Resolution

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic
surveillance.

Domestic Drones Affirmative

1AC

Drone Industry Advantage

Concerns about armed domestic surveillance drones are creating backlash to the
Drone industry
Sullivan 15 (Tom Sullivan, Political Consultant and News Writer, Commercializing Our Air
Force Or Militarizing Our Commerce?, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/17/1371593/Commercializing-Our-Air-Force-Or-Militarizing-Our-Commerce, March 17, 2015)
States scrambled to land one of six FAA drone test sites hoping to get rich on the next tech bubble. The FAA announced draft rules for flying unmanned, commercial
drones. But GoPro-equipped toys are not all they're supposed to be testing. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and
unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of
using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States. - Pres. George W. Bush, Cincinnati, OH, October 7, 2002 That was the first time many of us heard the term
"unmanned aerial vehicles." Ticking off a litany of bogus reasons for invading Iraq, Bush hoped we would collectively wet our pants in fear of unmanned drones over
America unleashing death from above. That was then. This is now. Now, looking to when the wars in the Middle East wind down, the Air Force faces a dilemma (from
February 2012): With

a growing fleet of combat drones in its arsenal, the Pentagon is

working with the Federal Aviation Administration to open U.S. airspace to its robotic aircraft ... "The
stuff from Afghanistan is going to come back," Steve Pennington, the Air Force's director of ranges, bases and airspace, said at the conference. The
Department of Defense "doesn't want a segregated environment. We want a fully integrated environment."
Now? Now defense contractors want to get into the military drone export business. So now, the Federal Aviation Administration is rolling out proposed rules for flying
"commercial" drones UAVs have been rebranded Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in U.S. airspace. The FAA has designated six sites around the country
for testing how to integrate unmanned aerial vehicles into its Next Generation Air Transport (NGAT) program. The FAA website features pictures of those cool,
camera-equipped quadracopters hobbyists, commercial photographers, and technophiles play with. They offer handy tips: What Can I Do with my Model Aircraft?
The six selected test sites offer punchy videos touting new careers and billions of dollars to be made in the exciting, new, commercial drone industry. However, the
FAA's test site program as mandated by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the plan to provide: (H) the best methods to ensure the safe

For "public,"
read "military and other state or federal agency." Including your basic Reapers, Predators, and
Global Hawks . Not that anyone wants to play up the military aspect of the test program. Of course, the first test site opened in Grand Forks, North
operation of civil unmanned aircraft systems and public unmanned aircraft systems simultaneously in the national airspace system;

Dakota, with a planned business park butted up against Grand Forks Air Force Base and sharing a runway. The first announced tenant is Northrop Grumman. Looking
at the New York test site in January, Aljazeera reported that advocates want to de-emphasize the Predator angle: Drone
supporters in the region acknowledged that creating a distinction in the publics perception between military and non-military uses of unmanned flight is central to
their goals. For example, the Cyber NY Alliance was initially incorporated as The Central New York Defense Alliance, but rebranded before beginning the push for

New York coalition acknowledged, "a lot of work still needs to be

done for the commercial drone industry to shape public opinion." Indeed, when
North Carolina tried to get its non-FAA drone testing program off the ground, public perception was
also an issue, writes Barry Summers at Scrutiny Hooligans: North Carolinas Next Generation Air Transportation (NGAT) program is launched
the FAA test site. A spokesman for the

at NC State University [2012], with support from the NC Department of Transportation, and begins to assume control of the UAV program previously run by the
military and the defense industry trade group. All FAA Certificates of Authorization for drone use in North Carolina are now held by NCSU, including those
needed to operate military drones like the RQ-7 Shadow in non-military airspace. The handover wasnt without at least a little complaining. This from a 2013
email from the commanding General of the NC National Guard: Over one year ago I jumped on board in trying to get our UAV units flying, at this proposed
training facility and was asked to step back in an attempt to not militarize this initiative placating the concerns that a

militarized approach

would ... result in erosion of public support.

Summers attended meetings of the NC House Committee on

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) set up to discuss commercial drone development and found himself more or less the only civilian in the room. The rest?
Department of Defense, ex-military, National Guard, former Booz Allen Hamilton (the civilian NSA). And they were not there as advocates for GoPro or DJI
quadracopters. One of the testing sites in North Carolina is described in a 2014 report to the NC General Assembly as "Private airfield in Moyock." Summers
compared an image from the presentation to Google map imagery and found that it was the airfield belonging to Academi, formerly known as Blackwater. Like North
Dakota's site, Summers found, North Carolina's Gull Rock Test Site butts up against the Navy's Dare County Bombing Range now reportedly operated by Northrop
Grumman. attribution: None Specified Remember Solyndra? Way back in 2011? Back when it was some kind of article of faith that "government shouldn't pick
winners and losers"? That was then. This is now. It's not that commercial drones aren't of interest to the private sector. Ask Amazon. But the
defense contractors want

military and U.S.

access to civilian airspace for testing exportable military

hardware and for keeping their drone pilots' skills sharp. Several drone testing programs are fashioned as university research programs and appear as
civilian efforts. That might be understandable after George W. Bush's speech about drones attacking civilians with "chemical and biological weapons," and after
revelations about widespread domestic surveillance here and abroad.

And that destroys the drone industry- non-military drone industries key to
sustainability
Lowdy 13 (Joan Lowy, Drone industry worries about privacy backlash, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/drone-industry-worries-about-privacy-backlash, March 29, 2013)

Its a good bet that in the not-so-distant future aerial drones will be part of Americans everyday lives,
performing countless useful functions. A far cry from the killing machines whose missiles incinerate
terrorists, these generally small unmanned aircraft will help farmers more precisely apply water and
pesticides to crops, saving money and reducing environmental impacts. Theyll help police departments
to find missing people, reconstruct traffic accidents and act as lookouts for SWAT teams. Theyll alert
authorities to people stranded on rooftops by hurricanes, and monitor evacuation flows. Real estate agents
will use them to film videos of properties and surrounding neighborhoods. States will use them to inspect
bridges, roads and dams. Oil companies will use them to monitor pipelines, while power companies use
them to monitor transmission lines. With military budgets shrinking, drone makers
have been counting on the civilian market to spur the industry's growth . But
there's an ironic threat to that hope: Success on the battlefield may contain the seeds of trouble for the more benign uses of
drones at home. The civilian unmanned aircraft industry worries that it will be grounded before it can
really take off because of fear among the public that the technology will be misused. Also problematic is a delay in the
issuance of government safety regulations that are needed before drones can gain broad access to U.S. skies. Some companies that make drones or supply
support equipment and services say the uncertainty has caused them to put U.S. expansion plans on
hold, and they are looking overseas for new markets. "Our lack of success in educating the
public about unmanned aircraft is coming back to bite us," said Robert Fitzgerald, CEO of The BOSH Group of Newport
News, Va., which provides support services to drone users. "The U.S. has been at the lead of this technology a long time," he said.
"If our government holds back this technology, there's the freedom to move elsewhere ... and all of a
sudden these things will be flying everywhere else and competing with us." Since January, drone-related legislation has been
introduced in more than 30 states, largely in response to privacy concerns. Many of the bills are focused on preventing police from using drones for broad public surveillance, as well as targeting
individuals for surveillance without sufficient grounds to believe they were involved in crimes. Law enforcement is expected to be one of the bigger initial markets for civilian drones. Last
month, the FBI used drones to maintain continuous surveillance of a bunker in Alabama where a 5-year-old boy was being held hostage. In Virginia, the state General Assembly passed a bill that
would place a two-year moratorium on the use of drones by state and local law enforcement. The bill must still be signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. The measure is supported by
groups as varied as the American Civil Liberties Union on the left and the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation on the right. "Any legislation that restricts the use of this kind of capability to
serve the public is putting the public at risk," said Steve Gitlin, vice president of AeroVironment, a leading maker of smaller drones, including some no bigger than a hummingbird Seattle
abandoned its drone program after community protests in February. The city's police department had purchased two drones through a federal grant without consulting the city council.

Drones "clearly have so much potential for saving lives, and it's a darn shame we're having to go through
this right now," said Stephen Ingley, executive director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association.
"It's frustrating."

Resolving public hostility key

Kaste 13 (Martin Kaste / NPR, Will Bureaucracy Keep The U.S. Drone Industry Grounded?, http://www.ideastream.org/news/npr/179843540, April 30, 2013)
Tough federal aviation rules and public backlash against drones have raised worries that the U.S.
unmanned aerial vehicle industry will be left behind foreign competitors. Developers say the U.S. light drone
industry is being overtaken by manufacturers in Israel and Australia. Americans are suspicious of drones.
Reports of the unmanned aerial vehicles' use in war zones have raised concerns about what they might do
here at home. For instance, in Seattle earlier this year, a public outcry forced the police department to abandon plans for eyein-the-sky UAV helicopters. The backlash worries Paul Applewhite, an aerospace engineer with 10 years
of experience at companies like McDonnell Douglas and Sikorsky. He now runs his own startup company, Applewhite Aero, in an
industrial park on the south side of Seattle. Applewhite is developing drones or UAVs, as the industry calls them. He shows off a 3-pound Styrofoam plane he has dubbed the Invenio. "We
bought the airframe and the motor off of an online hobby shop," he says. To make it a UAV, he added a GPS antenna and a circuit board that allows it to fly autonomously. He hopes to sell it to
aid agencies; medical teams could use it to fly tissue samples back to a lab, for instance. They'd enter the coordinates, and the Invenio would find its way back. That's the theory. The reality is,
Applewhite can't know for sure what his plane can do, because he's not allowed fly it. The Federal Aviation Administration bars the use of UAVs for commercial purposes. That means, even
though it's perfectly legal for hobbyists to fly small UAVs, Applewhite may not, because he's in business. He has applied for a special test permit, called a certificate of airworthiness, but that
process has dragged on since last August. "We've generated a 62-page document that we've submitted to the federal government," he says, and he assumes he'll have to meet personally with
regulators in Washington, D.C., before he's allowed to make a few short flights with his modified toy. "Quite frankly, I could do what I need to do in a cow pasture," he says. "I just need some
legal and efficient way to test this aircraft." Applewhite is quick to stress his respect for the FAA's thoroughness in the interest of safety. But in the case of lightweight experimental UAVs, he
says, that thoroughness threatens to stifle startups like his and perhaps a whole nascent industry. He says he's losing valuable time while potential customers go elsewhere. "A lot of our
universities that are developing [UAV] training programs, they're buying a vehicle from Latvia," he says. "I think I could compete on that, but I just can't test mine in the United States."

the U.S. light drone industry is being overtaken by manufacturers in

Israel and Australia; Seattle's controversial police UAVs came from Canada. The FAA won't comment on the permitting process for UAV tests. Heidi Williams,
Developers say

vice president for air traffic services and modernization at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, defends the FAA's cautious approach. "Their primary mission is ensuring that the airspace
environment that we all operate in is safe," says Williams, who is also a pilot. "Things that are really tiny or small to see, sometimes can be very close before you actually have time to see them
and react and avoid them." UAV developers admit there's still no reliable way to "teach" small drones to avoid other aircraft, but they say there's little danger as long as they're tested at low
altitudes, away from airports the same rules that already apply to radio-controlled hobby aircraft. Juris Vagners, a professor emeritus of aeronautics at the University of Washington, helped
pioneer UAVs in the 1990s. "There was some paperwork, but it wasn't anything like what's going on today," he says. Now the permitting process verges on the absurd. During a recent

Vagners blames the red

tape on the public's hostility toward drones. "As everyone can't help but be aware,
there's the whole big flap about privacy issues," Vagners says. "And the approach that is being taken by the FAA is basically a one size fits all." For
application, he says, it took a couple of months to satisfy the FAA that the University of Washington is, in fact, a public institution.

example, commercial developers of 3-pound modified toy airplanes find themselves having to apply for an "N-number" the same flying license plate that's required for Cessnas and 747s.

Some frustrated American companies are now taking their prototypes to Mexico and Australia for testing.
In Canada, the Canadian Centre for Unmanned Vehicle Systems is offering access to a test site among the flat farm fields of southern Alberta. One American drone developer has already used the
facility, which is run by Sterling Cripps. He marvels at the bureaucratic hurdles for UAVs, both in Canada and in the U.S. "Here's the hypocrisy: Our governments allow us to fly UAVs over warstricken, terrified civilians in other lands, but the moment you bring them back to our precious neck of the woods, where we're not getting shot at, where we have insurance, we have lawyers,

Regulators say they will allow it eventually. Congress has given the FAA until
September 2015 to come up with a plan for integrating commercial UAVs to the domestic airspace. As part of that process, the FAA
will pick six sites around the country for UAV testing. The sites are expected to be selected by the end of the year. That's an
eternity to UAV developers like Paul Applewhite. "We have a technology we have an industry that
could be ours for the taking," Applewhite says. "We're losing it because we can't test the vehicles."
they won't allow it," Cripps says.

Domestic armed drones are the issue

Wood 13 (David Wood, Wood has been a journalist since 1970, a staff correspondent successively for Time Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, Newhouse News Service, The
Baltimore Sun and Politics Daily. A birthright Quaker and former conscientious objector, he covers military issues, foreign affairs and combat operations. His 10-part series on the severely
wounded of Iraq and Afghanistan won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting, A Pulitzer Prize finalist, he has won the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Defense Reporting and other
national awards. He has appeared on CNN, CSPAN, the PBS News Hour, WUSA , RTV and the BBC, and is a regular guest on National Public Radios Diane Rehm Show. He has lectured at the
U.S. Army Eisenhower Fellows Conference , the Marine Staff College, the Joint Forces Staff College and Temple University, Drone Attacks Spur Legal Debate On Definition Of 'Battlefield',
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/drone-attacks-legal-debate_n_2687980.html, February 14, 2013)

WASHINGTON -- After a CIA Predator drone released its guided bomb high over Yemen on Nov. 3, 2002, the resulting explosion did more than kill six suspected al Qaeda terrorists riding in the
targeted car. This strike, the first by an armed drone outside a traditional, recognized war zone, also blew apart long-held notions of "war" and "battlefield" which had guided the application of
the legal traditions, treaties and laws of armed conflict for centuries. Until that day, armed drones had been used only in Afghanistan, easily identifiable as a traditional battlefield or war zone
because it had supported al Qaeda's 9/11 plotters and the U.S. armed response was justifiable self-defense. Any casual observer could see a war was underway. Yemen was different. The White
House was not sending tens of thousands of troops, and there was no solemn Oval Office speech summoning the nation to battle there. However, though few knew it at the time, earlier that year

But ever since that

first "non-battlefield" drone strike, generals and legal scholars, pundits and politicians have argued
passionately about what, exactly, constitutes an armed conflict, or a war zone, or a battlefield, and what is
outside armed conflict. The distinction matters. "Inside an armed conflict, you are allowed to kill people
without warning. Outside, you are not," says Notre Dame law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, a
specialist in international laws of war and conflict. " That makes it pretty important to know whether
you're on a battlefield or not." And not just if you're standing on a battlefield. As difficult as it is to pin down the law of armed conflict, "it's really important to raise
Yemen had been officially designated as a "combat zone" making the killings legal, at least in the eyes of the CIA and the White House of George W. Bush.

these questions, because we've been lulled since 9/11 into the sense that our government has the ability to decide through its intelligence agencies who is a bad guy and to kill him and the people

Difficult
questions about international law are boiling up because of the Obama administration's accelerating use of
armed drones against what it says are suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and potentially
elsewhere as well. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama seemingly acknowledged the growing public
unease about the program's troubling secrecy and whether the strikes are justified and legal. He would,
he promised, be "even more transparent" about how the strikes comply with the law. That vague wording
promises that the bitter disagreements over what the law says, and how it applies, are only
going to get more heated. "I don't think we are ever going to have a precise answer," says Laurie R. Blank, director of the International Humanitarian
around him," O'Connell told The Huffington Post. "I don't want to see them drag the law down and lose the world as a place in which the law is held as a high standard."

Law Center at Emory University School of Law and the author of several books on war and international law. In the long history of warfare, there have been clear-cut cases where existing law
applies, mostly when two governments are at war in a geographically defined area. "But the nature of the world today is that it makes it difficult to put war into neat and tidy packages," Blank
says. War and the law have come a long way from that muddy day in October almost 600 years ago when British infantry and archers memorably clashed with French knights near the Normandy
village of Maisoncelles. It was a modest, neatly-defined battle, or armed conflict: the belligerents were drawn up at either end of a small wheat field; the bristling battle lines were barely 1,000
yards apart, and when the carnage was over in a few hours, a pair of professional referees declared British King Henry V the winner and named the battle Agincourt, after a nearby castle. By
contrast, many of today's conflicts range over time and space, and belligerents morph from terrorist to civilian to warrior. Do a few suicide bombings in Islamabad define a war zone? Does the
taking of hostages at an Algerian gas plant constitute an international armed conflict? Does a skyjacking plot conceived in Afghanistan and planned in Germany, which kills 3,000 people in New
York and Washington, create legal war zones or armed conflicts in all four places? What if one of the plotters is hiding in Cleveland? How far does the concept of self-defense go? Can someone
just declare an area to be a free-fire "battlefield

"? If the United States is at war with terrorists, and there

are terrorists inside the United States, can they be targeted with armed
drones? If a Taliban sneaks across the Afghan border with Iran, can the U.S. target him there? And is Iran then
justified under the U.N. rule of self defense to plant a terrorist bomb in Times Square? Could an al Qaeda terrorist protect himself by becoming
an American citizen?

---Scenario: Arctic Exploration

Drone usage key to artic exploration- both oil drilling, shipping, and environmental
cleanup
Hsu 13 (Jeremy Hsu, LiveScience, Drones handle all kinds of work in Arctic -- and there's lots more to do, http://www.nbcnews.com/science/drones-handle-all-kinds-work-arctictheres-lots-more-do-8C11012648, August 27, 2013)

Small drones may soon take to the skies above Earth's top with the aim of making survival there easier for
both humans and wild animals. Such unmanned aircraft represent the first in a coming wave of Arctic
drones that could watch out for oil spills, track ice floes and migrating whales, or help the U.S. Coast
Guard in search-and-rescue operations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently gave its first restricted approval for two commercial drone
operations in the Arctic a first step toward routine use of drones by companies aiming to monitor rich fisheries,
expand oil-drilling operations and send more shipping across the increasingly
ice-free summer waters of the Arctic Ocean. But several companies had already partnered with the University of Alaska Fairbanks to
conduct experimental tests of drones in Alaska under FAA waivers or certificates of authorization. "We've done work for oil companies, but it's also research because they and we are trying to
figure out if unmanned aircraft are effective and good for the job," said Ro Bailey, deputy director of the Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration at the University of Alaska

Such work can benefit scientists and Alaskan citizens as well as oil companies.
Unmanned aircraft operated by the University of Alaska Fairbanks have helped check out oil pipelines for
energy giant BP, counted Stellar sea lions in the Aleutian Islands and guided a Russian fuel tanker to
deliver emergency supplies to Nome, Alaska. Preventing man versus wild Human interest in the Arctic
has skyrocketed as the melting ice opens up new opportunities for energy exploration and shipping . Small
drones weighing less than 55 pounds (25 kilograms) offer the promise of both helping and monitoring
such commercial activities in the territories once ruled by polar bears, sea lions and whales all while
keeping an eye out to prevent unhappy encounters between humans and wildlife. An unmanned Aeryon Scout drone flown by
Fairbanks. [9 Totally Cool Uses for Drones]

the University of Alaska Fairbanks stayed on the lookout for polar bears during a fuel resupply mission to Nome in January 2012. The small drone (on loan from BP Alaska) also helped monitor
ice conditions as the Russian fuel tanker Renda and the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy made their way into Nome's harbor. [How Unmanned Drone Aircraft Work (Infographic)] "We helped
lay out the path for the fuel hose from the fuel tanker to the storage tanks, and we did some monitoring to help humans wandering around to not encounter polar bears," Bailey told LiveScience.

Drones may also help oil companies watch out for wildlife
movements when planning where to drill for oil or lay out pipelines. In a worst-case scenario, drones
could spot mammals or birds affected by oil spills and help out cleanup efforts by keeping an
eye on the oil spills themselves. The two recent FAA approvals for commercial operations have focused on this type of work. Conoco Phillips plans to use an Insitu
"A polar bear encounter is not good for the humans, as you might guess."

ScanEagle drone to survey ice floes and migrating whales in Arctic oil exploration regions off the Alaska coast this summer. Similarly, an AeroVironment Puma drone received the go-ahead to
help emergency responders monitor oil spills and wildlife over the Beaufort Sea just north of Alaska. Drone Small drones have proven surprisingly tough in the face of the harsh Arctic climate.
The extreme cold temperatures reduce the battery life of drones and cut down on flying times, but Bailey said the unmanned aircraft tested by the University of Alaska Fairbanks have performed
well overall. The university has even helped engineer improvements for some drones and the instruments they carry. "In our experience, the unmanned aircraft work fine in temperatures 30

The sturdiness comes in handy for

studying the natural hazards found in the Arctic environment. Drones can help spot the heat signatures of
wounded people trapped in collapsed buildings in the aftermath of an earthquake, or map the borders of
Alaskan wildfires with infrared vision. They can also evaluate the risk of avalanches or monitor glacier
lakes capable of unleashing sudden floods. Cutting the red tape Such drone activities may become even more
frequent if the FAA can eventually finalize the rules for type-certified unmanned aircraft a
certification of safety and airworthiness that would allow anyone to buy and operate the certified drones
without special waivers or certificates. (Pilot licenses would still be a separate issue.) The FAA is also looking to create
(degrees F) below," Bailey said. "We have more problems with our laptops, because laptops don't like the cold at all."

permanent airspace corridors for drone operations in the Arctic, as charged by Congress through the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Those corridors would be open to drone flights
for research, commercial or government purposes. The University of Alaska Fairbanks has submitted an application to become one of six new FAA test sites for drones chosen at the end of this
year. University researchers expect the demand for small drone operations to rise whenever drones can finally fly with less regulatory hurdles. "We are already tapped with more work than we
can handle," Bailey said. "Once the rules are established, they'll cut down on paperwork, but won't cut down on work."

Scenario 1: Trans-Alaska Pipeline

US Drilling is key to economic growth and open access to pressure resourcesprevents Trans-Alaska Pipeline System collapse
Holt 12 (David Holt, President of Consumer Energy Alliance, HOLT: Arctic oil and gas exploration could revitalize West Coast,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/23/arctic-oil-and-gas-exploration-could-revitalize-we/, October 23, 2012)

The United States took a giant step toward securing its energy future this month with the initiation of
drilling exploratory wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The development of these wells marks the first time in nearly two decades that
multiple oil drilling rigs have been working off Alaskas shore simultaneously. While this may seem like a minor development, it has the
potential to profoundly change Americas economic and energy future. This begs the question, how can two oil wells have such a
significant impact on the energy future of the United States? The answer lies in the abundance of the resources being tapped. Federal
officials estimate the Chukchi and Beaufort seas could contain upward of 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Put another way, thats the
largest untapped source of proven oil reserves in North America . For the West Coast in particular, these
resources represent a tremendous economic opportunity that could provide the foundation for the regions
future. After all, development is expected to provide more than 50,000 jobs nationwide, significant state
and local government revenues, and a more affordable and reliable source of energy for the entire West
Coast, one of the largest economic regions of the United States. A more affordable source of energy is critical to the western United
States long-term success, as the region currently must import more than 1 million barrels of oil a day to
meet its energy needs. After being self-sufficient in the 1980s, the West Coast has quadrupled its reliance on OPEC over the past two decades. The production of
oil and gas resources in Alaskas North Slope is also critical for the longevity of one of our nations
most critical infrastructure assets, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. With Prudhoe Bay
production declines, the volume of oil transported through the pipeline has dropped to an average of 595,000
barrels a day. Operating at such a low capacity could force the pipeline to close because of weather
challenges. If this happens, the main source of domestic crude oil to Western refineries would be
sacrificed, and the West Coasts economy would suffer. The road that led to this situation was paved with a combination of prohibitive regulations,
declining production and the lack of a national energy plan. This didnt begin with the current president, but he hasnt helped much, either. Since
President Obama took office in 2009, oil production on federal lands has reached its lowest point in nearly a decade. Last year alone, production on federal lands dropped 13 percent, and federal
offshore production dropped by 17 percent. While the president approved the operations in the Arctic, it took him four years to do so, and final approvals came only after strident objections of
opponents that the administration failed to rein in. These opponents would like us to believe its too risky to safely explore the Arctic. They argue we should forget about these resources that are
nearly a quarter of our known, technically recoverable Outer Continental Shelf reserves. While opponents are concerned with the safety of the Arctics sensitive ecosystem, it is unfair to assume
the oil and gas industry does not share the same sentiment. For companies such as Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the launch of this project is the culmination of more than $5 billion in investments and
six years of preparation, which have enabled the project to receive approval from the Environmental Protection Agency as well as multiple other federal agencies with oversight of the operations.
Commandant of the Coast Guard Adm. Robert J. Papp Jr. has stated his belief that both the industry and the Coast Guard are ready for the task. [Shell] truly did their homework, I believe,

Other Arctic nations including Canada, Russia, Norway and

Greenland already have established or will soon establish Arctic offshore oil and gas programs. In fact,
the United States is one of the last nations to tap into the resources off our own coastline.
Doing so is a critical part of any all of the above energy portfolio.
Technological advances have led to the shale revolution, and they are enabling Arctic exploration as well.
As a world leader, the United States needs to seize this opportunity to raise the bar for responsible energy
production that will propel our economy forward. We can no longer afford to block access to our natural
resources, placing our own economy and quality of life at risk . In the case of Arctic oil and gas programs, the economic
health of the entire West Coast of the United States is at stake which, in California, includes the
worlds ninth-largest economy.
Adm. Papp said, and I think they are going to be well prepared.

