medical, agricultural, industrial and environmental applications of nuclear
technology.














PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

15 | P A G E

Andy Ridgeway, News and Features editor for Focus Magazine, followed the special
department of the USG, centered on discovering the location of nuclear weapons. Due to the
advanced techniques of the department, a single nuclear weapon or dirty bomb can be traced
within a low margin of error.
Buck, Rhiannon. "Nuclear Detectives." Focus Magazine. Immediate Media Company, 1
Sept. 2008. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://sciencefocus.com/feature/physics/nuclear-detectives
If terrorists ever got their hands on a stray batch of nuclear material and made a dirty bomb, a
small band of scientists would be tasked with tracking it down. Andy Ridgway joined them on
the nuclear trail.
Many of the basic techniques used by nuclear detectives are nothing new its just that the
nature of the nuclear threat has changed significantly. The techniques were used to find out
what the heck the Soviets were doing and, later, what the heck the Chinese were doing, says
Davis. Its very hard to imagine any sane nation firing one nuclear weapon at the United States,
or Britain for that matter. But its not inconceivable to imagine a group of 50 people who have
got their hands on a nuclear weapon trying to smuggle it into the country. But vital clues will be
missed unless the nuclear detective finds out exactly what radioactive material theyre dealing
with whether its uranium or plutonium for instance. These substances can also appear in
different forms, or isotopes. Natural uranium, for instance, is made up of uranium 238 and u235.
Enrichment involves increasing the proportion of u235 the isotope that releases lots of energy
and is ideal for bombs and reactors. The level of enrichment can also pinpoint where the stuff
was made and its intended use. Different isotopes give off different radiation and this can be
measured using a gamma- or alpha-ray spectrometer. If plutonium is found, the process is the
same. Depending on the type of reactor that generated it, the plutonium composition looks
different, says Dr Klaus Mayer of ITU. If, for instance, the plutonium composition shows it
came from a heavy-water reactor, we could slightly narrow the search as these are only found in
Canada and Romania.








PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

16 | P A G E

Max Boot Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies and senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations espouses the necessity of a central global police force.
Furthermore he states the UN is incapable of fulfilling such a standard and so the United States
as the most prominent military power of today ought regulate international crime, such as the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. Implementing this standard we can see that unilateral military
action provides the best results and most safety.
Boot, Max. "America's Destiny Is to Police the World." Council on Foreign Relations.
Council on Foreign Relations, 19 Feb. 2003. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/americas-destiny-police-world/p5559
The intransigence of France, China and Russia last week makes it unlikely that the United
Nations Security Council will pass another resolution authorizing a war in Iraq. But even if it did,
everyone realizes this would be only a fig leaf for US-led action. If the US does not step forward,
nothing will happen - not even weapons inspections. In other words, America is once again
forced to play Globocop. This stirs up opposition on both the left and right, at home and abroad.
Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe, critics wonder? To answer
that question, start by asking, does the world need a constable? That is like asking whether
London or New York needs a police force. As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect
peaceful people from predators. The international system is no different in this regard from your
own neighborhood, except that predators abroad are far more dangerous than ordinary robbers,
rapists and murderers. They are, if given half a chance, mass robbers, mass rapists and mass
murderers. There are, to be sure, lots of international laws on the books prohibiting genocide,
land mines, biological weapons and other nasty things. But without enforcement mechanisms,
they are as meaningless as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which outlawed war as an
instrument of national policy. The hope of idealistic liberals for more than a century has been
that some international organization would punish the wicked. But the League of Nations was a
dismal failure, and the UN is not much better. It is hard to take seriously a body whose human
rights commission is chaired by Libya and whose disarmament commission will soon be chaired
by Iraq. The UN provides a useful forum for palaver, but as an effective police force it is a joke,
as shown by its failure to stop bloodlettings in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere. It is almost
impossible to get a consensus among the UN's member states, even when it comes to a threat
as well documented as that posed by Saddam Hussein. So who does that leave to be the
world's policeman? Belgium? Bolivia? Burkina Faso? Bangladesh? The answer is pretty
obvious. It is the country with the most vibrant economy, the most fervent devotion to liberty and
the most powerful military. In the 19th century Britain battled the "enemies of all mankind", such
as slave traders and pirates, and kept the world's seas open to free trade. Today the only nation
capable of playing an equivalent role is the US. Allies will be needed but America is, as
Madeleine Albright said, "the indispensable nation"


PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

17 | P A G E

The PEW, in their study, reported generally unfavorable opinions about nuclear proliferation in
Iran. Overall, 63% of Americans favor military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons with 61% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans in favor of military force against Iran.
Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt all reported similar numbers against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
Johnston, Ian. "Poll: 63 Percent in US Back Military Action to Stop Iran from Getting
Nuclear Weapons." NBC News. MSNBC, 18 May 2012. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/18/11756929-poll-63-percent-in-us-back-
military-action-to-stop-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons?lite
Some 63 percent of Americans would be in favor of taking military action to prevent Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons, according to a new survey.
The Pew Research Center asked 26,210 people in 21 different countries to give their views on
Irans alleged plans to get nuclear weapons, finding widespread opposition to the idea in the
West and also in some countries in the Mideast.
More than nine in 10 people in the United States, U.K., France and Germany were against Iran
getting nuclear weapons. Two percent of Americans said they were in favor. About 61 percent
of Democrats and 79 percent of Republicans backed military force to prevent Iran from getting
nuclear weapons, with 31 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans saying this
should be accepted if it happens. The survey found that 76 percent of Jordanians, 66 percent of
Egyptians and 62 percent of Lebanese people were also against the prospect of a nuclear-
armed Iran.












PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

18 | P A G E

R. Scott Kemp, Von Hippel, and Hossein Mousavian write from Princeton Universitys Graduate
Policy Workshop, acknowledge the aggression and belligerence of Iran in pursuit of their
nuclear program. Iran seems unlikely, under all circumstances, of relinquishing their nuclear
capabilities, even through sanctions, diplomacy, and preventative military action. Thus, only
repetitive and consistent actions, such as the assassination of scientists, are capable of solving
the Iranian crisis.
Von Hippel, Frank, Hossein Mousavian, and R. Scott Kemp. PREVENTING A NUCLEAR-
ARMED IRAN: A PHASED GRAND AGENDA. THE WOODROW WILSON SCHOOLS
GRADUATE POLICY WORKSHOP, Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://wws.princeton.edu/research/pwreports_fy11/Preventing-a-Nuclear-Armed-Iran.pdf
For over a decade, Iran and the international community have engaged in an increasingly risky
game of chicken over Irans nuclear program. The public revelation of the Natanz enrichment
facility in 2002 set in motion an escalating confrontation over Irans nuclear activities. Aside from
a period of limited cooperation resulting from European and Iranian diplomatic efforts between
2003 and 2005, episodic attempts at negotiation since have failed to give hope for a peaceful
resolution to the standoff. As political opposition to negotiation continues to constrain leaders in
the United States and Iran, the Islamic Republic inches closer to a nuclear weapons breakout
capability, even while America and its allies exert more pressure. Without a change in strategy,
Iran is likely to obtain a nuclear weapons capability or face the prospect of military attack. While
the United States could default to a strategy of containing a nuclear-armed Iran, the potential
consequences of doing so suggest a more ambitious approach is needed. A nuclear-armed Iran
might motivate its neighbors to seek their own nuclear weapons, which could trigger a
destabilizing regional arms race. Irans possession of nuclear weapons might also increase the
probability of the purposeful or inadvertent use of nuclear weapons or the loss, theft, or transfer
of nuclear material or weapons to another state or sub-state organization. Finally, Iranian
nuclear weapons would not only directly threaten the regional interests of the United States and
its allies, but they might also embolden Iran to pursue its geopolitical agenda with greater
aggression from behind a shield of nuclear deterrence. For these reasons, the critical U.S.
objective should be to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by extending its breakout
time in the short term and reducing Irans motivations to obtain nuclear weapons in the long
term. Targeted Military Action: An alternative strategy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons could be military action targeting Irans nuclear infrastructure. Although military action
by the United States or Israel might be able to destroy Irans critical nuclear facilities and
seriously delay its nuclear program, the hardened and distributed nature of Irans nuclear
infrastructure, in addition to the possible existence of facilities unknown to foreign intelligence
agencies, would make this extremely difficult. The large strike package needed to destroy Irans
underground nuclear targets might be more than Israel can manage, and U.S. policymakers
have been hesitant to commit to using force against Iran given the potential costs to U.S.
regional interests, the vulnerability of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, the
possible impact on global oil prices, and the potential damage to the U.S. image abroad.1 Even
if military action did successfully destroy much of Irans nuclear infrastructure, Iran would likely
retain the ability to rebuild its nuclear program using its remaining scientists and their knowledge
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

19 | P A G E

base. Only the elimination of numerous Iranian scientists would extinguish existing knowledge,
but, given international norms and the risk of retaliation in kind, it is unlikely that the United
States or Israel could undertake a sufficiently vast assassination campaign and retain their
political standing in the world. Furthermore, the initial military strike could convince the Iranian
government to rebuild and pursue a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible in order to deter
further aggression. A strike could also strengthen the Iranian government by rallying nationalist
sentiments and support for the nuclear program. Therefore, even an operationally successful
military strike would have to be periodically repeated.






















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

20 | P A G E

Nuclear Proliferation can cause a Nuclear Winter
Moti Nissani authority on the effects of nuclear war and nuclear winter, declares Although the
aftermath of an all-out nuclear war among major nuclear powers cannot be described with
certainty, it would surely be the greatest catastrophe in recorded history. He goes on to
speculate the effects to likely include death for over half the people in the combatant countries,
decrease of the quality in the genetic pool, breakdown of economic systems, and radiation-
induced diseases. Thus nuclear war will almost certainly cause nuclear winter.
Nissani, Moti. "Chapter 2: CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WAR." Chapter 2:
CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WAR. Wayne State University, n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/CH2.html
Nuclear bombs wreak far greater damage than conventional explosives. They owe their greater
destructive power to immediate blast, heat, and radiation, and to the lingering effects of
radioactive fallout. The combined effects of the Hiroshima bomb killed over half of city residents,
turned the lives of many survivors into a lifelong nightmare, and leveled the entire city. Owing to
its greater yield, the effects of a typical contemporary bomb are expected to be greater.
Although the aftermath of an all-out nuclear war among major nuclear powers cannot be
described with certainty, it would surely be the greatest catastrophe in recorded history. In any
combatant country, it may kill half the people, afflict many survivors with a variety of radiation-
induced diseases, destroy industrial and military capabilities, and contaminate vast tracts of
land. Such a war might also lower the quality of the human genetic pool, damage the biosphere,
cause a breakdown of national and international economic systems, destroy the health care and
prevention system, and move surviving societies in unpredictable directions. Although extinction
of the human species is unlikely, it cannot altogether be ruled out. History, psychology, and
common sense strongly suggest that nuclear war is more probable than most of us would like to
believe. This, and the cataclysmic quality of nuclear war, imply that humanity can scarcely afford
another half a century in the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.









PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

21 | P A G E

Bob Graham and Jim talent former US Senators and chairman/vice-chairman, respectively, on
the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of the WMB Proliferation and Terrorism, cite
in their article with the Heritage Foundation, that the terrorist network poses a great harm to the
American people if they should develop a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, they weigh that a
single nuclear terrorist attack on the American people would kill tens of millions of Americans.
Also, as radical countries such Iran, North Korea, and Syria hold ties with terrorist organizations,
nuclear proliferation to these nations would likely bring nuclear power to the terrorist
organization, and the eventual start of a nuclear war.
Graham, Bob, and Jim Talent. "The Heritage Foundation." The Heritage Foundation. The
Heritage Foundation, 15 Sept. 2008. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2008/09/nuclear-proliferation-endangers-
world-stability
During the first presidential debate in 2004, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry agreed -- as
stated by the president -- that "the single, largest threat to American national security today is
nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist network." Yet despite that consensus, the subject of
weapons of mass destruction proliferation has quickly disappeared from the national agenda.
Few comments or questions on this issue have been posed to the presidential candidates, even
though preventing WMD proliferation should be on the short list of priorities for a McCain or
Obama White House. And it rarely appears on polls of the most urgent concerns of citizens. So,
in 2008, after seven years in which there have been no successful terrorist attacks inside the
country, why not relax? Here are the reasons: Terrorists have continued to demonstrate the
intent to acquire a WMD capability. As Director of National Intelligence Admiral Michael
McConnell said in his Sept. 10, 2007, testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, "al Qaeda will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical,
biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it
develops what it deems is sufficient capability." The potential human toll of an attack utilizing
weapons of mass destruction is appalling. On a normal workday, half a million people crowd the
area within a half-mile radius of Times Square. A noon detonation of a nuclear device in
Midtown Manhattan would kill them all. Another attack -- particularly with WMD -- would have a
devastating impact on the American and the world economies. As former U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan warned, a nuclear terrorist attack would push "tens of millions of people into
dire poverty," creating "a second death toll throughout the developing world." The environment
for the use of nuclear and biological weapons has changed. Although Russia is doing a better
job of securing its stockpiles and therefore is less of a threat, North Korea and Iran have taken
its place. North Korea has gone from two bombs worth of plutonium to an estimated ten. Iran
has gone from zero centrifuges spinning to more than 3,000. In what some have termed a
"nuclear renaissance," many nations are now seeking commercial nuclear power capacity that
will add to the inventory of nations and scientists who could extend their interest to nuclear
weapons. With the nuclear surprises we've experienced in Iran, Syria and North Korea, it is
clear that current nonproliferation regimes and mechanisms can no longer be certain to prevent
more nuclear proliferation or the theft of bomb-usable materials.
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

22 | P A G E

If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons they would soon develop an aggressive foreign policy
and more than likely attack Israel or other American allies and American bases. With this in
mind and Irans sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear proliferation to Iran would trigger a nuclear
war.
"The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why It Matters." The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why It Matters.
ADL, 17 July 2013. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.adl.org/israel-international/iran/c/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-
matters.html
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime will have severe repercussions for
American security and the security of our allies.
-A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden Iran's aggressive foreign policy, resulting in greater
confrontations with the international community. Iran already has a conventional weapons
capability to hit U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe. If
Tehran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would increase dramatically.
-Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and
operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially
share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United States
and the West.
-While Iranian missiles can't yet reach America, Iran having a nuclear weapons capability can
potentially directly threaten the United States and its inhabitants. The U.S. Department of
Defense reported in April 2012: "With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically
capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015. Many analysts are also
concerned about the possibility of a nuclear weapon arriving in a cargo container at a major US
port. Furthermore, a federally mandated commission to study electromagnetic pulse (EMP)
attacks noted the vast damage that could be wrought by a single missile with a nuclear
warhead, launched from a ship off the US coast, and detonated a couple of hundred miles in the
air, high above America.
-A nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to America's closest allies in the Middle East. Israel is
most at risk as Iran's leaders have repeatedly declared that Israel should "be wiped from the
map." America's moderate Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and others are
already alarmed at Iran's aggressive regional policy and would feel increasingly threatened by a
nuclear-armed Iran.
-The Middle East remains an essential source of energy for the United States and the world.
Iran's military posture has led to increases in arms purchases by its neighbors. A nuclear-armed
Iran would likely spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would further destabilize this
volatile and vital region.

PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

23 | P A G E

Martin Hellman, professor emeritus at Stanford and co-inventor of public key cryptography,
states that if a child were born today the chances of that child dying due to nuclear war are at
least 10%, and only increasing with the increasing tensions in Iran and North Korea, coupled
with the emboldened regimes in such countries. Lastly, as the number of nuclear warheads in
existence is over 25,000 and only increases daily, the powder keg that is nuclear development
will surely ignite soon if no measures are taken to prevent such a buildup.
Blackman, Christine. "Chance of Nuclear War Is Greater than You Think: Stanford
Engineer Makes Risk Analysis." Chance of Nuclear War Is Greater than You Think:
Stanford Engineer Makes Risk Analysis. Phys.org, 20 July 2009. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://phys.org/news167327145.html
What are the chances of a nuclear world war? What is the risk of a nuclear attack on United
States soil? The risk of a child born today suffering an early death due to nuclear war is at least
10 percent, according to Martin Hellman, a tall, thin and talkative Stanford Professor Emeritus in
Engineering. Nuclear tensions in Iran and North Korea are increasing the need to take a long
look at how the United States handles weapons of mass destruction, Hellman said. Auto
manufacturers assess the risk of injury to drivers, and engineers assess potential risks of a new
nuclear power plant. So why havent we assessed the risk of nuclear conflict based on our
current arms strategy? Hellman and a group of defense experts, Nobel laureates and Stanford
professors are calling for an in-depth analysis. With more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in
existence and the ability to build many times more, the choice is between creating a safer world
and having no world at all, Hellman wrote in his paper Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence.
Weapons from the Cold War still remain, but public concern for nuclear strategy has dissipated,
Hellman said. Many of those who do think about it, such as political leaders, say the fantasy of
nuclear disarmament is too risky for national defense, he explained. People who are saying
change is too risky are implicitly assuming that the current approach is risk free, but no one
really knows what the risk is if we dont change, Hellman said.








PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

24 | P A G E

Tim Weiner, a winner of the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award for writing on national
security, declares that if Iran and North Korea continue to develop their nuclear weapons,
nuclear war is certain to occur.
Weiner, Tim. "Pondering the Unthinkable: The Possibility of a Nuclear War Is Not Really
That Far-fetched." Staten Island Live. Bloomberg News, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.silive.com/opinion/columns/index.ssf/2013/03/pondering_the_unthinkable_the
.html
Start thinking the unthinkable. We as a nation have to start talking about the prospects for
nuclear war. President Barack Obama says Iran might have a bomb in a year. To hold back the
day, the United States and Israel have conducted cyberwar, and Israel has apparently
assassinated Iranian scientists. But even if Israel attacks to stop Iran's bomb making now, the
day will dawn. What will we do if Israel threatens Tehran with nuclear obliteration? What if North
Korea aims a warhead at Seoul? And what if the missiles start flying? Two dozen North Korean
nuclear weapons fired at Seoul and Toyko could kill more people than all the Allied bombings of
Germany and Japan in World War II. A nuclear battle in the Middle East, one-sided or not,
would be the most destabilizing military event since Pearl Harbor. Few American military and
political leaders have thought seriously about nuclear strategy since the end of the Cold War.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

25 | P A G E

Dan Farber of CBS reports, that without the spread of nuclear weaponry being checked, the
likelihood of nuclear war increases 1% per year with the current likelihood being around 10-30%
for the next 10 years.
Farber, Dan. "Nuclear Attack a Ticking Time Bomb, Experts Warn." CBSNews. CBS
Interactive, 3 May 2010. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20003954-503543.html
The major nuclear powers are making efforts to continue the streak of nuclear deterrence. Last
month, the U.S. and Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that will
reduce their nuclear stockpiles by about 30 percent over the next several years, and President
Obama hosted a 47 nation Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. This week, representatives
from 189 nations are meeting New York for Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review
conference to deal with the potential spread of nuclear weaponry in the Middle East and other
parts of the world. Unfortunately, the fact that August 9, 1945 was the last time a nuclear bomb
was detonated and 189 countries are discussing how to stop the spread of nuclear weaponry
doesn't mean that the likelihood of a nuclear bomb detonating and killing tens of thousands or
even millions of people is anywhere near zero. Various experts estimate the chances of a
nuclear detonation in the next 10 years at somewhere between 10 and 30 percent. Martin
Hellman, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford and co-inventor of public key
cryptography, estimates the odds at 1 percent per year going forward. "If the odds are 1 percent
per year, in 10 years the likelihood is almost 10 percent, and in 50 years 40 percent if there is
no substantial change," he said. Hellman, who has been focusing on nuclear deterrence for the
past 25 years, said that a baby born today, with an expected lifetime of 80 years, faces a
greater than 50-50 chance that a nuclear weapon attack will occur unless the number of
weapons and available weapons-grade material is radically reduced. Even if the horizon for a
nuclear detonation were extended to 1,000 years, with the threat calculated at 0.1 percent per
year, a child born today would have about a 10 percent chance of not living out his or her
natural life, Hellman estimated. "The risk would be equivalent to having your home surrounded
by a thousand nuclear power plants (each with a one million year time horizon) or the equivalent
of sky diving twice a week, but with the whole world in the harness," he said. (A full explanation
of Professor Hellman's modeling can be found here. )
In a 2005 survey of 85 national security experts, 60 percent of the respondents assessed the
odds of a nuclear attack within 10 years at between 10 and 50 percent, with an average of 29.2
percent.





PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

26 | P A G E

A Nuclear Winter will affect the Whole World
Wayne State University Professor Moti Nissani claims nuclear bombs are far more devastating
in effect than conventional weaponry and that while an example cannot be drawn, a nuclear
conflict would be the greatest human catastrophe in human history, with nuclear war more
probable than most believe.
Nissani, Moti. "Chapter 2: CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WAR." Chapter 2:
CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WAR. Wayne State University, n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/CH2.html
Nuclear bombs wreak far greater damage than conventional explosives. They owe their greater
destructive power to immediate blast, heat, and radiation, and to the lingering effects of
radioactive fallout. The combined effects of the Hiroshima bomb killed over half of city residents,
turned the lives of many survivors into a lifelong nightmare, and leveled the entire city. Owing to
its greater yield, the effects of a typical contemporary bomb are expected to be greater.
Although the aftermath of an all-out nuclear war among major nuclear powers cannot be
described with certainty, it would surely be the greatest catastrophe in recorded history. In any
combatant country, it may kill half the people, afflict many survivors with a variety of radiation-
induced diseases, destroy industrial and military capabilities, and contaminate vast tracts of
land. Such a war might also lower the quality of the human genetic pool, damage the biosphere,
cause a breakdown of national and international economic systems, destroy the health care and
prevention system, and move surviving societies in unpredictable directions. Although extinction
of the human species is unlikely, it cannot altogether be ruled out. History, psychology, and
common sense strongly suggest that nuclear war is more probable than most of us would like to
believe. This, and the cataclysmic quality of nuclear war, imply that humanity can scarcely afford
another half a century in the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.










PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

27 | P A G E

From the Strategic Arms Reduction website of the Moscow Institute to Physics and Technology,
Steven Starr gives estimates on the cataclysmic possibilities in the case of a nuclear winter, the
result of a widespread nuclear conflict. Such effects are likely to include ozone depletion,
changing the sky cover from blue to grey, darkening of the world, and reduction in precipitation.
Starr, Steven Deadly Climate Change from Nuclear War: A Threat to Human Existence,
Strategic Arms Reduction website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology,
December 27, 2009.
Nuclear detonations within urban and industrial areas would ignite immense firestorms which
would burn everything imaginable and create millions of tons of thick, black smoke. Much of this
smoke would rapidly be lofted above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it would block
warming sunlight from reaching the lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth. Sunlight would
then markedly heat the upper atmosphere and cause massive destruction of the protective
ozone layer, while darkness below would produce average surface temperatures on Earth
characteristic of those experienced during an Ice Age. The darkness and global cooling
predicted to result from nuclear war (along with massive radioactive fallout, pyrotoxins, and
ozone depletion) was first described in 1983 as nuclear winter.
These initial studies estimated the smoke from nuclear firestorms would stay in the stratosphere
for about a year. However in 2006, researchers using modern computer models found the
smoke would form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would last for ten years. The
longevity of such a smoke layer would allow much smaller quantities of smoke than first
predicted in the 1980s to have a great impact upon both global climate and atmospheric ozone
which blocks ultraviolet (UV) light. Thus scientists predict that even a regional nuclear conflict
could produce enough smoke to significantly cool average global surface temperatures, reduce
precipitation, and vastly increase the amount of dangerous UV light reaching the surface of
Earth. In other words, a nuclear war fought between such nations as India and Pakistan would
produce enough smoke to make the blue skies of Earth appear grey. Although the amount of
sunlight blocked by this smoke would not produce the profound darkening of the Earth predicted
in a nuclear winter (following a nuclear war fought with thousands of strategic nuclear weapons),
the deadly climate change created by the regional conflict would likely have devastating global
effects upon all human populations through its negative influence upon agriculture.







PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

28 | P A G E

Katie Walmsley of CNN describes the effects of the Chernobyl incident, which was a nuclear
reactor explosion in 1986, of similar size to a modern day nuclear warhead. Millions of people
who have or do live in or around the fallout zone, experience a plethora of socioeconomic
effects, including, congenital heart defects, chronic illnesses and disabilities, and acute radiation
syndrome, all in addition to displacing 200,000 people from their homes and exposing over 5
million to radiation during the event. Thus if a single nuclear weapon were to be set off today all
of these effects and more will happen, but to make things even worse, with nuclear proliferation
and nuclear war, these effects will increase exponentially across the globe.
Effects of Nuclear explosion
congenital heart defects
chronic illnesses and disabilities
acute radiation syndrome
200,000 displaced from homes
5 million exposed to radiation
effects experienced over 26 years later
Walmsley, Katie. "26 Years On: Helping Chernobyl's Children." CNN. Cable News
Network, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/world/iyw-chernobyl-children
Twenty-six years ago this week, a botched reactor safety test in a corner of what was then the
Soviet Union set off the worst nuclear accident in history. Fast forward to today, and even in the
exclusion zone, plants have re-grown, animals are flourishing and Chernobyl has been opened
to tourists. But Chernobyl refuses to be relegated to the past. Indeed it may still be devastating
the lives of millions who continue to live in the fallout zone. Aside from the potential health
hazards of living in an area contaminated with radiation, domino socioeconomic effects have
caused multiple problems in these regions. Chernobyl Children International, or CCI, works to
help kids in the region whose lives have been impacted by a disaster that happened years
before they were born. Many suffer from physical problems such as congenital heart defects.
Many kids have chronic illnesses or disabilities, and many live full time in institutions. To help
them, CCI sends surgical teams who in turn help train local doctors. CCI nurses teach institution
staff techniques, and volunteers renovate facilities. One of CCI's main goals going forward is a
program they call "Home of Hope," which uses money from donations to place institutionalized
kids with nearby families. For many severely disabled children there, the future is uncertain. CCI
works to build community centers in affected areas, in the hopes that there will be some support
system for them after they are too old to remain in institutions. Decades after the meltdown, the
mission of CCI is complicated by the fact that there is no real consensus on how many of the
region's current problems can be directly attributed to Chernobyl. Only 30 people died in the
immediate aftermath, either from the explosion or acute radiation syndrome. But the disaster
sent a cloud of radioactive fallout over hundreds of thousands of square miles of what is now
Russia, Belarus and Ukraine that would have an impact on the health of many more. More than
200,000 people were evacuated, never to return. However, a 2005 report by "The Chernobyl
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

29 | P A G E

Forum" (the most comprehensive to date) estimated more than 5 million remain in what have
been termed "contaminated territories," and a quarter-million live in "highly contaminated
territories."























PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

30 | P A G E

Nuclear Weapons harm for the Whole World
Amy Woolf a specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy and author for the Congressional Research
Center states that neither Russia nor the United States is willing to give up their nuclear
leverage or even talk about the matter of nuclear disarmament, resulting in a Cold War-esque
dtente, which is not productive for diplomacy. Furthermore, in the same article, the Under
Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher states the United States is willing to use devastating
conventional force to respond to any aggression meaning if anyone pokes the United States
the State Department now wants to flip the switch and nuke the world. This ideal of using
nuclear weapons as a threat is not productive for international relations or developing peace
among nations.
Woolf, Amy F. "Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons." Congressional Research Center.
Congressional Research Center, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
Amy F. Woolf
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf
According to Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher, we retain the prospect of using
devastating conventional force to deter and respond to any aggression, especially if they were
to use chemical or biological weapons. No one should doubt our resolve to hold accountable
those responsible for such aggression, whether those giving the orders or carrying them out.
Deterrence depends on the credibility of response. A massive and potential conventional
response to nonnuclear aggression is highly credible. NATO foreign ministers addressed the
issue of U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons during their meeting in Tallinn, Estonia, in April
2010. At this meeting, the allies sought to balance the views of those nations who sought NATO
agreement on the removal of the weapons and those who argued that these weapons were still
relevant to their security and to NATOs solidarity. At the conclusion of the meeting, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton said that the United States was not opposed to reductions in the number of
U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, but that the removal of these weapons should be linked to a
reduction in the number of Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Moreover, according to a
NATO spokesman, the foreign ministers had agreed that no nuclear weapons would be
removed from Europe unless all 28 member states of NATO agreed.
This view is shared by the senior statesmen who served on a group of experts that evaluated
NATO strategy and doctrine in the months prior to the drafting of the new Strategic Concept.




PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

31 | P A G E

Tim McDonnell of Princetons Wilson Center International Center for Scholars, cites nuclear
weapons and development programs as the support of undemocratic regimes in the Middle
East, Africa, and Asia. With dictators such as Kim Jung Un and Baashar al-Assad propping
their rule up with the threat of WMD programs, the United States ought to stop such nations
from developing nuclear weapons because it allows for the continuance of human rights
violations and the lack of general democracy, all of which are bad for mankind.
McDonnell, Tim. "Nuclear Weapons In International Politics: Its Getting
Personal."WilsonCenter.org. Wilson Center, Dec. 2012. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/policy%20brief_nuclear_weapons_Internat
ional_Politics_Getting_Personal.pdf
The role that nuclear weapons play in international politics and security is evolving. Crucially,
these changes are manifesting themselves in competing ways for two different groups of
countries. For wealthy, militarily powerful countries, nuclear weapons are playing a smaller role
in security planning. Advanced conventional military capabilities are more discriminating and
more usable than nuclear weapons. Conversely, countries that cannot defend themselves
against these advanced Western military capabilities may see nuclear weapons as increasingly
important, or desirable, for their security. These differences are reinforced by the fact that, over
the past decade, two authoritarian leaders who gave up nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programsSaddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafihave been
overthrown and killed, whereas two othersKim Jong Un and Bashar al-Assadhave
leveraged their limited WMD programs to support the survival of their regimes.











PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

32 | P A G E

Nuclear Weapons are Harmful to the Whole World
With the IAEAs development of a plan to disarm the world of its nuclear weapons, it is
becoming more and more clear that the United States, even if it were not to follow the IAEAs
exact plan, would be capable of disarming the world of its nuclear weapons.
"Nobelprize.org". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Web. 25 Aug 2013.
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html
On October 7, 2005, The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General, Mohamed El Baradei, were awarded the 2005
Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes
and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way. At
a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee
wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international
cooperation. IAEA controls that nuclear energy is not misused for military purposes, and the
Director General has stood out as an unafraid advocate of new measures to strengthen that
regime. At a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that
nuclear arms will spread both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again
appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, IAEA's work is of incalculable
importance.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

33 | P A G E

With the NPTs goal of disarming the world of its nuclear weapons, and the United States as a
central figure in this treaty, enacting upon these very current ideals, unilateral military force used
as a means of achieving total disarmament is capable.
"UNODA - Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web.
24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml
The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear
energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete
disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the
goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty
entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 190
parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have
ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the
Treaty's significance. The provisions of the Treaty, particularly article VIII, paragraph 3,
envisage a review of the operation of the Treaty every five years, a provision which was
reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. To further
the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the
Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through
inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes cooperation in the field of peaceful
nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards
prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use. The 2010 Review Conference of the
Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) met at United Nations
Headquarters in New York from 3 to 28 May 2010. A total of 172 States parties to the Treaty
participated in the Conference. States parties agreed to a final document which included a
review of the operation of the Treaty, reflecting the views of the President of the Conference, as
well as agreed conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions. The action plan
contains measures to advance nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy and regional issues, including the implementation of the 1995 Resolution
on the Middle East.






PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

34 | P A G E

Max Boot senior fellow for National Security Studies and for the Council on Foreign Relations,
states the importance of the United States being the central police figure for the world as no
other country, NATO, or the UN is able to achieve the results needed in terms of peace and
stability. Thus the United States klout in the international scene can be applied to maintaining
international disarmament of nuclear weapons.
Boot, Max. "America's Destiny Is to Police the World." Council on Foreign Relations.
Council on Foreign Relations, 19 Feb. 2003. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/americas-destiny-police-world/p5559
The intransigence of France, China and Russia last week makes it unlikely that the United
Nations Security Council will pass another resolution authorizing a war in Iraq. But even if it did,
everyone realizes this would be only a fig leaf for US-led action. If the US does not step forward,
nothing will happen - not even weapons inspections. In other words, America is once again
forced to play Globocop. This stirs up opposition on both the left and right, at home and abroad.
Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe, critics wonder? To answer
that question, start by asking, does the world need a constable? That is like asking whether
London or New York needs a police force. As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect
peaceful people from predators. The international system is no different in this regard from your
own neighborhood, except that predators abroad are far more dangerous than ordinary robbers,
rapists and murderers. They are, if given half a chance, mass robbers, mass rapists and mass
murderers. There are, to be sure, lots of international laws on the books prohibiting genocide,
land mines, biological weapons and other nasty things. But without enforcement mechanisms,
they are as meaningless as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which outlawed war as an
instrument of national policy. The hope of idealistic liberals for more than a century has been
that some international organization would punish the wicked. But the League of Nations was a
dismal failure, and the UN is not much better. It is hard to take seriously a body whose human
rights commission is chaired by Libya and whose disarmament commission will soon be chaired
by Iraq. The UN provides a useful forum for palaver, but as an effective police force it is a joke,
as shown by its failure to stop bloodlettings in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere. It is almost
impossible to get a consensus among the UN's member states, even when it comes to a threat
as well documented as that posed by Saddam Hussein. So who does that leave to be the
world's policeman? Belgium? Bolivia? Burkina Faso? Bangladesh? The answer is pretty
obvious. It is the country with the most vibrant economy, the most fervent devotion to liberty and
the most powerful military. In the 19th century Britain battled the "enemies of all mankind", such
as slave traders and pirates, and kept the world's seas open to free trade. Today the only nation
capable of playing an equivalent role is the US. Allies will be needed but America is, as
Madeleine Albright said, "the indispensable nation"



PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

35 | P A G E

The New START treaty signed by the Obama Administration displays a transition of the United
States into an era of weapons reduction, and sets up the end goal of total disarmament. With
this treaty in mind, this branch of the resolution is not a plan, but a display of the current
administrations actual goals with preventing nuclear proliferation.
"Nuclear Disarmament." GlobalSolutions.org. Global Solutions, n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://globalsolutions.org/prevent-war/nuclear-disarmament
The ratification of New START was the biggest foreign policy victory for the Obama
administration and the first major treaty passed in the Senate in almost a decade. The last time
the Senate passed a treaty was more than a decade ago, with the Chemical Weapons
Convention in 1997. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is a bilateral
nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia that replaced an earlier iteration of
the treaty negotiated by President Reagan and that expired at the end of 2009. New START is
essential for initiating discussions about the next round of reductions. Citizens for Global
Solutions work both through its grassroots organizing as well as advocacy on Capitol Hill to
support the ratification of New START. Due to an outpouring of grassroots support -- a
November poll noted that 82 percent of Americans supported ratification -- one by one
Republican Senators announced their support for the treaty. In the end, enough Senators came
together in agreement about the importance of our national security and safety. Now that New
START has passed the Senate, all eyes turn to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),
which bans all forms of nuclear explosions and is the most important treaty for the U.S. to sign
in terms of supporting non-proliferation. It was a victim of Republican obstructionism in 1999,
when it failed to be ratified in the Senate. The administration has voiced its support for the
treaty, and despite the challenges that will inevitably come with a more conservative Congress,
many see this as a window of opportunity to ride on the coattails of the success of the New
START treaty. In the immediate future, however, domestic politics and issues are likely to
dominate the agenda.









PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

36 | P A G E

The New START treaty signed by the Obama Administration displays a transition of the United
States into an era of weapons reduction, and sets up the end goal of total disarmament. With
this treaty in mind, this branch of the resolution is not a plan, but a display of the current
administrations actual goals with preventing nuclear proliferation.
Youngman, Sam. "Obama Hails Nuclear Disarmament Treaty." TheHill.com. Capitol Hill
Publishing, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/89309-obama-hails-new-arms-reduction-
treaty-with-moscow
The U.S. and Russia announced an agreement Friday on a treaty that will significantly reduce
nuclear missiles. President Barack Obama described the deal negotiated with Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev as the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two
decades. The treaty cuts by one-third the nuclear arms deployed by the U.S. and Russia, and
significantly reduces missiles and missile launchers, Obama said. The treaty will need to be
ratified by the U.S. Senate, where passage is not assured. Senators are expected to focus on
the treatys assurances of verification of missile cuts in Russia. Obama said Friday that he had
met earlier this week with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.)
and Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.), the senior Republican on the panel.
My administration will be consulting senators from both parties as we prepare for what I hope
will be strong, bipartisan support to ratify the new START treaty, he said. The agreement caps
an extraordinary week for Obama, who on Tuesday signed a healthcare bill into law after a year
of debate. Obama and his Russian counterpart had haggled over the new arms agreement
after the existing treaty expired last December. The president announced that he and Medvedev
will meet in Prague on April 8 to sign the agreement. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize last year in part because of his promises to reduce nuclear arms.










PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

37 | P A G E

According to the Brookings Institute, a movement called Global Zero, aims to have total
disarmament of nuclear weapons by 2030. While the organization cites multilateral forces, the
Obama Administration is the key figure behind every advance thus far, meaning unilateral
forces would be just as effective. Furthermore, the organization cites the first step in disarming
the world as preventing nuclear proliferation in Mexico, the Middle East, and Asia. Thus the
United States unilateral military force to prevent nuclear proliferation would be the first step in
ridding the world of ALL nuclear weapons by 2030.
O'Hanlon, Michael E. "Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Possible?" The
Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution, 4 May 2010. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/05/04-global-zero-ohanlon
Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Possible A movement known as Global Zero
has gained in strength to attempt just that. It was established in the wake of a January 2007
newspaper column by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn
advocating a nuclear-free world. A group of 100 signatories (not including the above four)
established Global Zero in Paris in December 2008. The organization's goal is to rid the world of
nuclear weapons by 2030 through a multilateral, universal, verifiable process, with negotiations
on the Global Zero treaty beginning by 2019. Ideas about eliminating the bomb are as old as the
bomb itself. But Global Zero draws inspiration from the recent grass-roots effort to craft a land-
mine treaty, and from the work of several influential philanthropists in global antipoverty
campaigns. Of course, it also evolved from earlier nonproliferation efforts, including the 1996
report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. But the pace of the
nonproliferation movement has accelerated in recent years. The current movement is notable
too in that it has a serious strategy for moving forwardnot at some distant time when
miraculous new inventions might make nukes obsolete, but by later this decade, even if it would
take at least another decade to put a treaty into effect. Will President Obama really pursue such
an idea? He gave an inspiring speech in Prague early in his first year in office, agreed to modest
cuts in deployed forces with Russia in the New Start Treaty, and modestly lowered the profile of
nuclear weapons in the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report. Those steps are not
insignificant, but they have a good deal of continuity with past policy, and still leave us very far
from nuclear zero. The much-heralded nuclear-security summit in April, in Washington, was
worthwhile. But it was notable primarily not for its progress toward nuclear zero, but for actions
to reduce the risks of nuclear theft, accident, and terrorism. For example, Mexico agreed to
convert a research reactor from highly enriched uranium (usable in bombs) to lower-enriched
uranium (not usable); Ukraine agreed to eliminate its stocks of highly enriched uranium within
two years; the United States and Russia recommitted to eliminate an excess stock of plutonium;
and so on. Those steps, as well as the administration's 25-percent increase in spending for
global nonproliferation activities (to $2.7-billion in the 2011 budget request), are entirely
sensible. But it seems unlikely that Obama will push nuclear issues in additional bold new ways
anytime soon. On other national-security matters like Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been
extremely pragmatic and deferential to military commanders, and other priorities, especially
economic recovery, compete for his time and attention. But even if Obama, in effect, drops
nuclear zero, crises in Iran and North Korea may bring the issue to a head soon. As Obama is
surely all too keenly aware, the motivation for nuclear-weapons abolition is not utopian or
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

38 | P A G E

futuristic. It is the very pragmatic, immediate need to deny extremist countries the excuse of
getting the bomb because others already have it. With leaders in Tehran, P'yongyang, and
elsewhere bent on getting nuclear weapons, and charging Americans with double standards in
our insistence that we can have the bomb but they cannot, Obama's ability to galvanize a global
coalition to pressure Iran, North Korea, and possibly others into scaling back their weapons
programs may depend in part on regaining the moral high ground. And that, in turn, may require
an American commitment to work toward giving up its own arsenalthat is, once doing so is
verifiable, and once others agree to do the same.





















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

39 | P A G E

With the Global Oslo Conference meeting in March 2013 to have talks of the humanitarian
consequences of nuclear weapons for the first time ever, we can see the advance of
disarmament talks and the willingness of nations to start thinking of giving up their weapons.
Solholm, Rolleiv. "Oslo Conference on Nuclear Weapons Opens." The Norway Post. The
Norway Post, 4 Mar. 2013. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.norwaypost.no/index.php/news/latest-news/28219-oslo-conference-on-
nuclear-weapons-opens-
A two-day international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, hosted by
the Norwegian government, opens in Oslo today, Monday.(Photo: Norwegian Minister of
Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide) The conference, with more than 120 nations represented,
will be opened by Espen Barth Eide, Norway's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Maurer,
President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Antonio Guterres, the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The conference, which will be held
on senior official level, is open to all states, as well as UN organizations, representatives of civil
society and other relevant stakeholders. The conference invitation states that a nuclear weapon
detonation, whether intentional or accidental, could cause catastrophic short- and long-term
humanitarian, economic, developmental and environmental effects. Such a detonation could
have global implications. Although there is wide recognition of the importance of the
humanitarian consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation, as demonstrated by the outcome
document of the last Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, direct
consideration of these issues has so far been limited. The conference programme includes
presentations by experts and discussions around three key aspects: first, the immediate
humanitarian impact of a nuclear detonation; second, the possible wider developmental,
economic and environmental consequences; and third, preparedness, including plans and
existing capacity to respond to this type of disaster. The conference says it is providing an arena
for a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and developmental consequences associated
with a nuclear weapon detonation.









PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

40 | P A G E

According to George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, in their
wide spread article on the total disarmament of nuclear weapons and prevention of nuclear
proliferation, the main steps of preventing such proliferation are to:
get control of uranium enrichment processes
halt production of fissile material
increasing efforts to resolve regional conflicts
As these steps are only attainable with military force, the United States military force is capable
of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and bringing about the overall disarmament of
the world.
Schultz, George P., William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn. "A WORLD
FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS." NRPA. Wall Street Journal, 4 Jan. 2007. Web. 24 Aug.
2013.
http://disarmament.nrpa.no/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/A_WORLD_FREE.pdf
The program on which agreements should be sought would constitute a series of agreed and
urgent steps that would lay the groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat. Steps would
include:
-Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the guarantee that uranium
for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a reasonable price, first from the Nuclear
Suppliers Group and then from the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international reserves. It will also be necessary to
deal with proliferation issues presented by spent fuel from reactors producing electricity.
-Halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly
enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research
facilities around the world and rendering the materials safe.
-Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new
nuclear powers.






PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

41 | P A G E

With treaties to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons such the NPT, Treaty for the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, and others, the general consensus of the
world is to prevent proliferation and the eventual disarmament of the world. In each of these
treaties the United States, as the most developed military complex and nuclear power, is the
central mediator of discussions and the head force in implementing such plans. Unilateral
military force from the United States thus would not be an extension too far from the current
scenario.
"Part I: What Is Being Done to Halt the Spread of Nuclear Weapons." Part I: What Is Being
Done to Halt the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. IAES, n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2013.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Safeguards2/part1.html
Another positive factor has been the prospect that a country can obtain improved access to
nuclear technology if it makes a commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. This may have a
bearing for countries wishing to make use of nuclear power and to those seeking improved
access to the medical, agricultural, industrial and environmental applications of nuclear
technology. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is the global
international agreement formalizing some of these incentives. It entered into force in March
1970 after being ratified by the three depositaries (the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and
the United States) and signed by 40 other States. The NPT was made permanent in 1995 at a
meeting of States adhering to it. It currently has 185 State parties and provides - together with
several complementary regional treaties - the foundations of legally binding non-proliferation
commitments by countries around the world. Like the NPT, the Treaty for the Prohibition of
Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (the Treaty of Tlatelolco, actually concluded before the NPT
in 1967) requires its members to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the
IAEA. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga, 1985) also requires
each participating country to conclude a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA
that will be equivalent in scope and effect to an NPT-type agreement. This is likewise the case
with the Treaty of Pelindaba (for Africa, 1995) and the Treaty of Bangkok (for Southeast Asia,
1995). According to Article VI of the NPT, the five NWSs have agreed to undertake negotiations
in good faith towards nuclear disarmament. They have pledged to discontinue all tests of
nuclear weapons by adhering to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, opened for signature in
1996. Although not obliged to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements, the NWSs
have agreed that IAEA safeguards may be applied to all or part of their civil nuclear activities in
order to demonstrate that they will not derive any commercial advantage by not making these
facilities subject to inspection.




PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

42 | P A G E

Nuclear Arms Represent World Power
Thomas Saaty of Wharton Business School and Mohammad Khouja of the Kuwait Fund for
Arab Economic Development cite international power as the ability to induce meaningful action
out of other nations. Using this ideal and the effects of nuclear threats in Atomic Diplomacy
nuclear weapons clearly are a meter stick of world power in this day and age.
Saaty, Thomas L., and Mohamad K. Khouja. "A Measure of World Influence." Conflict
Management and Peace Science 2.1 (1976): 31-48. Print.
It is note unusual to think and write about power without adequate definition. Power is such a
rich concept that even for special use it would carry more meaning than may be intended.
Power is closely identified with the ability to do something. Influence is the capacity to sway
others to obtain favorable results in pursuit of objectives. Influence greatly benefits from the
potential use of certain forms of power to achieve ends.

















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

43 | P A G E

Keir Lieber and Daryl Press of the Council on Foreign Relations, state that nuclear power is a
clear indicator of power and influence in the international relations field. Additionally, they cite
that as U.S. nuclear primacy grows, opposition to the United States will likely decrease. As the
United States aims to spread democracy and stop human rights violations, such nuclear
primacy will allow for such atrocities as those in Iran, North Korea, and Syria to finally come to
an end.
Lieber, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy." Foreign Affairs
85.2 (2006): 42-54. Print.
Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining
nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range
nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance
of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the
precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear
forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the
size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the
shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.
One's views on the implications of this change will depend on one's theoretical perspective.
Hawks, who believe that the United States is a benevolent force in the world, will welcome the
new nuclear era because they trust that U.S. dominance in both conventional and nuclear
weapons will help deter aggression by other countries. For example, as U.S. nuclear primacy
grows, China's leaders may act more cautiously on issues such as Taiwan, realizing that their
vulnerable nuclear forces will not deter U.S. intervention -- and that Chinese nuclear threats
could invite a U.S. strike on Beijing's arsenal.











PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

44 | P A G E

Keir Lieber and Daryl Press of the Council on Foreign Relations declare that the United States
intention is to attain nuclear primacy so as to help prevent any and all threats to the American
people.
Lieber, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy." Foreign Affairs
85.2 (2006): 42-54. Print.
The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover, entirely consistent with the United
States' declared policy of expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration's 2002
National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States aims to establish military
primacy: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a
military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." To this
end, the United States is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military
technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces.

















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

45 | P A G E

Scott Sagan of MIT writes that not all nations seek nuclear weapons for a security agenda, but
cites the Norms Model and Domestic Policy Models as equally as influential.
Sagan, Scott D. "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a
Bomb." The MIT Press Winter 21.3 (1997): 54-86. Print.
The body of this article examines three alternative theoretical frameworks- what I call "models"
in the very informal sense of the term-about why states decide to build or refrain from
developing nuclear weapons: "the security model," according to which states build nuclear
weapons to increase national security against foreign threats, especially nuclear threats; "the
domestic politics model," which envisions nuclear weapons as political tools used to advance
parochial domestic and bureaucratic interests; and "the norms model," under which nuclear
weapons decisions are made because weapons acquisition, or restraint in weapons
development, provides an important normative symbol of a state's modernity and identity.

