Race is zero sum and the US is losing

Reichmann 14 (Deb Reichmann, Associated Press, Journalist for AP, Salon, and RealClear World, Nations jockey for Arctic position, US not in lead,
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/nations-vie-for-clout-in-arctic-us-far-from-lead/article_a63ef802-3c0d-5311-9fdd-6c8f283940a6.html, January 01, 2014)

The U.S. is racing to keep pace with stepped-up activity in the once sleepy Arctic frontier, but it is far
from being in the lead. Nations across the world are hurrying to stake claims to the Arctic's resources,
which might be home to 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural
gas. There are emerging fisheries and hidden minerals. Cruise liners loaded with tourists are sailing the Arctic's frigid waters in increasing numbers. Cargo traffic along the Northern Sea
Route, one of two shortcuts across the top of the Earth in summer, is on the rise. The U.S., which takes over the two-year rotating chairmanship of the eight-nation Arctic Council in 2015, has not

critics say the U.S. is lagging behind the other seven: Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Iceland, Canada and Denmark, through the semiautonomous territory of Greenland. "On par with the other Arctic nations,
ignored the Arctic, but

we are behind _ behind in our thinking, behind in our vision," Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said. "We lack basic infrastructure, basic funding commitments to be prepared for the level of
activity expected in the Arctic." At a meeting before Thanksgiving with Secretary of State John Kerry, Murkowski suggested he name a U.S. ambassador or envoy to the Arctic _ someone who
could coordinate work on the Arctic being done by more than 20 federal agencies and take the lead on increasing U.S. activities in the region. Murkowski is trying to get Americans to stop
thinking that the Arctic is just Alaska's problem. "People in Iowa and New Hampshire need to view the U.S. as an Arctic nation. Otherwise when you talk about funding, you're never going to get
there," Murkowski said. She added that even non-Arctic nations are deeply engaged: "India and China are investing in icebreakers." The U.S. has three aging icebreakers. The melting Arctic also
is creating a new front of U.S. security concerns. Earlier this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said expanding Russia's military presence in the Arctic was a top priority for his nation's
armed forces. Russia this year began rehabilitating a Soviet-era base at the New Siberian Islands and has pledged to restore a number of Arctic military air bases that fell into neglect after the
1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin said he doesn't envision a conflict between Russia and the United States, both of which have called for keeping the Arctic a peaceful zone. But he added,

While the
threat of militarization remains, the battle right now is on the economic level as countries vie for oil, gas
and other minerals, including rare earth metals used to make high-tech products like cellphones . There also are
"Experts know quite well that it takes U.S. missiles 15 to 16 minutes to reach Moscow from the Barents Sea," which is a part of the Arctic Ocean near Russia's shore.

disputes bubbling up with environmental groups that oppose energy exploration in the region; Russia arrested 30 crew members of a Greenpeace ship in September after a protest in the Arctic.
China signed a free trade agreement with tiny Iceland this year, a signal that the Asian powerhouse is keenly interested in the Arctic's resources. And Russia is hoping that the Northern Sea Route,
where traffic jumped to 71 vessels this year from four in 2010, someday could be a transpolar route that could rival the Suez Canal. In the U.S., the Obama administration is consulting with
governmental, business, industry and environmental officials, as well as the state of Alaska, to develop a plan to implement the U.S. strategy for the Arctic that President Barack Obama unveiled
seven months ago. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel rolled out the Pentagon's Arctic blueprint last month, joining the Coast Guard and other government agencies that have outlined their plans for
the region. There are no cost or budget estimates yet, but the Navy is laying out what the U.S. needs to increase communications, harden ships and negotiate international agreements so nations
will be able to track traffic in the Arctic and conduct search and rescue operations. Critics, however, say the U.S. needs to back the strategy papers with more precise plans _ plus funding. With
the country still paying for two wars, the idea of spending money in an area considered a low security threat makes the Arctic an even tougher sell. "The problem with all of these strategies is that
they are absolutely silent on budget issues," said Heather Conley, an expert on the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "How do we meet these new challenges? Well, we're
going to have to put more resources to them. It's dark. It's cold. There's terrible weather. We need to enhance our own satellite communications and awareness in the area as ships and commercial

The U.S. needs helicopters, runways, port facilities and roads in the Arctic, she said _
not to mention better accommodations in small coastal towns that have a shortage of beds and would be
ill-equipped to handle an influx of tourists from a disabled cruise ship. With few assets, the U.S. might be
forced to borrow from the private sector. "When Shell drilled two summers ago in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea, they had 33 vessels and the Coast
Guard had one national security cutter," Conley said. "We're not prepared. It may be another 10 years. The Arctic is not going to
wait, and the increased commercial and human activity is already there. Other Arctic states are preparing
more robustly, and we are choosing not to." The Obama administration defends its work on the Arctic, saying it is preparing for the rapid changes coming in
activity increases in the Arctic."

the far north. "Each Arctic government, including the United States government, has developed an Arctic strategy, and the administration expects to release an implementation plan for our Arctic
strategy in the coming months," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. "We recognize that preparing for increasing human activity in the Arctic will require investment in the region, and
we hope to be able to say more on this in the future." Malte Humpert with the Washington-based Arctic Institute says that when the implementation plan is completed, he's going to be looking for
specifics _ timelines, budget numbers, plans for new infrastructure. "There's a lot of good, shiny policy and good ideas about how to move forward, and now it's about finding money," he said.
"And that's where the U.S. is really far behind." The funding battle often focuses on icebreakers. The Coast Guard has three: the medium-duty Healy, which is used mostly for scientific
expeditions, and two heavy icebreakers, the Polar Sea and Polar Star. Both heavy icebreakers were built in the 1970s and are past their 30-year service lives. The Polar Star, however, was recently
given a $57 million overhaul, was tested in the Arctic this summer and currently is deployed in Antarctica. About $8 million has been allocated to study the possibility of building a new
icebreaker, which would take nearly a decade and cost more than $1 billion. In the meantime, lawmakers from Washington and Alaska want Congress to rehabilitate the Polar Sea too. "A halfcentury after racing the Russians to the moon, the U.S. is barely suiting up in the international race to secure interests in the Arctic. Russia, Canada and other nations are investing heavily," Rep.
Rick Larsen, D-Wash., wrote in an op-ed published earlier this month.

"We are behind and falling farther back."

Lack of resources cause Ice Wars

Larsen 11 (Kaj Larsen, CNN, 'Ice Wars' heating up the Arctic, http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/07/15/larsen.arctic.ice.wars/index.html, July 15, 2011)
Tension is building in the Arctic, where countries are vying for valuable natural resources More oil, natural gas and
mineral deposits can be accessed now because of climate change There have been territorial disputes over the underwater land where these deposits rest The Arctic is now
seeing naval and military activities it hasn't seen since the Cold War (CNN) -- On a small, floating piece of ice
in the Beaufort Sea, several hundred miles north of Alaska, a group of scientists are documenting what
some dub an "Arctic meltdown." According to climate scientists, the warming of the region is shrinking the polar ice cap at an alarming rate, reducing the permafrost
layer and wreaking havoc on polar bears, arctic foxes and other indigenous wildlife in the region. What is bad for the animals, though, has been good
for commerce. The recession of the sea ice and the reduction in permafrost -- combined with advances in
technology -- have allowed access to oil, mineral and natural gas deposits that were previously trapped in
the ice. The abundance of these valuable resources and the opportunity to exploit them has created a

gold rush-like scramble in the high north, with fierce competition to determine which
countries have the right to access the riches of the Arctic. This competition has brought in its wake a host
of naval and military activities that the Arctic hasn't seen since the end of the Cold War. Now, one of the
coldest places on Earth is heating up as nuclear submarines, Aegis-class frigates, strategic bombers and a
new generation of icebreakers are resuming operations there. Just how much oil and natural gas is under the Arctic ice? The Arctic is home to
approximately 90 billion barrels of undiscovered but recoverable oil, according to a 2008 study by the U.S. Geological Survey. And preliminary estimates are that one-third of the world's natural

But that's not all that's up for grabs. The Arctic also contains rich mineral deposits.
Canada, which was not historically a diamond-producing nation, is now the third-largest diamond
producer in the world. If the global warming trend continues as many scientists project it to, it is likely that more and more resources will be discovered as the ice melts further.
Who are the countries competing for resources? The United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Denmark,
Iceland, Sweden and Finland all stake a claim to a portion of the Arctic. These countries make up the
Arctic Council, a diplomatic forum designed to mediate disputes on Arctic issues Lawson Brigham, a professor at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks and an Arctic expert, says "cooperation in the Arctic has never been higher." But like the oil trapped on the Arctic sea floor,
much of the activity of the Arctic Council is happening below the surface . In secret diplomatic cables
published by WikiLeaks, Danish Foreign Minister Per Stieg Moeller was quoted as saying to the United
States, "If you stay out, the rest of us will have more to carve up the Arctic." At the root of Moeller's
statement is a dispute over control of territories that is pitting friend against foe and against friend.
Canada and the U.S., strategic allies in NATO and Afghanistan, are in a diplomatic dispute over the
Northwest Passage. Canada and Russia have recently signed development agreements together. In the
same way a compass goes awry approaching the North Pole, traditional strategic alliances are impacted at
the top of the world. Who owns the rights to the resources? Right now, the most far-reaching legal document is the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. All of the
gas may be harbored in the Arctic ice.

Arctic states are using its language to assert their claims. The Law of the Sea was initially designed to govern issues like fishing rights, granting nations an exclusive economic zone 200 miles off
their coasts. But in the undefined, changing and overlapping territory of the Arctic, the Law of the Sea becomes an imperfect guide, and there are disputes over who owns what. One example is
the Lomonosov Ridge, which Canada, Denmark and Russia all claim is within their territory, based on their cartographic interpretations. Also complicating matters is the fact that the U.S. has

With murky international

agreements and an absence of clear legal authority, countries are preaching cooperation but preparing
for conflict. There has been a flurry of new military activity reminiscent of days past. Two U.S. nuclearnever ratified the Law of the Sea. That has given other Arctic Council nations more muscle to assert territorial rights. So what's next?

powered attack submarines, the SSN Connecticut and the SSN New Hampshire, recently finished conducting ice exercises in the Arctic. Secretary of the Navy Richard Mabus said the purpose of
the recent naval exercises was "to do operational and war-fighting capabilities. Places are becoming open that have been ice-bound for literally millennia. You're going to see more and more of
the world's attention pointed towards the Arctic." Other Arctic nations are ramping up their military capabilities as well. Just this month, Russia announced that it is deploying two brigades to the
Arctic, including a special forces unit. The Russian air force has recently resumed strategic bomber flights over the Pole. Canada, Denmark and Norway are also rapidly rebuilding their military
presence. But despite the buildup, almost all of the activity in the Arctic has been within the scope of normal military operations or research. Have we seen this before? There is a long precedent
for countries using the Arctic to demonstrate military primacy. On April 25, 1958, the world's first nuclear-powered submarine -- the USS Nautilus (SSN 571) -- began Operation Sunshine, the
first undersea transpolar crossing. Done on the heels of the Sputnik satellite launch, it was a demonstration that the U.S. could go places that its Cold War nemesis could not. For the next three
decades, U.S. and Soviet submarines would continue to use the Arctic as a proving ground for military prowess. With the end of the Cold War, that activity waned. But in 2007, a Russian
expedition planted a flag on the bottom of the polar sea floor, almost 14,000 feet below the surface. This "neo-Sputnik" has brought renewed interest to the Arctic and launched a flurry of activity

The Cold War may be over, but the

dethawing of military activity means that the frigid Arctic is once again becoming a
hot spot.
-- scientific, economic and military -- that is eerily parallel to the decades of tension between the superpowers.

Oil shocks would cause extinction

Henderson, Besline Research CEO/President/consultant, 07 (Bill, CounterCurrents.org, February 24, Climate Change, Peak Oil, and Nuclear War,
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson240207.htm, 7/9/08)
Countercurrents.org By Bill Henderson

The awakening public now know that climate change is

real and human caused but still grossly underestimate the seriousness of the danger, the increasing
probability of extinction, and how close and insidious this danger is - runaway climate change, the threshold of which, with carbon cycle
time lags, we are close to if not upon. A steep spike in the price of oil, precipitated perhaps by an attack on Iran or Middle
East instability spreading the insurgency to Saudi Arabia, could lead to an economic dislocation
paralyzing the global economy. Such a shock coming at the end of cheap oil but before major
development of alternative energy economies could mean the end of civilization as we know it. And there is a
building new cold war with still potent nuclear power Russia and China reacting to a belligerent,
Damocles had one life threatening sword hanging by a thread over his head. We have three:

unilateralist America on record that it will use military power to secure vital resources and to not allow
any other country to threaten it's world dominance. The world is closer to a final, nuclear,
world war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 with a beginning arms race and
tactical confrontation over weapons in space and even serious talk of pre-emptive nuclear attack. These
three immediate threats to humanity, to each of us now but also to future generations, are inter-related,
interact upon each other, and complicate any possible approach to individual solution. The fossil fuel energy path has
taken us to a way of life that is killing us and may lead to extinction for humanity and much of what we now recognize as nature.

Scenario 2: Environment
Global company development of the Arctic is inevitable and will destroy the
environment
Cunningham 12 (Nicholas Cunningham, Offshore Oil Drilling in the U.S. Arctic, Part Three: Concerns and Recommendations,
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/07/offshore-oil-drilling-in-us-arctic-part_19.html, July 19, 2012)

On February 17, 2012, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) approved of Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc.s Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP), the last major hurdle to allowing Shell to move forward
with offshore oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea.[i] In theory, Shell has developed a plan to guard against the environmental fallout of a hazardous incident, including a well blowout. Shell has safety
vessels standing by, oil collection equipment on hand, and technology ready to drill a relief well in the event it needs to stop a blowout. The reformed Department of Interior believes Shell has

Shells
OSRP is unproven. It does not fill the fundamental gaps that pervade the regulatory structure of offshore
oil drilling, nor does it ensure against a catastrophic blowout. Very little has changed since the blowout in
the Gulf of Mexico there have been only minor reforms to environmental and safety oversight and no
legislative action to address the root causes. Also, the science on Arctic ecosystems remains insufficient , and
the effects of such a spill are unknown. Before offshore oil drilling commences in the Arctic, these
problems need to be addressed. Environmental Sensitivity and Risks to Marine Ecosystems The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are home
to a diverse array of marine life, including salmon, herring, walrus, seals, whales, and waterfowl.5
Additionally, the Chukchi Sea is home to higher occurrences of benthic marine fauna relative to other
Arctic habitats.6 Scientific understanding of these ecosystems and the anthropogenic effects on them, are
both not yet sufficiently understood. Oil drilling in the marine environment has been shown to have
deleterious effects on the marine environment . Evidence suggests that noise from seismic surveys conducted during oil exploration damage acoustic animals
adequately demonstrated safety preparedness and response, ensuring against another environmental crisis comparable to the BP/Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010. However,

such as whales, which can ultimately lead to fatalities if within close proximity.[ii] While whales can generally alter migration patterns to avoid such dangers, an increase in industrial activity
may push whales further away from preferred habitats, potentially damaging feeding or spawning patterns. Increased tanker traffic associated with higher oil exploration and production will

the impacts of hydrocarbon releases in the marine environment

have been shown to cause detrimental impacts on reproductive health, immunological and neurological
functioning, as well as higher incidences of mortality for marine wildlife.[iii] Contaminants from oil and gas
drilling are also believed to travel higher up on the food chain, ultimately having cascading effects for
marine ecosystems. Shells 2012 exploration plans include drilling exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea,
where bowhead whales migrate to during the spring months.[iv] The National Wildlife Federation released a report in April 2012 detailing
worsen noise pollution in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Additionally,

some of the scientific findings of the effects on the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon incident. An estimated 523 dolphins were reported stranded in the oil spill area, 95% of which
were dead.[v] These strandings are four times the historic average. The Gulf of Mexico is also the spawning grounds of the Bluefin Tuna, and contact with oil may have reduced juvenile Bluefin
Tuna by as much as 20%.[vi] These are only a few examples of the damage that can be done due to an oil discharge. While scientific evidence suggests drilling will damage the marine
environment, the full impacts are not well understood, which will be discussed further below. Lack of Science on Arctic Ecosystems Ultimately, the effects of a very large oil spill on the marine

impacts have not been thoroughly

studied.[vii] Moreover, even the effects of the Deepwater Horizon blowout are so far unknown; the full
effects will require years of careful scientific study.
environment in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are unknown. Since oil production in the Arctic thus far has been limited,

Marine ecosystems are critical to the survival of all life on earth.

Craig 3 (Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in
political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and
dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function

ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling

of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur,
as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems
impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the
functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the
face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are
more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of
that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "

interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued

Thus, maintaining and

restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem
services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in
components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860

Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary
justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we

The United States has traditionally failed to protect

marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know
that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem
should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and
hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine
marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves,
and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive
know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems.

ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of
jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil

The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed

with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being
repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the
spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species.

emerging crisis. n865 Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot.
n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business
as a result.

Drones prevent oil spills- mapping and clean up

Bailey 10 (Alan Bailey, GreeingofOil.org, Journalist at PetroleumNews, Shell strives for smaller Arctic offshore footprint, http://www.greeningofoil.com/post/Shell-strives-forsmaller-Arctic-offshore-footprint.aspx, January 14, 2010)

The use of advanced technologies that reduce environmental impact and improve business efficiency
distinguishes Shell in the oil and gas industry, Michael Macrander, Shells Alaska lead scientist, told Greening of Oil in December. The investment that Shell makes in
technology and the willingness to embrace new technologies is quite apparent, Macrander said, pointing to the companys operations in the Gulf of Mexico and its efforts to address

The
use of technologies and techniques that minimize the environmental footprint of oil and gas operations is
nowadays a requirement and expectation, forming an essential component of Shells license to operate
in places like the Arctic offshore, he said. Its our view that it gives us a competitive advantage if we can demonstrate to the community that Shell takes these
environmental issues in offshore Alaska. Shell was a leader in technologies that enabled deepwater exploration and development. We view technology as a difference-maker.

things seriously, and were willing to invest the time and resources to minimize our footprint, Macrander said. Shell is planning to drill exploration wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in
2010. The company has already conducted seismic surveys around its targeted exploration prospects. But the Arctic offshore is subject to heightened environmental awareness, while also

One challenge is convincing

local Inupiat people of Alaskas North Slope that industry activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is
unlikely to have a negative impact on the environment and on the wildlife they subsist on . These are local people who
presenting some significant physical challenges for a company such as Shell. Making headway with local residents, the Inupiat people

will not get a cent of oil and gas royalties or leasing revenues from the federal government as a result of oil company exploration, development and production in their traditional offshore hunting
grounds. And without tax jurisdiction over the Alaska outer continental shelf (federal waters), the largest government body in northern Alaska, the North Slope Borough, has been concerned that
OCS oil and gas development is likely to disrupt subsistence hunting activities without bringing significant benefits to the North Slope communities. Environmental groups, cast as protectors of
whales and other wildlife, and North Slope Inupiat organizations that represent subsistence hunters of whales, seals, polar bears and other wildlife, have been on the same side in lawsuits,
hindering Shells progress. Still, Shell continues talking to local residents and work closely with them to find mutually acceptable solutions, a practice that appears to be making headway. In
December George Itta, the mayor of the North Slope Borough and a subsistence hunter, announced the borough had opted out of a lawsuit filed in the wake of federal approval of Shells 2010
plan to drill in the Beaufort Sea. This is the first time that the Minerals Management Service has required a shutdown of drilling activities during our fall hunt of the bowhead whale, Itta said in
a statement. The certainty of this protection is a positive step. The whalers in Barrow, Nuiqsut and Kaktovik can rest assured that their fall hunt will not be interrupted by Shells industrial
noise. Itta said he gives Shell credit for responding to some of our concerns. But he said a number of permits and issues remainnoise, air and water pollution issues and whalers concerns
about cow-calf pairs diverted from Camden Bay feeding due to industrial noise. We expect a huge company like Shell to clear the bar with room to spare, Itta said. We need them to provide
robust protections, not just minimums. Thats why we continue to engage with them and the agencies. I think were making progress. Id rather work it out this way if we can. Ocean discharge

in process of being resolved The Science Advisory Committee at the University of Alaska Fairbanks is meeting this month to advise Itta on recommendations for reducing industrial discharge
into the water. The borough said Shell has agreed to accept the committees recommendations as its guidelines for discharge. Ocean discharge is a real bone of contention for us, and Shells
decision to live by the SACs recommendations is an important step, Itta said. I believe we can ultimately get to a plan that works for industry and satisfies our deepest concerns. Seeking

A first step in addressing environmental concerns is to gain a better

understanding of the Arctic offshore environment, gaining knowledge that includes baseline data
that will enable projects to be timed for minimal environmental impact and that will enable the impacts of
projects to be measured when those projects take place, Macrander said. With that in mind Shell, in conjunction with ConocoPhillips,
better understanding of Arctic environment

has deployed a network of subsea acoustic recorders to pick up sounds made by marine mammals in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. In the Beaufort Sea five lines of seven or eight recorders have
been deployed over the past three years, while an initial deployment of 25 recorders in the Chukchi Sea in 2006 has also now grown to about 40 recorders, Macrander said. Were learning a lot
about marine mammals, Macrander said. Were learning a lot about sound in the environment. Were learning where animals are, what theyre doing, how theyre responding to not only
industry activities but also things like climate change. Were finding animals that have expanded their range. And, among other things, the recorders are providing insights into the movement of
walruses, as these animals react to ice leaving the Chukchi Sea, he said. Each recorder sits anchored on the seafloor, operating autonomously to record subsea sounds, together with the timing of
the sounds, for later analysis after the recorder has been retrieved from the ocean. The Beaufort Sea recorders can detect the direction that a sound comes from, thus enabling recordings of the
same animal sound on multiple recorders to pinpoint the location of the animal. The reason for doing that was to understand how migrating bowhead whales react to industry activity,
Macrander said. Hunters do not want seismic noise to divert whales One of the initial applications for the acoustic recorders was the determination of the impact on marine mammals of offshore
seismic surveying that Shell and other companies were doing. And, although generally speaking there was little observed impact, it turned out that the sound from the seismic surveys traveled
much farther through the ocean than the companys sound models had originally predictedthe nature of the seafloor probably causes greater sound reflection than anticipated, Macrander said.
We had to adjust to that by altering our (wildlife) monitoring capabilities, he said. We added more observers including additional vessels, so we could observe over a larger area, follow
what was going on with the marine mammals and protect them. Native subsistence hunters have expressed particular concern about the possible deflection of bowhead whale migration routes
because of noise from industrial activities such as seismic surveying. If, for example, the whales move too far from shore, the whale hunters might not be able to reach them. Past studies have
indicated a deflection in whale migration, with the industrial disturbance causing a hole in the migration pattern. However, the acoustic evidence that Shell has assembled indicates that the
whales migration path tends to flow around the industrial activities and that the whales do not back up and stop, Macrander said. Over the last two-and-a-half years the data have pretty
strongly indicated that there is a deflection, but its probably less than what people had thought it would be, he said. The data are also addressing the vexed question of what level of sound
impacts the whales, following a debate regarding whether sound at a 120-decibel or 160-decibel level has a significant impact. Sound levels of 120 decibels extend for tens of kilometers from a
seismic vessel, while 160-decibel sound extends just six to eight kilometers. Our data seem to indicate that 160 is a much more relevant number, Macrander said. The sound does not cause a
major holdup in whale migration or deny significant areas of habitat to the whales, he said. But acoustic monitoring is just one of a series of observation techniques that together can assemble
multiple layers of environmental data, Macrander said. Other techniques include wildlife observation from the air and the tagging of animals. Theres no one monitoring or study technology

Observing using unmanned drones A potential

new technology being actively investigated by both Shell and ConocoPhillips for the observation of
wildlife, ocean conditions, ice conditions and weather in the Arctic offshore is the use of unmanned aerial
systems, or drones, Macrander said. Drones could perhaps enable observations to be made far out in the Chukchi
Sea, for example, in locations where the distance from land and the lack of support infrastructure make a
manned airborne operation unacceptably dangerous. Drones could also help with offshore search-andrescue operations, where the use of manned aircraft puts rescuers at risk. And a drone can fly very quietly
for 24 hours on a single gallon of fuel, thus creating minimal environmental impact, while a conventional
aircraft with observers onboard creates noise that can disturb the animals being observed. However, whereas
thats going to deliver all the information, Macrander said. You really need to have multiple capabilities.

conventional aerial wildlife observation enjoys long-accepted data collection protocols that lead to high levels of confidence in observation results, people still need to demonstrate that drones
can act as effective wildlife observation devices. Were working at that, Macrander said. Were doing a lot of tests and experiments. And, cautious about opening a door to the private
operation of devices that dont meet the basic see-and-avoid standards of aviation safety, the Federal Aviation Administration has been reluctant to approve the use of drones for offshore
observations. Shell has been installing radar and collecting data to demonstrate that there is little risk in using drones in the Arctic offshore, Macrander said. Mitigating impact of Shells activities
on wildlife In parallel with environmental monitoring, Shell is taking a series of steps aimed at mitigating the impact of its activities on the Arctic wildlife, Macrander said, For example, in 2007
Shell conducted an experiment to test the acquisition of offshore seismic data from floating ice in the Beaufort Sea, to determine whether it would be possible to do seismic surveying on ice in
the depths of the winter rather than during the busy summer open water season when wildlife migration occurs. The 2007 experiment did indeed demonstrate that gathering seismic data on the
ice is possible, at least as far out as the limit of land-fast ice, but a lack of suitable winter ice cover in 2008 prevented a hoped-for on-ice seismic survey from taking place, Macrander said. Shell
is also investigating the use of unmanned submarines to reduce environmental impacts and improve efficiency in the Arctic offshore. These unmanned devices, already a familiar and commonly
used technology in the Gulf of Mexico oil industry, can carry sensing technology, for example, to survey for potential drilling hazards such as shipwrecks, seafloor historical sites and shallow
gas. Currently, shallow hazard surveying is done using a manned surface vessel that moves continuously around the survey area: An unmanned submarine, driven almost silently by an electric
motor, only requires a relatively stationary tender vessel on the surface and, thanks to its high maneuverability, would be able to complete a survey relatively quickly. In addition, the possibility
of operating a submarine below the sea ice offers the potential to do surveying outside the open water season. Another way of minimizing on-water traffic and avoiding the need for aerial
observation is to use satellite imagery for monitoring ice conditions. Satellite-based synthetic aperture radar, for example, can produce detailed images of sea ice, even on days when there is
extensive cloud cover, perhaps enabling the early detection of a hazard such as an ice floe drifting toward an offshore operation. And, with satellites already in orbit, the use of the satellite
imagery involves no new environmental impact. Satellite imagery is already providing Shell with an improved understanding of Arctic ice behavior, an understanding that will translate to
improved safety in offshore operations, Macrander said. Plans to use drillships vs. fixed structures Shells planned use of drillships rather than fixed structures for Arctic exploration drilling also
enhances safety because a drillship can shut down its drilling operation and move offsite if threatened by sea ice. And Shell is implementing new technologies to reduce drillship air emissions,
Macrander said. But the use of a drillship rather than a fixed structure for exploration drilling means that Shell does not have the capability to grind and re-inject into a well the rock chips and
waste mud from the drilling. The company plans to dispose of this waste at sea, but the type of waste to be disposed of has long been known to be environmentally safe, and the waste disposal
has been fully permitted, Macrander said. Disposing of the waste in some other way would involve the environmental impact of putting additional vessels on the water, he said. We dont want to
commit to an option that ends up being a bad choice, he said. If exploration results lead to offshore oilfield development, modern directional drilling, with wells splaying out from a central point
to tap different areas of a subsurface reservoir, would minimize the number of offshore platforms needed, thus minimizing the environmental footprint and reducing the field costs. Curtain of
bubbles would surround platforms With many people concerned about the potential impact of industrial noise on the Arctic offshore environment, Shell is also investigating technologies for
reducing sound emissions from an offshore facility such as an oil platform, which would be part of a producing field. One possible technology generates air bubbles that reduce sound propagation
by taking advantage of the fact that air transmits sound much less readily than water. Essentially, compressed air injected into a bubble generator on the seafloor would create a curtain of bubbles
around the offshore structure. They are looking at the physics of different shapes of bubbles and whether they can produce specific shapes that will sustain themselves as they move to the

Preventing oil spills tops list Oil spill prevention is a key factor in protecting the
environment. And when it comes to drilling, the use of state-of-the-art 3-D seismic data to delineate the
subsurface geology, coupled with modern drilling technologies, including the use of high-tech drilling
muds and downhole sensing, have together made the possibility of a spill from an oil well blowout
extremely unlikely. And modern well blowout preventers have also significantly reduced the risk of an oil
spill, were well control to be lost. There is a host of technologies that we employ to get us greater control and greater
knowledge about what were doing when we drill, Macrander said. Shell has also pioneered the use of
surface, Macrander said.

remote operating centers that enable experts in, say, Houston, Texas, to monitor what is happening in a drilling
operation perhaps thousands of miles away, watching out for potential problems and providing advice on
how to resolve any issues that arise. Then, when it comes to developing an Arctic offshore oil field, the
design of platforms, pipelines and other infrastructure components that can withstand the forces from ice
and weather in the Arctic environment will be a critical component of oil spill
prevention. And Shell has been surveying seafloor ice gouges, to obtain information essential to the design of structures that will not be damaged by the keels of moving ice
floes, Macrander said.

---Scenario: Agriculture/ Pesticides (~4)

Specifically- Agriculture and Pesticide
Drones key to Agriculture
Bennett 13 (Chris Bennett, Farm Press Blog, Drones begin descent on US agriculture,
http://westernfarmpress.com/blog/drones-begin-descent-us-agriculture, February 12, 2013)

No one is laughing now. Once considered only a cut above remote-controlled toys, drones have
proven their potency in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and manufacturers are eyeing U.S.
agriculture as a tremendous market opportunity. Speaking to Wired magazine, Chris
Mailey, vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), said,
Agriculture is gonna be the big market. Wired reports that Japan used drones, or
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), to spray 30 percent of its rice fields in 2010. UAV technology is
rapidly evolving and drones are already seeing limited use in the wine industry. In 2012, AirCover

Integrated Solutions Corp., a California drone manufacturer, opened a plant in Carroll, Iowa.
UAVs can play a part in helping the American farmer lower costs and increase productivity. Unless an
expensive helicopter is hired, or a flyby photo with a plane is done, farmers have limitations in
assessing their crops until its time for harvest, CEO James Hill told the Daily Times Herald.
According to the Herald, the AirCover drones measure about 2-1/2 feet by 2-1/2 feet and 3.7
pounds are slightly larger than a seagull. The drones, managed from the ground by state-ofthe-art computer systems, can climb 80 feet per second, or about four stories per second. They
travel horizontally at 45 mph. Drone use advocates for agriculture and other commercial
industries will have to navigate through a minefield of privacy and legal issues. Lance Gooden,
Texas state representative, has introduced a bill that with few exceptions, would ban the use of
drones by private citizens or state or federal law enforcement. WOAI reported the following:
"These drones are going to get so cheap that soon you'll be able to buy your own drone at Best
Buy," Gooden said. "You could park it a foot above the ground in your neighbor's back yard and
film into their house. If someone wanted to film your children out playing by the pool and put
that video on the Internet ... as creepy as that sounds." The Federal Aviation Administration, after
getting swamped with thousands of drone applications from universities (with a heavy agricultural focus),
law enforcement and private citizens, has a 2015 deadline to open up U.S. skies to civilian drones. The
San Francisco Chronicle reports: "the drone makers have sought congressional help to speed their
entry into a domestic market valued in the billions. The 60-member House of Representatives' "drone
caucus" -- officially, the House Unmanned Systems Caucus -- has helped push that agenda." A host of

industries are on hold to see what rules and regulations are finalized when concrete laws are laid
down. The commercial industry market for drones is extremely difficult to gauge but the potential
is genuinely massive measured in the billions. The New York Times puts the drone market
value at $5.9 billion and growing: "The market for drones is valued at $5.9 billion and is expected to
double in the next decade, according to industry figures. Drones can cost millions of dollars for the
most sophisticated varieties to as little as $300 for one that can be piloted from an iPhone."
Regardless of how good the drone technology is, the market scope and profit
potential for agriculture will hinge on drone costs. Mailey believes farming and
drones will be a fit, as he told Wired: Spraying, watering theres a whole market for precision

agriculture, and when you put that cost-benefit together, farmers will buy [drones].

Theyre key to precision farming

Griekspoor 13 (P.J. Griekspoor, Precision Agriculture Seen as Big Winner in Drone
Technology, http://farmprogress.com/story-precision-agriculture-seen-big-winner-dronetechnology-9-96113, March 21, 2013)

The biggest thing on the horizon in precision agriculture is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle flights, according
to a new report from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. Kansas, already a
leader in research on the vehicles that are expected to see explosive growth when integration into
national airspace begins in 2015, ranks No. 7 among states likely to see economic benefits the

report says, with the state expected to see a $2.9 billion impact and 3,700 new jobs between 2015
and 2025. The greatest area of growth indicated by the report will be in precision
agriculture, which is slated to grow 10 times that of the public safety market for UAS. Precision
agriculture use of UAS refers to two segments of the farm market: remote sensing used to scan plants for
health problems, growth rates and hydration; and precision application of needed pesticides or nutrients in
order to save money and reduce environmental impact. Aerial sensing with the hexacopter, can

provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18 minutes a task that
would take hours if not days on a tractor.Aerial sensing with the hexacopter, can provide
mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18 minutes a task that would
take hours if not days on a tractor. Members of the Kansas Ag Research and Technology
Association got an upclose look at the work that is being done at Kansas State University by
agronomy professor Kevin Price, who is working closely with Deon van der Merwe, head of the
toxicology section at the K-State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. UAVs can help monitor crop
conditions Van der Merwe is a remote-controlled aircraft enthusiast who is excited about the prospect of
using UAVs, commonly referred to as drones, to detect blue-green algae blooms in bodies of water. Price
brought two aircraft to the KARTA conference, a flying wing by RiteWingRC called the Zephyr
II and a DJI S800 Spreading Wings hexacopter. Price said the promise of using the aircraft to do
remote sensing to monitor crop condition, detect diseases and map fields for variable rate application of
nutrients or pinpoint areas for fungicide or pesticide application, is huge. Aerial sensing with the

hexacopter, for example, can provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in
about 18 minutes a task that would take hours if not days on a tractor. You can read more about
the K-State Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program in the March, 2013 Kansas Farmer magazine.
Find it online at the Farm Progress website. Click on Magazine Online and go to Page 21. The
entire AUVSI report on the economic prospects of unmanned vehicles can be found here.

Precision farming key- variable rate technology and mega-fields its not the root
cause of mega farming but makes it more efficient
Murray 11 (Peter Murray, PRECISION AGRICULTURE HIGH TECHNOLOGY
INVADES THE FARM, http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/13/precision-agriculture-hightechnology-invades-the-farm/, March 13, 2011)

Touchscreen consoles allow farmers to manage the new technologies now running their tractors,
which include GPS guidance and satellite imagery. Here at the Hub, we try to keep our finger on
the pulse of technology and how it affects our lives. Farming is no exception, and its about to
get an upgrade. With scrolling ads for the latest touchscreen control system, wireless
connectivity solutions, and Dell notebooks, PresionAgs website looks more like a site for tech
junkies than for farmers. The high technology decorating the website is symbolic of the infiltration of
high technologies onto farms across the world. Tractors operated by touchscreens are becoming
increasingly common. Words such as remote sensing, near-infrared, and algorithm that
evoke images of a space shuttle cockpit are steadily working their way into the vernacular of
everyday farmers. Welcome to the future of farming. Its called precision agriculture. The
mechanization of farming is considered one of the top ten engineering accomplishments of the 20th
century. Before the tractor it took 35 to 40 hours to plant and harvest 100 bushels of corn. Today

the same amount of corn takes 2 hours and 45 minutes. The effects of this staggering increase in
efficiency were felt across society at large as would-be farmers, no longer needed, moved into
the cities in droves (in 1900 41 percent of the U.S. workforce were employed in agriculture; in
2000, just 1.9 percent). Now farming is poised to undergo another revolution, delivered through another
of the 20th centurys technological breakthroughs: computers. Crop fields can be huge. In places like the
American Midwest and Canada fields can stretch for miles. Inefficiencies in farming operations over
distances like these can raise costs exponentially. Imagine the amount of seed wasted by
steering a tractor just six inches off track. Double-seeding that six inch strip is not only wasteful in terms
of seeds lost, but also due to lost production of a crop now growing under suboptimal conditions. Now
take that seed error and multiply it by a factor of water + fertilizer + herbicides + pesticides. GPS to the
rescue. Whereas before a farmer had to reckon with guideposts, they now have tractors that
communicate with satellites. The typical guidance system youre likely to find on a tractor has a
precision of under a meter, but more advanced systems can reach sub-inch precision. And the best
part is that the tractor drives itself! The GPS is hooked up to a control system that drives the tractor

so the farmer can sit back, crank up the music, and enjoy the ride (watch the tractor drive itself in
the video below). Considering the constant mental effort it requires to keep straight with the guideposts,
the relief afforded by a hands-off ride is a significant benefit. Farmers who have switched over to GPS
often cite increased productivity from less stressed drivers. Aside from the technology, a major
advancement of precision ag comes from a change in the way farmers think about their fields. In the

past, a field was viewed as a uniform unit: if its time to water, the entire field gets watered. But
the reality is that not every part of the field has the same need for water or fertilizer or pesticides. The
smartness of precision ag comes in the form of what are called variable rate technologies
that control delivery of water and chemicals according to what that subregion of the field needs. In the

past farmers could tell you what areas of the field needed more or less water from direct
observation. But a farm back then was typically a few hundred acres. As the fields of today
approach the massive expanses of tens of thousands of acres , comprehensive
hands-on assessments are becoming impossible. At the same time, effectively
managing a farm of this size requires an information gathering system that is quick and comprehensive.
Remote-sensing is just this system. Multi-spectral images taken from satellites and aircraft can provide
farmers with a wide range of information about their fields . Images of red light reveal relative levels

of silt, sand, calcium, and clay in the soil (soil texture is an important factor in determining the
right level of water and chemical application). Readings in infrared tell you which areas receive

more water and how water moves in the field. Infrared images can also be used to assess weed
coverage. Images in the thermal infrared range is used to assess plant health. This is due to the
fact that unhealthy plants are unable to cool off through transpirationthe release of water
through somata on their leavesand overheat as a result. Not surprisingly, green light which
reflects off the plants chlorophyll is used to assess plant growth. The multi-spectral data is
plugged into a computer model to generate a prescription map for the field. And its a pretty
smart system: whether youre scanning corn or cotton or peanut fields, the computer models used
to interpret the data can be modified to take into account the physical properties of the plant. The
three false-color images shown here were taken by sensors aboard NASAs Daedalus aircraft.
The top image shows crop density (dark blues and greens indicate vegetation, red indicates bare
soil) the middle image maps water deficit (dark blues and greens indicate wet soil, red indicates
dry) and the bottom image measures stress (red and yellow indicate high stress). Multi-spectral
imagery, such as these from NASA's Daedalus aircraft, reveal the heterogeneous reality of crop
fields. The remote-sensing data reveals to the farmer what he already knew: variability is part of the
fields. So how does he use this information? The multi-spectral data is entered into a computer
that then calculates the amount of water or chemicals needed, then automated sprayers vary their
application accordingly as the tractor moves across the field. Known as variable rate technology
(VRT), this automation again takes the hard decisions out of the farmers hands and gives them
to computers. Remote-sensing data is expensive, and farmers often get together and share the
cost by purchasing surveys that span multiple farms. One limitation of remote sensing is time
resolution. Ideally fields would be scanned on a daily basis, but many farmers simply cannot
afford to hire airplanes that frequently. And satellite coverage is broad, rarely scanning the same
field twice within a 24 hour period. But one neednt always take to the air to benefit from VRTs.
Several companies offer sensing systems that can be attached to tractor booms and read the
field on the go. Like the sensors on Daedalus, these sensors take multi-spectral readings to
determine plant growth and health, and this data is then used to modify output from applicators
on the boom. The proximity to the plants offers the advantage of active light sensing. Because
these sensors provide their own light theyre not affected by light interferences such as clouds or
shadows. And they can be used at night. The main motivation behind precision ag is, of course, to
increase profit margins. A farmer who adopts the technology saves about $2 to $8 per acre. If he
springs for the high-end, more sophisticated equipment, he can save up to $15 per acre. Concerns
by todays farmers hesitant to adopt the VRT approach (We never needed that junk! went one
blog comment I saw) that the expensive equipment will drive up food prices are
unfounded. The 60 percent of Alabama farmers who have adopted precision ag technologies saved an
estimated $10 million in 2009. The land profits as well. Applying chemicals only to sites and in amounts
needed cuts down on pollution due to runoff. But if a farmer still doesnt buy into the precision ag

and finds himself soon unable to match large-scale profits, theres always the local or organic
markets he can turn to. With remote-sensing imagery, computer modeling software, and high
tech tractors, this is definitely not your grandfathers farm. While strawberry-picking robots are
very cool, were probably a long way from seeing them roll past the cows out to pasture. Farmers
are a meat-and-potatoes type of folk who need a meat-and-potato kind of technology. Precision ag
is still young, and as the variable rate technologies become more capable and user-friendly theyll reach
more farms all across the world. Of course, mass food production has its downside, such as the

risks of monocultures and food chain corruption. Part of me worries that the precision ag

technologies will hasten the pace at which farms are growing. If we reach a point where the
average farm of tomorrow looks like the industrial farm monstrosities of today, we have to ask if
the pros really do outweigh the cons. But for now, as long as mass food production is going to
continue, its good to see that theyre doing it in more efficiently and using less resources. A hundred
years ago farming technology changed the world. Im hopeful that a hundred years from now we might be
saying the same thing.

Key to prevent ag collapse

Gonzales 13 (Sarah Gonzalez, Associate Editor for Agri-Pulse, Data analysis, biotech are key
in agriculture's future sustainability, http://www.agri-pulse.com/ag-issues-biotech-future22613.asp, February 27, 2013)

Bayer's forum, which began on Tuesday in Orlando, Florida, included a futuristic look at agriculture
in the year 2025, just 25 years before the world population is expected to reach nine billion and
agriculture is required to increase productivity by 70 percent . We've been able

to convince consumers that biotechnology is the core of sustainability by 2025, Kottmeyer said,
adding that convincing and educating consumers is more important than convincing regulators.
During the shift of focus from regulator to consumer he predicts, Kottmeyer said it is important
to appeal to the emotional sentiments on which the consumer bases decisions. Furthermore, the
organic customer is attracted to simpler agriculture, social justice, sustainability and good
stewardship, which he says are all things biotechnology can provide. The approach that they're
rejecting has a clear benefit to the very things most important to them, he said. The benefits of
seed technology will be realized, particularly because of the increased global population in 2050,
as well as the prediction that more than half the world population will be in the middle class by
that date. He said this huge middle class, particularly in China and India, will create a new
consumer. While the European Union currently blocks all U.S. biotechnology products,
Kottmeyer is optimistic the consumer will drive a change. He noted that data analytics, which
allowed him to make his 2025 predictions, show that finding ways to influence consumers is much
simpler than normally anticipated. You just have to crunch the data, he said. In fact, the entire
agriculture industry is currently moving into a data-centric era , said David
Nicholson, head of Bayer's Research and Development, during the forum. Using the information gained
from technology in a way that helps agriculture achieve the required 70 percent
increase in productivity is the key to success or failure, he said . Precision agriculture, in
particular, is the focus of this data-driven era allowing the farmer to know what to grow and where to
grow it for the best results. When we think of the farmer of the future we see a grower as CEO,

said David Hollinrake, Bayer's Vice President of Agriculture Commercial Operations Marketing,
adding that farming will increasingly become a business investment instead of a lifestyle or
family choice. We want to be able to participate as an enabler of using data as precision tools.

Impact 1- Food Wars

US ag key to prevent extinction
Lugar 2K (Richard Lugar, US Senator from Indiana, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a member and former
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 2000)

In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats
and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril.
One of the most daunting of them is meeting the worlds need for food and energy in this
century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the environment, but
also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war over access to
resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed
the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of
[WMDs] weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6
billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase
well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will
have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that
means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing
world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem
is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited
arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people
destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed
themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for
the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the
next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the
land we have. Thats a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on
average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our
production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we
possibly boost output that much? Well, its been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer
and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold
increase in yields since 1935 on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per
hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that
we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet
world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward
projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that
will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental
research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The United States
can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production
may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our
planet.

US key to global supplies- causes starvation, wars, and extinction

Klare 12 (Michael, Hampshire College security studies professor, defense correspondent of
The Nation magazine, serves on the boards of directors of Human Rights Watch, and the Arms
Control Association, As Food Prices Rise, Dangers of Social Unrest Seem Imminent, August
9, 2012)

The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences
will be severe. With more than one-half of Americas counties designated as drought disaster

areas, the 2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed to fall far short of
predictions. This, in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing increased
misery for farmers and low-income Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in
countries that rely on imported U.S. grains. This, however, is just the beginning of the likely
consequences: If history is any guide, rising food prices of this sort will also lead to widespread
social unrest and violent conflict. Foodaffordable foodis essential to human survival and
well-being. Take that away, and people become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United
States, food represents only about 13 percent of the average household budget, a relatively small
share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably not prove overly taxing for most middle
and upper-income families. It could, however, produce considerable hardship for poor and
unemployed Americans with limited resources. You are talking about a real bite out of family
budgets, commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omahas Creighton University.
This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and high-unemployment areas,
perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and other forms of
dissent and unrest. It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to
have its most devastating effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S.
to supplement their own harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops
elsewhere as well, food supplies are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. What
happens to the U.S. supply has immense impact around the world , says Robert Thompson, a food expert
at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn and
soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is
likely to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough
food to feed their families. The Hunger Games, 2007-2011 What happens next is, of course,
impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn ugly. In 2007-2008, when
rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply higher prices
especially for breadsparked food riots in more than two dozen countries, including
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting
became so violent and public confidence in the governments ability to address the problem
dropped so precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the countrys prime minister,
Jacques-douard Alexis. In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police
forces, leaving scores dead. Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely attributed to the
soaring cost of oil, which made food production more expensive. (Oils use is widespread in
farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and pesticide manufacture.) At the same time,
increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being diverted from food crops to the
cultivation of plants used in making biofuels. The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however,
closely associated with climate change. An intense drought gripped much of eastern Russia
during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that breadbasket region by one-fifth
and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt Chinas grain harvest, while
intense flooding destroyed much of Australias wheat crop. Together with other extreme-weatherrelated effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50 percent and the price of
most food staples by 32 percent. Once again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social
unrest, this time concentrated in North Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose
over the cost of staples in Algeria and then Tunisia, whereno coincidencethe precipitating

event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, setting himself on fire to protest
government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices combined with long-simmering
resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what became known as the
Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a cause of
unrest in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic regimes,
may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian
Parenti, wrote, The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of
bread. As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa, where corn
is a major staple, and of increased popular unrest in China, where food prices are expected to rise
at a time of growing hardship for that countrys vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and
poor peasants. Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also lead to reduced consumer
spending on other goods, further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and
producing yet more worldwide misery, with unpredictable social consequences. The Hunger
Games, 2012-? If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would
undoubtedly absorb the ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come.
Unfortunately, its becoming evident that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a
single heartland nation, but rather an inevitable consequence of global warming which is only
going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse
years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United States, but globally for the indefinite
future. Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on
global warming. Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be
demonstrated in certain cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011,
for instance, climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and Great Britains National Weather Service concluded that human-induced climate
change has made intense heat waves of the kind experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than
ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, it reported that
global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas heat wave was 20 times more likely
than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm temperatures like those
experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because of global
warming. It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the
effect of global warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but
we can assume the level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the
warming gains momentum? When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we
envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising
sea levels. Among other things, this will result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food
supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of warming in the physical world, not the social
world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our daily well-being and survival. The
purely physical effects of climate change will, no doubt, prove catastrophic. But the social effects
including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass migrations,
and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive
and deadly. In her immensely successful young-adult novel, The Hunger Games (and the movie
that followed), Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce,
post-apocalyptic future where once-rebellious districts in an impoverished North America must

supply two teenagers each year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for
all but one of the youthful contestants. These hunger games are intended as recompense for the
damage inflicted on the victorious capitol of Panem by the rebellious districts during an
insurrection. Without specifically mentioning global warming, Collins makes it clear that climate
change was significantly responsible for the hunger that shadows the North American continent
in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are about to be selected, the mayor of
District 12s principal city describes the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the
encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and] the brutal war for what little
sustenance remained. In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence
on which such a world might be organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of
those hunger games, do not doubt that some version of them will come into existencethat, in
fact, hunger wars of many sorts will fill our future. These could include any combination or
permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008 collapse of Haitis government, the pitched
battles between massed protesters and security forces that engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab
Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and water sources that have made
Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable distribution of agricultural
land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites of India. Combine
such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of
people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns and expanding
slums surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such
eruption, with grisly results, occurred in Johannesburgs shantytowns in 2008 when desperately
poor and hungry migrants from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases
burned to death by poor South Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station
from the raging mobs, said she fled her country because there is no work and no food. And
count on something else: millions more in the coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from
drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to migrate to other countries, provoking even
greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the possibilities that lie in our hunger-games
future. At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still
ongoing Great Drought: dying crops, shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye
out for the social and political effects that undoubtedly wont begin to show up here or globally
until later this year or 2013. Better than any academic study, these will offer us a hint of what we
can expect in the coming decades from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent
droughts, recurring food shortages, and billions of famished, desperate people.

Food wars go nuclear

Brown 9 [Lester R., United States environmental analyst, founder of the Worldwatch Institute,
and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in
Washington, D.C., recipient of 26 honorary degrees and a MacArthur Fellowship, Brown has
been described by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers, has been
the recipient of many prizes and awards, including, the 1987 United Nations Environment Prize,
the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize for his
"contributions to solving global environmental problems, Can Food Shortages Bring Down
Civilization? Scientific American, May]

The biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries to
cause government collapse. Those crises are brought on by ever worsening environmental degradation

One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project
the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works well.
But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today's
economic crisis. For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems
preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from
what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire--and how
would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely
catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure,
our civilization might devolve into chaos--and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too! For
many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends
and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate
point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food
shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization. I
can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are
undermining the world food economy--most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising
temperatures--forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible. The Problem of

Failed States Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome
support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third
decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to
reverse a single one. In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of
consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world
carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of
consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain prices in the spring and summer of last
year climbed to the highest level ever. As demand for food rises faster than supplies are growing, the
resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the
edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed,

even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding
[see sidebar at left]. Many of their problem's stem from a failure to slow the growth of their
populations. But if the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever
increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to
international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration
of power but its absence that puts us at risk. States fail when national governments can no longer
provide personal security, food security and basic social services such as education and health
care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When governments lose their
monopoly on power, law and order begin to disintegrate. After a point, countries can become so
dangerous that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia
and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs in jeopardy. Failing
states are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs, weapons and refugees,
threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of failing states, has

become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan,

number seven, is the world's leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive genocide of 1994
in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among them, helped to
destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six). Our global civilization
depends on a functioning network of politically healthy nation-states to control the spread of infectious
disease, to manage the international monetary system, to control international terrorism and to
reach scores of other common goals. If the system for controlling infectious diseases--such as polio,
SARS or avian flu--breaks down, humanity will be in trouble. Once states fail, no one assumes
responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough states disintegrate, their fall will
threaten the stability of global civilization itself.

Impact 2- Pesticide Environment destruction

Solves pesticides and environmental runoff
Ghose 13 (Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer, Could Drones Revolutionize Agriculture?,
http://www.livescience.com/34503-could-drones-revolutionize-agriculture.html, May 20, 2013)

[Pin It] Chris Anderson talks to an audience at Maker Faire Bay Area on May 18, 2013, about
how small foam drones could revolutionize farming. SAN MATEO, Calif. The
word "drone" tends to conjure up images of planes that kill terrorists or of creepy surveillance
tools. But tiny drone airplanes made of foam may be more useful in rural environments, one researcher
says. There, the fliers could revolutionize agriculture, reducing the need for pesticides and
improving crop production. Because drones can fly cheaply at a low altitude, they can
get highly detailed images of cropland, said Chris Anderson, the CEO of 3D Robotics and former
editor-in-chief of Wired, here on Saturday (May 18) at this year's Maker Faire Bay Area, a twoday celebration of DIY science, technology and engineering. Drone-captured close-ups of fields
could help farmers tailor their pesticide treatment and identify subtle differences in soil
productivity. [Rise of the Drones: Photos of Unmanned Aircraft] Vast unknown The automation of
farming has led to fewer farmers tending massive plots of land. That means they don't know how each
leaf looks, notice changes in the height of plants, or the color of soil "Once upon a time farms were
small and people could walk the farm," Anderson said. Now, however, "farms are too big
to measure and too big to manage." As a result, farmers may not know about the condition
of vast stretches of their land and make many decisions as if plots of land were uniform. For instance,
they may blanket their entire crop with fungicide in June because fungal infections typically strike in July,
whether or not their crop is actually afflicted, Anderson said. Plane power Drones provide a potential

solution to this problem because they can provide high-resolution images of crops, are cheap to
make and can fly unregulated over private lands, Anderson said. Anderson is developing tiny,
foam drone airplanes that fly using a $170 autopilot essentially a brain for the plane that
works in any kind of automated vehicle. Because the drones fly low to the ground, they can use
cheap point-and-shoot technology to take pictures, instead of the costly equipment that enables
satellite imagery. In addition, drones can store ultra-precise GPS coordinates for each picture
they take. That information allows the planes to stitch pictures together more accurately, getting
a better image of what's happening on the ground. Pinpointing problems One possible application
is to pinpoint damage to crops early on. Early signs of plant damage show up in chlorophyll, the energymaking machinery. This damage changes how the plant appears in infrared and near-infrared images,

which could be captured in drone airplane imagery. More precise imagery could also allow farmers to
target pesticides just to the plants that need them, reducing how much ends up in the food
supply, Anderson said. Drones could also be used by vineyards to make better wines, by

identifying patches of soil with richer moisture content. Then the owners of vineyards could have
greater control over the wines they produced by sorting grapes based on the soil in which they
grew, Anderson said.

American pesticides are destroying ecosystems and keystone species- monoculture

and crop overproduction that kills sustainable ag
Cook 5 (Christopher D. Cook is an award-winning investigative journalist who writes for
Mother Jones, Harper's, The Nation, and elsewhere. He is author of Diet for a Dead Planet: How
the Food Industry Is Killing Us, published November 2004 by the New Press. This article was
adapted from the book, Earth Island Journal, The Spraying of America,
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Spraying_America.html, Spring 2005)

When Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962, the American pesticide business was in
full postwar bloom. These "elixirs of death," descended from World War II chemical warfare experiments,
were suddenly ubiquitous - growing fivefold from 124 million pounds in 1947, to 637 million by

1960. Roughly 60 percent of these synthetic potions, some 376 million pounds, were applied on
food. Toxic residues from pesticides were found everywhere: in water systems; in animals,
including the "vast majority of human beings"; even in that most sacred nectar, mother's milk.
That now-infamous poison, DDT, was "so universally used that in most minds the product takes
on the harmless aspect of the familiar." Fast-forward 40 years: President George W. Bush,
campaigning for a second term, eases restrictions on pesticide use by farmers and homeowners.
In a move cheered by agribusiness and pesticide producers, the Bush administration enables the
Environmental Protection Agency - often criticized for issuing permissive pesticide standards to
approve pesticides on its own, without consulting other federal agencies about effects on
endangered species. Court-ordered "no-spray zones," established along rivers to protect salmon
and other fish, could soon be rolled back. Using toxins that may imperil life just got easier. The
food industry benefits from a decided hush when it comes to today's silent spring. With concerns
about genetically modified foods capturing the headlines - as well as the attentions of most foodindustry critics today - the grave ecological effects of pesticides have been relegated to the back
burner. After decades of activism and success banning "dirty dozen" pesticides such as DDT and
chlordane, we are told a cleaner future lies ahead. In the brave new high-tech world of bioengineered crops, like the Monsanto potato that secretes its own pesticide, it seems we needn't
worry ourselves about poisoned farmworkers, pesticide drift, and children munching on toxic
apples. Genetically modified crops are, according to USDA and corporate biotech officials,
helping to cleanse the environment by reducing pesticides. As Bush's agriculture secretary Ann
Veneman told a UN Food and Agriculture Organization conference, biotechnology promises to
'make agriculture more environmentally sustainable." The facts clearly refute the happy claims of
Veneman and the politically connected GMO business: American industrial agriculture today dumps
close to one billion pounds of pesticides on food crops, producing a truly toxic harvest.