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

46 | P A G E

Scott Sagan of MIT declares that Frances desire for a nuclear buildup lay in its hurt ego and
emotional need to compensate for its loss during World War 2. If emotional actors using
revenge and pride as their sole motives get their hands on nuclear weapons, a nuclear launch
would not hold any negative ramifications, and so a nations pride is interfering with the security
of international lives.
Sagan, Scott D. "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a
Bomb." The MIT Press Winter 21.3 (1997): 54-86. Print.
A stronger explanation for the French decision to build nuclear weapons emerges when one
focuses on French leaders' perceptions of the bomb's symbolic significance. The belief that
nuclear power and nuclear weapons were deeply linked to a state's position in the international
system was present as early as 1951, when the first French Five-Year Plan was put forward
with its stated purpose being "to ensure that in 10 years' time France will still be an important
country."53France emerged from World War II in an unusual position: it was a liberated victor
whose military capabilities and international standing were not at all comparable to the power
and status it had before the war. It should therefore not be surprising that the governments of
both the Fourth and the Fifth Republics vigorously explored alternative means to return France
to its historical great power status.














PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

47 | P A G E

Under the Norms Model of Scott Sagan at MIT, the influence of the United States on the
international scene allows for it to create disarmament as the path of the future.
Sagan, Scott D. "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a
Bomb." The MIT Press Winter 21.3 (1997): 54-86. Print.
If the norms model of proliferation is correct, the key U.S. policy challenges are to recognize
that such norms can have a strong influence on other states' nuclear weapons policy, and to
adjust U.S. policies to increase the likelihood that norms will push others toward policies that
also serve U.S. interests. Recognizing the possibility that norms can influence other states'
behavior in complex ways should not be difficult.



















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

48 | P A G E

Under the Norms Model of Scott Sagan at MIT, the influence of the United States on the
international scene allows for it to create disarmament as the path of the future.
Sagan, Scott D. "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a
Bomb." The MIT Press Winter 21.3 (1997): 54-86. Print.
The sociologists' arguments highlight the possibility that nuclear weapons programs serve
symbolic functions reflecting leaders' perceptions of appropriate and modern behavior. The
political science literature reminds us, however, that such symbols are often contested and that
the resulting norms are spread by power and coercion, and not by the strength of ideas alone.
Both insights usefully illuminate the nuclear proliferation phenomenon. Existing norms
concerning the non-acquisition of nuclear weapons (such as those embedded in the NPT) could
not have been created without the strong support of the most powerful states in the international
system

















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

49 | P A G E

Richard Hass, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute, cites in his article
What to do with American Primacy that America ought use its unilateral power to shape the
soon multilateral world. As the clear leader in nuclear weapons and a key player in the
movement to generate equality among nations, the United States needs to embrace its
unilateral power to achieve 4 objectives, according to Haass. The most important of these four
is that the United States needs to use its military to prevent further development of nuclear
power.
Haass, Richard N. "What to Do with American Primacy." Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 78.5
(1999): 37-49. Print.
The remaining items on the agenda include negotiating further reductions in the arsenals of
existing nuclear weapons states, principally Russia; methodically introducing defensive
antimissile systems; discouraging the proliferation of missile and nuclear capability to additional
states or nonstate actors; and enforcing the ban against possessing or using chemical and
biological weapons.
















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

50 | P A G E

Richard Hass, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute, states that the
United States needs to embrace its primacy to achieve its world based on peaceful relations,
non-proliferation, respect for human rights, and economic openness. Such power lies in being
the central power with nuclear weapons. If nuclear proliferation were to increase, the power of
the United States would be watered down and its objectives of peaceful relations, humans
rights, and economic openness would not be achieved.
Haass, Richard N. "What to Do with American Primacy." Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 78.5
(1999): 37-49. Print.
American foreign policy must project an imperial dimension, although not in the sense of
territorial control or commercial exploitation; such relationships are neither desirable not
sustainable today. Rather, the Unites States must attempt to organize the world along certain
principles affecting both relations between states and conditions within them. The U.S. role
should resemble that of nineteenth-century Great Britain, the global leader of that era. U.S.
influence would reflect the appeal of American culture, the strength of the American economy,
and the attractiveness of the norms being promoted. Coercion and the use of force would
normally be a secondary option. The United States seeks a world based on peaceful relations,
non-proliferation, respect for human rights, and economic openness.
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

51 | P A G E






Negation






















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

52 | P A G E

Unilateral military force decreases domestic freedoms.
Richard Kahn details exactly how a permanent or semi permanent war economy promotes a
larger state power and the growth of federal overreach. He goes on to state that though the
Pentagon does perform necessary functions, it is at the cost of wastefulness and the
degeneration of infrastructure.

Kahn, Richard. "The Corporate War Economy." Global Industrial Complex: Systems of
Domination. (2011): n. page. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.
<http://www.academia.edu/167227/The_Global_Industrial_Complex_Systems_of_Dominat
ion>.
The permanent war system both legitimates and reinforces state power on a grand scalevital
to perpetuation of elite rule. Few politicians have the audacity to oppose or even seriously
question this out-of-control behemoth. For most citizens a sprawling Pentagon edifice
represents American status and power in a threatening world. In a nation that consumes more
than 30percent of the worlds energy supplies and depends on a steady flow of cheap labor,
markets, and resources from abroad, imperial wars will continue to drive the mechanisms of
statist economic and political organization even as elites loudly proclaim values of small
government and free markets. Yet, while the Pentagon functions as stimulus to economic
growth, such growth(technology-intensive, top-heavy, wasteful, destructive) has been
increasingly detrimental to the social infrastructure not to mention jobs and services. The
American developmental model favors the military sector, global priorities, and warfare over a
wide range of civilian programs such as public transportation. Fred Cooks description of a
nation whose entire economic welfare is tied to warfare takes on added meaning decades
later, when the cumulative Pentagon budget has reached a staggering $25 trillion. It is hard to
resist the conclusion that such unbelievable material, human, and technological resources have
produced little beyond overwhelming devastation and wastethe former amounting to millions
of human lives since World War II. Put differently, the military sector never contributes to
ordinary modes of production and consumption or to the general welfare, except peripherally as
in the case of technological spin-offs. More than that: the war economy by its very logic
reproduces material decay, social inequality, cultural stresses, and political authoritarianism at
the very moment it helps sustain an advanced industrial order. The end of the Cold War
signaled a modest and brief decline in military spending as many spoke of armed services
reductions, troop demobilizations, and base closings in step with a much-celebrated peace
dividend. A limited shift in this direction did occur, but the focus was on modernization: fewer
domestic bases and personnel along with a phasing out of older weapons systems in favor of a
higher-tech military. The newer arsenals, of course, had much greater firepower and efficiency
than what they replaced. After 9/11, quite predictably, the Pentagon budget soared, fueled by
interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terrorism.



PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

53 | P A G E

Samantha Power remarks that one aspect of collateral damage from the Iraq War has been the
steady growth of the executive branch in power. She claims that the damage done to the
system of checks and balances will be long lasting.

Samantha Power is Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public
Policy at th J ohn F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and author of
"A Problem From Hell": America and the Age of Genocide.

http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/072206power.pdf

I would like to turn now to the third aspect of collateral damage: the huge concentration of
power in the executive branch in this country. This may be offset somewhat by the new
Democratic Congress, but some of the damage to our checks and balances will be lasting. This
matters on its own, but it also matters because in the Al Jazeera instant news world, our
eavesdropping programs and our debate, or lack of a debate, about unaccountable detention
facilities will be exposed, which only underscores the hollowness of our rhetoric about
democratization and human security.
















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

54 | P A G E

David Ingram from the Christian Science Monitor remarks about the domestic use of unmanned
aerial vehicles. Though the FBI insists that the use of these drones in United States air space is
purely for assistive reasons in criminal investigations, the prospects of spying and invasion of
privacy continue to pose questions of civil liberties and privacy for citizens.
Ingram, David. "How Drones Are Used for Domestic Surveillance." The Christian Science
Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 19 June 2013. Web. 26 Aug. 2013.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0619/How-drones-are-used-for-
domestic-surveillance
Last month, the FBI admitted it had used surveillance drones in domestic airspace but refused
to disclose specific details. Now, after pressure from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., the bureau has
been forced to come clean.
In a recent letter to Paul, published on the senators website Thursday, the FBI acknowledges
that it has used drones domestically in 10 cases in response to a specific, operational need.
The bureau says that, since late 2006, it has used unmanned planes for surveillance to support
missions related to kidnappings, search and rescue operations, drug interdictions, and fugitive
investigations. On eight occasions the drones were used as part of criminal cases, and two in
national security-related operations.
In none of these cases, the bureau says, did it apply for a warrant to conduct the drone
surveillance. The letter states that the FBI will seek a warrant when using a drone only if it is
attempting "to acquire information in which individuals have reasonable expectations of privacy
under the Fourth Amendment." But it does not clarify exactly what kind of information it believes
individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy over. Paul hasrequested that the FBI
provide more details, saying he is concerned that the bureau may be adopting an overbroad
interpretation of the rules in order to conduct warrantless surveillance.
The FBI also told Paul in its letter, dated July 19, that none of its drones are armed with either
lethal or nonlethal weapons, adding that it does not use the aircraft to conduct bulk
surveillance. And the bureau confirmed reports earlier this year that the it used a drone in
Alabama to support the rescue of a 5-year-old child being held hostage in an underground
bunker. However, the bureau declined to publicly provide details on the other nine cases in
which drones were used, saying that this information is law enforcement sensitive. The secret
operational details were disclosed to Paul in a separate, classified addendum.
Paul has been a vocal critic of domestic drone use, raising concerns about how the
controversial aircraft could be used to target and kill American citizens on their home soil. In
March, the Kentucky lawmaker staged a 12-hour filibuster in the Senate, delaying the
confirmation of John Brennan to lead the CIA, after he received a letter from Attorney General
Eric Holder that refused to rule out domestic drone strikes in extraordinary circumstances. Last
month, Paul said that he would launch another filibusterthis time to delay the nomination of
James Comey to lead the FBIunless the bureau explained how it was using drones. The
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

55 | P A G E

threat came after FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FBI
had been using the aircraft in a very minimal way for surveillance purposes.
Drones have been used domestically in the United States since 2004 by the Department of
Homeland Security, predominantly in border zones in Arizona and Texas. However, in some
isolated cases the aircraft have been used for wider domestic law enforcement purposes. In
one bizarre incident in 2011, for instance, a Predator drone was called in over a farming dispute
in North Dakota.
The expansion of drones into domestic airspace continues to raise unresolved privacy and civil
liberties questions, particularly as military-style drones like the Predator are capable of flying
beyond sight at high altitude, carrying powerful cameras that can zoom in and covertly monitor
the ground below. Recently disclosed documents have compounded these concerns, revealing
that the Customs and Border Patrol agency has considered equipping its fleet of domestic
Predators with non-lethal weapons and eavesdropping equipment to pick up phone calls on
the ground below. (The FBI did not disclose in its letter to Paul whether it uses large military-
style drones like the Predator, or smaller, commercially available drones like the Octocopter.)
The FAA is currently working to integrate drones into the national airspace system by
September 2015, but the regulator says that it does not plan to change existing rules that
prohibit weapons from being installed on a civil aircraft.

























PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

56 | P A G E

Unilateral military force will destabilize the Middle East.
Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth from the Congressional Research Service detail how Pakistan is
unwilling to allow their unclear armament to be viewed, judged, or analyzed by the United
States. Thus, in the face of unilateral military force, Pakistan is likely to be uncooperative.
Congressional Research Service: Pakistans Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and
Security Issues
Paul K. Kerr Analyst in Nonproliferation Mary Beth Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation
May 10, 2012
U.S.-Pakistani discussions regarding contingency plans for U.S. forces to help secure
Islamabads nuclear weapons, stated November 8, 2009, that Pakistan does not require any
foreign assistance in this regard. Pakistan will never allow any country to have direct or
indirect access to its nuclear and strategic facilities, the spokesperson said, adding that no
talks have ever taken place on the issue of the security of Pakistans nuclear arsenal with US
officials.131
















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

57 | P A G E

Michael Chossudovsky from Global Research cites that instability in Pakistan has grown and is
now rampant, thanks to the deeply entrenched Islamist based political parties and social elite,
who are reluctant to see change. It is unlikely that corruption or anti-american sentiment will
ever improve.
Chossudovsky, Michael. US-NATO Military Agenda: The Destabilization of Pakistan.
Global Research, 17 Apr. 2009. Web.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-military-agenda-the-destabilization-of-
pakistan/13228
Already in 2005, a report by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA forecast a
Yugoslav-like fate for Pakistan in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed and
inter-provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Balochistan. (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005).
According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a failed state by 2015, as it would be
affected by civil war, complete Talibanisation and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons.
(Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13
February 2005): Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition
from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic
turmoil, the Central governments control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and
the economic hub of Karachi, the former diplomat quoted the NIC-CIA report as saying.
Expressing apprehension, Hasan asked, are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or
something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by
the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA? Continuity, characterized by the
dominant role of the Pakistani military and intelligence has been scrapped in favor of political
breakup and balkanization. According to the NIC-CIA scenario, which Washington intends to carry
out: Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political andeconomic mismanagement,
divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction, This US agenda for Pakistan is
similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. US strategy,
supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife,
abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the
central government.







PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

58 | P A G E

BBCs article warns that military action and intervention in Pakistan is likely to backfire for the
United States. Though some aspects of the Pakistani government supports the United States,
the Haqqani networks presence guarantees that unilateral military action will escalate into a
larger conflict.
"Pakistan Warns US over Unilateral Military Action." BBC News. BBC, 19 Oct. 2011. Web.
26 Aug. 2013.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15364956
The Haqqani network - believed to be linked to the Taliban and al-Qaeda - is accused of
carrying out last month's 19-hour siege of the US embassy in Kabul. The US has blamed the
recent attack on Kabul's US embassy on the Haqqani network Some reports say that during the
briefing Gen Kayani defended Pakistani contacts with the group as "useful" for intelligence
gathering. The verbal and military fight waged by the US against the network has intensified in
recent months and is the main cause of tension between the US-led coalition in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. US national security adviser Thomas E Donilon is reported to have told Gen Kayani at
a secret meeting in Saudi Arabia earlier this month that Pakistan must either kill the Haqqani
leadership, help the US to kill them or persuade them to join a peaceful,
democratic Afghan government. In September outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm
Mike Mullen called the Haqqanis a "veritable arm" of the Pakistani intelligence agency, accusing
it of directly supporting the militants who had mounted the attack on the US embassy. But
Pakistan has been reluctant to give in to US pressure on the issue. Last month Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani said that his country "will not bow to US pressure" on fighting militancy. A
senior official in Afghanistan said on Tuesday that the coalition was "very focused" now on the
Haqqani network. The Haqqani network is thought have bases in Pakistan's volatile tribal
regions He said that the Haqqani network operates mainly in Khost, Paktia and Paktika
provinces, but there has been a significant increase in its activities in Wardak and Logar
provinces. Afghan and Nato officials argue that Pakistan's reluctance to confront the Haqqani
network has forced them to increase missile strikes against them in their safe haven of North
Waziristan.







PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

59 | P A G E

Ismail Salami, from Global Research cites that with the sectarian violence occurring within Iraq
and Syria, is all a result of United States military action, especially during the Iraq War as well as
the withdrawal of U.S troops from that region.
Salami, Ismail, Dr. "Global Research IMPLOSION OF THE MIDDLE EAST: Destabilizing Iraq
and Syria, Recalibrating Americas War Plans Directed against Iran." Global Research, 6
Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Aug. 2013.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/implosion-of-the-middle-east-destabilizing-iraq-and-syria-
recalibrating-america-s-war-plans-directed-against-iran/28523
From the recent massacres happening in Iraq and Syria, one can gather that Washington has
adamantly trodden on a path which is to be seen as a way to redefine the war in Iraq, an effective
stratagem to bring the regime of Assad to its doom and recalibrate a comprehensive plan to topple
the Islamic government of Iran. Immediately coinciding with the withdrawal of US forces from
Iraq, a coordinated string of deadly explosions gripped Iraq, leading to the massacre of dozens of
civilians. On December 22, 2011, multiple bomb explosions happened simultaneously in
Baghdad, claiming the lives of tens of innocent civilians. Another series of explosions targeted
Shia Muslim pilgrims on Friday (January 6) and killed at least 71 people. Most of the explosions
which targeted the Shia Muslims are maliciously meant to inspire the feeling and doubt that it is
a matter of sectarian violence, a plot devised by the US and its allies to justify that the Iraqi
politicians are intent to provoke a communal bloodletting which is gradually tearing the country
asunder. In fact, Washington is capitalizing on tension in the country and playing the sectarian
card on the one hand and sending a message that Iraq is not capable of maintaining security and
stability in the country. As the situation stands, Washington is redefining the war in Iraq by
fomenting chaos and commotion in the ravaged country with three apparent motivations: 1. to
create the impression that the withdrawal of US troops was a mistake and that the country is
plunging into mayhem with incredible rapidity, thereby justifying their debacle in the country. 2.
To sow the seeds of sectarian war in Iraq which is home to various ethnic groups and religious
sects with the express intention of re-installing elements from the executed dictator Saddam
Husseins Baath regime which can undoubtedly safeguard the interests of the US government. 3.
To devolve the war it lost to the care of the Saudi-backed Wahhabis, al-Qaeda members and
Baathists who intensely champion and practice extremism, fanaticism and terrorism to the best
interests of Washington. The pernicious trio, who work under the aegis of the CIA and Mossad,
help tilt the scale in favor of insecurity, instability and division in the strategic Middle East region.





PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

60 | P A G E

Don Monkerud from the research organization STWR, calculates that with the insecurity of Syria
in its current state, any type of military intervention, in a similar fashion to Iraq which was
undoubtedly a failure, would destabilize the crisis in Syria.
Monkerud, Don. "U. S. to Attack Syria and Further Destabilize Middle East?" STWR, 15
Apr. 2005. Web. 26 Aug. 2013
http://www.stwr.org/middle-east/u-s-to-attack-syria-and-further-destabilize-middle-
east.html
Following the assassination of billionaire Rafik Hariri, former Lebanese prime minister, the U.S.
withdrew its ambassador from Syria, despite the lack of any proof that Syria was involved.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Syria of backing insurgents in Iraq and trying to
"blow up" the peace process between Israel and Palestine, and she demanded that Syria
withdraw its 14,000 troops from Lebanon.
Bush and Rice claim they will rely on diplomacy and international pressure to achieve their
aims, but also say they will not invade "at this time," a thinly veiled threat.
The menacing of Syria-a nation of 18 million people the size of North Dakota-sounds
increasingly like the drumbeats that lead to the invasion of Iraq. Neocons have wanted to invade
Syria for months because the occupation of Iraq is going so badly. Blaming Syria is an excuse
to take the heat off the U.S. failure to quell a wildly raging revolt in Iraq.
The GOP, Christian fundamentalists, the Israeli lobby and neocons are rallying to the cry,
thirsting for blood and pushing for an invasion of Syria. Blaming Syria and Iran, whose nuclear
threat rings hollow, reveals a way out of a dead end tunnel: If we invade Syria and Iran,
everything will be fine. Will Americans buy this rosy scenario like they bought the invasion of
Iraq?
There is much to dislike about the Syrian government. Few Americans would support Syria any
more than they would support the monarchies and dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Pakistan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and China, which the U.S. touts as allies. When
have we threatened those countries?
The Iraq occupation is a failure. How can we forget? The Iraq occupation budget is more than
$300 billion and cost 15,000 American causalities; there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq and
no connection between Iraq and 9/11; we killed 15,000 to 150,000 Iraqis including women and
children; and the attacks in Iraq only increase in frequency and severity.
These problems are being ignored as justifications for further military adventures are put forth.
Couched in typical Bush-talk of "good vs. evil," the rhetoric airs U.S. double standards that are a
complete embarrassment. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claims Syria is
exerting "naked imperialism" by leaving 14,000 troops in Lebanon, while the U.S. has 150,000
troops in Iraq. He accuses Syria of leveling Hama to put down a rebellion of Sunni Muslim
fundamentalist in 1982, while the U.S. is leveling any city it can't control in Iraq. He forgets that
Syrian troops quelled a devastating civil war in Lebanon.
Friedman accuses Syria of shooting journalists and firing on the Red Cross, while U.S. snipers
in Iraq kill indiscriminately. He accuses Syria of having a dictatorship, while U.S. military officers
dictate to the government of Iraq and torture prisoners. He accuses Syria of ignoring U.N.
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

61 | P A G E

resolution 1559, calling for an immediate withdrawal from Lebanon, while ignoring U.N.
resolutions 242, 338, and 479, which call for Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories.
Then there's the bogeyman of "terrorism." George Friedman, chairman of Strategic Forecasting,
Inc., described as "a private-quasi CIA" by Barron's, claims Syria is a threat because
it supports Hezbollah, which "is capable of attacking the U.S. if it so desires." This is nothing but
fear mongering. Hezbollah's "raison d'tre" was opposing Israel's occupation of southern
Lebanon, and it generally observed the military cease-fire after Israel withdrew.
Rather than planning new invasions or military adventures-Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons
Inspector to Iraq, announced that Bush plans to bomb Iran in June-the U.S. needs to implement
immediately a time schedule for withdrawing from Iraq. Staying will only continue to bleed U.S.
resources and lives, lead to further terrorist attacks and undermine U.S. credibility.
According to U.S. intelligence assessments, there is little chance of attainting Bush's goals in
Iraq in the near future. The National
Intelligence Council contradicts Bush's boast that the invasion of Iraq struck a blow against
terrorism. Instead, it found that Iraq has replaced prewar Afghanistan as a training ground for
terrorists and that the U.S. military is in an untenable position.
Syria isn't the problem. The problem is the Bush administration, which is becoming a victim of its
own delusions and is only increasing hatred for the U.S. Let's hope the campaign drumbeat, "Four
More Wars" doesn't become a reality.






















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

62 | P A G E

Unilateral military force destabilizes Asia
Scott Stossel hypothesizes that a preemptive strike against North Koreas nuclear arsenal will
turn out ineffective as the true locations of the warheads are unknown and could be in several
places at once.
Scott Stossel, North Korea: The War Game, The Atlantic (July/August, 2005),
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/07/north-korea-the-war-game/4029/.
The problem of carrying out a preemptive strike against North Korea is exacerbated by the fact
that the locations of its nuclear weapons (bombs or warheads for missiles) are unknown. What
is known is that these weapons are unlikely to be located either at Yongbyon (for plutonium) or
Sowi-ri (for HEU). In fact, it is very likely that the nuclear weapons are dispersed to several
places in North Korea.


















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

63 | P A G E

The Nuclear Files Project claims, that given its plutonium resources, the North Koreans could
have processed enough to create up to 15 nuclear warheads.
North Korean Nuclear Arsenal, Nuclear Files,Org, Project of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, May 9, 2008, http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-
weapons/issues/capabilities/north-korea-cdi.htm.
For plutonium bombs (Estimates vary, but North Korea may have processed enough plutonium
for up to 15 nuclear weapons), each bomb may literally be dispersed at a different location.




















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

64 | P A G E

Phillip C. Saunders in his analysis of North Koreas strike capabilities, remarks that the nuclear
capabilities of the North Koreans are distinct and spread out within the geography of the
country. Likewise, the North Koreans could have perfected their payload delivery systems.
No Dong facilities in North Korea and possible strike options, Phillip C. Saunders,
Military Options for Dealing with North Koreas Nuclear Program, James Martin Center
for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute for International Studies, January 27,
2003, http://cns.miis.edu/north_korea/dprkmil.htm.
Based on delivery means, it is likely that one or more are dispersed near airfields where they
could be deployed aboard bomber aircraft, or near ports where they could be loaded onto
merchant vessels. They could also be dispersed to naval bases where the merchant craft could
be brought in for loading of the nuclear devices. In the case of an HEU weaponif it exists
alreadythere is no estimate on how many exist. If the North Koreans have perfected the
methodology for mounting a 500-kilogram warhead on a No Dong, the obvious place to expect
these weapons to be deployed would be near No Dong bases. There are several in the country.
















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

65 | P A G E

In their strategy guide for nuclear weapons in the 21
st
century, C. Dale Walton and Colin Gray
warn that the North Koreans, perhaps having perfected their payload delivery system, could
deploy nuclear weapons from any mobile station while also possessing basic artillery.
C. Dale Walton and Colin Gray, The Second Nuclear Age: Nuclear Weapons for the 21st
Century, in Strategy in the Contemporary World, ed. John Baylis, James Wirtz, Colin
Gray, and Eliot Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 223.
The issue that makes this all the more ominous is the fact that a No Dong can be launched from
a Transporter-Erector-Launcher, and thus could be moved to any mobile location in the country,
from where the missile could be launched. Thus, the option of a preemptive strike will have to
involve much more than simply taking out all of the weaponseven if their locations were
known.The other factor that is key when one assesses the possibility and results of a
preemptive strike, is what the reaction of the North Koreans would be. North Korea is in
possession of hundreds of long-range artillery systems deployed along the DMZ with South
Korea that are capable of hitting Seoul.
















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

66 | P A G E

In a short statement from the Intelligence Review, Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. states that 20% of
North Koreas basic artillery may be equipped with chemical weapons.
Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., North Koreas Long Reach in Profile, Janes Intelligence
Review, November 11, 2003,
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr031111_1_n.shtml.
In addition, up to 20 percent of these systems are assessed to be equipped with chemical
munitions.




















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

67 | P A G E

From the U.S Department of State, the North Koreans could easily attack or react within
minutes to their nuclear readiness as well as their Special Forces and short range and medium
range missiles in its arsenal.
Background Note: North Korea, U.S. Department of State, March 9, 2010,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm.
An attack could be initiated within a matter of minutes because all of these systems already sit
within firing positions. In addition, North Korea would be likely to use all of the tools that were
quickly available in its arsenal to strike back at South Korea and the United States. This would
include what is likely to be attacks by its Special Operations Forces and the more than 800
short- and mid-range missiles in its arsenal.


















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

68 | P A G E

From the Rand National Defense Research Institute, Bruce Bennett cites that the only way to
eliminate North Koreas nuclear arsenal and to implement a successful preemptive strike would
be to engage in all-out war against North Korea.
Bruce W. Bennett, Uncertainties in the North Korean Nuclear Threat, Rand National
Defense Research Institute, 2010,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/2010/RAND_DB589.pdf
All of this means that the ROK-U.S. alliance would have to go after more than just sites where
nuclear weapons were believed to be deployed. Any preemptive strike would have to include a
strike on command and control facilities, any airfields where aircraft with nuclear weapons could
be deployed (as well as airfields where fighters could be launched in retaliation), long-range
artillery sites along the DMZ, naval bases and ports where ships could be carrying nuclear
weapons, and key leadership nodes in Pyongyang. In short, the only way to even be modestly
sure that the nuclear weapons, the means to control them, and the ability to mount a massive
retaliatory strike could be destroyed, would be to start an all-out war. Thus, in any planning for a
preemptive strike, the assumption that this would start a full-scale war should be an integral part
of the process.
As discussed earlier, even a small nuclear detonation of four kilotons or less, such as the North
Korean test of 2009, would probably kill tens of thousands of people if it occurred in a densely
populated area. According to Rand analyst Bruce Bennett, even a one-kiloton nuclear attack
against a city like Busan could cause up to 72,000 casualties, depending on where the weapon
was detonated (an attack on Seoul would likely cause even more casualties).











PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

69 | P A G E

From the United States Forces in Korea, a nuclear strike in a densely populated city in South
Korea or Japan would force massive evacuations, a declaration of acts of terror and a large
NEO evacuation.
Non-Combatant Emergency Evacuation Instructions, United States Forces Korea,
Pamphlet 600-300, April 5, 2007, http://19tsc.korea.army.mil/USFK_Pam_600-300.pdf.
Because many metropolitan areas in both South Korea and Japan are so densely populated, a
nuclear attack would likely lead to widespread panic and terror that would spread nationwide. It
is for this reason (and because such a large portion of the civilian populace would be killed) that
a nuclear detonation in one of these areas would likely be considered an act of terror. The
evacuation of civilians from South Korea would be particularly tough. The large number of
American civilians who live in South Korea would make it literally the largest non-combatant
evacuation (NEO) ever conducted in U.S. history.

















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

70 | P A G E

According to the Daegu Installation Management Command, in the event of military conflict with
North Korea, a large scale evacuation of civilians would be particularly difficult.
NEO exercises are conducted by U.S. forces on the Korean peninsula, see Adrianna N.
Lucas, Courageous Channel Exercise Tests Non-Combatant Evacuation Readiness,
U.S. Army Group Daegu, Installation Management Command, May 28, 2009,
http://daegu.korea.army-mil.net/news/articles/5282009115506.asp.
United States Forces Korea (USFK) annually conducts NEO exercises, but obviously since no
one has ever gone through such a large evacuation before, the real thing would present huge
challenges for USFK, U.S. military air and sea lift, and for civilian transport services that would
undoubtedly need to be called in to help.



















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

71 | P A G E

The Atomic Bomb Museum cites that in the case of a nuclear strike on South Korea or Japan,
the medical assistance needed would be unparalleled in history and catastrophic.
After the Bomb: Life in the Ruins, AtomicBombMuseum.org, 2006,
http://atomicbombmuseum.org/4_ruins.
In the cases of consequence management for the governments of South Korea and Japan, the
amount of deaths and injuries would be so high that whichever country was attacked (with
nuclear weapons) would undoubtedly have to ask for foreign assistance in order to deal with
what would be a dire medical need. The only case study one can analyze is the aftermath of the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The medical aftermath for the civilian
populace who survived the attack in both areas was nothing short of catastrophic.



















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

72 | P A G E


According to FEMA in the analysis of recovery from a nuclear attack, the feds cite that not only
will immense medical supplies be needed, there would be immense environmental issues all
over East Asia.
Recovery from Nuclear Attack, Federal Emergency Management Agency, October 1988,
http://www.defconwarningsystem.com/documents/recovery_from_nuclear_attack.pdf.
Today, both South Korea and Japan are modern, cosmopolitan nations. But the amount of
medical personnel that would be needed after a successful nuclear attack on one of their major
cities or ports would still likely be insufficient for the sudden influx of badly wounded people. In
addition to the overwhelming medical issues that would ensue following a nuclear attack,
consequence management would have to involve confronting the environmental issues that
would probably cause repercussions all over East Asia.


















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

73 | P A G E

John M Collins stipulates that a nuclear strike from North Korea would immediately render all
forward defense posts useless and consume the ground forces in the radioactive cloud.
John M. Collins, Nuclear Bees in North Korea, Army (August 2003):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200308/ai_n9273177/pg_7/?tag=content;co
l1.
As retired U.S. Army Colonel John M. Collins articulated in an article in 2003, A gigantic crater
caused by a nuclear device would instantaneously breach U.S.-ROK forward defenses and
release a lethal radioactive cloud that would envelope all forces down-wind if just one nuclear
weapon erupted anywhere beneath the westernmost third of the DMZ.




















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

74 | P A G E

Fred Kaplan cites that not only will the consequences, medically and environmentally, of a
nuclear strike be absolutely devastating, that there is no alternative to negotiation as any type of
preemptive strike would only cause all out war and millions of casualties.
Fred Kaplan, Quest for Firepower: How to Stop North Koreas Drive for Nukes, Slate,
July 14, 2003, http://www.slate.com/id/2085595; Hans M. Kristensen, Preemptive
Posturing: What Happened to Deterrence? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58, no. 5
(September 1, 2002), http://bos.sagepub.com/content/58/5/54.full.
In short, consequence management for both South Korea and Japan would involve both
medical and environmental emergency procedures. While international efforts would likely help
to eradicate much of the stress on the medical systems that such an event would cause, the
environmental fallout from a nuclear attack would likely cause problems that could take as long
as a generation to solve.
Based on the evidence presented in this paper, it is obvious that even using the most primitive
type of nuclear weapon, North Korea could launch a nuclear strike that would likely kill tens of
thousands of people in either South Korea or Japan. This is a capability that North Korea
possesses right now. If and when North Korea is able to perfect the technology for fitting an
HEU warhead to a missile (if they have brought their HEU weaponization program to fruition,
and this may already be the case), North Korea will be able to launch a strike from mobile
missiles at either South Korea of Japan. No matter what preparations are made to prepare for
such an attack, the casualties would be enormousas would be the second order effects for as
long as a generation. Intelligence on North Koreas intentions is sketchy at best, and thus limits
the likelihood of a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is also limited by the ramifications.
Because of North Koreas ability to strike back and its unpredictable government, any
preemptive strike would have to be so widespread and large-scale that there is almost no doubt
it would cause an all-out war on the Korean peninsula. All of these assessments put together
add up to the premise that avoiding a nuclear war of any kind on the Korean peninsula can and
should remain a high priority. There will be no winners, only varying degrees of great loss.







PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

75 | P A G E

Unilateral military force will have economic repercussions.
Richard Kahn, in his analysis of the wartime spending of the United States, cites that the United
States, in the year 2010, had spent nearly one trillion dollars on war time activities, outspending
potential adversaries and 75% of the globe combined.
Kahn, Richard. "The Corporate War Economy." Global Industrial Complex: Systems of
Domination. (2011): n. page. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.
<http://www.academia.edu/167227/The_Global_Industrial_Complex_Systems_of_Dominat
ion>.
By fiscal year 2010, Pentagon spending had reached nearly one trillion dollars (including
veterans funding), nearly three times what all potential U.S. adversaries were allocating
combined (with Russia and China together at less than $200 billion). The United States and its
allies were spending roughly 75percent of total global military allocations in 2009, with
Washington alone counting for about half the total. This amount does not include money for
intelligence agencies (nearly $100 billion in known resources for 2009), for homeland security
(another $50 billion), or for the occupation of Iraq (untold tens of billions more)numbers likely
to increase further with other military ventures in the future















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

76 | P A G E

The National Priorities Project, using publically available federal data, recounts the extraordinary
costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars for the United States.
National Priorities Project, a 501(c)(3) non profit federal research data base. Updated
daily (August 24
th
2013)
Total Cost of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars since 2001: 1,466,933,151,860 dollars (from August
24
th
2013).
Total Cost of Iraq War: 814,585,330,642 dollars (from August 24
th
2013)
Total Cost of Afghanistan War: 652,337,890,561 dollars (from August 24
th
2013)


















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

77 | P A G E

Linda Bilmes, in her lecture of Public Policy at Harvard University, cites that the Iraq and
Afghanistan Wars, both almost singularly United States based operations, are going to be the
most expensive wars to date. Likewise, the money lost on these conflicts is money stolen from
public works and public education.
Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government Report on The Most Expensive U.S
War Drafted by Linda Bilmes, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy
at Harvard and a leading expert on financial, budget and veterans issues.
The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US
historytotaling somewhere between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. This includes long-term medical
care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military
replenishment and social and economic costs. The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid.
Washington ended up borrowing some $2 trillion to finance the two wars, the bulk of it from
foreign lenders. This accounts for roughly 20 percent of the total amount added to the US
national debt between 2001 and 2012. According to the report, the US has already paid $260
billion in interest on the war debt, and future interest payments will amount to trillions of dollars.
It is important to note that this borrowing has not been used to invest in the capital stock of the
country. For example, investing in education, infrastructure and knowledge (R&D) benefits the
nation, so this is debt for a helpful purpose. By contrast, the war debt has been especially
unhelpful.Vast resources literally went up in smoke in Iraq and Afghanistan, while tens of billions
of dollars were squandered on supposed aid and reconstruction programs that were riddled with
corruption, incompetence and inefficiency, doing little or nothing to improve conditions for the
populations of those countries. In its conclusion, the report seeks to dispel illusions that ending
full-scale wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will produce any kind of peace dividend that could help
ameliorate conditions of poverty, unemployment and declining living standards for working
people in the US itself. Instead, the legacy of decisions made during the Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts will impose significant long-term costs on the federal government. In short, there will be
no peace dividend, and the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be costs that persist for
decades.








PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

78 | P A G E

From the University of California Santa Clara, this article details the economic consequences
and trends of the prices of oil following conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. Mary Ann cites
increased energy costs, less activity for the dollar, direct impacts on businesses from increasing
costs, higher inflation, and overall slowing of the global economic recovery.
Ttreault, Mary Ann. "The Political Economy of Middle Eastern Oil." University of
California Santa Clara. N.p., 12 Apr. 2013. Web.
Egypt and Libya, even joined other countries in the Middle East and North Africa, making an
impact on oil prices. This region produces more than 33.3% of global oil and has more than
60% of world reserves, therefore, fear the reduced production of crude oil from Libya, the Middle
East conflict, and Africa, makes the market very sensitive to the political situation in the oil zone.
Below is a table with total production of the countries belonging to the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Values are from February 2011 and are in millions of
barrels per day.
Country Output
Algeria 1,261
Angola 1,704
Saudi Arabia 8,869
Ecuador 0,475
United Arab Emirates 2,394
Irak 2,638
Irn 3,663
Kuwait 2,368
Libya 1,347
Nigeria 2,098
Qatar 0,811
Venezuela 2,391
Total 30,019

In February this year, the OPEC produced 30.019.000 barrels/day, of which 18.911.000
barrels/day were produced by Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Iraq and United Arab Emirates,
countries currently in conflict.
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

79 | P A G E


Oil prices immediately changed in February this year, the WTI oil produced in the western areas
of the state of Texas, is used as a reference price in the U.S. market, maintained an average of
US$ 88.31 per barrel, a 16% more than in February 2010.

While Brent crude, type of oil extracted mainly from the North Sea, and is a reference in the
average price for the markets of Europe, Africa and the Middle East continued its upward trend
with an average of US$ 103.62 per barrel, 39% higher than the same month last year.

This year, it is expected that due to conflicts and interruptions in production, the oil prices will
maintain its upward trend, with Brent crude above US$116/barrel, WTI oil above
US$102/barrel.
Conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, produce some of the following impacts on the
global economy:
Increased energy cost as conflict countries account for 63% of oil production from
OPEC, if they do not produce it, decreasing the supply in the markets and generate
increased energy cost.
Increased the value of the dollar globally, investors are seeing so much uncertainty in
the world, seeking refuge in emerging markets like Brazil, Russia, India and China
(BRIC), generating an appreciation in the U.S. currency in these countries and in world.
Unemployment, dollars and oil prices more expensive will directly affect businesses by
increasing their costs, which impact the job cuts, to reduce costs.
Higher inflation, rising oil prices, coupled with food, utilities and energy, will increase our
cost of living, pay more for products, food and services.
Increased public spending, increases government spending by higher fuel subsidies.
Slowing global economic recovery, by the increased oil prices, impact on reducing global
demand for products and services, by inflation and unemployement. Especially in
Europe.





PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

80 | P A G E

Michael Snyder, in his article from Pravada Research Center, cites seven catastrophic
consequences of war with Iran, including skyrocketing oil prices, explosions of fear in world
trade, halting of world trade, military spending escalation, benefits to Russia, massive inflation
and increases in prices of gold.
Snyder, Michael. "7 Potential Economic Effects Of A War With Iran." Pravada Research
Center-Russia. N.p., 29 June 2010. Web. 26 Aug. 2013.
http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/29-06-2010/114054-war_iran-1/
#1) The Price Of Oil Would Skyrocket - One of the very first things a war with Iran would do is
that it would severely constrict or even shut down oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.
Considering the fact that approximately 20% of the worlds oil flows through the Strait of
Hormuz, world oil markets would instantly be plunged into a frenzy. In fact, some analysts
believe that oil prices would rise barrel. So are you ready to pay 8 or 10 dollars for a gallon of
gasoline? What do you think that would do to the U.S. economy? The truth is that every single
transaction that we make every single day is influenced by the price of oil. If the price of oil
suddenly doubles or triples that would absolutely devastate the already very fragile U.S. #1) The
Price Of Oil Would Skyrocket - One of the very first things a war with Iran would do is that it
would severely constrict or even shut down oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.
Considering the fact that approximately 20% of the worlds oil flows through the Strait of
Hormuz, world oil markets would instantly be plunged into a frenzy. In fact, some analysts
believe that oil prices would rise to $250 per barrel.
So are you ready to pay 8 or 10 dollars for a gallon of gasoline? What do you think that would
do to the U.S. economy? The truth is that every single transaction that we make every single
day is influenced by the price of oil. If the price of oil suddenly doubles or triples that would
absolutely devastate the already very fragile U.S. economic system.
#2) Fear Would Explode In World Financial Markets - Even without a war, the dominant force in
world financial markets in 2010 is fear. We are already seeing unprecedented volatility in
financial markets around the globe, and there is nothing like a war to turn fear into a full-fledged
panic. And what happens when panic grips financial markets? What happens is that they crash.
#3) World Trade Would Instantly Seize Up - Once upon a time the economies of the world were
relatively self-contained, so a war in one area would not necessarily wreck economies all over
the globe. But all of that has changed now. Today, the economies of virtually every nation are
highly interdependent. That has some advantages, but it also has a lot of disadvantages. If a
war with Iran did break out, nations all over the globe would start taking sides and world trade
would seize up. The global flow of goods and services would be severely interrupted. That
would be enough to push many nations around the world into a full-blown depression.
#4) Military Spending Would Escalate - Even if the United States was not pulled directly into a
conflict between Israel and Iran, there is little doubt that the U.S. would be spending a lot of
money and resources to support Israel and to build up military assets in the region in case a
wider war broke out. The U.S. has already spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

81 | P A G E

dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If war does break out with Iran the amount of
money the U.S. government could be forced to spend could be absolutely staggering. The truth
is that the U.S. is already drowning in debt. At this point the U.S. government is over 13 trillion
dollars in debt, and another Middle East war is certainly not going to help things.
#5) Russia Would Greatly Benefit - Russia and other major oil producers outside of the Middle
East would greatly benefit if a war with Iran erupts. Russia is already the number one oil
producer in the world, and if supplies out of the Middle East were disrupted for any period of
time it would mean an unprecedented windfall for the Russian Bear.
#6) Massive Inflation - A huge jump in the price of oil and dramatically increased military
spending by the U.S. government would most definitely lead to price inflation. We would
probably see a dramatic rise in interest rates as well. In fact, it is quite likely that if a war with
Iran does break out we would see a return of "stagflation" - a situation where prices are rapidly
escalating but economic growth as a whole is either flat or declining.
#7) The Price Of Gold Would Go Through The Roof - When there is a high degree of
uncertainty in world financial markets, where do investors turn? As we have seen very clearly
recently, they turn to gold. As high as the price of gold is now, the truth is that it is nothing
compared to what would happen if a war with Iran breaks out. When times get tough, we almost
always see a flight to safety. Right now none of the major currencies around the globe provide
much safety, so investors are increasingly viewing precious metals such as gold and silver as a
wealth preservation tool. War is never pleasant. If war with Iran does break out it could
potentially set off a chain of cascading events that would permanently alter the world economy
for the rest of our lifetimes.












PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

82 | P A G E

Unilateral military force hurts U.S international standing.
Ben Kiernan, from his symposium on collateral damage, cites that the U.S intervention in Iraq
and Afghanistan was unjustified aggression, as classified by the United Nations and has
classified the United States as the aggressor in these instances.

Kiernan, Ben. "Collateral Damage from Cambodia to Iraq." INTERVENTION
SYMPOSIUM Fo r um on the American Invasion of Iraq. n. page. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.
<http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/02_Kiernan.pdf>.
Damage to international law results from the waging of an illegal war with impunity. The US-
UK-Australian invasion of Iraq probably constituted aggression. An unprovoked invasion is not
only a violation of the UN charterand therefore of US domestic lawbut also a Nuremberg-
type crime against peace. The UNs General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974:143) described
the first use of armed force by one state against another as prima facie evidence of an act of
aggression, which it defined as the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the
territory of another State, or any [resulting] military occupation, however temporary. In 1986,
the International Court of Justice in The Hague (the World Court) declared this definition to be
customary international law, in its 123 decision in Nicaragua v. US. This was the same
decision in which the World Court found the United States guilty of employing the unlawful use
of forcethat is, terrorism. Washington, which rejected the World Courts jurisdiction, now
asserts that Iraqi support for terrorism may threaten the United States in future, which entitles
the United States to act in preventive self-defense. Most legal scholars, though not all, reject
this. The United States claims not to be the aggressor in Iraq on the additional grounds that it
was simply enforcing UN resolutions. Legally, that depends on whether the invasion was
authorized by the UN Security Council. It was not. The war could also be justified as a
humanitarian intervention. The United States did not make this case against Iraq to the UN in
the 1980s, or after.


















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

83 | P A G E

Moti Nissani cites that the U.S is in violation of the treaty and by blocking Iran, is exceeding its
mandates. He even cites the hypocrisy of not allowing Iran to enrich uranium for energy while
trying to meet the nuclear demands of its own cities using the same method.

Moti Nissani (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Wayne State University; Ph.D.,
Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, 1975; B.A., philosophy, psychology, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, (2010), Lives in the Balance: the Cold War and American
Politics,

The United States and Israel are in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and are exceeding
its mandates by trying to block Iranian enrichment activities.
Iran is correct in affirming that it has the right to enrich uranium under the Non Proliferation
Treaty. The United States, which is also a signatory, has contravened the treaty by ignoring the
demand to disarm, and most strikingly, by making more nuclear warheads. It holds by far the
most nuclear weapons in the world, and is the only country to have ever used them. The
demand for an end to uranium enrichment is pure hypocrisy on the part of the United States.
Israel, for its part, has not even acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons, except in a slip-up
by President Ehud Olmert on German television, which was quickly denied. It is not a signatory
to the treaty and is showing just as much hypocrisy as the United States in demanding a stop to
any nuclear ambitions.






























PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

84 | P A G E

Samantha Power, in a political dialogue at Yale University, details the damage that Iraq has
done to the United States. First, she cites that the United States has lost significant hard power
(GDP, military forces, technology etc) alongside soft power (international reputation, leverage,
diplomacy etc).

Power, Samantha. "Iraq's Collateral Damage." Yale Political J ournal Commentary. Yale
University, 24 Mar. 2009. Web.
http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/072206power.pdf

Iraqs Legacy
So what effect did the war in Iraq have on these developments? And what collateral damage
had been caused by the war there?
First, the war in Iraq has eroded U.S. power in dramatic and potentially irreversible ways. This
war will likely go down in the history books as the greatest strategic blunder in American history.
Not since Vietnam. Not since Pearl Harbor. How do we measure power? In the twentieth
century, hard power was the typical metricwhat your military budget was, what your
technological supremacy was, what your GDP was, whether you were in debt or in surplus
these were tangible ways of gauging a countrys power. Yale Journal of International Affairs
In the twenty-first century, hard power is still going to be an incredibly important indicator of
power. And look at the effect of the war in Iraq on our hard power. Militarily, we have exposed
our vulnerabilities -- in terms of the kind of armored equipment that we supply our soldiers, in
terms of the thinness of our roster of soldiers, who are now being summoned for third and fourth
tours of duty, in terms of our struggle to adapt the old tools of conventional warfare to counter-
insurgency. These vulnerabilities are now being studied and exploited by hostile elements all
over the world. We are woefully overstretched, fighting on two ever-more active battle fronts in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Economically, too, the Iraq war has been disastrous. The fiscal deficit has
been run up by hundreds of billion dollars worth of budget war supplemental appropriations. In
effect, the Iraq war has been paid for on the backs of future generations of Americans at home,
as returning the deficit to surplus will take sacrificesand those sacrifices will likely be made in
the realm of social services, education, and health care. So we have a hard--military and
economicpower problem, even though we still have a military budget equal to that of the next
thirty countries combined, and our GDP vastly exceeds that of even China and India together.
So on the hard power front, we are overstretched but we remain atop the global hierarchy.
When it comes to legitimacy, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the establishment of black sites, or
unaccountable detention facilities, the regular and seemingly systematic use of torture against
terror suspects all of these have been depicted and debated in the global media. The United
States can not be a moral leader in the world when the Vice President feels no shame in
referring to waterboarding as a no-brainer. On the competence axis, the double dose of
Katrina and Iraq in the same calendar year was devastating to perceptions of U.S. proficiency.
In the global public imagination, we went from being the country whether people liked the
United States or not that had put the man on the moon, that had won two world wars in
Europe, that gave the world anti-retrovirals medicines to combat HIV, to the country of Iraq and
Katrina. Spring | Summer 2007 77 Iraq's collateral damage If you think I am being melodramatic
about the erosion in U.S. influence, just look around the globe and at the Bush administrations
attempts to pursue a range of policy objectives. What does the Bush administration want in
North Korea? Please do not conduct a nuclear testwhoops. Iran: please do not enrich
uraniumwhoops. Sudan: please stop committing genocidewhoops. UN reform: the United
States actually took the most enlightened position, on a number of the UN reform proposals, but
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

85 | P A G E

disdain for the United States is so great within international institutions that even usually
dependable middle powers were reluctant to sign on to the more intrusive management reform
proposals pushed by Washingtonso, again, whoops. And atop the list is of course Iraq and
our inability to get what we want: enough Iraqi stability to allow us to depart. The second aspect
of collateral damage that I think is worth looking at is the effect that the war has had on
Americas strategic objectives. Let us take them one by one: The war in Iraq has been a
recruiting boondoggle for terrorist networks around the world. And it has opened up another
battlefront with al Qaeda and another training ground for terrorists. By taking our eye off the ball
in Afghanistan, the diversion of military and financial resources and the loss of credibility and
summoning power that goes along with that erosion of influence, we now see the Taliban
completely resurgent in Afghanistan in a very dangerous second front that will be fought by
future generations of Americans.




























PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

86 | P A G E

Unilateral military force increases terrorism
Peter Bergen, in his analysis on the Iraq War, cites that the invasion of the Middle East by the
United States has increased the speed at which Al-Qaeda recruits and has increased terrorism
by sevenfold.
Bergen, Peter. "TruthOut Archive." The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism
Sevenfold Worldwide. N.p., 17 Feb. 2010. Web. 26 Aug. 2013.http://www.truth-
out.org/archive/item/68973:the-iraq-effect-war-has-increased-terrorism-sevenfold-
worldwide
Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly
rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and
thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal
attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.
We are not making the argument that without the Iraq War, jihadist terrorism would not exist,
but our study shows that the Iraq conflict has greatly increased the spread of the Al Qaeda
ideological virus, as shown by a rising number of terrorist attacks in the past three years from
London to Kabul, and from Madrid to the Red Sea.

















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

87 | P A G E

Joseph Gerson, in his analysis on nuclear foreign policy, asserts that the dominance of the U.S
in terms of nuclear capability promotes belligerence and aggression in other nations.
Gerson, Joseph Empire and Nuclear Weapons, Foreign Policy in Focus, December 4,
2007

U.S. nuclear dominance has, in fact, been counter productive, increasing the dangers of
nuclear war in yet another way; spurring nuclear weapons proliferation. No nation will long
tolerate what it experiences as an unjust balance of power






















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

88 | P A G E

Ibrahim Mothana, in his New York Times article, as a media correspondent in Yemen, gives his
first-hand account on how the drone strike policy negatively affects the U.S by causing
increased recruitment for terror organizations, particularly Al-Qaeda and A. Q. A. P. These long
term losses outweigh the short term gains from the killing of leaders.
Mothana, Ibrahim. "How Drones Help Al Qaeda." New York Times. N.p., 13 June 2013.
Web.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/how-drones-help-al-qaeda.html
DEAR OBAMA, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with
you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, a Yemeni lawyer warned on Twitter last month.
President Obama should keep this message in mind before ordering more drone strikes like
Wednesdays, which local officials say killed 27 people, or the May 15 strike that killed at least
eight Yemeni civilians. Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and
join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and
despair. Robert Grenier, the former head of the C.I.A.s counterterrorism center, has
warned that the American drone program in Yemen risks turning the country into a safe haven
for Al Qaeda like the tribal areas of Pakistan the Arabian equivalent of Waziristan. Anti-
Americanism is far less prevalent in Yemen than in Pakistan. But rather than winning the hearts
and minds of Yemeni civilians, America is alienating them by killing their relatives and friends.
Indeed, the drone program is leading to the Talibanization of vast tribal areas and the
radicalization of people who could otherwise be Americas allies in the fight against terrorism in
Yemen. The first known drone strike in Yemen to be authorized by Mr. Obama, in late 2009, left
14 women and 21 children dead in the southern town of al-Majala, according to a parliamentary
report. Only one of the dozens killed was identified as having strong Qaeda connections.
Misleading intelligence has also led to disastrous strikes with major political and economic
consequences. An American drone strike in May 2010 killed Jabir al-Shabwani, a prominent
sheik and the deputy governor of Marib Province. The strike had dire repercussions for Yemens
economy. The slain sheiks tribe attacked the countrys main pipeline in revenge. With 70
percent of the countrys budget dependent on oil exports, Yemen lost over $1 billion. This strike
also erased years of progress and trust-building with tribes who considered it a betrayal given
their role in fighting Al Qaeda in their areas. Yemeni tribes are generally quite pragmatic and are
by no means a default option for radical religious groups seeking a safe haven. However, the
increasing civilian toll of drone strikes is turning the apathy of tribal factions into anger. The
strikes have created an opportunity for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
and Ansar al-Sharia to recruit fighters from tribes who have suffered casualties, especially in
Yemens south, where mounting grievances since the 1994 civil war have driven a strong
secessionist movement. Unlike Al Qaeda in Iraq, A.Q.A.P. has worked on gaining the support of
local communities by compromising on some of their strict religious laws and offering basic
services, electricity and gas to villagers in the areas they control. Furthermore, Iran has seized
this chance to gain more influence among the disgruntled population in Yemens south. And the
situation is quite likely to get worse now that Washington has broadened its rules of
engagement to allow so-called signature strikes, when surveillance data suggest a terrorist
leader may be nearby but the identities of all others targeted is not known. Such loose rules risk
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

89 | P A G E

redefining militants as any military-age males seen in a strike zone. Certainly, there may be
short-term military gains from killing militant leaders in these strikes, but they are minuscule
compared with the long-term damage the drone program is causing. A new generation of
leaders is spontaneously emerging in furious retaliation to attacks on their territories and tribes.
This is why A.Q.A.P. is much stronger in Yemen today than it was a few years ago. In 2009,
A.Q.A.P. had only a few hundred members and controlled no territory; today it has, along with
Ansar al-Sharia, at least 1,000 members and controls substantial amounts of territory. Yemenis
are the ones who suffer the most from the presence of Al Qaeda, and getting rid of this plague
is a priority for the majority of Yemens population. But there is no shortcut in dealing with it.
Overlooking the real drivers of extremism and focusing solely on tackling their security
symptoms with brutal force will make the situation worse. Only a long-term approach based on
building relations with local communities, dealing with the economic and social drivers of
extremism, and cooperating with tribes and Yemens army will eradicate the threat of Islamic
radicalism. Unfortunately, liberal voices in the United States are largely ignoring, if not
condoning, civilian deaths and extrajudicial killings in Yemen including the assassination of
three American citizens in September 2011, including a 16-year-old. During George W. Bushs
presidency, the rage would have been tremendous. But today there is little outcry, even though
what is happening is in many ways an escalation of Mr. Bushs policies. Defenders of human
rights must speak out. Americas counterterrorism policy here is not only making Yemen less
safe by strengthening support for A.Q.A.P., but it could also ultimately endanger the United
States and the entire world.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

90 | P A G E

The Guardian reports through Imran Arwan, their local correspondent that the Pakistani people
do not agree with the drone strikes and that the public perception of the drones is very negative.
The counterproductive actions of the drone program help the Taliban in their efforts of
recruitment.
Arwan, Imran. "US Drone Attacks Are Further Radicalising Pakistan." The Guardian. N.p.,
2 June 2013. Web. 26 Aug. 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/02/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-
terrorists
A 2011 Pew poll of drone attacks, for example, showed that 89% of Pakistani citizens argue
that drones kill innocent people. Moreover, a report published by Stanford and New York
Universities in 2011 showed the scale of the psychological impact drone attacks had on
Pakistani civilians who felt "terrorised" by them.
The most damning piece of evidence against the use of drone strikes was in March 2011
when 40 people were killed, many of whom were civilians at a local tribal meeting. Thus, public
perception of drones in Pakistan is one that portrays a lack of trust and confidence in the
Pakistani government for its pro-drone stance which has inevitably left a vacuum for extremist
groups like the TPP and others that gives them an opportunity to amplify their actions and raise
the public alarm through a number of well-coordinated and sophisticated terrorist assaults upon
the public.
The use of drone strikes also allows the Taliban to win the "hearts and minds" game and as a
result it has been successful at recruiting disaffected Pakistanis from within the villages and
streets using emotive and effective propaganda tools such as CDs and DVDs, which are used in
local Madrassahs across the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where they can effectively
operate with a free reign. Much of the literature uses motivational powerful themes which would
appeal to the youth and at the same time allow the Taliban to recruit future generations by
adopting a strong anti-US narrative and using religion and theology to justify their actions.
Indeed, this is true in the rise of "lone wolf" terrorists such as the Pakistani-born US citizen
Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to detonate a bomb in Time Square. In his trial Shahzad cited
the drone strikes in Pakistan as one of the reasons for his grievance against US policy makers.
Interestingly, Obama has done everything possible to distance himself from the George W Bush
administration policies on the "war on terror", yet he continues to support the drone strikes, a
policy brought in by the former president. Obama and his Vice-President Joe Biden have
recently been attempting to justify the use of drones through a blaze of interviews via social
networking sites. In a recent video session on Google+, President Obama justified the use of
drones as the only means to avoid "intrusive military action".
The use of drones violates Pakistan's sovereignty and whilst the death of Wali ur Rehman will
be celebrated across the United States and afar, for ordinary Pakistanis there is a chilling
reminder that reprisal attacks are around the corner. US drones put all Pakistani's at risk and
therefore are counter-productive in defeating the Taliban. Their legality can also be questioned
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

91 | P A G E

and ultimately their psychological impact on Pakistanis and inhumane manner in which they
have killed many innocent civilians is fermenting and radicalizing more people and creating a
destabilised Pakistani society.
Within this heightened atmosphere, a hydra global insurgency from a plethora of extremist
groups in Pakistan has emerged that have links to al-Qaida led extremism and are willing to die
to avenge the death of their leaders.






















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

92 | P A G E

Ben Kiernan details exactly how the invasion of Iraq is being leveraged against the civilians of
Iraq and Afghanistan by Al-Qaeda and other groups as a recruiting tool.
Kiernan, Ben. "Collateral Damage from Cambodia to Iraq." INTERVENTION
SYMPOSIUM Fo r um on the American Invasion of Iraq. n. page. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.
<http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/02_Kiernan.pdf>.
On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, a senior US counter-intelligence official was reported as
saying that An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al
Qaeda and other groups And it is a very effective tool. An American official based in Europe
said Iraq had become a battle cry for Qaeda recruiters (Van Natta and Butler 2003:1). Ten
days into the war, Egypts President Hosni Mubarak said that as a result of the invasion of Iraq,
[I]f there was one bin Laden before, there will be 100 bin Ladens in the future.































PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

93 | P A G E

Unilateral military force promotes a U.S military-industrial complex.
Richard Kahn, in his analysis of the United States military-industrial complex, remarks that the
global military system incorporates itself into the global political system, as well as the ideology
of the domestic situation, utilizing unparalleled control within the United States.
Kahn, Richard. "The Corporate War Economy." Global Industrial Complex: Systems of
Domination. (2011): n. page. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.
<http://www.academia.edu/167227/The_Global_Industrial_Complex_Systems_of_Dominat
ion>.
The permanent war system today constitutes a global network of more than a thousand military
facilities spread across 40 states and more than 70 nations, from Latin America to Africa,
Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and scattered islands in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Its
sophisticated arms, intelligence, and surveillance webs of power extend to every corner of the
earth and space, dependent on a production and distribution apparatus involving several
thousand industrial companies and subsidiaries. It is intimately connected to such powerful, and
often secretive, institutions as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the United States Information Agency. It exerts
pervasive ideological influence on the mass media, think tanks, universities, popular culture,
and the Internet.
These resource deployments, without parallel in his-tory, have become the sign of something
akin to a garrison state, a system routinely oiled by lobbies, politicians of both parties, think
tanks, the media, universities, and of course huge military contractors. Arms producers yearly
donate several million dollars in campaign funding: Lockheed Martin, Ray-theon, TRW, and
Boeing gave more than six million to both Democrats and Republicans during the 2000
elections. Such corporations, in turn, hugely benefit from new weapons contracts as well as
lucrative overseas arms sales, which totaled $156 billion between 2001 and 2008 (41 percent of
world sales). As the ideological apparatus holds up the threat of new enemies, profit-driven
corporations seek aggressive military policies to fight rogue states, terrorists, and drug
traffickers. The war economy depends on a merging of factors: a deeply-embedded military
culture, bureaucratic leverage, political conservatism, fetishism of technology, popular equation
of corporate power with freedom and democracyall of this underwritten by strong elements
of national exceptionalism and imperial hubris. Helen Caldicott has observed that one could
readily diagnose the attitudes of the Pentagon as clinically sick and suggest that all people who
subscribe to those theories [e.g., about world domination] need urgent counseling and
therapy. jobs, A more accurate reading of the Pentagon system is that it affirms business-as-
usual at the apex of a militarized state capitalism, where elites are pursuing seemingly rational
objectives. Indeed the warfare apparatus thrives on an entrenched corporate oligopoly in which
myths of free enterprise are scarcely operative insofar as profitability from sales to government
alone is typically ensured. By 2000, the top military corporations had been reduced in number to
just five: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. In
2003 the largest of these remained Lockheed Martin, the result of 1990s mergers involving
Lockheed and Martin Marietta, Loral Defense, General Dynamics, and scores of smaller
PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

94 | P A G E

companies to create a $36 billion empire that lobbies tirelessly for aggressive militarism(as in
Iraq). After 9/11 these corporations adapted their marketing strategies to accommodate new
demands for space militarization, homeland security, and the war on terrorismsignaling a shift
toward high-tech production to fit the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld emphasis on techno-war. In 2006,
it cost more than a million dollars to dispatch a Tomahawk missile, about $2,500an hour to
operate a single M-12A tank, more than $3,000 an hour to fly anF-16 fighter plane, and roughly
$40,000 an hour to keep a navy destroyer active. With everything taken into account, moreover,
it cost more than a million dollars to deploy and equip a single first-line soldier to Iraq or
Afghanistan for a year.




















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

95 | P A G E

Christopher Preble from U.S News cites that the military industrial complex prevents the
expansion of infrastructure and public benefits as the wastefulness of military spending cancels
and squabbles all economic benefits of these programs.
Preble, Christopher. "The Military-Industrial Complex's Waning Political Influence." US
News. U.S.News & World Report, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 26 Aug. 2013.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2012/11/29/america-is-souring-on-
bloated-federal-defense-spending
The true costs of the military-industrial complex, they explain, "have so far been understated, as
they do not take into account the full forgone opportunities of the resources drawn into the war
economy." A dollar spent on planes and ships cannot also be spent on roads and bridges.
What's more, the existence of a permanent war economy, the specific condition which President
Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his famous farewell address, has shifted some entrepreneurial
behavior away from private enterprise, and toward the necessarily less efficient public sector.
"The result," Coyne and Duncan declaim, "is a bloated corporate state and a less dynamic
private economy, the vibrancy of which is at the heart of increased standards of living."
The process perpetuates itself. As more and more resources are diverted into the war economy,
that may stifleor at least impedea healthy political debate over the proper size and scope of
the entire national security infrastructure,














PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

96 | P A G E





Contentions



















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

97 | P A G E





Affirmation

For the affirmation, it is suggested that you utilize four and five together, as they work
well in establishing the harmful effects of nuclear weapons and the existing ability for their
control and disposal.
Likewise, contentions six and seven are also suggested as they form a well-structured
argument for the possession of nuclear weapons as a display of power, which is vital for a
country and/or nation.
These are merely suggestions though and all briefs could be paired in any order that
bests suits your needs due to their flexibility.











PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

98 | P A G E

Contention 1: Unilateral Military Force Prevents Nuclear Proliferation
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, military force and political
incentives are the most important factors in limiting nuclear proliferation. As radical states such
as North Korea and Iran are unwilling to abide to diplomacy, the IAEA necessitates the
implementation of some military force to prevent nuclear proliferation into these enemy states.
Although, Max Boot senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations declares the inefficiency of
the UN and NATO at fulfilling such ambitions, and states the United States as a singular global
police force is capable of reigning in the actions of radical nations. Additionally, the Woodrow
Wilson School at Princeton cites the only possible way of preventing nuclear proliferation is to
assassinate key scientists and use special operatives to seize nuclear storage facilities. This
combination of tactics is relatively simple when using a small band of troops, such the special
operatives used in assassinating Osama bin Laden, Seal Team 6. Thus the United States
military is able to take out any and all targets related to nuclear proliferation. Lastly, Focus
Magazine, in an article on the nuclear detectives of Homeland Security, dictates that a small
band of scientists is able to find even the smallest dirty bomb, anywhere in the world. This
allows our troops to have perfectly accurate data on where to strike, eliminating any prolonged
hunt for the target. With a combination of our nuclear detectives and our brave soldiers, the
United States is very much capable of preventing any proliferation of nuclear technology in an
efficient and timely manner.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

99 | P A G E

Contention 2: Nuclear Proliferation leads to Nuclear War and Nuclear Winter
Nuclear proliferation in its simplest form is the spread of nuclear weapons to other non-
nuclear nations. While this may not seem an incredibly dangerous action, the implications of
widespread nuclear proliferation are in the increased likelihood of nuclear war and the
consequences of THAT action. The Anti-Defamation League declares that if Iran were to
develop nuclear weapons, their foreign policy would become increasing aggressive and a the
chances of a nuclear launch on Israel would skyrocket. Now, while this may seem an
ambiguous statement, Martin Hellman, professor emeritus of Stanford University, states that the
probability of nuclear war increases 1% each year nuclear proliferation goes unchecked, with
the current probability lying around 10-30% for this decade. Thus every single year nuclear
proliferation continues, this both literal and figurative time bomb gets a year closer to blowing
up. Furthermore, the effects of a nuclear war will quickly escalate into a full nuclear winter
scenario, as described by Moti Nissani, authority on the effects of nuclear war and nuclear
winter. In Nissanis report Consequences of Nuclear War he elaborates that an all-out nuclear
war is likely to include the death of over half the people in the combatant countries, decrease in
the quality of the genetic pool, breakdown of socio-economic systems, and spread radiation-
induced diseases. Thus with the progression of nuclear proliferation, the world gets one step
closer to full nuclear winter.