Despite public assurances of a kinder, gentler agriculture, the biotech and pesticide businesses

march hand-in-hand, two sides of the same corporate coin. The industry's most prominent
product, Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybean, was designed to withstand intensive spraying,
thus expanding sales of the firm's highly popular - and highly toxic herbicide, Roundup. Since
the 1996 introduction of Roundup Ready, the use of glyphosate, a key Roundup ingredient that
studies have linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, has risen. Roughly 85 percent of all cropland in
America relies on herbicides - a business which will remain stable as long as agribusiness fights
off new pesticide bans and maintains the myth that biotech is eliminating toxins in the fields.
Since the publication of Silent Spring, the amount of pesticides applied to our food has more than
doubled. In 1997, according to industry figures, US growers poured more than 985 million pounds of
pesticides onto their crops. The US accounts for more than one third of the $33.5 billion in global
pesticide sales, the vast majority for farming. That's an $11 billion business interest for the

petrochemical and biotech industries to protect. They've protected it well, perpetually - though
not always successfully - fighting and delaying new regulations to limit toxins in the fields. After
a modest decline in the 1980s, the amount of pesticides used each year has increased by more
than 100 million pounds since 1991. At the same time, there's been a dramatic increase in costs
borne by farmers, whose spending on herbicides has more than doubled since 1980. Each year,
over 100 million pounds of highly toxic active ingredients from pesticides are released into the
environment in California alone. In the world's backyard If it were merely a matter of waiting for
Rachel Carson's DDT ghosts of the 1960s to fade away, we might one day be in the clear. Rivers,
lakes, fish, and birds might, over time, cleanse themselves of these toxins. But agriculture's
chemicals continue to flood our water and air with contamination. What is particularly startling is
the degree to which pesticides have spread throughout the entire environment. One might lament
the plight of poisoned farmworkers or the effects of pesticides on farming communities and
consign them to the realm of regrettable problems over which one has little control. While few
would openly counsel reckless disregard for the health of farmworkers and their families who
pay a very high price for our pesticide-based food system - it is all too easy to ignore and forget.
But according to a 1998 analysis by the California Public Interest Research Group, nearly four
million Californians live within half a mile of heavy applications of pesticides, a third of which
are "designated by state or federal regulatory agencies as carcinogens, reproductive toxins or
acute nerve poisons." Spring, if not silent, is no doubt quieter. Every year agricultural pesticides
alone kill an estimated 67 million birds. An array of disturbing side effects is in store for those
lucky enough to survive a sublethal dose, including 'increased susceptibility to predation,
decreased disease resistance, lack of interest in mating and defending territory, and abandonment
of nestlings," according to a 1999 report by Californians for Pesticide Reform and the Pesticide
Action Network. A key indicator of today's pesticide pollution epidemic lies underground, in the hidden
waters that ultimately percolate up into rivers, lakes, and wells. Groundwater is the source of 50 percent
of America's drinking water, and it is intimately interconnected with surface water. Since the late 1970s,

studies have found more than 139 different pesticide residues in groundwater in the US, most
frequently in corn- and soybean-growing regions. One study of a Nebraska aquifer found
numerous pesticides at "lifetime health advisory" levels. All of the samples contained atrazine,
the most commonly-used pesticide applied to America's cornfields. In Iowa, toxic chemicals are
found in roughly half of the groundwater. Even closer to home were the findings of a 1992
national pesticide survey by the EPA, which discovered that ten percent of community wells
"contained detectable levels of one or more pesticides." Well water samples gathered by the

California Department of Pesticide Regulation show residues of 16 active ingredients and

breakdown products from agricultural pesticides. Groundwater pesticide presence, though, pales in
comparison with the chemicals' prevalence in surface rivers and streams. In California, state regulators
detected pesticides in 95 of 100 locations in the Central Valley. More than half of these sites
exceeded safe levels for aquatic life and drinking water consumption. In Kentucky, where
farmers annually apply roughly 4.5 million pounds of the top five herbicides, these chemicals
showed up routinely in rivers. A two-year study by the state Department of Environmental
Protection discovered atrazine and metolachior, both used heavily on corn, in a full 100 percent
of the 26 river sites they examined; another chemical, simazine, was found 91 percent of the
time. The spread of these toxins is a serious matter affecting both environmental and public health.
Atrazine, found widely in drinking water across the Midwest and detectable on many foods, is a
"possible human carcinogen," according to the EPA. Studies suggest it may cause ovarian cancer.
Nationwide reports are equally troubling and reveal a bath of chemicals harmful to fish and the broader
freshwater ecosystem. In a ten-year study examining thousands of streams across the country, the

US Geological Survey traced the proliferation of numerous agricultural pesticides: atrazine was
in 90 percent of the streams; deethylatrazine and metolachlor were in 82 percent of all samples;
others were detected at least 40 percent of the time. Still more disquieting was a 1999 USGS
finding of an average of 20 pesticides, mostly agricultural, at each river or stream tested.
Chemical concentrations of some compounds were frequently found to exceed allowable levels
in drinking water, and one or more standards for protecting aquatic life were exceeded in 39 of
58 sites. In studies conducted over the past 30 years, nearly half of all pesticides targeted for
research were found in stream sediment, and some 64 percent in edible fish, mollusks, and other
aquatic life. More and more, scientists are observing important changes in hormones and
reproductive systems among fish and other waterborne creatures exposed to pesticides One study
of sex hormones in carp revealed that the ratio of estrogen to testosterone in both males and
females was "lower at sites with more pesticides." Pesticides may also be a factor behind rising
numbers of frog deformities, such as extra or missing limbs. In a 2002 study published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, biologist Joseph Kiesecker compared frogs in
several Pennsylvania ponds, with and without pesticide runoff. The rate of misshapen frogs was
nearly four times higher in the ponds with pesticides. Environmentalists and scientists are not the
only ones complaining. Fishing enthusiasts are angry about the poisoning of their prey. Randy
Fry of the Recreational Fishing Alliance of Northern California has written that pesticide
pollution "seriously impacts the estuary's food-web and thereby limits the productivity of Central
Valley populations of salmon, steelhead, striped bass, and sturgeon while increasing the
pollutants carried by these fish." Fry has noted declines in fisheries throughout the Valley.
Something in the air Perhaps the greatest - yet most elusive measure of pesticides' long reach is
their presence in the air we breathe. "Nearly every pesticide that has been investigated has been
detected in air, rain, snow, or fog across the nation at different times of year," says the US
Geological Survey. Given just a lazy breeze, toxins can migrate for miles. A seemingly
innocuous spraying or fumigation of a rural farm field can let pesticides drift through air currents
for hours, even days, ending up as residue in nearby towns, ruining organic crops downwind and
further polluting waterways. Diazinon, a highly volatile agent sprayed widely on nuts and stone
fruit, actually increases its drift concentrations as time passes, the greatest amount of drift
showing up two to three days after spraying. Although levels generally diminish, pesticide drift

can last for weeks, and sometimes months after application. The epicenter for the pesticide drift
problem, particularly its human effects, is California, where decades of suburban sprawl - and
intensely consolidated agriculture - have wedged burgeoning population centers up against
farms. Blending agriculture with suburbs would seem a fine rural-urban complement but for the
rampant use and drift of pesticides, which are exceedingly toxic, even at low levels, for children.
"Pesticides in air are often invisible and odorless, but like second-hand cigarette smoke, inhaling
even small amounts over time can lead to serious health problems, especially for children,"
reports Susan Kegley, staff scientist for the Pesticide Action Network. More than 90 percent of
pesticides used in California (including non-agricultural pesticides) are likely to drift, and
roughly a third of those are highly toxic to humans, according to a 2003 study by Californians for
Pesticide Reform. Samples of two pesticides, chiorpyrifos and metam sodium, taken near
sprayed fields, produced residues that were, respectively, some 184 and 111 times the acute
exposure standards set by government for a one-year-old child. The Gulf of Toxins The Gulf of
Mexico is afflicted with a "dead zone" stretching across several thousand square miles
along the Louisiana-Texas coast. A massive algae bloom feasts on a steady diet of nitrogen and other
nutrients flowing downstream from the Mississippi River. In summer, when the river's flow peaks, the

bloom spreads and chokes the Gulf's northern coasts, cutting off oxygen that supports sea life. In
1999 the zone ballooned to nearly 12,500 square miles - the size of New Jersey. The depleted
water near the bottom of the Gulf contains less than two parts per million of dissolved oxygen,
not enough to sustain fish or bottom-dwelling life. One of the chief contributors to this dead zone is
American agriculture and its countless tributaries of petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, and animal
feces overflowing from giant factory farms. The Mississippi River Basin, which drains an area

representing about 41 percent of the contiguous US, is home to the majority of the nation's
agricultural chemicals. About seven million metric tons of nitrogen in commercial fertilizers are
applied in the Basin each year, and the annual load of nitrates poured from the Mississippi River
into the Gulf has tripled since the late 1950s, when pesticides and synthetic fertilizers began to
dominate the agricultural scene. Another key ingredient is on the rise: billions of tons of factoryfarm animal waste, overloaded with nitrogen and other potentially damaging nutrients. In 1999,
when Congress, the EPA and environmental groups pressed for cuts in farm pollution to clean up
the Gulf of Mexico, some agricultural trade groups raised the specter of farm closures and
diminished food production. 'Crop yields in the Midwest could shrink if federal regulators try to
reduce use of fertilizers to cut pollution in the Mississippi River and in the Gulf of Mexico," the
Associated Press reported, summing up the agribusiness argument. Asking farmers to reduce
fertilizers would be "basically asking them to go out of business," said Cliff Snyder, representing
the Potash and Phosphate Institute. "It would have a significant economic impact if producers
were required to reduce nutrient input.., at a time when the farm economy is dismal." Despite the
economic trap, some forward-looking farmers are contemplating ways to either use less synthetic
fertilizer, which itself is quite costly, or at least drain their fields away from rivers, perhaps into
wetlands that could use the nitrogen. Fertilizing sterility Beyond the Gulf case, chemical fertilizers laden with nitrogen, ammonia, and phosphorus, as well as trace toxic metals like cadmium - are a serious
environmental problem. Overshadowed in the public mind by pesticides, synthetic chemical
fertilizers severely deplete and erode soil and drain toxic nutrients into the water supply. They have

become a perilous crutch - with over 14 million tons applied annually, seven tons per square mile
in the upper Midwest - injecting excessive nutrients into the ground, and ironically, robbing soil

of its fertility. A 1984 World Bank report concluded that American agriculture's growing reliance
on synthetic fertilizers "has allowed farmers to abandon practices - such as crop rotation and the
incorporation of plant and animal wastes into the soil - which had previously maintained soil fertility."
The petrochemical addiction Why has pesticide use increased even in this time of growing ecological
awareness? In Living Downstream, scientist-author Sandra Steingraber describes the political

economy that has driven agriculture into a self-feeding cycle of poison. First, the arrival of
synthetic pesticides following World War II reduced labor on the farm. Simultaneously, profits
per acre began to shrivel. "Both these changes pressed farmers into managing more acres to earn
a living for their families." Bigger farms, and federal subsidies promoting mono-crop agriculture,
"further increased the need for chemicals to control pests. And the use of these chemicals
themselves set the stage for additional ecological changes that only more chemicals could
offset." The decline of crop rotation in favor of monocropping - the planting of the same crop
year after year - enables insects to adapt and recover, continuing the upward chemical spiral.
Through Darwinian natural selection, the strongest few insects able to resist insecticides
"become the progenitors of the next generation as their more chemically sensitive compatriots
are killed off," explains Steingraber. Thus pesticides ultimately create insects that are less
susceptible to them. During the postwar pesticide revolution between 1950 and 1990, the
number of insect species resistant to pesticides mushroomed from fewer than 20 to more than
500. In roughly the same period, the amount of crops lost due to insect damage doubled. It doesn't have
to be this way. Agriculture can be prolific and efficient without pesticides . The
miraculous march of American agriculture toward unparalleled productivity long before the postwar
pesticide revolution is a compelling testimonial to the possibilities of organic farming. Before

agribusiness' petrochemical addiction, farmers used crop rotation and diversified agriculture to
replenish soils and keep pests on the run. Crop diversity supplied sustenance for farm families and
livestock and a natural insurance policy against pest outbreaks or weather disasters. While many so-called
conventional" growers have bravely made the transition into organics - itself a lengthy and costly

process for which there is virtually no government support the wider food economy and the
profits of agribusiness rely on farmers' continued deployment of chemical warfare in the fields.
The near-perennial , American surplus fueled by petrochemicals keeps farm crops cheap, l-,4' not
so much for consumers as for the f intermediary complex of food processors, fast-food chains,
and supermarkets. Back in the days of Silent Spring, o the US had for years been stockpiling food,
requiring ever-larger subsidy payments and growing pressures on exports and food aid. As Carson
remarked then, We are told that the enormous and expanding use of pesticides is necessary to
maintain farm production." Yet, she said - noting that American taxpayers were paying more than $1
billion a year for this surplus food storage - "Is our real problem not one of over-production?"
Excess supply is primarily a problem for farmers , both here and abroad, who are forced
by price-depressing surpluses to "get big or get out." For the petrochemical industry and its close partner,
the biotech business, today's economy of surplus production and exports, and of a mono-crop industrial
agriculture stripped of its natural sustainability, is not a problem at all. Except that they, too - and their

children - must inhabit a poisoned world. *

US ecosystems are globally important- unparalleled biodiverse regions

NatureServe 2 [NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific
knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action States of the Union: Ranking

Americas Biodiversity, April 2002, http://www.natureserve.org/library/stateofunions.pdf]

with its dazzling array of wild species and natural habitats, America has
much to be proud of. Indeed, to find world-class biodiversity we need not look to foreign shoresit is right here in our own
backyard. But while the concept of biodiversity has global connotations, conservation is a quintessentially local activity. To place conservation efforts in context, States of the Union:
Pride in place is a powerful impulse. And

Ranking Americas Biodiversity offers new information on state patterns of biological wealth and riskwhere our wild plants and animals are found, and how they are faring. Each of
Americas 50 states maintains an important part of the nations biological heritage. Taking best advantage of conservation opportunities, however, requires an understanding of the varying roles
each state can play. States of the Union offers a striking picture of the state of the states, based on an analysis of more than 21,000 plant and animal species. Providing new insights into the
scale of the nations conservation challenges and opportunities, these analyses find that in one out of every four states, more than ten percent of native species are at risk. Our rankings of the 50
states and the District of Columbia focus on several key biological characteristics: diversity of species; levels of rarity and risk; distinctiveness of the flora and fauna, termed endemism; and
number of species already lost to extinction. The top-ranking states for these measures are: RANK DIVERSITY RISK ENDEMISM EXTINCTIONS 1 California Hawaii California Hawaii 2

Four states in particular

emerge from these analyses as having exceptional levels of biodiversityCalifornia, Hawaii,
Texas, and Alabama. Looking at specific groups of plants and animals, however, reveals some surprising nuances. For instance, while freshwater fishes are most diverse
Texas California Hawaii Alabama 3 Arizona Nevada Texas California 4 New Mexico Alabama Florida Texas 5 Alabama Utah Utah Georgia

in the rain-drenched southeastern United States, Arizonaa state more commonly associated with cactileads the nation in proportion of at-risk fish species. The condition of nature in
America reflects an interplay between natural history and human history. And it is the breadth and intensity of this interaction that tends to define a geography of risk for wild species. As States
of the Union demonstrates, each state has a vital role to play in sustaining Americas plants and animals for future generations. But for the many U.S. species that are at risk of extinction, time is

With sufficient knowledge, resources, and commitment, the nations remarkable

biodiversity can be safeguarded, leading to a more perfect union. State of the States State of the States The United States harbors a
dazzling variety of life. From Maines Great North Woods to Californias giant redwoods, and from Hawaiis tropical peaks to the Florida Everglades river of grass,
the 50 states feature an unparalleled spectrum of wild places and wild species. While efforts to protect Americas
running out.

natural treasures began in earnest more than 130 years ago with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, the pace of environmental change over recent decades has sparked a renewed
commitment to conserving our remaining natural lands and waters. As a nation we have also achieved a deeper understanding of the complexity and fragility of our ecosystems, and for the wild
species they sustain. Even the term biodiversity, which celebrates a scientifically inclusive view of life on Earth, was coined within the past two decades. This improved understanding is proving

biodiversity
has global connotations, conservation is a quintessentially local activity. To place these conservation efforts in context, States of the Union: Ranking Americas
essential for increasing the effectiveness of conservation efforts and for targeting actions towards areas of greatest ecological significance. Although the concept of

Biodiversity offers new information on state patterns of biological wealth and riskwhere our wild plants and animals are found, and how they are faring. We rank the 50 states and the District
of Columbia based on analyses of several key species measures: diversity, risk, endemism, and extinctions. This newly updated information from NatureServes scientific databases offers a
striking picture of the state of the states. Riches in Our Backyard Riches in Our Backyard Two years ago NatureServe and The Nature Conservancy published a comprehensive assessment of
the condition of Americas biological riches in the book Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. 1 This critically acclaimed volume documented the full breadth and
complexity of life in America, and considered what will be needed to protect these living resources into the future. Key findings from that study include: Scientist have documented more than

The United States is a global

center of diversity for many groups of organisms, especially those that rely on aquatic systems such as salamanders,
200,000 species from the United States, representing more than 10% of formally described species worldwide.

freshwater mussels, and freshwater turtles. About one-third of species in the best-known groups of plants and animals are at risk, and more than 500 U.S. species are already extinct or are
missing. Habitat destruction and degradation are the leading threats to U.S. biodiversity, followed by the spread of harmful alien species. Wild plants and animals are not distributed uniformly

important species and

ecosystems are found across the country, and each state has a crucial role to play in efforts to protect the nations rich biological heritage. By considering
across the landscape, but rather concentrations of species are found in certain regions, termed biodiversity hotspots. Nonetheless,

the distribution and condition of more than 21,000 plant and animal species2,200 more than were included in our previous analysesStates of the Union provides new insights into the scale
of the nations conservation challenges and opportunities.

Biodiversity collapse causes extinction

Young 10 (PhD coastal marine ecology, 10 [Ruth, Biodiversity: what it is and why its
important, February 9th, http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/biodiversity/biodiversity-whatand-why/]

Different species within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function, they all have a niche. They interact with each other and the
physical environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival . For example plant species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from
the atmosphere and energy from the sun into useful things such as food, medicines and timber. Pollination carried out by insects such as bees enables the production of of our food crops.
Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential for many fishery species. To make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of

Certain
species play a keystone role in maintaining ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the removal of these species can
result in the collapse of an ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem services. The most well known example of this occurred during the 19th century
services offered by biodiversity, a team of researchers estimated their value it amounted to $US33 trillion per year. By protecting biodiversity we maintain ecosystem services

when sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters main source of prey, sea urchins. Because the
urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted
for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the
kelp forests and fish stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hances post at Mongabay). During the last 35

years, over fishing of large shark species along the US Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of control
population has led to the closure of a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how biodiversity can maintain the services that ecosystems provide for us, such as

we only need to protect the species and functional groups

that fill the keystone roles. However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for most ecosystems we dont know which species are the keystones! Ecosystems
fisheries. One could argue that to maintain ecosystem services we dont need to protect biodiversity but rather,

are so complex that we are still discovering which species play vital roles in maintaining them. In some cases its groups of species not just one species that are vital for the ecosystem. Second,

what back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g.

pollution or disease) led to the demise of these keystone species? Would there be another species to save the day and
take over this role? Classifying some species as keystone implies that the others are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone species being considered ecologically
even if we did complete the enormous task of identifying and protecting all keystone species,

worthless and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes we may not even know which species are likely to fill the keystone roles. An example of this was discovered on Australias Great Barrier
Reef. This research examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The over-fishing was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from
them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem the coral became overgrown with algae. When the time came to remove
the fences the researchers expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a coral dominated ecosystem. But,
surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed unimportant species the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was previously thought to feed on invertebrates small crabs and
shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore a cow of the sea grazing the algae in no time. So a fish previously thought to be unimportant is actually a
keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae! Who knows how many other species are out there with unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases its easy to see who the

The more biodiverse

an ecosystem is, the more likely these species will be present and the more resilient an ecosystem is to future impacts . Presently were
only scratching the surface of understanding the full importance of biodiversity and how it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is immense. In the meantime, a wise
insurance policy for maintaining ecosystem services would be to conserve biodiversity . In doing so, we increase the
keystone species are but in many ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant species are also capable of changing niches and maintaining ecosystems.

chance of maintaining our ecosystem services in the event of future impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This is the international year of biodiversity a time

biodiversity makes our survival on this planet possible and that our protection of
biodiversity maintains this service.
to recognize that

Ecosystem collapse causes extinction

Coyne and Hoekstra 7 [Jerry and Hopi, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution
at the University of Chicago and Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and
Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, The Greatest Dying, 9/24,
http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying]

Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services

like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production.
Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced
But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us.

exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and
have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments,

with increased pollution and

runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a
shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing
soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile,

eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will
be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the
rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of
food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and
sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods
like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.

Extinction

also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from
cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting
but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer
agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine
(the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived
from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends.

Of the

roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for
pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given
current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments
so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in
Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry
about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could
be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To
biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it

it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this

sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal
cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world
of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we
ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a
devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the
consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of
them all.
stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns,

---Scenario: Aerospace
Scenario: Aerospace
Drones key to aerospace industry
Mehta 13 (Aaron Mehta, States Jockey To Lure UAV Industry,
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130815/DEFREG02/308150009/States-Jockey-LureUAV-Industry, August 15, 2013)

WASHINGTON At this weeks Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

(AUVSI) annual conference, the show floor was packed with UAV models, video presentations
and the ubiquitous free pens. But even among the noise and clutter of a trade show, the giant,
blue-faced, inflatable Yeti stood out. He was the property of the Utah Governors Office of
Economic Development, and his goal was to remind passersby that the Beehive State is open for
business when it comes to unmanned systems. While some states are fighting to keep unmanned
systems out of their airspace one Colorado town recently proposed legislation to offer hunting licenses
for drones others are betting they can lure industry to their region using tax breaks and other
incentives. And many of those states were represented at AUVSI, with booths that rival those of large
corporations. Among states with a presence at the show: Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Florida and Wyoming. The biggest prize at the table is one of six slots in a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) program creating test zones for unmanned vehicles. The FAA is expected to name
its choices in December, and those selected stand to win big with an industry that continues to grow.
UAVs are the forefront of the aerospace industry at this point, said Marshall Wright,
director of business development with the Governors Office of Economic Development in Utah. The
kinds of systems that are going to lead the technology of aerospace for many, many
years. He points to over 50 companies that already have offices in Utah as proof the state has the
technical and intellectual base to become a hub for the UAV industry.

Key to US economic power and innovation

Faux 2 (Jeff Faux, Ex-President and Distinguished Fellow of Economic Policy Institute,
Studied, taught and published on a wide variety of economic and political issues from the global
economy to neighborhood community development, from monetary policy to political strategy.
He is the author or co-author of six books, the latest being, The Servant Economy: Where
Americas Elite is Sending the Middle Class (Wiley, 2012).Economic Policy Institute, The
Aerospace Sector as a National AssetViewpoint,
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_airspace_natlasset/, May 14, 2002)

The aerospace industry is a unique strategic asset for America. In addition to its obvious national
security benefits, the industry makes, and must continue to make, a critical contribution to
our economic growth and rising living standards. U.S. aerospace is a major source of:
Technological innovation with substantial spillovers to other industrial and commercial
sectors. High wage employment, which spreads the benefits of rising productivity throughout the
U.S. economy. Exports, which America will need to substantially increase in order to resolve the
growing problem of our current account deficit and rising foreign debt. Thus, a healthy aerospace

industry ought to be a primary goal of our nations economic policy. It represents the cumulative
private and public investments of past decades. Allowing it to wither is, in effect, a national
decision to abandon those investments.

Economic multi-polarity causes instability and nuclear war

Khalilzad 11 (United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during
the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department
from 1990 to 1992 (Zalmay, 2/8, The Economy and National Security, 2-8,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmaykhalilzad, February 8, 2011)

We face this domestic challenge while other major powers

are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though

countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their
economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These
trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to
grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its
rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one
another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In
modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar

systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the
great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could
have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance
against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races,
miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers,
weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would
be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of greatpower competition. Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and
ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the
United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims
and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its relations with South Korea,
Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given
the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential
adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the
worlds GDP. American institutions particularly those providing enforceable rule of law set it apart from all the rising powers. Social
cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation,
excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to
quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis
that we face today.

Latin America Advantage

Armed drone surveillances increasing in Latin America- creating a regulatory
framework key
Sanchez 15 (W. Alejandro Sanchez, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric
Affairs, LIFT OFF: DRONE USAGE IN LATIN AMERICA TAKES FLIGHT, Council on
Hemispheric Relations, http://www.coha.org/lift-off-drone-usage-in-latin-america-takes-flight/,
January 12, 2015)
2014 could be remembered as the year when drone usage , both for military and civilian purposes, decisively took off
throughout Latin America. The cherry on top of the proverbial cake was the recent decision by the South American Nations Union (UNASUR) to
create a regionally-built drone. While this initiative may need a few years to materialize, it is nonetheless important as it stresses how increasingly widespread drone
usage will become throughout the region in the near future. South America Coming Together Defense Ministry representatives from the twelve UNASUR members
(all South American states) met in mid-December 2014 in Salvador, Brazil to discuss the manufacturing of an UNASUR drone. The gathering decided to support the
regional construction of a drone, which should help internal security operations carried out by member states and will also serve as a confidence-building mechanism.
Since a complete design concept has not been signed off yet, as the UNASUR drone is barely at the discussion phase, there are no specific details available.
Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that during the meeting in Brazil, South American officials decided that the drone must have sensors and electronic components
that adapt to quick climate changes, it must be able to operate at long ranges, and the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) must have the ability to smoothly transfer guide
controls from one installation to another.[i] While

UNASUR coordination is important, we should not assume that the

design phase, much less the manufacturing, will begin anytime soon. History proves that
although Latin American governments come together for ambitious
initiatives, they tend to occur at a snails pace. The UNASUR drone is not the first time that the regional
agency has come together to build an aircraft as a sort of challenge of its military technology capabilities and as a confidence building mechanism. In fact, UNASUR
is already building a regional military training aircraft. UNASURs ambitious project to construct an aircraft was originally announced around May 2013, but,
according to recent reports, the prototype will only be finished by 2016.[ii] Argentina has taken the lead in this project as the aircrafts design will follow that of the
Argentine military aircraft IA-73, which is being constructed by the countrys Fbrica Argentina de Aviones. All UNASUR members are supposed to be involved in
the project, either by helping to construct the aircraft or by serving as observers. Nevertheless, while the region is no stranger to manufacturing military aircrafts (the
Tucano, constructed by Brazils EMBRAER comes to mind) the prototype of UNASUR-1, as the UNASUR plane will be called, will require at least one more year
before it is finished.[iii] While smaller in size than an aircraft, a construction of a drone is much more technologically challenging, especially as domestic drone
programs in South America are not as developed as other countries that manufacture these apparatus (i.e. the U.S. or Israel). Finally, it is worth stating that other
regions are similarly coming together to construct drones: seven European nations (France, Germany and Spain among them) have announced their intention to create
a consortium to construct a euro drone by 2020.[iv] Certainly a number of European industries already manufacture drones, like the Swedish CybAero AB, but the
goal is to construct a UAV to promote cooperation and confidence between several states, resulting in a state-of-the-art vehicle that other countries will want to
purchase.[v] As for the UNASUR drone, much needs to be clarified before an accurate timetable can be provided regarding construction schedules. It makes sense that
Brazil may take a lead in this endeavor, as it already produces drones, but other countries, including Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, can provide
technological expertise due totheir own production and usage of drones.[vi] However, while creating a UNASUR drone generally makes sense, the timetable of the
UNASUR-1 plane serves as an example that one should not assume that even the most positive and sound initiatives will become a reality anytime soon. Domestic
Programs Grow UNASURs project aside, Latin American countries continue to be interested in developing their own drones and have significantly expanded these
programs in 2014. The most notable success came from Colombia, as the local weapons company, the Corporacin Industrial Aeronutica Colombiana (CINAC)
unveiled the Iris, the South American nations first home-built drone this past year. The drone can reach a height of eight thousand feet, it can also travel as far as 100
kilometers and it features optic sensors and the Flir HD image system.[vii] For the time being, the Iris will be used by the Colombian armed forces for patrol missions,
but the goal seems to be that it eventually will be exported. The Iris was showcased during the recently-ended UNVEX America 2014, a weapons fair that took place
in Colombia, as a way for the country to demonstrate its emerging industrial military complex. Foto: Carlos E. Hernndez/INFODEFENSA.COM Foto: Carlos E.
Hernndez/INFODEFENSA.COM Meanwhile, the Peruvian Air Force (FAP) will team up with the South Korean company Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd (KAI) to
manufacture a new drone. KAI has sold a number of KT-1P military training aircraft to the FAP, hence there is already a history of joint cooperation between the two
entities.[viii] As part of the agreement between KAI and the FAP over the transfer of the KT technology, the Korean company will provide technological expertise for
the Peruvian Air Forces Centro de Desarrollo de Proyectos (CEDEP, Center for Developing Projects) to manufacture a drone that can fly up to 24 hours and take
thermal and night-time images. The goal would be to utilize this drone for surveillance operations in the Valley of the Apurimac, Ene and Mantaro Rivers (VRAEM)
where the remnants of the narco-terrorist organization Shining Path operates.[ix] It should be remembered that the Peruvian Air Force already has developed several
drone prototypes, but it appears that the UAV constructed in partnership with KAI will be actively used in real operations.[x] Regarding Venezuela, not much is clear
about its current drone program. Reports dating back to 2012 say that Iran and Russia were providing technological expertise so that the South American country can
construct its own drones.[xi] The Venezuelan Air Force has at least two drone projects. One of them is Arpa, which is based on the Mohajer 2 drone (produced by
Iran), while the other is called Gaviln.[xii] Unfortunately, reliable information about the current operational status of both drones is difficult to come by. Ultimately,
the possibility that Latin American drones will be exported to other countries and be competitive with American, Israeli or European UAVs is actually not a far-fetched
scenario. Just this past August, it was reported that Brazil had exported its first drone, a FT-100 Horus, to an undisclosed African nation.[xiii] Israeli or American
drones may be more advanced, but developing nations may choose to buy an efficient, but cheaper, knock off version, which could give Latin American drone
exports an edge in the near future. Drone Imports Will Continue in 2015 Latin American domestic drone programs may be cementing a position for themselves in the
market, but they will take a couple of more years before they can be mass manufactured. Hence, Latin American nations will continue to import drones for the
foreseeable future. Countries like Israel and the U.S. are obviously the major drone exporters to the region, but on occasion there have been disconcerting rumors
about drone-deals with some unlikely suppliers. Case in point, in late 2014 the Mexican media speculated that the Mexican government was planning to purchase
drones from Iran.[xiv] The reasoning was that Mexico City wanted to improve ties with Tehran, and also needed more drones to combat drug trafficking.
Nevertheless, the Mexican government categorically denied this report. It would have been a bizarre development if Mexico had indeed purchased drones from Iran, a
country which has been at odds with the U.S., Mexicos strategic ally, for decades. For the record Iran does produce drones, and it has helped Venezuela with its own
drone program, but it is unlikely that Mexico would jeopardize its close security relations with Washington for a few UAVs.[xv] As for less-controversial initiatives,
the U.S. aerospace company Boeing has declared its intention to increase drone sales to Colombia. The Colombian Air Force is currently the sole operator in the
region of Boeings Scaneagle and Nighteagle, which are utilized for internal security operations against drug-trafficking and counterinsurgency. Hence, it is logical to

assume that the Colombian government would want to continue using drones that its personnel know how to operate. Moreover, this past October, Boeings Vice
President for the Americas, Roberto Valla, explained that the company aims to sell more drones to the Colombian Navy, while Brazil and Chile, which operate Israeli
drones, also seem to be interested in purchasing Boeings products.[xvi] Apart from Boeing, another company aspiring to sell drones to Latin America is
Aerovironment, which produces the Raven and Puma, which are already operated by the Colombian armed forces.[xvii] Countries like Chile, Mexico and Peru are
apparently interested in purchasing them. Additionally, the Swedish firm Unmanned System Groups (USG), showcased its F-330 drone to the Uruguayan armed forces
in late 2014.[xviii] However, a deal between USG and Montevideo has yet to be signed, though this could occur soon as the Uruguayan Army appears to be interested
in acquiring them in order to support Uruguayan peacekeepers in Africa.[xix] Additionally, Israeli Aerospace Industries has declared that it may reach a deal in 2015
with the Mexican Air Force.[xx] In other words, there are several contracts that could be signed within the coming months, which will mean that we

will see

Latin American militaries utilize an increasing number drones in the near future.

Civilian Drone Finally, it is important

to stress that drones are not only used for military purposes, they can also be used for a multitude of civilian activities. In this case, the usage of drones has become
fairly widespread in the region. Case in point, drones have been used for archaeological purposes in the Amazonas region of northern Peru.[xxi] Archaeologists are
interested in using drones as they can help create a 3D model of an archaeological dig by providing a birds eye view.[xxii] Foto: Wilfredo Sandoval - El Comercio
(Peru) Foto: Wilfredo Sandoval El Comercio (Peru) Latin American journalists are also using drones. For example, in 2013 the Peruvian newspaper El Comercio
launched such a device from a rooftop in order to tape a fire in downtown Lima.[xxiii] Because the blaze was between high-rise buildings, it was too dangerous for
helicopters to fly close, but a UAV does not have that problem. Likewise, a drone was also used by the Guatemalan newspaper Nuestro Diario to obtain exclusive
aerial shots of a deadly fire that hit the Guatemalan market known as La Terminal in March 2014.[xxiv] On the issue of journalists using drones, there is one case
already of these activities that has sparked controversy. In El Salvador, a drone was flown over the wall around a police station to photograph the disgraced former
President Francisco Flores, who has been arrested.[xxv] This incident prompted a debate in the Central American nation for the drafting of laws regarding what is
permissible when it comes to the usage of drones for civilian purposes. Some countries, like Brazil, have passed legislation about how civilians can utilize drones, and
we can expect these legislations to proliferate in the near future, particularly if incidents akin to the one in El Salvador become commonplace.[xxvi] Conclusions As
2015 begins, Latin America is on the edge of becoming an even more frequent user of unmanned aerial vehicles. While local drone manufacturing took a great step
forward with Colombias Iris prototype and UNASURs decision to construct a bloc-drone, for the immediate future, drones will continue to be imported. In an
analysis about the 2014 UNVEX American weapons fair in Colombia, the renowned Spanish defense news agency Infodefensa.com explained that regional militaries
and police agencies are relying on drones for real-time ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) in order to crack down on sources of insecurity, which in
Latin America includes anything from street-level criminals to drug cartels and insurgent movements. Moreover, regional governments and security agencies are keen
to utilize drones because they reduce the risk of human losses and logistical costs. One would expect that losing a drone would also carry less political costs as this
less problematic than when a warplane or a helicopter, with people inside, is shot down.[xxvii] In a November commentary for the International Security Network,
drone-expert Ulrike Franke, a DPhil candidate in International Relations at the University of Oxford, highlights how some 76 countries are currently known to operate

transparency also decreases the likelihood of dangerous

misunderstandings and that some argue that the proliferation of unarmed drones could eventually lead states to pursue armed ones. While
there may be some truth to this, it also points to what most would consider the real problem: the international
proliferation of armed drones.[xxviii]
drones. She argues that, greater

American domestic armed drone program is modeled in Latin America- border

conflicts risk escalation- Congressional legislation key to signal
Cupolo 13 (Diego Cupolo, Diego Cupolo is an independent journalist, photographer and author of Seven Syrians: War Accounts From Syrian Refugees, to be released in January,
2014 by 8th House Publishing. He serves as Latin America regional editor for Global South Development Magazine, Drone Use Soars in Latin America, Remains Widely Unregulated,
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/12/drone-use-soars-in-latin-america-remains-widely-unregulated/, December 22, 2013)
Over the last decade, drones have made headlines as tools for covert bombing campaigns in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. Yet remote-controlled warfare is just one of many functions
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) can provide as non-lethal models become less expensive and more accessible to countries around the world. From aerial surveillance to three-dimensional

manufacturers have begun to promote the infinite capabilities

of domestic drones. At the same time, they are specifically targeting developing markets in Latin America
for the martial use of drones in law enforcement and military operations. In response, human rights groups have been raising
concerns over these fast-evolving technologies, citing the potential for abuse by various state agencies. Recent advancements have allowed
governments to adopt and, in some cases, begin building their own UAV fleets, but regulation
on domestic drone use remains non-existent throughout the Americas aside from preliminary
laws adopted in Brazil, Canada and the United States. The biggest concern presented by drones is they will become a tool for routine mass
geographic modeling of rugged terrains and even speedy pizza delivery service,

surveillance, said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union. Fleets of small, inexpensive self-launching drones could easily spread over a town, network
together and provide comprehensive, 24-7 dragnet surveillance or a single high-flying drone could accomplish the same thing. This technology already exists. Its called Wide Area Surveillance
and its being used overseas by the US military. Stanley was speaking at a hearing organized by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in November 2013 where human

speakers aimed to spark a wider debate on

domestic UAVs while calling for guidelines on the inevitable swarm of flying robots that will soon fill our
skies. Rise of the Drone Market Drones are convenient, not to mention economical. Unlike helicopters and other manned aircrafts, they require less maintenance, less
rights advocates examined the implications of unregulated drone use in Latin America. In the first event of its kind,

fuel, and less risk to human life in potentially dangerous operations all while drone prices drop with each passing year. The most basic surveillance drones are small and cost about $600 from a
company in Mexico, W. Alejandro Sanchez, senior research fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), said in a phone interview. From there, the prices get higher, but not as much
as most people expect, especially when compared to the cost of a helicopter. Anyone thinking drones are financially unattainable for less developed countries hasnt looked at the latest models.
The falling prices are opening new markets for multi-use drones around the world. Within the next 10 years, drone spending in the U.S. is expected to reach more than $89 billion as UAVs take
on more civilian tasks such as pesticide spraying for agriculture, emergency medical response and humanitarian relief, according to a Bloomberg report. Speaking before the IACHR hearing,

Latin American nations that have launched or

announced plans to launch their own domestic drone programs. The Argentinean army has developed its own
drone technology for aerial surveillance. Brazil is the country in Latin America that has the highest number of drones, both produced nationally and purchased outside the country,
Santiago Canton, an Argentine lawyer and director of RFK Partners for Human Rights, listed off

Bolivia has only purchased drones for its air force, and it has signed an agreement with Brazil to have Brazilian drones identify coca-producing areas. Chile
has sophisticated drones and theyve bought Iranian [drones] for their borders and for surveillance
throughout their country. In addition to the U.S., a total of 14 countries in the Western Hemisphere will soon use or
develop UAVs, according to Canton. Many are doing so using Israeli drones and production techniques, as the U.S. has strict regulations on sharing military technology with foreign
Canton said.

governments. In recent years, Israel Aerospace Industries has sold its large, 54-foot wingspan Heron drones to Mexico and Ecuador, where it has branches in addition to sales offices in Brazil,
Colombia, and Chile. Other Israeli drone companies have made strategic agreements with Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer to produce drones for monitoring of ports, agricultural,

Some Latin American countries, including several Caribbean

nations, have been allowed to launch U.S. drones in cooperation with U.S.
military and other U.S. agencies for drug trafficking and border patrol operations,
Canton said. In addition to joint exercises with the United States, Colombians have manufactured and
purchased [drones] and used their own technologies. They use them for their borders, operations against
the FARC and also for intelligence gathering, Canton said. Mexican Federal Police are using drones in security operations and anti-drug trafficking.
forest and coastal areas, traffic, etc., the Christian Science Monitor reported.

Mexico City uses them for demonstrations, he continued. Panama uses them to monitor drug trafficking. The Peruvian army uses drones for the Apurimac area where the Sendero Luminoso
[Shining Path guerrillas] operate. The list goes on. From Wide Area Surveillance along the U.S.-Mexico border to volcanic studies in Costa Rica and rainforest conservation programs in Belize,

the large majority of drone usage remains

under military control with no civilian oversight. We see the chilling effect that this can
have on societies, Canton said. When people want to have public demonstrations drones can
have a chilling effect and can intimidate people from doing this. Follow the
UAV Leader For the time being, a treaty to regulate drone usage does not exist anywhere in the world. Lawmakers have only begun to talk about the issue and according to
domestic drones are poised to play a growing role in future government and military operations. Still, Canton warns

Sanchez, it is unrealistic to expect an international agreement anytime soon. Supporters of drone technology argue that the drones operate under the umbrella of the Geneva Conventions, which

When legislation does reach

senate floors, Sanchez said he expects Latin American governments to follow U.S.,
Israeli and European domestic drone programs for guidelines on how to form their own
UAV policies. Yet a look inside the U.S presents a mostly grounded domestic drone market due to restrictions from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which prevents the
were signed in 1949, Sanchez said. That was 64 years ago, more or less, and we have to keep up with the times.

majority of personal and commercial UAVs from taking flight due to the threat of mid-air collisions with manned aircrafts, among other hazards. Still, current regulations are likely to change as
the U.S. congress, acting recently under pressure from UAV industry lobbyists, ordered the FAA to speed up drone integration and draft new rules by 2015. There is a lot of pent up demand for
this technology among police departments and federal agencies and, as the FAA loosens its rules, we can expect many police departments to begin using drones, said Stanley of the ACLU. At
the time of publication, legislation on drone use has been introduced in 42 states over the past year and the remaining eight states have enacted legislation. Most of these laws require police to get
a search warrant before deploying a drone. These authorizations usually impose stringent criteria and conditions on the use of drones such as a 400 foot height limit and a ban on deployment

he main gray area in U.S. domestic drone regulation is along the

Mexican border, where surveillance UAVs can legally operate within 100-miles of the physical borderline, Stanley said. In this region, the U.S. government employs a
over heavily populated areas, Stanley said. T

drone system called Argus, which can simultaneously videotape a 100-square kilometer area with the ability to automatically detect and follow moving pedestrians and vehicles anywhere in
the surveillance area. Its not hard to figure out who somebody is from their movements and from their location and its not hard to imagine those movements and tracks could be logged into
databases and stored for years, Stanley said. Some police departments have already begun experimenting with Wide Area Surveillance systems like Argus, in Philadelphia, Baltimore and

Inter-State Conflicts and the Prospect of Armed Drones As with the U.S.-Mexican
boundary, drone use along border areas throughout Latin America could
easily and repeatedly provoke inter-state tensions, presenting another problem with
unregulated UAV use, according to Sanchez. What happens if they find some FARC commanders hiding in Venezuela and [the
Colombian] government says they do not have the time to organize an operation, but they have an armed
drone they can send to eliminate these people, Sanchez said. How will that exacerbate inter-state tensions? Sanchez described a scenario in 2008,
where Colombian troops carried out an operation inside Ecuador to assassinate Manuel Reyes, the commander of the FARC at the time. The Colombian government
did not inform Quito of the operations and the move was seen as violation of Ecuadors
sovereignty, creating tensions between Ecuador and Colombia. The same could happen with UAVs,
Sanchez said. Once drones become widely established as tools for law enforcement and military operations,
the probability of such incidents will only increase. The matter would be further
complicated if and when Latin American governments begin deploying armed domestic
drones. Drone technology is regarded as useful to find these guerrilla fighters and, given the controversial success of
armed drones by countries like the U.S., it is only a matter of time before
Latin American militaries decide to follow suit and utilize drones for
search-and-destroy missions in the name of national security, Sanchez wrote in a COHA report
Dayton, Ohio, Stanley added.

titled Latin America Puts Forward Mixed Picture On Use of Drones in Region. The US has been selling drones as this revolutionary technology that will make life easier, so its obvious that
Latin American countries will be interested after seeing the hellfire missiles in Pakistan, he added in a phone interview. With surveillance drones, governments can only locate a target. They
must still send helicopters full of armed soldiers to capture or eliminate the threat and this may require a high-risk military operation. Such deployments take time and planning, which may allow
targets to get away. Sanchez

said there is an obvious advantage to armed drones, but raises concerns over the prospect

of such technology in the hands of dictatorial governments. Theres definitely a need for a technology thats both cheap and can have some
really positive results, but obviously theres a possibility this technology can be used for all the wrong reasons and ,
unfortunately, throughout Latin Americas history, the abuse of power [has]
tend[ed] to happen quite often, Sanchez said. The Future is Now Approximately 7,500 UAVs are expected to begin operating in U.S. airspace
within the next five years following the introduction of new regulations, said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta at news conference in November. He added the ultimate goal of
the American drone industry is to establish a global leadership that will enable the U.S. market to set
standards for the industry worldwide. Meanwhile, most Latin American countries are enjoying economic growth, which means militaries
have larger budgets at their disposal to build new weapons or buy them from abroad. Security and
military operations in Latin America are currently pushing global demand for drones. Countries like
Brazil want to be known as a military power and they want to show they have a vibrant domestic military
industry and they can build their own weapons and produce drone technology for sale to other countries,
Sanchez said. Still, the proliferation of drone technology throughout the Americas is advancing more rapidly than
regulations. After analyzing the future and present uses of UAVs in Latin American, the IACHR hearing convened with three recommendations to the international community. The first
two called on the U.S. to comply with international human rights principles in their use and development of armed drones around the world. The third recommendation set
forth the need to clarify and articulate the legal obligations of states in
regard to drone use, both armed and unarmed, and called for the drafting of legislation on
the matter. As time passes and falling price tags encourage more governments to employ surveillance drones, the use of armed drones will only
represent the next step in the integration process, Stanley said in his closing statements. From their uses abroad
we know that armed drones can be incredibly powerful and dangerous weapons . When domestic law enforcement officers can use force
from a distance it may become too easy for them to do so, Stanley said. When it becomes easier to do surveillance, surveillance is used more. When it becomes easier to
use force, force will be used more. We have seen this dynamic not only overseas, but also domestically
with less lethal weapons such as tasers. While there is currently a broad consensus against armed drone
use in the Americas, Stanley said exceptions have arisen. U.S. police departments have suggested arming UAVs with rubber
bullets for riot control. At the same time, U.S. border patrols have proposed outfitting drones with non-lethal weapons designed to immobilize targets of interest. There is very
good reason to think that once the current controversies and public spotlight on domestic drones fades
away, we will see a push for drones armed with lethal weapons, Stanley said.

Those LA drone border infringements escalate

Sanchez 13 (Alejandro Sanchez, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Latin America Puts Forward A Mixed Picture on the Use of Drones in the
Region, http://www.coha.org/latin-america-puts-forward-a-mixed-picture-on-the-use-of-drones-in-the-region/, October 8, 2013)
Over the past decade, a growing number of nations have been utilizing drones in their security operations. Most notably, the U.S. is using this new technology to target and eliminate suspected
terrorists along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.[1] So far, Latin American militaries have generally used drones for surveillance operations, but their role most likely will greatly expand in the

Latin American countries that currently operate drones include Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico,
Peru and Venezuela. They are either home-built or have been purchased from other countries with a sophisticated drone industry like Israel; it is important to highlight that the
international suppliers of this technology may vary depending on each governments diplomatic relations and agenda of operations. For example, the Colombian
military has acquired drones from the U.S. and Israel, obviously benefiting from the existing close
political relations among these governments.[2] On the other hand, Venezuela has turned to countries like
Russia and Iran.[3] Additionally, countries like Brazil, Colombia and Peru are trying to fabricate their own home-made drones.[4] Thanks to increasingly cheaper
near future.

technology, the cost of purchasing or domestically fabricating basic drones has become more affordable for regional armed forces. For example, media reports put Perus homegrown drones at
costing $150,000 USD, while Brazils AGX drone system is roughly estimated at $35,000 USD. Presently, Latin American drone usage is centered around patrol and surveillance operations,
particularly for combating drug trafficking.[5] Their success rate varies widely so far, but drones are regarded as useful and (moderately) cheap, like those being used in other parts of the world.
Moreover, drones have civilian applications as well. For example, in Peru, drones are used as an eye in the sky in archaeological and agricultural projects.[6] An undated photo of a predator

it is only a matter of time (and adequate funds)

before Latin American militaries decide to utilize drones for offensive
operations within their own borders. Consider if the Peruvian army could use an armed drone if it obtained credible intelligence of
drone. Photo Source: Reuters/File An undated photo of a predator drone. Photo Source: Reuters/File However,

where Jos, the nom de guerre of the leader of the insurgent movement Shining Path, is hiding in the Peruvian highlands.[7] Likewise, the Colombian military might use these weapons if it

the Mexican military may be tempted to

use an armed drone to eliminate a high-profile target such as Joaqun El Chapo Guzmn, leader of the
Sinaloa cartel (arguably, a better alternative to arresting him).[8] An obvious advantage of armed drones is that they are ready to
act, as opposed to a time-costly and riskier military deployment. Finally, it is worth stressing that such weapons are
identified the location of leaders of its domestic narco-insurgent movements, the FARC and ELN. As a final example,

potentially problematic because they can escalate inter-state tensions. Inter-state warfare is rare in Latin
America, but there have been incidents that could have ended in a conflict . For example, in 2008 Colombia carried out
a successful military operation in Ecuador to eliminate Manuel Reyes, then-commander of the FARC, but
the Colombian government did not inform Quito of the operation.[9] This was regarded as a violation of
Ecuadors sovereignty, which sparked tensions between Ecuador and its ally Venezuela against Colombia.
Given this precedent, what would happen if Colombia deployed an armed drone into Ecuador for a strike
against a suspected FARC commander? Or would Mexico use an armed drone within Guatemala if it
suspected that a leader of the Zetas Cartel (which already has a presence there) was hiding right across the border?[10] What
would be the repercussions of such incidents, particularly if civilians are killed? Latin America has been successful at avoiding inter-state warfare throughout most of the past century. Today its
security challenges are mostly internal and come from entities like narco-terrorist movements and drug
cartels; in the case of Shining Path or FARC, these groups operate in isolated regions. Hence, drone technology is regarded
as useful to find these guerrilla fighters and, given the (controversial) success of armed drones by countries like the U.S., it is only a matter of time
before Latin American militaries decide to follow suit and utilize drones for search-anddestroy missions in the name of national security. [11] While the proliferation of drones may not be halted, it is necessary for
Western military powers to keep in mind that they must lead by example when it
comes to using drones, as this tactic sets the standard of how other nations
will utilize them in the (very) near future.

Domestic armed drone legislation key

Nedzarek 13 (Rafal Nedzarek, Works at Department of Strategic Analyses - National Security Bureau (Poland) and International Police Cooperation Bureau - National Police
Headquarters (Poland), Atlantic-Community, Political Science Think Tank, Developing Drone Norms Through Domestic Legislation, http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/developing-dronenorms-through-domestic-legislation, July 10, 2013)
Any constructive debate on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) ought to begin with an assertion that these platforms are here to stay. As such, they are not just an international issue but will very

It is therefore necessary for any norms for drones to first

of all be initiated at the national level. Domestic principles and norms should then be
transferred to international operations. Already constituting a large part of the US Air Force, drones are also gradually proliferating among other NATO members.
soon become a national issue, raising concerns about privacy and law enforcement.

UAVs serve as valuable Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, keeping servicemen out of harm's way for a relatively low price-tag. Although the use of UAVs offers

In the post-Cold War world

of trans-border asymmetric threats drones offer a tempting prospect of flexible monitoring
and timely interventions without "embroilment." However, chasing this promise has led to a state of affairs which puts the transatlantic partners in a bad
many advantages, it also poses various problems that, if disregarded, could collectively outweigh the overall military utility of these platforms.

light. To many critics, the well-off "core" countries use drones to surveil and castigate through forcible measures individual citizens of the countries of the periphery'. Although securing the
world's under-governed regions may often seem like the right course of action, this might create an ominous impression of Western domination. An aspect of drone use which seems to be the
most detrimental to international reputation is the practice of targeted killing. Although not a novelty, this procedure has grown in frequency in the last decade. As part of a larger initiative
targeted killings prove problematic on the legal front. A myriad of largely independent operations are framed collectively as a single coherent campaign of the "global war on terror." Combined
with the low intensity of contemporary armed conflicts, this framework obscures judgment on concurrent applicability of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Apart
from legal issues, there is also the question of overall fairness of the pursued policies. Conducting covert operations across the globe is bound to result in "blowback." In the case of UAVs,

Popular uneasiness about possible uses of

battle-tested systems for domestic purposes has been confirmed by the lawenforcement agencies' growing interest in UAVs. Dystopian visions are reinforced by the rapid development of sophisticated video surveillance platforms
offering real-time footage of unprecedented resolution. These unsettling current trends call for greater transparency and democratic oversight. It seems absolutely
crucial to discontinue armed drone use by intelligence agencies. Once restricted to respective militaries, the combat use of drones should
Western governments faced vocal domestic opposition from their own citizens.

be further barred from areas outside clearly designated war zones. If targeted killings are to continue, they must be subject to meticulous supervision of relevant congressional or parliamentary
committees. Also, information pertaining to the use of targeted killings including a description of the employed criteria as well as statistics on enemy combatant and civilian casualties should
be made obtainable to citizens within the "freedom of information" framework. Finally, as the use of drones by law-enforcement agencies intensifies, legal regulations will soon need to be
imposed on the limits of domestic aerial surveillance. All these improvements are ways of assuring the public opinion that individual liberties will not be threatened and that Western governments
respect human rights of the citizens of belligerent countries. Another UAV-related issue that looms on the horizon is the possibility of granting full autonomy to robotic combat platforms.
Increasing numbers of critics argue that autonomous drones could deploy force indiscriminately. To avoid this, the installed weapons systems should remain under human control both to rule
out deadly glitches and to prevent the dissolution of legal responsibility. Effective curbs on fully autonomous combat platforms could be introduced relatively easily through domestic legislation.
However, there is little chance to introduce any effective international regulations on this matter. There will be no international push for any legally-binding measures until the indiscriminateness
of autonomous weapons has been proven on the field of battle. Even then, any possible treaty could share the fate of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which has not been signed by

The only positive global influence we will have to contend with is

to lead by example through imposing domestic regulations on our own use of
unmanned aerial vehicles, autonomous or not.
several major powers.

Latin American escalation high now

Oppenheimer 13 [Andrs Oppenheimer, Pulitzer Prize winner, Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia University, Latin American editor and syndicated foreign affairs
columnist with The Miami Herald, Andres Oppenheimer: Escalating border disputes hurt Latin America, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/21/3639908/andres-oppenheimerescalating.html]

escalation of border conflicts

in recent weeks should draw alarm bells everywhere. Judging from what Im hearing from U.S. and European diplomats,
escalating tensions between several Latin American countries over century-old border disputes
are not only resulting in growing military expenditures, but are also affecting talks on trade,
investment and security issues with the region. U.S. and European officials complain that its hard to
negotiate agreements with Central American or South American economic blocs because their
members refuse to sit at the same table with their neighbors because of border disputes or
political conflicts. Among the several territorial disputes that have been heating up in recent weeks: Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, speaking Sept. 18 aboard a
Despite constant presidential summits proclaiming a new era of Latin American economic integration and political brotherhood, an

warship patrolling waters that are being disputed between his country and Nicaragua, said that Nicaraguas latest legal claims against Colombia at the International Court of Justice in The Hague
are unfounded, unfriendly and reckless. Santos, who has said that Colombia will not accept a recent ICJ ruling that would give Nicaragua 30,000 square miles of potentially oil-rich waters
between the two countries, accuses Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega of having expansionist goals. Many Colombians fear Nicaragua is planning to invite Chinese companies to explore oil
in the area. Colombia is expected to bring the issue to the United Nations General Assembly this week. Panamas President Ricardo Martinelli, who is also accusing Nicaragua of encroaching
on his countrys territorial waters, has said that he plans to sign a joint letter with Colombia, Costa Rica and Jamaica to U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon denouncing Nicaraguas expansionist
ambitions. Ortega is not only quarreling with Colombia and Panama over territorial waters, but also with Costa Rica over land along the San Juan River on their common border. That longstanding conflict escalated in recent weeks after the Nicaraguan president made a rambling speech before his countrys army seemingly suggesting that Nicaragua may seek to make a legal claim
before the ICJ over Costa Ricas province of Guanacaste. Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla issued a statement on Aug. 15 calling Nicaragua an adversary country that invaded part of
her country two years ago. The two presidents accuse one another of inflaming nationalist passions to cover up for their domestic political troubles. Bolivia earlier this year took its territorial
claims against Chile to the ICJ, demanding a passage to the Pacific Ocean through what is today northern Chile. The two countries do not have full diplomatic relations, and Bolivias President
Evo Morales recently accused his Chilean counterpart of lying about the conflict. Peru, which took its dispute with Chile over waters along the two countries maritime border to the ICJ in
2008, is expecting a ruling within the next few months. U.S. officials say that Washingtons efforts to negotiate economic agreements with the Central American Integration System, the regions
economic bloc, have been hurt by the fact that the presidents of Nicaragua and Costa Rica will often not sit at the same table, or go to summits hosted by the other country. Asked whether the
Obama administration is concerned about this, Roberta Jacobson, the State Departments top official in charge of Latin American affairs, told me that while the United States is not getting

is always a concern when partners and allies in this hemisphere have

tensions with each other. It complicates cooperation. European diplomats, in turn, complain that Paraguays suspension from South
involved in these territorial disputes, it

Americas Mercosur economic bloc and a lingering political dispute between Paraguay and Venezuela over membership in that bloc have further complicated long-delayed European UnionMercosur free trade negotiations. Jose Miguel Insulza, head of the 34-country Organization of American States, told me in an interview last week that this is a problem, because no extraregional interlocutor will be very interested in conducting a negotiation when all parts of the deal are not sitting at the same table. My opinion: Regardless of who is right on each of these
border disputes, its time to isolate them from regional and international negotiations. Border disputes should be subject to a diplomatic quarantine, as if they were animals with dangerously

Latin America cannot

afford to allow century-old disputes to delay its much-needed economic integration within itself, and with
the rest of the world.
contagious diseases. With the regional economy expected to grow slower this year because of stagnant commodity prices and other external factors,

Latin America is key to global stability and existential crises

Democracy, warming, econ, prolif, poverty, energy

ONeil 13 [Shannon ONeil is Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Latin Americas Secret Success Story,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/16/latin-america-s-secret-success-story.html]

the United States neighbors to the south have quietly

been surging in global importance. Latin America rarely looms large on the global scene, overshadowed
by Europe, the Middle East, and Asia on the agendas and in the imagination of policymakers, business leaders, and the global chattering classes. But under cover of this benign neglect, the
region has dramatically changed, mostly for the better. Its economies have flourished. Once known for
Ahead of the Biennial of the Americas conference, Shannon K. ONeil on how

hyperinflation and economic booms and busts, Latin America is now a place of sound finances and financial systems. Exportsranging from soy, flowers, copper, and iron ore to computers,
appliances, and jetshave boomed. GDP growth has doubled from 1980s levels to an annual average of 4 percent over the past two decades, as has the regions share of global GDP, increasing
from 5 percent in 2004 to nearly 8 percent in 2011. Many of the countries have embraced globalization, opening up their economies and searching for innovative ways to climb the value-added
chain and diversify their production. Trading relations too have changed: U.S. trade has expanded at a fast clip even as these nations diversified their flows across the Atlantic and Pacific. These
steps have lured some $170 billion in foreign direct investment in 2012 alone (roughly 12 percent of global flows). Led by Brazil and Mexico, much of this investment is going into

the hemisphere has become one of

the most dynamic places for new energy finds and sources. From the off shore pre-salt oil basins of Brazil to the immense shale gas
fields of Argentina and Mexico, from new hydrodams on South Americas plentiful rivers to wind farms in Brazil and Mexico, the Americas diversified energy
mix has the potential to reshape global energy geopolitics. Democracy, too, has spread, now embraced by almost all of the countries in
the region. And with this expanded representation has come greater social inclusion in many nations. Latin America is by all accounts a crucible of
innovative social policies, a global leader in conditional cash transfers that provide stipends for
families that keep kids in school and get basic healthcare, as well as other programs to reduce
manufacturing and services. Already the second largest holder of oil reserves in the world (behind only the Middle East),

extreme poverty. Combined with stable economic growth, those in poverty fell from roughly two in five to one in four Latin Americans in just a decade. These and other
changes have helped transform the basic nature of Latin American societies. Alongside the many still poor is a growing middle class. Its ranks swelled by 75 million people over the last 10 years,
now reaching a third of the total population. The World Bank now classifies the majority of Latin American countries as upper middle income, with Chile and Uruguay now considered high
income. Brazils and Mexicos household consumption levels now outpace other global giants, including China and Russia, as today nearly every Latin American has a cell phone and television,
and many families own their cars and houses. The region still has its serious problems. Latin America holds the bloody distinction of being the worlds most violent region. Eight of the ten
countries with the worlds highest homicide rates are in Latin America or the Caribbean. And non-lethal crimes, such as assault, extortion, and theft are also high. A 2012 study by the pollster
Latino Barometro found that one in every four Latin American citizens reported that they or a family member had been a victim of a crime during the past year. Latin America also remains the
most unequal region in the world, despite some recent improvements. Studies show this uneven playing field affects everything from economic growth to teenage pregnancy and crime rates.
These countries as a whole need to invest more in education, infrastructure, and basic rule of law to better compete in a globalizing world. Of course, nations also differwhile some countries
have leaped ahead others have lagged, buffeted by everything from world markets to internal divisions. Nevertheless, with so much potential, and many countries on a promising path, it is time

Tied by
geographic proximity, commerce, communities, and security, the Americas are indelibly linked.
As the United States looks to increase exports, promote democratic values, and find partners to
address major issues, such as climate change, financial stability, nuclear non-proliferation, global
security, democracy, and persistent poverty, it could do no better than to look toward its
hemispheric neighbors, who have much to impart.
to recognize and engage with these increasingly global players. And while important for the world stage, the nations of the hemisphere are doubly so for the United States.