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

100 | P A G E

Contention 3: Nuclear Winter is Harmful For the Whole World
In the words of Moti Nissani, Nuclear bombs wreak far greater damage than
conventional explosives. They owe their greater destructive power to immediate blast, heat, and
radiation, and to the lingering effects of radioactive fallout. Nuclear weapons are not meant to
take lives, they are meant to destroy them. Katie Walmsley of CNN describes the effects of the
Chernobyl incident, which was a nuclear reactor explosion in 1986, of similar size to a modern
day nuclear warhead. Millions of people who have lived in or around the fallout zone,
experience a plethora of socioeconomic effects, including, congenital heart defects, chronic
illnesses and disabilities, and acute radiation syndrome, all in addition to displacing 200,000
people from their homes and exposing over 5 million to radiation during the event. Thus a
single nuclear weapon set off today could bring about all of these effects and more. If that does
not sound like a reason enough to prevent nuclear proliferation then lets ramp the scenario up a
little. In a full nuclear war the damage will not be limited to a single nuclear explosion, but many
from every single country involved, thus these effects will increase exponentially across the
globe as the war escalates. While this may all seem like a far off hellfire and brimstone, we
must remember, this entire powder keg explosion, goes off with one spark. If a crazy terrorist
organization gets a nuclear weapon from the Iranian government or North Korea finally decides
to pull the trigger, this entire nuclear winter, goes from being a scene in a horror film to the
reality we will all have to acknowledge. In one instant, nuclear proliferation turns from being the
mere exchange of information, to nuclear war and the eventual global fallout.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

101 | P A G E

Contention 4: Nuclear Weapons Are Harmful to the World
Beyond the obvious harms of nuclear detonations, the mere existence of nuclear
weapons in our world leads to complications in diplomacy and explicit detriments to each and
every one of us. Due to the arms race during the Cold War, nuclear weapons which were
stockpiled but never used, evolved beyond a military tactic to a means of leveraging one
nations power over another in order to gain diplomatic benefits. According to Amy Woolf, a
specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy for the Congressional Research Center, neither Russia
nor the United States is willing to give up their nuclear leverage or even talk about the matter of
nuclear disarmament, as of December 2012. Thus we can see that the two major nuclear
powers are not focused on making the world a better place, or even using nuclear weapons as
weapons, but instead are having a body building competition of sorts, where the winner gets to
bully the other into concessions politically. Furthermore, the Under Secretary of State Ellen
Tauscher is quoted saying that the United States is willing to use devastating conventional
force to respond to any aggression. In other words, if anyone acts against the mighty will of the
United States in the form of violence, we will unleash the entirety of Americas nuclear wrath on
them. Im not sure about you, but this does not sound like either a safe world, or a sound
environment for political discussion. Additionally, on the other side of the spectrum, Tim
McDonnell of Princetons Wilson Center cites nuclear programs as the support of undemocratic
regimes in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. McDonnell notes dictators such as Kim Jung Un
and Baashar al-Assad propping their rule up with the threat of WMD programs and regimes
such as Quaddafi and Hussein toppling due to cutting their nuclear programs. This connection
then makes nuclear weapons the support framework for unjust governments who enact human
rights violations and conduct genocide daily. Overall we can see that the presence of nuclear
weapons in this modern world, strips nations of the ability to engage in beneficial discussion and
allows for the continuance of everything that goes against humanities innate values.










PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

102 | P A G E

Contention 5: The United States Can Eradicate Nuclear Weapons
In the 68 years since the first nuclear strike, the United States and other major nuclear
nations have produced tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. While totally disarming these
massive stockpiles may seem an impossible task, the International Atomic Energy Agency has
released a comprehensive plan to disarm the world of all of its nuclear weapons, thus showing
that total disarmament is possible. To take this a step further, the Brookings Institute writes of a
movement called Global Zero, which aims to have total disarmament of nuclear weapons by
2030. While the organization cites multilateral forces, the Obama Administration and US
military is the primary figure behind every advance thus far, meaning unilateral forces would be
just as effective. Furthermore, the organization cites the first step in disarming the world as
preventing nuclear proliferation in Mexico, the Middle East, and Asia. Thus the United States
unilateral military force to prevent nuclear proliferation would be the first step in ridding the world
of ALL nuclear weapons by 2030. Also, according to George Schultz, William Perry, Henry
Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, in their wide spread article on the total disarmament of nuclear
weapons and prevention of nuclear proliferation, the main steps of preventing proliferation and
disarming the world are to: get control of uranium enrichment processes, halt production of
fissile material, and increase efforts to resolve regional conflicts. As these steps are only
attainable with military force, the United States military force is capable of stopping the
proliferation of nuclear weapons and bringing about the overall disarmament of the world.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

103 | P A G E

Contention 6: Nuclear Arms Represent World Power
With the development of Atomic Diplomacy since the Cold War, nuclear weapons have
played a key role in establishing a power struggle among nations and the resulting split of world
power. According to Keir Lieber and Daryl Press of the Council on Foreign Relations, nuclear
power is a clear indicator of power and influence in the world, as it forces non-nuclear forces to
choose a side under a nuclear power and thus submit to that nations goals. Furthermore as
Tim McDonnell of Princetons Wilson Center dictates, with dictators such as Kim Jung Un and
Baashar al-Assad using nuclear programs to remain in power, while other regimes, such as
Quaddafi and Hussein, topple with the finale of their nuclear programs, it is explicitly clear that
nuclear weapons and programs lend nations a sense of legitimacy on the political scene. This
legitimacy is the exact world power tied to each and every nuclear weapon.


















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

104 | P A G E

Contention 7: Nuclear Proliferation Hurts American World Power
International power and prestige derives from a nations ability to bring about significant
change in others and have influence over landmark decisions. Currently much of this power
and prestige is given to the few nations who possess nuclear weapons, the most equipped of
which is the United States. However with every new nuclear nation, the United States
monopoly on nuclear weapons decreases. Furthermore, if explicitly anti-American nations such
as Iran and North Korea were to develop nuclear weapons, the United States would be forced to
treat them as equals in both diplomacy and military strategy, thus decreasing our international
power greatly. Such beliefs are supported by Tim McDonnell of Princetons Wilson Center, who
states that when regimes even have nuclear programs, it props their rule up for that much
longer, as these nations are then able to leverage larger powers such as the United States,
Russia, and China. Thus, through the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the United States loses
great stakes of its world power. Additionally, Keir Lieber and Daryl Press of the Council on
Foreign Relations support this notion and state that as the United States nuclear primacy
increases, opposition to the United States will likely decrease. While many might see this as a
bad thing, lets think about it quickly, as Richard Haass of Foregin Affairs Magazine reports,
The United States seeks a world based on peaceful relations, non-proliferation, respect for
human rights, and economic openness. Thus by preventing nuclear proliferation, we are giving
the United States nuclear primacy, which in turn will allow for the world to experience peace
among nations and worldwide human rights.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

105 | P A G E











Negation

We would suggest utilizing contentions three, four and five together, as they all revolve
around the concept that unilateral military force has no solvency and that there are better
alternatives, thus asking the question: how is a solution justified when the solution does not
solve anything and there are better alternatives?
Likewise, contentions one, two and six could also be paired up assessing the detrimental
effects of unilateral military force on the United States. These would come in handy, especially
the impacts of the contentions as they are easily relatable and communicable to lay judges.
In reality, any of these contentions could be put together as a very flexible and elastic
case that is not restricted to a specific framework or structure. The flexing of these contentions
are there for your convenience and your continued success.






PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

106 | P A G E

Contention 1: Unilateral military force will cause economic detriments for the United
States.
With any military actions on by the United States an enormous sticker shock of
approximately $1 trillion will smack the US economy across the face. Richard Kahn, in his
analysis of the wartime spending of the United States, cites that the United States, in the year
2010, had spent nearly one trillion dollars on war time activities, outspending potential
adversaries and 75% of the globe combined. Thus, the United States neither needs nor can
afford unilateral military action, as multilateral action will provide an equal quality and quantity of
military support. Additionally, intervention in the Middle East will provide direct consequences for
the American citizen as members of OPEC will increase oil prices in reaction to unilateral
efforts. From February 2010-2012 oil prices increased 16% from countries involved in military
conflict. Thus if the United States were to conduct military action, the US would constrict the
social welfare of its own people by limiting their economic opportunities. Overall, we can clearly
see that any military action used to prevent nuclear proliferation will only bring about hardship
for the international economy and unilateral military action will provide all the cost of such
actions for purely the US government.














PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

107 | P A G E

Contention 2: Unilateral military force will hurt U.S hegemony.
American hegemony and maintaining its overall strategic influence all over the globe is
by far, the number one foreign policy directive for the United States and with a preemptive strike
against rogue states or even terrorist organizations, American hegemony is lost. In the age of
globalism, American hegemony cannot simply mean military superiority, weve had superiority
for three decades yet hold on desperately to our hegemony. Thus, in the 21st century,
hegemony dually relies on international cooperation and an incentive to work alongside the
United States to achieve a strategic objection, usually in the United States favor. Thus,
Samantha Power from Yale University states that the United States has lost influence all over
the globe as middle of the road nations do not take the diplomatic action of the U.S seriously.
The Iraq War, an undoubtedly unilateral military action, destroyed the hard power of the United
States, the GDP, military resources and etc, and likewise the soft power of the U.S, such as
global influence. Thus, with any type of similar military action, the only thing the United States is
doing is weakening its global status even further.















PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

108 | P A G E

Contention 3: Better alternatives to unilateral military force.
In the twenty first century, with more and more globalism, to assume that unilateral
military force is the only possible action is simply ignorant of the international community. With
countries around the planet linked by alliances, trade agreements, NATO, the UN and many
other international cooperatives, a multinational initiative to combat nuclear proliferation would
be a definite and viable option and with the bureaucracy for these organizations already
present, additional red-tape and diplomacy would not necessary. Likewise Michael OHanlon
from The Brookings Institution cites that several multinational initiatives to rid the world of
nuclear proliferation already exist and are working around the clock with the United States,
China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and many more countries. Likewise, Dan Reitter of the
Strategic Studies Institute has already acknowledged that Other policies, including diplomacy,
deterrence, ballistic missile defense, and an array of counterterrorism policies are likely to be
more effective at containing the spread and use of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical [weapons]
and less costly in human lives Thus, in the 21st century, for the United States to adopt an
invasive, harmful and detrimental policy as justified at the face of several more effective and
humane alternatives would be a grave mistake in foreign policy, especially for a topic as serious
as nuclear proliferation.














PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

109 | P A G E

Contention 4: Unilateral military force will not solve the India/Pakistan crisis.
The long-lasting conflict between India and Pakistan is often used as a model for
analysis on the topic of nuclear proliferation. As both India and Pakistan strive to create more
nuclear weapons, we can test the true solvency of unilateral military force in this scenario. As
Pakistan and India become increasingly hostile towards each other, unilateral military force
does not solve this crisis, instead it only furthers the conflict. Though the United States is allies
with both India and Pakistan, Paul Kerr and Mary Beth from the Congressional Research
Service report that Pakistan, in the case of a military conflict spiraling out of control, is unwilling
to hand over control of their nuclear facilities at any cost. If Pakistan is unwilling to hand over
their nukes even if rogue elements take control, imagine the unwillingness of the Pakistani
leadership if we attempted to take over the program by force. Likewise, India is growing in terms
of nuclear technology and unilateral military force merely against Pakistan would provoke anger
and retaliation from Pakistans allies subverting our military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and
etc. Alongside this retaliation from Pakistans allies, there is no guarantee of solvency for the
United States as Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Muller cites that increasing ties to
terrorism in the Pakistani government and instability within certain regions controlled by the
Haqqani network make it almost impossible for the U.S to be able to control the nuclear arsenal
of Pakistan, even with military force.













PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

110 | P A G E

Contention 5: Unilateral military force will not solve the North Korean crisis.
When considering the prevention of nuclear proliferation, the most obvious and
important entity to deprive of nuclear capacity would be North Korea (with Iran coming in a close
second). However, if the United States used unilateral military force, the conflict in the Korean
peninsula would only escalate and lead to further violence and instability. Scott Stossel from
The Atlantic cites that there would be problems with preemptive strikes on North Korea as their
nuclear strike programs and locations of the warheads are unknown, thus reducing the
effectiveness of a preemptive strike. Likewise, because, according to Phillip Saunders and the
U.S Department of Defense, the hidden locations of the warheads reduce the effectiveness of
the strike, North Korea still has the operational capacity to use their conventional artillery and or
chemical weapons against South Korea and Japan (Joseph S. Bermudez). Not only would the
death toll be catastrophic and the medical and environmental emergency that followed take an
international toll on the entirety of southeast asia as well as NATO and the United States, cites
FEMA, the Daegue International Management Command, and the Atomic Bomb Museum. Army
Colonel John. M Cullins notes that conventional ground forces would be engulfed in the
radioactive cloud and according to Fred Kaplan, it is obvious that even using the most
primitive type of nuclear weapon, North Korea could launch a nuclear strike that would likely kill
tens of thousands of people in either South Korea or Japan. This is a capability that North Korea
possesses right now. If and when North Korea is able to perfect the technology for fitting an
HEU warhead to a missile (if they have brought their HEU weaponization program to fruition,
and this may already be the case), North Korea will be able to launch a strike from mobile
missiles at either South Korea of Japan. No matter what preparations are made to prepare for
such an attack, the casualties would be enormousas would be the second order effects for as
long as a generation. Intelligence on North Koreas intentions is sketchy at best, and thus limits
the likelihood of a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is also limited by the ramifications.
Because of North Koreas ability to strike back and its unpredictable government, any
preemptive strike would have to be so widespread and large-scale that there is almost no doubt
it would cause an all-out war on the Korean peninsula. All of these assessments put together
add up to the premise that avoiding a nuclear war of any kind on the Korean peninsula can and
should remain a high priority. There will be no winners, only varying degrees of great loss.






PERFORMANCEBRIEFS.COM
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

111 | P A G E

Contention 6: Unilateral military force creates a military industrial conflict.
With the possible deployment of thousands of troops, as well as billions of dollars of
military equipment, vehicles and weapons all across the globe, U.S involvement, especially in
the use of unilateral military force, could generate a military industrial conflict. As industry giants
such as Lockheed Martin and others continue to make billions in profits, the continued spending
and extravagance of military programs, that would undoubtedly be bolstered by the
implementation of unilateral military force, promotes wastefulness such as when Richard Kahn
cites that it cost more than a million dollars to dispatch a Tomahawk missile, about $2,500an
hour to operate a single M-12A tank, more than $3,000 an hour to fly anF-16 fighter plane, and
roughly $40,000 an hour to keep a navy destroyer active. With everything taken into account,
moreover, it cost more than a million dollars to deploy and equip a single first-line soldier to Iraq
or Afghanistan for a year. Not only would a unilateral military conflict drain wallet of the United
States defense spending, bolster and promote inefficient and wasteful systems, and lower the
maximum operational capacity of the armed forces, but the military industrial complex would
stifle efforts to improve domestic issues as Christopher Preble cites that the growing military
industrial complex prevents worthwhile improvements and reform from taking place.

S-ar putea să vă placă și