Ensures multiple scenarios for nuclear war

Fleishmann 13 (Luis, Ph.D. in Sociology from the New School for Social Research in New
York City, an M.A. degree from the New School as well and a B.A. in Political Science and
Labor Studies from Tel Aviv University. Dr. Fleischman has worked for more than two decades
for the Jewish Federations of Palm Beach County, Florida and Central New Jersey as executive
director for community and political relations. In that capacity, he has worked intensively on
issues related to the Middle East and national security serving as a liaison between these
organizations and members of Congress, foreign consuls, the media and the local community at
large. Dr. Fleischman has also worked as senior advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security
Project at the Center for Security Policy. The focus of Dr. Fleischmans work at the CSP was on
monitoring Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his allies, their connections to radical
groups, the expansion of Chavezs ideas across the continent and the rise of anti-democratic
forces in the region. Dr. Fleischman is also an Adjunct Professor of Sociology and Political
Science at Florida Atlantic University Honors College and FAU Lifelong Learning Society,
Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Security Threat to the United States,
http://books.google.com/books?id=N7D6doBly7AC&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s>#SPS, May
31, 2013)
The challenges that Latin America poses today are not all the direct result of the Bolivarian revolution. Indeed, outside pernicious forcesthe drug cartelsexisted
before the Bolivarian revolution, and they had been a major challenge in the region for two decades before Chavez's rise to power in 1999. But the

Bolivarian
revolution has promoted the destruction of democracy and has set afoot an authoritarian socialist
movement throughout Latin America that despises the market economy, liberal democracy, and U.S.
political and cultural hegemony. It has inspired governments to follow its model and has gained admirers among groups and movements throughout Latin America. Chavez has made alliances with all anti-U.S. elements in the region and now around the globe. Indeed, the Bolivarian leader has
deepened his relationship with the FARC guerrillas in Colombia and has made alliances with Iran . His
financial and material assistance has revitalized a moribund FARC and incorporated it with the insurgent
force of the Bolivarian revolution. He has promoted Iran's presence in Latin America, including its most
ominous aspectsasymmetric warfare and nuclear cooperation. Further, the Bolivarian leadership
expanded its relations with drug cartels and has facilitated their hunt for more territory, giving them an outlet in the midst of the U.S. war on drugs and enabling them
to continue destroying the social fabric Of society and State authority in the region. The leadership expected that such lawlessness could precipitate the rise to power
of other revolutionary leaders. These partners of the Bolivarian revolution, however, still follow their own interests and objectives. All together, they create chaos

in a region that in the future will see the proliferation of nothing but more adverse conditions:
authoritarianism, further anarchy, insurgency, local and international terrorism, rogue states'
involvement, and Other negative elements such as an arms race and nuclear activity. The continent's

current economic prosperity, about which many Latin American leaders rejoice and brag, is not enough to counteract the
detrimental effects of the Bolivarian revolution in some countries. Further, attempts to counter the negative repercussions have
met with the indifference and impotence Of Other non-Bolivarian countries in the region. Being that the majority of these countries are left leaning, where the push for
social rights and appeals to the poor are stronger than that for liberal democracy, Chavez's actions did not disturb their leaders. In fact, countries like Brazil rushed to
view Chavez as a key to regional integration. More- over, many Of them joined Chavez in his anti-American fervor. They did not embrace it with the same fury that
Chavez and his allies did, but the moderate Left certainly still carries the anti-American baggage of the past. Brazilian president Lula's foreign policy toward Iran is a
case in point. As we have seen, many other countries of the moderate Left also developed warmer relations With Iran. Argentina is moving toward conciliation with
Iran despite the fact that its own courts declared Iran responsible for the most lethal terrorist attacks on Argentinean soil. Iran therefore became a For those who look at
the facts with a technical perspectivefor example, a general in the armed forces whose specialty is conventional warfarethey might not perceive the threat of the
Bolivarian revolution and its actions as imminent. For those who seek hard evidence beyond reasonable doubt, predicting what may happen in the future is impossible;
however, the current situation provides enough Signs to require a serious look at the rise of authoritarian governments in the region and their connections. For one, the
breakdown Of democracy in the continent is alarming, but it cannot be reduced to a crisis of democracy per se. Instead, it is the inevitable result when a state's
government fails to consolidate its powers, to include its citizens in policymaking and represent their interests, and to strengthen the rule of law so that it can prevent
external elements from corrupting it. Simply, a weak democracy becomes a weak state. A weak state is vulnerable to corruption. Corruption leads to colonization Of
the State by powerful groups that have enough purchasing power. As noted throughout the book, the deterioration of democracy to this extent has security implications
insofar as external forces can penetrate it. The United States has remained impotent in the face Of these developments because it took a defensive position. In addition,
the war in Iraq hurt its image in Latin America and exacerbated negative feelings toward the United States. Consequently, the United States could not confront Chavez
and his revolution directly, leading to its position of compliance with Latin American countries. Thus, the United States lost the ability to pursue its agenda actively
and ended up accepting a passive role in the continent. As stated in chapter 9, however, the Bolivarian revolution will not die along with Chavez. It will endure and
survive because of the structures and practices he has left in place, not just in Venezuela but in the region as well. The

United States should not

have any illusions about it: The challenge will continue. The effects Of authoritarianism, the
destruction Of the State, and the proliferation Of non-state actors and rogue States are
likely to continue their course if no one moves to counter them. As time goes by, these circumstances will further
aggravate Latin American relationships with the United States. U.S. foreign policy, therefore, cannot be guided by traumas of the past, appeasement, fear, or guilt.

Its

security and foreign policy needs to serve the interests and goals of the region, as well as those of the
United States, particularly when a threat to national security is raised.

Global nuclear war

Manwaring 05 adjunct professor of international politics at Dickinson (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel,
Venezuelas Hugo Chvez, Bolivarian Socialism, and Asymmetric Warfare, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf)

state failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge

facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground
for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian
disasters and major refugee flows. They can host evil networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal
business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically,
these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of
coercion and persuasion can spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation,
disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional
weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the
same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty,
destabilization, and conflict.62 Perus Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda.
President Chvez also understands that the process leading to

Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities
business incentives. Chvez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin
American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors strategic
efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regimes credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chvezs
intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions
of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally
perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively,

subverting or destroying such a government are real.64

instability and the threat of

But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take

failing and
failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new peoples
advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence,

democracies. In connection with the creation of new peoples democracies, one can rest assured that Chvez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and
leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and peoples democracies persist,

the more they and their

associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65

Plan Text
Resolved: The United States federal government should end the use of surveillance
operations performed by armed drones in the United States.

Solvency
Domestic armed drone usage exist and its increase its inevitable- restricting
surveillance key to resolve backlash- reject dismissive notions of the affirmative as
soft authoritarianism major distinction between drones and helicopters
Greenwald 13 (Glenn Greenwald, Business Insider, GLENN GREENWALD: The US Needs
To Wake Up To Threat Of Domestic Drones, http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-threatsstrikes-us-2013-3, March 30, 2013)
The use of drones by domestic US law enforcement agencies is growing rapidly, both in terms of numbers and types of
usage. As a result, civil liberties and privacy groups led by the ACLU - while accepting that domestic drones are inevitable - have been
devoting increasing efforts to publicizing their unique dangers and agitating for statutory limits. These
efforts are being impeded by those who mock the idea that domestic
drones pose unique dangers (often the same people who mock concern over their usage on foreign soil). This
dismissive posture is grounded not only in soft authoritarianism (a religious-type faith
in the Goodness of US political leaders and state power generally) but also ignorance over current drone capabilities, the ways drones are now being developed and
marketed for domestic use, and the activities of the increasingly powerful domestic drone lobby. So it's quite worthwhile to lay out the key under-discussed facts

going to focus here most on domestic surveillance drones, but I want to say a few words about
belief that weaponized drones won't be used on US soil is
patently irrational. Of course they will be. It's not just likely but inevitable. Police departments are already speaking
openly about how their drones "could be equipped to carry nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun." The drone industry
has already developed and is now aggressively marketing precisely such
weaponized drones for domestic law enforcement use. It likely won't be in the form that has received
shaping this issue. I'm

weaponized drones. The

the most media attention: the type of large Predator or Reaper drones that shoot Hellfire missiles which destroy homes and cars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia,
Afghanistan and multiple other countries aimed at Muslims (although US

law enforcement agencies already

possess Predator drones and have used them over US soil for surveillance). Instead, as I detailed in a 2012 examination of the drone
industry's own promotional materials and reports to their shareholders, domestic weaponized drones will be much smaller and cheaper, as well as more agile - but just
as lethal. The nation's leading manufacturer of small "unmanned aircraft systems" (UAS), used both for surveillance and attack purposes, is AeroVironment, Inc. (AV).
Its 2011 Annual Report filed with the SEC repeatedly emphasizes that its business strategy depends upon expanding its market from foreign wars to domestic usage
including law enforcement: AV's annual report added: "Initial likely non-military users of small UAS include public safety organizations such as law enforcement
agencies. . . ." These domestic marketing efforts are intensifying with the perception that US spending on foreign wars will decrease. As a February, 2013 CBS News
report noted, focusing on AV's surveillance drones: "Now, drones are headed off the battlefield. They're already coming your way. "AeroVironment, the California
company that sells the military something like 85 percent of its fleet, is marketing them now to public safety agencies." Like many drone manufacturers, AV is now
focused on drone products - such as the "Qube" - that are so small that they can be "transported in the trunk of a police vehicle or carried in a backpack" and
assembled and deployed within a matter of minutes. One news report AV touts is headlined "Drone technology could be coming to a Police Department near you",
which focuses on the Qube. But another

article prominently touted on AV's website describes the tiny UAS product dubbed the "Switchblade",
leading edge of what is likely to be the broader, even wholesale, weaponization of
unmanned systems." The article creepily hails the Switchblade drone as "the ultimate assassin bug". That's because, as I wrote back in 2011, "it
which, says the article, is "the

is controlled by the operator at the scene, and it worms its way around buildings and into small areas, sending its surveillance imagery to an i-Pad held by the operator,
who can then direct the Switchblade to lunge toward and kill the target (hence the name) by exploding in his face." AV's website right now proudly touts a February,
2013 Defense News article describing how much the US Army loves the "Switchblade" and how it is preparing to purchase more. Time Magazine heralded this tiny
drone weapon as "one of the best inventions of 2012", gushing: "the Switchblade drone can be carried into battle in a backpack. It's a kamikaze: the person controlling
it uses a real-time video feed from the drone to crash it into a precise target - say, a sniper. Its tiny warhead detonates on impact." What possible reason could someone
identify as to why these small, portable weaponized UAS products will not imminently be used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in the US?
They're designed to protect their users in dangerous situations and to enable a target to be more easily killed. Police agencies and the increasingly powerful drone
industry will tout their utility in capturing and killing dangerous criminals and their ability to keep officers safe, and media reports will do the same. The handful of
genuinely positive uses from drones will be endlessly touted to distract attention away from the dangers they pose. One

has to be incredibly nave to

think that these "assassin bugs" and other lethal drone products will not be widely used on US soil by an
already para-militarized domestic police force. As Radley Balko's forthcoming book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" details, the primary trend in US law enforcement is
what its title describes as "The Militarization of America's Police Forces". The history of domestic law enforcement particularly after 9/11 has been the importation of
military techniques and weapons into domestic policing. It would be shocking if these weapons were not imminently used by domestic law enforcement agencies. In
contrast to weaponized drones, even the most nave among us do not doubt the imminent proliferation of domestic surveillance drones. With little debate, they have
already arrived. As the ACLU put it in their recent report: "US law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance." An LA Times article
from last month reported that "federal authorities have stepped up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement and other uses in US airspace" and that
"the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it had issued 1,428 permits to domestic drone operators since 2007, far more than were previously known."
Moreover, the agency "has estimated 10,000 drones could be aloft five years later" and "local and state law enforcement agencies are expected to be among the largest
customers." Concerns

about the proliferation of domestic surveillance drones are typically dismissed with the

claim that they do nothing more than police helicopters and satellites already do. Such claims are
completely misinformed. As the ACLU's 2011 comprehensive report on domestic
drones explained: "Unmanned aircraft carrying cameras raise the prospect of a
significant new avenue for the surveillance of American life." Multiple
attributes of surveillance drones make them uniquely threatening . Because they are
so cheap and getting cheaper, huge numbers of them can be deployed to create ubiquitous surveillance in a way that
helicopters or satellites never could. How this works can already been seen in Afghanistan, where the US military has dubbed its drone
surveillance system "the Gorgon Stare", named after the "mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who
beheld them". That drone surveillance system is "able to scan an area the size of a small town" and "the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can]
seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity". Boasted one US General: "Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for the
adversary to know what we're looking at, and we can see everything." The

NSA already maintains ubiquitous surveillance of

electronic communications, but the Surveillance State faces serious limits on its
ability to replicate that for physical surveillance. Drones easily overcome
those barriers . As the ACLU report put it: I've spoken previously about why a ubiquitous Surveillance State ushers in unique and
deeply harmful effects on human behavior and a nation's political culture and won't repeat that here (here's the video (also embedded below) and the transcript of one
speech where I focus on how that works). Suffice to say, as the ACLU explains in its domestic drone report: "routine

aerial surveillance would

profoundly change the character of public life in America" because only drone technology
enables such omnipresent physical surveillance.

Surveillance operations by domestic armed drones on border regions are setting an

international precedent- legislation key to establish a framework for modeling
Barry 13 (Tom Barry, senior policy analyst and director of CIP's TransBorder Project, Barry specializes in immigration policy, homeland security, border security, and the
outsourcing of national security. He co-founded the International Relations Center (IRC), and joined CIP in 2007. He has authored or co-authored more than twenty books on Mexico, Central
America, the Caribbean, food aid, the United Nations, free trade and U.S. foreign policy. These include The Great Divide: Challenge of U.S.-Mexico Relations in the 1990s (Grove Press),
Feeding the Crisis: U.S. Food Aid and Farm Policy in Central America (University of Nebraska), The Next Fifty Years: The United Nations and the United States, and the award-winning Zapatas
Revenge: Free Trade and the Farm Crisis in Mexico (South End Press). He has also edited volumes on foreign policy such as Global Focus: U.S. Foreign policy at the Turn of the Millennium (St.
Martins Press), Center for International Policy, Drones Over the Homeland, http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/16739, April 23, 2013)

Drones are proliferating at home and abroad. A new high-tech realm is emerging, where remotely controlled and autonomous unmanned systems do our
bidding. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) commonly known as drones are already working for us in many ways. This new CIP International Policy

the emergence of the homeland security apparatus

have put border drones at the forefront of the intensifying public debate about the proper
role of drones domestically. Drones Over the Homeland focuses on the deployment of drones by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is developing a drone fleet that it projects will be capable
of quickly responding to homeland security threats, national security threats and national emergencies across
Report reveals how the military-industrial complex and

the entire nation. In addition, DHS says that its drone fleet is available to assist local law-enforcement agencies. Due to a surge in U.S. military contracting since 2001, the United States is the
world leader in drone production and deployment. Other nations, especially China, are also rapidly gaining a larger market share of the international drone market. The United States, however,
will remain the dominant driver in drone manufacturing and deployment for at least another decade. The central U.S. role in drone proliferation is the direct result of the Pentagons rapidly
increasing expenditures for UAVs. Also fueling drone proliferation is UAV procurement by the Department of Homeland Security, by other federal agencies such as NASA, and by local police,

Despite its lead role in the

proliferation of drones, the U.S. government has failed to take the lead in establishing
appropriate regulatory frameworks and oversight processes. Without this necessary
regulatory infrastructure at both the national and international levels drone proliferation
threatens to undermine constitutional guarantees, civil liberties and international law. This policy report begins with a brief
as well as by individuals and corporations. Drones are also proliferating among state-level Air National Guard units.

overview of the development and deployment of UAVs, including a summary of the DHS drone program. The second section details and critically examines the role of Congress and industry in
promoting drone proliferation. In the third part, we explore the expanding scope of the DHS drone program, extending to public safety and national security. The reports fourth section focuses on
the stated objectives of the homeland security drone program. It debunks the dubious assertions and myths that DHS wields in presentations to the public and Congress to justify this poorly
conceived, grossly ineffective and entirely nonstrategic border program. The reports final section summarizes our conclusions, and then sets forward our recommendations. I. UAV OVERVIEW
AND ORIGIN OF HOMELAND SECURITY DRONES UAVs are ideal instruments for what the military calls ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) missions. Yet, with no need for
an onboard crew and with the capacity to hover unseen at high altitudes for long periods, drones also have many nonmilitary uses. Whether deployed in the air, on the ground or in the water,
unmanned drones are ideally suited for a broad range of scientific, business, public-safety and even humanitarian tasks. That is due to what are known as the three Ds capabilities Dull (they
can work long hours, conducting repetitive tasks), Dirty (drones are impervious to toxicity) and Dangerous (no lives lost if a drone is destroyed). Indicative of the many possibilities for UAV use,
some human rights advocates are now suggesting drones can be used to defend human rights, noting their ISR capabilities could be used to monitor human rights violations by repressive regimes
and non-state actors in such countries as Syria.1 Manufacturers, led by the largest military contractors, are rapidly producing drones for a boom market, whose customers include governments
(with the U.S. commanding dominant market share), law enforcement agencies, corporations, individual consumers and rogue forces. Drones are proliferating so rapidly that a consensus about
their formal name has not yet formed. The most common designation is Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), although Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) is also frequently used. Other less
common terms include Unmanned Systems (US) and Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). The more inclusive Unmanned Systems term covers ground and marine drones , while highlighting the
elaborate control and communications systems used to launch, operate and recover drones. However, because most drones require staffed command-and-control centers, Remotely Piloted

Aircraft may be the best descriptive term. DRONES TAKE OFF Although the U.S. military and intelligence sectors had been promoting drone development since the early 1960s,2 it was the
Israeli Air Force in the late 1970s that led the way in drone technology and manufacture. However, after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. intelligence apparatus and the U.S. Air Force
became the major drivers in drone development and proliferation.3 Because the intelligence budget is classified, there are no hard figures publicly available that quantify the intelligence
communitys contributions to drone development in the United States. It has been credibly estimated that prior to 2000, such contributions made up about 40% of total drone research and
development (R&D) expenditures, with the U.S. Air Force being the other major source of development funds for drone research by U.S. military contractors.4 In the early 1990s, as part of a
classified weapons project, the U.S. Air Force and the CIA underwrote and guided the development and production of what became the Predator UAV, the first war-fighting drones that were
initially deployed in ISR missions during the Balkan wars in 1995. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-SI), an affiliate of privately held, San Diego-based company General Atomics,
produced the first Predator UAVs now known as Predator A with research and development funding from Pentagon, the Air Force and a highly secret intelligence organization called the
National Reconnaissance Organization.5 The 1995 deployment of the unarmed Predator A by the CIA and Air Force sparked new interest within the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus,
resulting in at least $600 million in new R&D contracting for drones with General Atomics. According to a U.S. Air Force study, The CIAs UAV program that existed in the early 1990s and
that still exists today gave Predator and GA-ASI an important opportunity that laid the foundation for Predators success. The study goes on to document what is known of the collaboration
between the intelligence community and General Atomics.6 General Atomics is a privately held firm, owned by brothers Neal and Linden Blue. The Blue brothers bought the firm (which was
originally a start-up division of General Dynamics) in 1986 for $50 million and the next year hired Ret. Rear Admiral Thomas J. Cassidy to run GA-SI. The Blue brothers are well connected
nationally and internationally with arch-conservative, anti-communist networks. These links stem in part from their past associations with right-wing leaders; one such example being the
100,000-acre banana and cocoa farm Neal Blue co-owned with the Somoza family in Nicaragua, another being Linden Blues 1961 imprisonment in Cuba shortly before the Bay of Pigs for
flying into Cuban airspace, and especially their record of providing substantial campaign support for congressional hawks.7 In 1997, the U.S. Air Forces high-tech development and procurement
divisions took the first steps toward weaponizing the Predator. This push led to the Air Forces Big Safari rapid high-tech acquisitions program, which proved instrumental in having an armed
Predator ready for deployment in 2000. The newly weaponized MQ Predator-B was in action from the first day of the invasion of Afghanistan on October 21, 2001, when a Hellfire missile was
fired from a remote operator sitting in an improvised command and control center situated in the parking lot of the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.8 The post-9/11 launch of the global
war on terrorism opened the floodgates for drone R&D funding and procurement by the CIA and all branches of the U.S. military, led by the Air Force. Starting in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq,
the Predator transitioned from an unmanned surveillance aircraft to what General Atomics proudly called a Hunter-Killer. Since 2004, the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command, a
covert unit of the U.S. military, have routinely made clandestine strikes in Pakistan and more recently in Yemen and Somalia. These clandestine strikes increased during the first Obama

The rise of the Predators

along with later drone models produced by General Atomics the Reaper, Guardian and Avenger drones
can be attributed to aggressive marketing, influence-peddling and lobbying initiatives by General
Atomics and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-SI). The selling of the Predator could also count on the close personal ties forged
over decades in the military-industrial complex, which resulted in key R&D grants from the military and intelligence sectors. Another important factor in the
Predators increasing popularity has been General Atomics willingness to adapt models to meet varying
demands from DOD, DHS and the intelligence community for different armed and unarmed variants. Also
Administration and continued into the second amid growing criticism that drone strikes were unconstitutional and counterproductive.9

working in General Atomics favor is its ongoing commitment to curry favor in Congress with substantial campaign contributions and special favors. Speaking at the Citadel on December 11,
2001, President George W. Bush underscored the Predators central role in U.S. global counterterrorism missions: Before the war, the Predator had skeptics because it did not fit the old ways.

where suspected
terrorists were purportedly killed with surgical precision while UAV pilots sat in front of video screens out of harms way drinking coffee. Little
Now it is clear the military does not have enough unmanned vehicles.10 At the time, there was widespread public, media and congressional enthusiasm for UAVs

was known then about the high-accident rates for the UAVs or the shocking collateral damage from their targeted strikes. Nor was it well known that the Predators were being piloted from

PREDATORS ALIGHT ON THE BORDER

command and control centers at the CIA and at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.
In the
late-1990s, about the same time that the U.S. Border Patrol started contracting for ground-based electronic surveillance, the agency also began planning to integrate drone surveillance into
ground-based electronic surveillance systems. It is also when it began the practice of entering into sole-source contracts with high-tech firms.11 The Border Patrols grand high-tech plan was to
integrate drone ISR operations with its planned Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS).12 The plan, albeit never detailed in the project proposal, was to integrate geospatial images
from yet-to-be acquired Border Patrol UAVs into an elaborate command, control and communications systems managed by the Border Patrol an agency not known for its high-level technical or
management skills.13 Soon after the CIA and the U.S. Air Force began flooding General Atomics with procurement contracts for armed Predators in 2001, disarmed Predator UAVs were
summoned for border security duty. In 2003, the Border Patrol with funding not from the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) budget but rather from the Homeland Securitys newly created

In 2005, CBP took full control over the DHS

drone program, with the launch of its own Predator drone program under the
supervision of the newly created Office of Air and Marine (OAM). OAM was a CBP division that united all the aerial and marine assets of
the Office of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to the CBP, The UAV program focuses operations on the
CBP priority mission of anti-terrorism by helping to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegal
cross-border activity. Tens of billions of dollars began to flow into the Department of Homeland Security
for border security the term that superseded border control in the aftermath of 9/11 and the DHS drone
program was propelled forward. To direct OAM, DHS appointed Michael C. Kostelnik, a retired Air Force major general. During his tenure in the Air Force, Kostelnik
supervised weapons acquisitions and was one of the leading players in encouraging General Atomics to quickly equip the Predator with bombs or missiles.14 The more
expensive, armed Predator drones and their variants became the preferred
border drone as a result of widespread enthusiasm for the surge in Predator operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the close collaborative relationship that developed between General Atomics
Aeronautical Systems and CBP. CBP began using its first Predator for operations in October 2005, but the drone crashed in April 2006 in the Arizona desert near
Science and Technology Directorate began testing small, relatively inexpensive UAVs for border surveillance.

Nogales due an error made by General Atomics contracted pilot. Crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board found the pilot had shut off the drones engine when he
thought he was redirecting the drones camera. As Kostelnik explained to the Border and Marine Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee, There was a momentary loss link

By early 2013, CBP had a fleet of seven Predator drones

and three Guardians drones, all stationed at military bases. Two Guardians Predators modified for
marine surveillance are based at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas, while another patrols
the Caribbean as part of a drug war mission from its base at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in
Florida. Four of the seven Predators are stationed at Libby Army Airfield, part of Fort Huachuca near the Mexican border in southeastern Arizona, while two have homes at the Grand
that switched to the second control and the Predator fell out of the sky.15 The Fleet

Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. The tenth Predator drone will also be based at Cape Canaveral. According to the CBP Strategic Air and Marine Plan of 2010, OAM intends to deploy a
fleet of 24 Guardians and Predators. In 2008, as part of its acquisition strategy, CBP planned to have the 24-drone fleet ready by 2016, boasting that OAM would then be capable of deploying
drones anywhere in national airspace in three hours or less.16 In late 2012, CBP signed a major new five-drone contract with General Atomics. The $443.1 million five-year contract includes

$237.7 million for the prospective purchase of up to 14 additional Predators and Predator variations, and $205.4 million for operational costs and maintenance by General Atomics crews.17 This
new contract was signed, despite increasing budget restrictions, a series of critical reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office
of Inspector General, and continuing technical failures and poor results. Only One Source CBP insists that General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is the only responsible source for its drone
needs and that no other suppliers or servicers can satisfy agency requirements for these $18-20 million drones. According to CBPs justification for sole-source contracting, U.S. national security
would be put at risk if DHS switched drone contractors. In a November 1, 2012 statement titled Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition, DHS contends that The PredatorB/Guardian UAS combination is unmatched by any other UAS available. To procure an alternative systemor support serviceswould detrimentally impact national security, most notably due
to decreased interdictions of contraband (e.g., illegal narcotics, undocumented immigrants). Furthermore, CBP claimed, The GA-ASI MQ-9 UAS provides the best value to OAMs
documented and approved operational requirements and programmatic constraints. With 38% of planned systems on-online, MQ-9 operations are mature, well-understood, and a critical
component of DHSs daily Homeland Security campaign. When asked by this author for information documenting specific data, comparative studies, cost-benefit evaluations, record of the
achievements of the drone program, or threat assessment to support such conclusions, CBP simply responded: CBP deploys and operates the UAS only after careful examination where the UAS

II.
MORE DRONE BOOSTERISM THAN OVERSIGHT IN CONGRESS The Pentagon, military, intelligence agencies and military
can most responsibly aid in countering threats of our Nations security. As threats change, CBP adjusts its enforcement posture accordingly and may consider moving the location of assets.18

contractors are longtime proponents of UAVs for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Following President Bushs declaration of a global war on terrorism, the White
House became directly involved in expanding drone deployment in foreign wars especially in directing drone strikes.

The most unabashed advocates of drone

proliferation, however, are in Congress. They claim drones can solve many of Americas most pressing problems from eliminating terrorists to keeping the
homeland safe from unwanted immigrants. However, there has been little congressional oversight of drone
deployments, both at home and abroad. Since the post-9/11 congressional interest in drone issues budgets, role in national airspace, overseas sales, border deployment and
UAVs by law enforcement agencies drone legislation would increase the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance equipment.19 Drone promotion by U.S. representatives
and senators in Congress pops up in what at first may seem the unlikeliest of places. Annually, House members join with UAS manufacturers to fill the foyer and front rooms of the Rayburn
House Office Building with displays of the latest drones an industry show introduced in glowing speeches by highly influential House leaders, notably Buck McKeon, the Southern California
Republican who chairs the House Armed Service Committee and co-chairs the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus (CUSC). Advances in communications, aviation and surveillance
technology have all accelerated the coming of UAVs to the home front. Yet drones are not solely about technological advances. Money flows and political influence also factor in. Congressional
Caucus on Unmanned Systems At the forefront of the money/politics nexus is the Congressional Caucus on Unmanned Systems (CCUS). Four years ago, the CCUS (then known as the House
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Caucus) was formed by a small group of congressional representatives mainly Republicans and mostly hailing from districts with drone industries or bases. By late
2012, the House caucus had 60 members and had changed its name to encompass all unmanned systems whether aerial, marine or ground-based.20 This bipartisan caucus, together with its
allies in the drone industry, has been promoting UAV use at home and abroad through drone fairs on Capitol Hill, new legislation and drone-favored budgets. CCUS aims to educate members of
Congress and the public on the strategic, tactical, and scientific value of unmanned systems; actively support further development and acquisition of more systems, and to more effectively engage
the civilian aviation community on unmanned system use and safety.21 In late 2012, the caucus comprised a collection of border hawks, immigration hardliners and leading congressional voices
for the military contracting industry. The two caucus co-chairs, Howard Buck McKeon, R-California, and Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, are well positioned to accelerate drone proliferation.
McKeon, whose southern California district includes major drone production facilities, notably General Atomics, is the caucus founder and chair of the House Armed Services Committee.
Cuellar, who represents the Texas border district of Laredo, is the ranking member (and former chairman) of the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. Other caucus members
include Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), who heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus; Candice Miller (R-Minn.), who heads the Homeland Security subcommittee that reviews the air and marine
operations of DHS; Joe Wilson (R-SC); Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.); Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.); Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.); and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). Eight caucus members were also
members of the powerful House Appropriations Committee in the 112th Congress. The caucus and its leading members (along with drone proponents in the Senate) have played key roles in
drone proliferation at home and abroad through channeling earmarks to Predator manufacturer General Atomics, prodding the Department of Homeland Security to establish a major drone
program, adding amendments to authorization bills for the Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Defense to ensure the more rapid integration of UAVs into the national airspace,
and increasing annual DOD and DHS budgets for drone R&D and procurements. To accelerate drone acquisitions and deployment at home, Congress has an illustrative track record of legislative
measures (see accompanying box). Congressional support for the development and procurement of Predators dates back to 1996, and is reflected in the defense and intelligence authorization acts.
An Air Force-sponsored study of the Predators rise charted the increases mandated by the House Armed Service and the House Intelligence committees over the Predator budget requests made
by the Air Force in its budgets requests. Between 1996 and 2006 (ending date of study), Congress has recommended an increase, over and above USAF requests, in the Predator budget for
nearly 10 years in a row. This has resulted in a sum total increase of over a half a billion dollars over the years.22 Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems CCUS cosponsors the annual drone
fete with the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), an industry group that brings together the leading drone manufacturers and universities with UAV research
projects. AUVSI represents the interests in the expansion of unmanned systems expressed by many of the estimated 100 U.S. companies and academic institutions involved in developing and
deploying the some 300 of the currently existing UAV models.23 The drone association has a $7.5-million annual operating budget, including $2 million a year for conferences and trade shows to
encourage government agencies and companies to use unmanned aircraft.24 AUVSI also has its own congressional advocacy committee that is closely linked to the caucus. The keynote speaker
at the drone associations annual conference in early 2012 was Representative McKeon. The congressman was also the featured speaker at AUVSIs AIR Day 2011, in recognition, says AUVSIs
president, that Congressman McKeon has been one of the biggest supporters of the unmanned systems community. The close relationship between the congressional drone caucus and AUVSI
was reflected in a similar relationship between CBP/OAM and AUVSI. Tom Faller, the CBP official who directed the UAV program at OAM, joined the AUVSI 23-member board-of-directors in
August 2011, a month before the association hosted a technology fair in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office Building. OAM participated in the fair. Faller resigned from the unpaid position on
Nov. 23, 2011 after the Los Angeles Times queried DHS about Fallers unpaid position in the industry association. Faller is currently subject of a DHS internal ethics-violation investigation.25
Contracts, contributions, earmarks and favors Once a relatively insignificant part of the military-industrial complex, the UAV development and manufacturing sector is currently expanding faster
than any other component of military contracting. Drone orders from various federal departments and agencies are rolling in to AUVSI corporate members, including such leading military
contractors as General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.26 (Unlike most major military contractors, General Atomics is not a corporation but a privately held firm, whose two
major figures are Linden and Neal Blue, both of whom have high security clearances) U.S. government drone purchases not counting contracts for an array of related UAV services and
payloads rose from $588 million to $1.3 billion over the past five years.27 The FY2013 DOD budget includes $5.8 billion for UAVs, which does not include drone spending by the
intelligence community, DHS or other federal entities. The Pentagon says that its high-priority commitment to expenditures for drone defense and warfare has resulted in strong funding for
unmanned aerial vehicles that enhance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.29 While the relationship between increasing drone contracts and the increasing campaign
contributions received by drone caucus members can only be speculated, caucus members are favored recipients of contributions by AUVSI members. In the 2010 and 2012 election cycles,
political action committees associated with companies that produce drones donated more than $2.4 million to members of the congressional drone caucus.30 The leading recipient was McKeon,
with Representative Silvestre Reyes, the influential Democrat from El Paso (who lost his seat in the 2012 election), coming in a close second.31 General Atomics counted among McKeons top
five contributors in the last election. (See Figure 1) Frank W. Pace, the director of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, contributed to two candidates Buck McKeon and Jerry Lewis during
the 2012 electoral campaign. (See Figure 2) Who were the top recipients of the General Atomics campaign contributions in the 2012 cycle? Four of the top five recipients were not surprising
Buck McKeon, Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter and Brian Bilbray given their record of support for UAVs, and their position among the most influential drone caucus members. (See Figure 3) The
relationship that has been consolidating between General Atomics and the U.S. Air Force since the early 1990s has been mediated and facilitated in Congress by influential congressional
representatives, led by southern Californian Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, a member of the House Appropriations Defense Committee and vice-chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. Lewis, a favored recipient of General Atomics campaign contributions, used his appropriations influence to ensure that the Air Force gained full control of the UAV
program by 1998. Lewis, a prominent member of the Drone Caucus, has received at least $10,000 every two years in campaign contributions from General Atomics political action committee
$80,000 since 1998, according to OpenSecrets.org. During the 2012 campaign cycle, General Atomics was the congressmans top campaign donor.32 The top ranking recipient of General
Atomics campaign contributions is not a CUSC member. Senator Diane Feinsteins (D-Calif.) contributions from General Atomics easily placed her at the top of the list. Feinstein, who chairs the
powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, was also favored in campaign contributions by Linden Blue, the president of General Atomics. (See Figure 4) Senator Feinstein has been a highly
consistent supporter of the intelligence community and military budgets. Her failure to oppose the clandestine drone strikes ordered by the White House and CIA have sparked widespread
criticism by those who argue the strikes are unconstitutional, illegal under international law and counterproductive as a counterterrorism tactic.33 In 2012, General Atomics was Feinsteins third
largest campaign contributor, while other leading contributors were the military contractors General Dynamics (from which General Atomics emerged), BAE Systems and Northrup Grumman.34
Feinsteins connections to General Atomics extend beyond being top recipient of their campaign contributions. Rachel Miller, a former (2003-2007) legislative assistant for Feinstein, has served
as a paid lobbyist for General Atomics, both working directly for the firm (in 2011) and as a General Atomics lobbyist employed by Capitol Solutions (2009 - present), one of the leading
lobbying firms contracted by General Atomics.35 And did you know that Linden Blue plans to marry Retired Rear Adm. Ronne Froman? Few others knew about the engagement of this highsociety San Diego couple until Senator Feinstein announced the planned marriage at a mid-November 2012 meeting of the downtown San Diego business community news that quickly
appeared in the Society pages of the San Diego Union-Tribune. There has been no explanation offered why Feinstein broke this high-society news, but the announcement certainly did point to the
senators likely personal connections to Blue and Froman (who was hired by General Atomics as senior vice-president in December 2007 and has since left the firm).36 Campaign contributions
and personal connections create goodwill and facilitate contracts. General Atomics also counts on the results produced by a steady stream of lobbying dollars which have risen dramatically
since 2003, and been averaging $2.5 million annually since 2005. In 2012, General Atomics spent $2,470,000 lobbying Congress.37 Congressional earmarks were critical to the rise of the
Predator, both its earlier unarmed version as well as the later Hunter-Killer. The late senator Daniel K. Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, told the

New York Times that if the House ban on commercial earmarks that was introduced in 2010 had been in effect earlier, we would not have the Predator today. Tens of millions of dollars in
congressional earmarks in the 1990s went to General Atomics and other military contractors for the early development of what became the Predator program, reported the New York Times.38
Inouye was a source of a number of these multimillion earmarks for General Atomics, whose large campaign contributions to the influential Hawaii senator from 1998 to 2012 ($5000 in this last
campaign) could be regarded as thank-you notes since Inouye faced insignificant political opposition. Besides campaign contributions, General Atomics routinely hands out favors to
congressional representatives thought likely to support drone proliferation. A 2006 report by the Center for Public Integrity identified Jerry Lewis as one of two congressional members and more
than five dozen congressional staffers who traveled overseas courtesy of General Atomics. The centers report, The Top Gun of Travel, observed this little-known California defense contractor
[has] far outspent its industry competitors on travel for more than five years and in 2005 landed promises of billions of dollars in federal business. Most of this business was in the form of
drone development and procurement by the Pentagon and DHS. Questioned about this pattern of corporate-sponsored trips, Thomas Cassidy, founder of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems,
said, [Its] useful and very helpful, in fact, when you go down and talk to the government officials to have congressional people go along and discuss the capabilities of [the plane] with them, A
follow-up investigation by the San Diego Union-Tribune reported, Most of that was spent on overseas travel related to the unmanned Predator spy plane made by General Atomics Aeronautical
Systems, an affiliated company.39 Looking desperately for oversight In practice, theres more boosterism than effective oversight in the House Homeland Security Committee and its
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, which oversees DHSs rush to deploy drones to keep the homeland secure. The same holds true for most of the more than one hundred other
congressional committees that purportedly oversee the DHS and its budget.40 Since DHSs creation, Congress has routinely approved annual and supplementary budgets for border security that
have been higher than those requested by the president and DHS. CCUS member and chair of the House Border and Maritime Security subcommittee, Representative Candice Miller, RMichigan, is effusive and unconditional in her support of drones. Miller described her personal conviction that drones are the answer to border insecurity at the July 15, 2010 subcommittee
hearing on UAVs.41 You know, my husband was a fighter pilot in Vietnam theater, sofrom another generation, but I told him, I said, Dear, the glory days of the fighter jocks are over. The
UAVs, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are coming, continued Miller, and now you see our military siting in a cubicle sometimes in Nevada, drinking a Starbucks, running these things in theater
and being incredibly, incredibly successful. The uncritical drone boosterism in Congress was underscored in a Washington Post article on the use of drones for border security. In his trips to
testify on Capitol Hill, Kostelnik said he had never been challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of homeland security drones. Instead, the question is: Why cant we have more of
them in my district? remarked the OAM chief.42 Since 2004, the DHSs UAV program has drawn mounting concern and criticism from the governments own oversight and research agencies,
including the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office and the DHSs own Office of Inspector General.43 These government entities have repeatedly raised
questions about the cost-efficiency, strategic focus and performance of the homeland security drones. Yet, rather than subjecting DHS officials to sharp questioning, the congressional committees
overseeing homeland security and border security operations have, for the most part, readily and often enthusiastically accepted the validity of undocumented assertions by testifying CBP
officials. The House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security has been especially notorious for its lack of critical oversight. As part of the budgetary and oversight process, the House and
Senate committees that oversee DHS have not insisted that CBP undertake cost-benefit evaluations, institute performance measures, implement comparative evaluations of its high-tech border
security initiatives, or document how its UAV program responds to realistic threat assessments. Instead of providing proper oversight and ensuring that CBP/OAMs drone program is accountable
and transparent, congressional members from both parties seem more intent on boosting drone purchases and drone deployment. As CBP was about to begin its first drone deployments in 2005 as
part of the Operation Safeguard pilot project, the Congressional Research Service observed: Congress will likely conduct oversight of Operation Safeguard before considering wider
implementation of this technology. Unfortunately, Congress never reviewed the results of Operation Safeguard pilot project, and CBP declined requests by this writer to release the report of this
UAV pilot project.44 Congress has been delinquent in its oversight duties. In addition to the governmental research and monitoring institutions, it has been mainly the nongovernmental sector
including the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Center for International Policy that has alerted the public about the lack
of transparency and accountability in the DHS drone program and the absence of responsible governance over the domestic and international proliferation of UAVs. In September 2012, the
Senate formed its own bipartisan drone caucus, the Senate Unmanned Aerial Systems Caucus, co-chaired by Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). This caucus will help develop
and direct responsible policy to best serve the interests of U.S. national defense and emergency response, and work to address any concerns from senators, staff and their constituents, said
Inhofe.45 It is still too early to ascertain if the Senates drone caucus will follow its counterpart in the House in almost exclusively focusing on promoting drone proliferation at home and abroad.
It is expected, however, that caucus members will experience increased flows of campaign contributions from the UAS industry. While Senator Manchin just won his first full-term in the 2012
election, Senator Inhofe has been favored by campaign contributions from military contractors, including General Atomics ($14,000 in 2012), since he took office in 2007. His top campaign
contributor was Koch Industries. For its part, AUVSI, the drone industry association, gushed in its quickly offered commendation. I would like to commend Senators Inhofe and Manchin for
their leadership and commitment in establishing the caucus, which will enable AUVSI to work with the Senate and stakeholders on the important issues that face the unmanned systems
community as the expanded use of the technology transitions to the civil and commercial markets, said AUVSI President and CEO Michael Toscano. It is our hope to establish the same open
dialogue with the Senate caucus as we have for the past three years with the House Unmanned Systems Caucus, the AUVSI executive added.46 There is rising citizen concern about drones and
privacy and civil rights violations. The prospective opening of national airspace to UAVs has sparked a surge of concern among many communities and states eleven of which are considering
legislation in 2013 that would restrict how police and other agencies would deploy drones. But paralleling new concern about the threats posed by drone proliferation is local and state interest in
attracting new UAV testing facilities and airbases for the FAA and other federal entities. FAA and industry projections about the number of UAVs (15,000 by 2020, 30,000 by 2030) that may be
using national airspace the same space used by all commercial and private aircraft have sparked a surge of new congressional activism, with several new bills introduced by non-drone caucus
members in the new Congress that respond to the new fears about drone proliferation. Yet there is no one committee in the House or the Senate that has assumed the responsibility for UAV

there is no
federal agency or congressional committee that is providing oversight over
drone proliferation whether in regard to U.S. drone exports, the expanding drone program of
DHS, drone-related privacy concerns, or UAV use by private or public firms and agencies. Gerald Dillingham, top
oversight to lead the way toward creating a foundation of laws and regulations establishing a political framework for UAV use going forward. At this point,

official of the Government Accountability Office, testified in Congress about this oversight conundrum. When asked which part of the federal government was responsible for regulating drone

Homeland
security drones are expanding their range beyond the border, crossing over to local law enforcement
agencies, other federal civilian operations, and into national security missions. BORDER SECURITY TO LOCAL
proliferation in the interest of public safety and civil rights, the GAO director said, At best, we can say its unknown at this point.47 III. CROSSOVER DRONES

SURVEILLANCE The rapid advance of drone technology has sparked interest by police and sheriff offices in acquiring drones. The federal government has closely nurtured this new eagerness.
Through grants, training programs and centers of excellence, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have been collaborating with the drone industry and local law enforcement
agencies to introduce unmanned aerial vehicles to the homeland. One example is DHSs Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program
established to assist communities with counterterrorism projects that provides grants to enable police and sheriffs departments to launch their own drone programs. In 2011, a DHS UASI grant of
$258,000 enabled the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office in Texas to purchase a ShadowHawk drone from Vanguard Defense Industries. DHS UASI grants also allowed the city of Arlington,
Texas to buy two small drones.48 Miami also counted on DHS funding to purchase its UAV. According to DHS, UASI provides funding to address the unique planning, organization, equipment,
training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas, and assists them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from
acts of terrorism.49 However, in the UASI project proposals there is little or no mention of terrorism or counterterrorism. Instead, local police forces want drones to bolster their surveillance
capabilities and as an adjunct to their SWAT teams and narc squads. DHS is not the only federal department promoting drone deployment in the homeland. Over the past four decades, the
Department of Justices criminal-justice assistance grants have played a central role in shaping the priorities and operations of state and local law enforcement.50 Through its National Institute of
Justice, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been working closely with industry and local law enforcement to develop and evaluate low-cost unmanned aircraft systems.51 In 2011, National
Institute of Justice grants went to such large military contractors and drone manufacturers as Lockheed Martin, ManTech and L-3 Systems to operate DOJ-sponsored centers of excellence
devoted to the use of technology by local law enforcement for surveillance, communications, biometrics and sensors.53 In an October 4, 2012 presentation to the National Defense Industrial
Association, OAM chief Kostelnik explained that the CBP drones were not limited to border control duties. The OAM was, he said, the leading edge of deployment of UAS in the national
airspace. This deployment wasnt limited to what are commonly understood homeland security missions but extended to rapid contingency supports for Federal/State/Local missions.
According to CBP: OAM provides investigative air and marine support to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as other federal, state, local, and international law enforcement
agencies.53 Incidents involving CBP drones in local law enforcement operations have surfaced in media reports, but CBP has thus far not released a record of its support for local and state police,

DHS and CBP/OAM in particular have failed to define the legal and
constitutional limits of its drone operations. Rather than following strict guidelines about the scope of its
mission and the range of homeland security drones, Kostelnik argued before the association of military contractors that CBP operations [are] shaping
the UAS policy debate in the United States. According to Kostelnik, the CBPs drones are on the leading edge in homeland security . This
despite repeated requests by media and research organizations.

cutting edge role of the CBP/OAM drones not only extends to local and state operations, including support for local law enforcement, but also to national security. [The] CBP UAS deployment
vision strengthens the National Security Response Capability. Border Security to National Security Most of the concern about the domestic deployment of drones by DHS has focused on the
crossover to law-enforcement missions that threaten privacy and civil rights and without more regulations in place will accelerate the transition to what critics call a surveillance society. Also

worth public attention and congressional review is the increasing interface between border drones and national security and military missions. The prevalence of military jargon used by CBP
officials such as defense in depth and situational awareness points to at least a rhetorical overlapping of border control and military strategy. Another sign of the increasing coincidence
between CBP/OAM drone program and the military is that the commanders and deputies of OAM are retired military officers. Both Major General Michael Kostelnik and his successor Major
General Randolph Alles, retired from U.S. Marines, were highly placed military commanders involved in drone development and procurement. Kostelnik was involved in the development of the
Predator by General Atomics since the mid-1990s and was an early proponent of providing Air Force funding to weaponize the Predator. As commander of the Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory, Alles was a leading proponent of having each military branch work with military contractors to develop their own drone breeds, including near replicas of the Predator manufactured

In promoting and justifying the DHS drone program, Kostelnik routinely alluded
to the national security potential of drones slated for border security duty. On several occasions Kostelnik pointed to the seamless
for the Army by General Atomics.57

interoperability with DOD UAV forces. At a moments notice, Kostelnik said that OAM could be CHOPed meaning a Change in Operational Command from DHS to DOD.58 DHS has not
released operational data about CBP/OAM drone operations. Therefore, the extent of the participation of DHS drones in domestic and international operations is unknown. But statements by
CBP officials and media reports from the Caribbean point to a rapidly expanding participation of DHS Guardian UAVs in drug-interdiction and other unspecified operations as far south as
Panama. CBP states that OAM routinely provides air and marine support to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and works with the U.S. military in joint international antismuggling operations and in support of National Security Special Events [such as the Olympics]. According to Kostelnik, CBP planned a Spring 2011 deployment of the Guardian to a Central
American country in association with Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-South) based at the naval station in Key West, Florida.59 JIATF-South is a subordinate command to the United
States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), whose geographical purview includes the Caribbean, Central America and South America. In mid-2012, CBP/OAM participated in a JIATF-South
collaborative venture called Operation Caribbean Focus that involved flight over the Caribbean Sea and nations in the region with the Dominican Republic acting as the regional host for the
Guardian operations, which CBP/OAM considers a prototype for future transit zone UAS deployments. CBP says that OAM drones have not been deployed within Mexico, but notes that
OAM works in collaboration with the Government of Mexico in addressing border security issues, without specifying the form and objectives of this collaboration.60 As part of the U.S. global

The U.S. Northern Command has

acknowledged that the U.S. military does fly a $38-million Global Hawk drone into Mexico to assist the
Mexicos war against the drug cartels.61 Communities, state legislatures and even some congressional members are proceeding to enact legislation and revise
drug war and as an extension of border security, unarmed drones are also crossing the border into Mexico.

ordinances to decriminalize or legalize the consumption of drugs, especially marijuana, targeted by the federal governments drug war of more than four decades. At the same time, DHS has been
escalating its contributions to the domestic and international drug war in the name of both homeland security and national security. Drug seizures on the border and drug interdiction over
coastal and neighboring waters are certainly the top operative priorities of OAM. Enlisting its Guardian drones in SOUTHCOMs drug interdiction efforts underscores the increasing emphasis
within the entire CBP on counternarcotic operations. CBP is a DHS agency that is almost exclusively focused on tactics. While CBP as the umbrella agency and the Office of the Border Patrol
and OAM all have strategic plans, these plans are marked by their rigid military frameworks, their startling absence of serious strategic thinking, and the diffuse distinctions between strategic
goals and tactics. As a result of the border security buildup, south-north drug flows (particularly cocaine and more high-value drugs) have shifted back to marine smuggling, mainly through the

CBP/OAM has
rationalized the procurement of more UAVs on the shifts in the geographical arenas of the drug war albeit
couching the tactical changes in the new drug war language of transnational criminal organizations and narcoterrorism. The overriding framework for
CBP/OAM operations is evolving from border security and homeland security to national security, as
recent CBP presentations about its Guardian deployments illustrates. Shortly before retiring after seven years as OAM first chief, Major
Caribbean, but also through the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific.62 Rather than reevaluating drug prohibition and drug control frameworks for border policy,

General Kostelnik told a gathering of military contractors: CPBs UAS Deployment Vision strengthens the National Security Response Capability.63 He may well be right, but the U.S. public

IV. No
Transparency, No Accountability, No Defined Limits to Homeland Security Drone Missions The UAV program of
and Congress need to know if DHS plans to institute guidelines and limits that regulate the extent of DHS operational collaboration with DOD and the CIA.

CBPs Office of Air and Marine is not top secret there are no secret ops, no targeted killings, no signature strikes against suspected terrorists, no clandestine bases like the CIA and U.S.
military UAV operations overseas. While the UAV program under DHS isnt classified, information about the program is scarce shielded by evasive program officials, the classification of key
documents, and the failure of CBP/OAM to share information about the number, objectives and performance of its UAV operations. DHS has also not been forthcoming about its partnerships and

CBP has kept a tight lid on its drone

program. Over the past nine years, CBP has steadily expanded its UAV program without providing any
detailed information about the programs strategic plan , performance and total costs. Information about the homeland security drones has been
shared missions with local law enforcement, foreign governments and the U.S. military and intelligence sectors.

limited, for the most part, to a handful of CBP announcements about new drone purchases and a series of unverifiable CBP statistics about drone-related drug seizures and immigrant arrests.

Resolving domestic armed drones sufficient to solve- its what the public is most
afraid of
Gucciardi 13 (Anthony Gucciardi, creator of Storyleak, accomplished writer, producer, and seeker of truth. His articles have been read by millions worldwide and are routinely
featured on major alternative news websites like the infamous Drudge Report, Infowars, NaturalNews, G Edward Griffin's Reality Zone, and many others, NEW PRECEDENT: ARMED
DOMESTIC DRONE STRIKES WILL SOON BE REALITY, http://www.storyleak.com/armed-domestic-drone-strikes-reality/, May 23, 2013)

A new precedent has been set.

Despite extensive denial that drone strikes would endanger Americans, Attorney General Eric Holder has now

Yemen
and Pakistan highlight the new precedent being set by US government
heads who wish to use drones as a form of lethal enforcement on US soil. With
Holder admitting that Americans have already died via drone strikes following his statements that Obama can already initiate drone strikes on
US soil, we are now seeing the way paved to go ahead and announce armed drones to fight terrorism here
in the US. We all remember the initial rhetoric that drones were no real threat, and that they were simply unarmed scouting machines used to save lives overseas. Then, we saw them
openly admitted that four US citizens were killed through overseas drone strikes since 2009. While not on United States soil, the deaths of the US citizens in nations like

rapidly enter the nation, and we heard the same tired reassurances. We saw them killing innocents overseas with the high powered weaponry being attached to these scouting drones, and we see
them still doing so today. But, once again, were told not to worry. Political talking heads like Eric Holder assure us that domestic drones, for which over 1,400 permits have been issued, are not
meant to be used as weapons. Well, that is unless Obama decides to use the drones as a weapon of war on US soil. ARMED DOMESTIC DRONES IN THE NEAR FUTURE Despite the

Holder decided to go ahead and announce

that it would actually be entirely legal for Obama to issue a drone strike on a US citizen on domestic
message of assurance regarding the promise that domestic drones would never turn into government-controlled war machines, Eric

soil. In fact, CNN reports that Holder does not rule out the possibility of domestic drone strikes, and that a
scenario could occur in the future. And to strike someone with a drone, of course, you would need weaponry. You would need an armed drone. In other words,
Holder is going against the major promise by the FAA official who promised that no armed drones will
be flying on domestic soil. But dont worry, Holder says the government has no intention right now of issuing drone strikes on US soil. Just like the government never
targeted Constitution and conservative-based groups through the IRS and would never use domestic drones to spy on you. Quite simply, if any power is given to these individuals in government,
be sure of one thing: they will use it. And knowing the track record of drone strikes overseas and how they greatly affect the innocent,

drone strikes on US soil against

citizens is an even more serious threat. The 3,000 plus deaths from drone strikes overseas in Pakistan alone, which vastly affect the innocent and non-threatening,
have even prompted Google employees and big firms alike to develop charts and interactive maps to detail the deaths in a manner that portrays the reality of the situation. One design firm known
as Pitch recently went and created an interactive chart that, along with detailing how less than 2% of strike victims are high priority targets, documents the drone strike deaths throughout recent

We continue to hear these major announcements from Holder regarding drone strikes, and each
time it pushes the precedent further. Each time, he warps the law to justify what is being done with drone attacks, and each time we
come closer to the announcement that we need to use armed drones against domestic terrorists. Just wait for the next terrorist hunt in the US for a
high profile crime case to hear more from Holder and the gang on why we need armed domestic drones to
keep us safe. It already happened with Dorner and others.
years.

2AC Blocks

Case

AT: Squo Solves

Executive loopholes prevent effective regulation- dont resolve domestic fears or
create transparency- only Congress solves
Bernd 15 (Candice Bernd, Truthout, News Analysis, Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic
Drone Use Lack Police Warrant Requirement, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29250proposed-rules-regulating-domestic-drone-use-lack-police-warrant-requirement, 24 February
2015)
Rules governing the commercial use of drones contain loopholes that would allow law
enforcement agencies to deploy domestic drones without a warrant in some cases.
(Image: via Shutterstock) This story could not have been published without the support of readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible
donation to Truthout and fund more stories like it! In about two years, the number of municipal police departments and federal
agencies using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for surveillance purposes is expected to
skyrocket as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) streamlines the process by which a drone operator can apply for a permit. The FAA
released proposed rules governing the commercial use of UAS on February 15 in a move widely expected to give thousands of businesses and
public agencies the green light to use UAS for work purposes sometime in 2017, after the rules undergo a lengthy public review process. The White House
simultaneously released an executive order February 15 intended to safeguard privacy and civil rights by directing federal agencies to publicly disclose information
about how they use UAS in domestic airspace. The proposed rules, which apply to drones that weigh only 55 pounds or less, would make it much easier not only for
police departments, but also a variety of businesses, including journalists, photographers and agricultural workers, to fly domestic drones for work purposes. The FAA
is currently working on a separate set of rules for larger drones, which the agency is expected to release in a few years. Under the rules, operators will be required to
pass a proficiency exam, and pay about $200 in fees to register their drone. Operators will have to fly their drones at speeds of less than 100 miles-per-hour, at
altitudes under 500 feet, during daylight hours only and within either their own unaided line of sight or within the eyesight of designated observers on the ground. The
White House's executive order directs federal agencies using domestic drones to draft a policy framework governing oversight and transparency of UAS use within 90
days. The directive outlines guidelines for data retention and dissemination of policies, as well as reporting requirements which mandate public disclosure of how
federal agencies use UAS. But

the executive order doesn't go far enough in the eyes of

the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), despite being described as a step in the right direction. Neema Singh Guliani, who is legislative counsel with
the ACLU, praised the White House's directive for its public reporting requirements, saying the requirements will allow greater public discourse and debate about the
appropriate uses of domestic drones by federal agencies. She also celebrated the fact that federal agencies will be mandated to draft policy frameworks on UAS use,
because many of those agencies currently have no such policy framework. However, Guliani said the

directive alone isn't sufficient to protect

people's privacy from the particularly invasive surveillance opportunities that domestic
drones represent as used by law enforcement agencies. While federal agencies will be required to create a
basic framework regulating domestic drone use, each agency will be developing those
guidelines separately, which could lead to inconsistency or deficient
standards within some agencies, according to Guliani. She also took issue with certain
aspects of the directive's information-sharing rules, saying they were vague on the question of
whether or not federal agencies can share information unrelated to the reason the
data was collected by UAS in the first place. The executive order outlines that agencies can use UAS for
any "authorized purpose," but the order does not outline exactly what an
"authorized purpose" is. The executive order maintains that agencies must purge the data collected from UAS after 180 days, that is,
unless an agency decides to keep the information because, again, it relates to an "authorized purpose." In this instance, too, Guliani maintains that
"purpose" is vague, and could potentially lead to a broad interpretation by federal
agencies. "I think there are certain minimum guidelines that I think should have been put in place by [the executive order] or should certainly be a part of
whatever agency guidelines are produced," Guliani said. A crucial element that is missing from the White House order and proposed FAA rules, according to Guliani:
a warrant requirement for law enforcement officials seeking to deploy domestic drones for surveillance purposes. "The fact that [the memo] leaves that to the
discretion of each agency could be a concern down the line if the agency decides not to adopt that requirement," Guliani said. Many state, federal agencies and
corporations are already using domestic drones, with more than 80 law enforcement agencies having applied for a special "Certificate of Authorization" from the FAA
to use UAS since 2008. While the White House directive is aimed at addressing federal agencies, many states are still grappling with how to regulate the use of
domestic drones. More than a dozen states have enacted legislation regulating domestic drone use, while more than half of all states have introduced legislation
regarding domestic drones, with a majority of those bills as well as already-enacted legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain a probable cause warrant
before a drone can be deployed. But in

the states that have enacted legislation, the laws vary

widely and establish inconsistent standards . States such as Texas, for example, restrict domestic drone use, but
the legislation contains so many exemptions for law enforcement agencies the ACLU have called it "an

outlier" in terms of protecting privacy. Meanwhile states such as Florida, Oregon, Illinois, Montana and Tennessee require a warrant for law
enforcement use in nearly all cases. "That there are states that have looked at, and have adopted that warrant requirement, makes the omission in the presidential
memo even more obvious," Guliani said. With

no national legislation regulating domestic drone

use, inconsistent and varying standards by which law enforcement
agencies and corporations can deploy UAS in states, and the glaring omission of a warrant requirement
at this point in the White House's guidelines, a dangerous loophole remains present in which law
enforcement agencies , and potentially corporations, in only a couple of years, can deploy UAS in masse to
conduct surveillance on civilians who have not been charged with any crime. But beyond the immediate concerns about domestic drone use,
when we look at how drones may be integrated with other forms of nascent police surveillance technology, an even more Orwellian picture of the future of domestic
drones begins to emerge. Drones That Can See Through Walls, Read Your Texts and Recognize Your Face With loopholes in national and state standards regulating
UAS, law enforcement agencies could potentially be able to use invasive police surveillance technologies in conjunction with UAS to obtain information on large
numbers of people that they otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain without a warrant. "The fact that drones now have also been combining with other forms of
technology creates even a larger privacy risk," Guliani says. "Imagine if there was a drone that was also combined with facial recognition technology. A drone flying
overhead could identify large numbers of people and be tracking their movements." A leading manufacturer of the "StingRay" surveillance technology, used by federal
agencies and municipal police departments alike to sweep up vast numbers of cell phone records from people who are simply in the radius of a targeted suspect, has
already developed a kit to deploy the technology on aerial vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles. This type of deployment may become the next logical step for the
industry. The use of StingRay technology as it currently stands is already incredibly secretive, with police departments and manufacturers such as Harris Corporation
concealing their use of the phone-tracking equipment from the courts through the use of non-disclosure agreements. The Department of Homeland Security's US
Customs and Border Protection and the FBI already use planes and drones in areas that are more than 100 miles of the Mexican border to conduct aerial surveillance,
and government agencies have been revealed to have been using Cessna planes outfitted with StingRay technology to track suspects. The FBI has been resistant to
answer even lawmakers' questions about how many drones it operates and how often they are used. "It is both technologically possible and by no means a leap to
imagine that once the FAA approves broader use of drones within the US by law enforcement, [law enforcement officials] may put StingRays on them," said Nathan
Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, and an expert on StingRay technology. UAS have also been outfitted with
thermal sensing technologies to produce heat maps of people inside buildings. Other advocates worry if domestic drones are deployed as a platform for providing
temporary internet service to consumers, it could potentially give corporate drone operators access to the internet data of those consumers and threaten net neutrality.
"If internet companies were to deliver internet service in hard-to-reach places, which would be a good thing, would they then be collecting information in large
quantities and would that information then be something that their contacts would then have access to?" asked Drew Mitnick who is junior policy counsel at Access,
an organization dedicated to issues of internet freedom. It's questions like this that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has been ordered
by the White House to answer in a collaborative process, alongside civil society and industry groups, to develop guidelines for commercial drone use. The ACLU's
Guliani pointed out, however, that invasive forms of surveillance, especially police surveillance, often impact communities of color disproportionately, pointing to US
Customs and Border Protections' ubiquitous use of drone surveillance in vast border regions impacting huge swaths of the populations that live in those areas. "You're
not just talking about the physical border, you're talking about an area that encompasses many major cities that have large minority populations, and the idea that these
drones can be flown with little or no privacy protections really mean that, people, just by virtue of living in that region are somehow accepting that they have a right to
less privacy," she said. African-American communities could well feel the disproportionate impacts of the integrated use of domestic drones and other surveillance in
the coming years, as technologies such as StingRay are already being used mostly in the ongoing war on drugs to track those suspected of selling and buying drugs.
The drug war has long negatively impacted communities of color, based on racialized drug policies and racial discrimination by law enforcement; two-thirds of all
those convicted of drug crimes are people of color, despite similar rates of drug use among whites and people of color. These already-existing racial disparities in
intrusive policing tactics and deployment of surveillance technologies are one of the primary reasons civil liberties experts are saying the government often gets it
backward when thinking about privacy issues: deploying intrusive technologies first, and coming up with privacy policies governing their use afterward (when they
may already be violating many people's civil rights). "What we see with StingRays is the same phenomenon that we're seeing with [UAS], where federal agencies are
using them," Guliani said. "State and local agencies are using them. There's federal dollars that are going to buy them, and we're kind of having the privacy debate
after the fact with very little information."

And footdragging means FAA implementation isnt effective

Berry and Syed 14 (Michael Berry and Nabiha Syed, Washington Post, The FAAs slow
move to regulate domestic drones, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokhconspiracy/wp/2014/09/24/the-faas-slow-move-to-regulate-domestic-drones/, September 24,
2014)
The existing legal landscape for drone use reflects a crazy quilt of regulations , policy
pronouncements and state laws, with many significant pieces missing. To
introduce some structure into the conversation and explain the current state of the law, well lay out each of the three sources of existing domestic drone regulation in
this post and in our forthcoming posts: Federal policy, including FAA regulations, federal legislation, and recent litigation; State legislation focused on private drone
use; and Laws of general applicability that affect private drone use. Any summary of drone regulation must begin with the Federal Aviation Administration. Safety is
central to the FAAs existence. The agency was established in 1958 when Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Act, which tasked the agency with develop[ing]
plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. The 1958 Act was passed in the aftermath of a tragic midair collision between a Trans World Airlines Super Constellation and a United Air
Lines DC-7 over the Grand Canyon, which killed all 128 people on board the planes. In keeping with its mandate, the FAA began implementing rules to help aircraft
safely navigate the skies. Simultaneously, people began to build and use model airplanes as a hobby. With this hobby literally taking off, in 1981 the FAA issued
Advisory Circular 91-57 to promote the safe use of model airplanes. That Advisory Circular asks hobbyists to avoid flying their model airplanes above 400 feet;
within three miles of airports; and near full-scale aircraft, populated areas, or noise-sensitive places such as parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. Importantly, the
Advisory Circular called for hobbyists voluntary compliance. It was not promulgated as a formal FAA rule and for nearly a quarter century, it stood as the FAAs
only guidance on small unmanned aircraft. In 2005, as drone technology began to enter the domestic marketplace, the FAA issued a memorandum outlining an interim
policy for approving drones for domestic use. That memorandum stated that drone operators would be held accountable for controlling [their] aircraft to the same
responsible standard as the pilot of a manned aircraft and explained that the FAAs regulation concerning careless and reckless operation of an aircraft applied to

drones. Two years later, the FAA issued a new policy statement. That statement provided that no person may operate a UAS [Unmanned Aircraft System] in the
National Airspace without specific authority. The FAA explained that the 1981 Advisory Circular allowed drones to be flown by hobbyists. But, the FAA warned, that
Circular only applies to modelers and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes. Should private companies wish to fly in
domestic airspace, they must seek a special airworthiness certificate.Likewise, if public entities, including government agencies and public universities, would like
to use drones, they must obtain a certificate of authorization. In the ensuring years, very few special airworthiness certificates have been issued to private
companies, with most being given to defense contractors. Obtaining a certificate requires a rigorous showing of how the drone system is designed and constructed,
including software development, control, and quality-assurance procedures. In general, neither the certificates of authorization nor the special airworthiness
certificates are broad grants of permission: almost all are granted narrowly for specific times, locations, and operations. Although the 2007 policy statement indicated
that the FAA would undertake a safety review of drones and provide new rules as a result, no rules were ever proposed. Frustrated by the FAAs delay in promulgating
comprehensive regulations, and recognizing the growing demand to use this technology, in 2012, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
(FMRA). The Act requires the FAA to devise a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national
airspace by September 2015. This plan must address public, civil, and commercial use of drones of all sizes, including those drones that are of the greatest interest to
most people, including journalists small drones, a category that encompasses any drone under 55 pounds. The Act mandates a series of deadlines to be met by the
FAA. The agency has missed many of FMRAs key deadlines. Last fall, the FAA belatedly issued a Roadmap for future regulations and a Comprehensive Plan for
integrating drones into the national airspace. The FAA also named six drone test sites, which will serve as laboratories to assist in developing drone policies and
technologies. At those sites, people will have the opportunity to conduct regional, weather, and purpose-specific research into how drones operate, with each site
having a slightly different focus. Each of those sites is now operational. When the FAA announced the six test sites, it also issued privacy requirements for the sites.
These requirements offered the FAA its first opportunity to wade into the privacy issues raised by drones. Many people submitted comments in anticipation of this
development, with the comments ranging from calls for strict privacy regulations to contentions that nothing was needed because existing privacy laws were
sufficient. At the end of the day, the FAA said its mission was safety and that it would not be taking specific views on whether or how the federal government should
regulate privacy or the scope of data that can be collected by drones. Instead, the

agency said that each site should

issue its own policies and that operators must comply with local privacy
laws. The FAA also said that if drone operations at the test sites raise privacy concerns that are not adequately addressed by the Test Sites privacy policies,
elected officials can weigh the benefits and costs of additional privacy laws or regulations. Privacy concerns have, unsurprisingly, captured the eye of elected federal
officials. Several drone-related bills are pending in Congress. For example, the Preserving American Privacy Act would prohibit private drone operators from
capturing data in highly offensive ways that would violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. Similarly, the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act would
require operators to submit a data collection statement to the FAA, delineating, among other things, what data will be collected, how the data will be used and
retained, and whether the data would be sold to third parties. There also have been reports of plans to issue an executive order regarding privacy that would task the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration with creating privacy guidelines for commercial drones. To

date, the FAA still

has not promulgated proposed rules on small drones . Originally slated for release in March 2011, a
series of unanticipated issues requiring further analysis have pushed out the release date to Dec. 22, 2014. In the absence of formal rules, FAA
enforcement has largely relied on the Advisory Circular on model aircraft, the 2005 memorandum, and the 2007 policy statement for
its authority. For years, it has issued cease-and-desist letters to people and entities using drones domestically. Those letters reflect the FAAs position that drones
cannot be used for commercial purposes and that domestic drone operators must have one of the two certificates to fly. In issuing the letters, the FAA has grounded a
wide array of drone operations, ranging from dry cleaners in Philadelphia to the Washington Nationals baseball team, and from journalism schools to an agricultural
school. Interestingly, the FAA has construed news gathering to be a commercial use, sending cease-and-desist letters to media companies that have used drones in
their reporting. The gaps and delays in regulation have not gone unnoticed, nor have the
FAAs cease-and-desist letters and its other enforcement efforts. Rather, each has precipitated lawsuits. We will review those lawsuits and other recent developments at
the federal level in our next post.

Drone Industry Ag Impact AT: Resiliency

Pesticides undermines resiliency factors
Sirinathsinghji 13 (Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji, researcher at Institute of Science in Society (ISIS)
and staff writer for its quarterly magazine Science in Society, US Staple Crop System Failing
from GM and Monoculture, http://www.isis.org.uk/US_Staple_Crop_System_Failing_from_GM_and_Monoculture.php, October 7, 2013)

Resilience, yields, pesticide use, and genetic diversity, all worse than Non-GM
Europe
Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website. If you find
this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at
the ISIS bookstore for other publications A new study shows that the US Midwest staple crop system - predominantly genetically modified (GM)
- is falling behind other economically and technologically equivalent regions. Western Europe, matched for latitude, season and crop type as well
as economic and technological development, outperforms the US (and Canada) with regards to yields, pesticide use, genetic diversity and crop
resilience, as well as farm worker wellbeing. The

study, headed by Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, is a

damning indictment of the large-scale, monoculture model in the US, the worlds largest producer of maize since the records
began in 1961, and is increasingly relied upon to provide more and more of the worlds calorie intake [1]. This serves as a warning to the UK
environmental minister Owen Paterson, who proposes to introduce GM crops into the UK [2]. US Midwest and European yields compared
Maize, rapeseed, soybean and cotton yield data were obtained from the United Nations Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) FAOSTAT
database for the United States, Canada and the total group Western Europe (Austrian, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, Germany, Netherlands and
Switzerland). Records from 1961 to 2010 were used, while 2011 and 2012 data were included through projections and additional statistics. They
conducted statistical covariance (ANCOVA) analyses to test whether the yield differed significantly between locations, year, percentage of GM
crops used and any other interactions. First compared was rapeseed and maize, which have similar agroecosystems (latitude, growing seasons and
equally developed agriculture systems across the two continents as well as access to biotechnological and intellectual property (IP) rights options,
which are legal protection for so-called creations of the mind, allowing industry to own GM seeds through claiming them as novel inventions.
The major difference between the continents is the near saturation of GM varieties in N. America compared to a virtual absence in W. Europe.
Between 1961 and 1986, the US maize yield averaged 5 700 hectogram/hectare (hg/ha) more than W. Europe, totalling 54 379 hg/ha. (A
hectogram = 100 g). However, after 1986, there was a significant change in yield between the compared regions. W. Europe averaged 82 899
hg/ha, slightly more than the 82 841 hg/ha in the US (see Table 1). This suggests that GM has offered no benefit whatsoever in the US contrary
to what has been claimed - while the overall increase in yields in both regions were due to improved management and conventional breeding (see
Figure 1). Table 1 Yield data of maize and rapeseed in the US (and Canada) versus Western Europe Agroecosystem Crop Average yield (hg/ha)
United States 1961 1985 Maize 54,379 Western Europe 1961 1985 Maize 48,681 United States 1986 2010 Maize 82,841 Western Europe
1986 2010 Maize 82,899 Canada 1961 1985 Rapeseed 10,489 Western Europe 1961 1985 Rapeseed 21,481 Canada 1986 2010 Rapeseed
14,588 Western Europe 1986 2010 Rapeseed 31,885 Figure 1 Yield data for maize show more improvement and less variability in Europe
compared to the US despite Europes lack of GM varieties Further, the difference between the estimated yield potential and the actual yield, or
the yield-gap appears smaller in Europe. Over the entire period of 1961 to 2010 the US reached marginally significantly higher yield averages,
but when taking into account the interaction between year and location, a steeper increase in European maize yield was found in recent years, as
consistent with the actually higher yields in Europe than in the US, despite the latters use of GM. Yield data from 2011 and projected yields for

more severe in the US, a sign of

reduced resilience to environmental stressors, which can also spark dramatic price
changes in agricultural markets. Rapeseed (or canola) shows a similar pattern when comparing yields from Canada, the next earliest adopter of
2012 reveal a downward trend in the US compared with Europe. Fluctuations in yield are

GM after the US, with W. Europe. The average yield has always been lower in Canada by an average of 11 000 hg/ha during 1961-1985, and an
even larger average difference between 1986 and 2010 of 17 300 hg/ha, the period when Canada moved to GM and Europe did not. Wheat yields
have consistently increased in both regions, but increasing at a steeper rate in Europe. Neither region grows GM wheat, again highlighting that
gains in yields over recent years are not dependent on GM technologies and that the combination of biotechnologies used in Europe is
demonstrating greater productivity than in the US. Low

genetic diversity of US crops Despite its size, the US agroecosystem has had very low levels of on-farm genetic diversity, with 80-85 % of maize in the 1980s for example being based
on a single innovation the T cytoplasm. Across the world, the low genetic diversity is a concern, with varieties of many staple crops decreasing
in recent years. As FAO pointed out, China went from having 10 000 varieties of wheat in 1949 to 1 000 in the 1970s, while the US has lost 95 %
of the cabbage, 91 % of field maize, 94 % of the pea, and 81 % of their tomato varieties in the last century. Powerful economic and legislative

forces continue to drive uniformity. There are two major farming policies in the US that affect sustainability innovation (through
development of licensing and IP rights) and public subsidies. Subsidies increase with higher acreage, promoting monoculture
farming. The larger and more uniform the crop, the bigger the cost reduction on pest control, harvesting mechanisation and planting, which has
been a major driver of GM crop adoption. With the huge subsidies given to industrial farms, the US is able to sell its staple crops including maize,

wheat, sugar and milk at 73, 67, 44 and 61 % of cost price to the world market, which likely undermines the emergence of more

sustainable production systems. Historically, low on-farm diversity has led to food production and price uncertainty. The huge scale of
production of staple crops has led to a reduction in seed varieties available to small-scale farmers and poorer
farmers, as well as organic farmers. While staple crops are being used on a large-scale for non-food industries, with maize being put into
household products such as cosmetics and medicines e.g. asparin and deodorant, antibiotics, tobacco, fuel, pastes and adhesives, textiles,
building supplies and solvents among other things. The

concentrated control of such products by large corporations and companies in

these breadbasket regions of the world has far reaching consequences beyond national borders. The US has gone from a system based
on public seed saving and exchanges between large and small farmers in the 19th century to one based on strict patents and patent-like
protections of varieties, forcing seed saving to disappear. The advent of hybrid varieties in the 1970s which act as a biological patent, with the
next generations seeds not transmitting the commercial traits uniformly, the power of seed control is left in the hands of the commercial breeders,
along with the legal patent system. This has driven the US industry away from mainly small-scale, specialist breeders to even larger and fewer
specialist breeders. Patents on GM crops are only exaggerating this trend. Seed saving on crops such as soybean was still common until they

concentration may lead to a

loss of agrobiodiversity. The corn leaf blight epidemic of 1970 is a clear example of how the lack of
genetic diversity can create a huge risk to food security , revealing the dangers and
unsustainability of monoculture practices and genetic uniformity. What has happened to seed diversity as a result of American agricultural
became available as GM cultivars and came under the control of patents in the 1990s. Breeder

innovations? Using the seed catalogue provided by Monsanto to the US Department of Justice antitrust investigation of the seed industry,
Heinemanns team analysed the number of seed cultivars on offer. They found that the true genetic base of corn was much narrower than the
numbers of names and numbers would suggest. One single variety of corn, Reed Yellow Dent, contributes to 47 % of the gene pool used for
creating hybrid varieties. The germplasm is limited to around 7 founding inbred lines in the US Maize belt. Similar findings were made for
soybean varieties, with a decrease in the number of cultivars by 13 % from the years 2005-2010. A reduction in diversity is consistent with a trend
towards reduced yields over the last decade or so, with adverse high temperatures and droughts. Maize and soybean yield predictions for 2012
were the lowest since 2003. With this worrying trend of reduced yields comes a global increasing dependence on cereal crops for our calorie
intake. Though the world produces more calories for food than it did in 1970, the proportion of calories derived from maize grew from 4 % in
1970 to 5 % in 2007. This heavy reliance on a crop that shows the large variability in losses due to biotic and abiotic stresses as highlighted by the
authors is a sign of instability and not sustainability. This is in clear contrast to the agro-ecological advances made based on increased on-farm
diversity that has seen significant increases in rice yields, reduced pesticide use as well as higher farmer incomes. Intercropping of maize with
tobacco, maize with sugarcane, maize with potatoes and wheat with broad beans have all been shown to increase yields of at least one of the
crops, or even overall yields as well as reduced disease [3]. Pesticide use higher in US Pesticide use has increased overall since the introduction
of GM crops (see [4] Study Confirms GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use, SiS 56), largely a result of the most common GM trait providing
tolerance to Monsantos herbicide Roundup. Insecticide use has officially gone down slightly, though dwarfed by the increases in herbicide use.
This coincides with the introduction of Bt crops genetically engineered to produce an insecticide (which is not included in official pesticides
applied when insecticide use is analysed). However, Europe also showed a reduction in pesticide use during the same period. In the US in 2007,
herbicide use was up by 108 % from 1995 levels, while insecticide use dropped to 85 % of 1995 levels. In Europe however, more impressive
reductions were found, with France reducing herbicide use to 94% of 1995 levels and chemical insecticide levels to 24% of 1995 levels. By 2009,
herbicide and pesticide use was down to 82 % and 12 % of 1995 levels respectively. Similar trends were seen in Switzerland and Germany. Farm
workers role sacrificed for monoculture farming Another symptom of the American monoculture farming system is the sacrifice of farm workers.
The number of farms has decreased since its peak in 1935, with the loss of 2 million farms by 2007 despite the acreage of the agroecosystem
remaining the same to this day. For corn, 69 % is grown by Large or Very Large Farms as defined by the USDA, i.e., having sales in excess of
$250 000 and $500 000 respectively. This comes with the inability of farmers to innovate and breed new varieties due to the monopolisation of
the seed market and IP patent agreements which have all but abolished public breeding programmes. As the authors state [1]: Loss of farmer
experimentation will likely reduce resilience and adaptation to climate change, natural disasters or as an outcome of conflict. The GM crop
system, with its strict IP patent agreements and commercial development, contributes to the concentration of the seed market, as exemplified by
the soybean varieties planted today: 0.5 % of soybean varieties were developed by the public sector in 2007, compared to 70 % in 1980. Seed
prices have risen as a result, climbing by 140 % since 1994. With climate change affecting the global yields since the 1980s and 1990s for
soybean, there is no evidence that strict IP instruments or biological patents have increased resilience so far. A warning to the US and the rest of
the world The lessons of the 1972 epidemic of corn leaf blight have still not been learnt . The Committee on Genetic
Vulnerability of Major Crops at the US National Research Council at the time posed the question: How uniform genetically are other crops upon
which the nation depends, and how vulnerable, therefore, are they to epidemics? The answer is that most major crops
genetically uniform

and thus vulnerable and results from government legislative and economic policy.

are impressively

Drone Industry Ag Impact Drones K2 Prec. Ag.

Drones are key to effective precision agriculture
SteadiDrone 13 [Europe-based tech company specializing in small UAV aircraft, Precision
Agriculture Solution, http://www.steadidrone.eu/precision-agriculture-solution/]

Precision agriculture is considered as one of the fields where the use of UAVs may become a key
factor dividing the future farmers into successful and failures. Some of the farmers already use
spectral analysis provided by a satellite, but that does not necessarily mean it is precise. There are factors
that distort the satellites data such as clouds, smoke, air pollution etc.. A more accurate method
of observing your crops while maintaining the low time cost of the operation is to use an UAV. These
drones and copters can fly up to one hundred kilometres an hour which enables them to cover fairly large areas in a short
time window. Moreover they are a lot less influenced by the factors mentioned above because they are
directly above the field and so weather cannot really influence the measured data. One more factor to
consider is that you can get your data at any time and you do not have to rely on any third party that will do
it for you; all you need is to take your copter out and fly it over the field. With the spectral analysis of the data you can then discern various
conditions that affect your crops. These conditions are for example hydration, diseases, soil condition, crop health and more. These can be
observed thanks to the near infrared radiation which is reflected by the plants and observed by special cameras. We closely cooperate with
Tetracam Inc., a company which manufactures and sells advanced cameras, and provide famers with complete solutions for their precision
agriculture. With our solutions you can easily improve the efficiency of your farm. This means that you

will be able to precisely

adjust the input of fertilizers, water, pesticides and decide which time is the best to plant or
harvest your crops. A few examples of the use of copters and drones in precision agriculture are mentioned bellow just to illustrate that it
is a solution worth considering. Scientists are already using remote-controlled helicopters to detect diseases in farmers fields. Unmanned
helicopters are also popular in Japan where more than 2,300 are used to [] keep a close watch on the health of crops. Producers

who
farm large fields could use the machine to inspect crops for insect or disease damage. Using the Air
Robot 100 (an UAV copter) could help farmers identify an emerging insect or disease problems before its
spotted by crop scouts.

Drones are crucial to precision ag- alternatives fail

Bedord 5-10-13 [Laurie, Advanced Technology Editor at the Meredith Corporation, Recipient of
the AAEA Master Writer Award and the Vice President's Award for the Machinery Show,
Drones evolve into a new tool for ag, http://m.agriculture.com/farm-management/dronesevolve-into-a-new-tool-f-ag_322-ar31423]

Universities also see this tool as an ally for many in the industry. UAS

can reduce equipment wear and tear as well as

labor and fuel costs to get highly precise data you wouldnt necessarily be able to gather going through the
field at ground level, says Kevin Price, professor of agronomy and geography at Kansas State
University. For over a year, Price, along with Deon van der Merwe, an associate professor at Kansas States college of veterinary medicine, have
been collaborating to explore how unmanned technology can play a role in ag missions. They have uncovered a wide range of uses with the help
of two units: a RiteWing Zephyr II and a DJI S800 Spreading Wings hexacopter. For example, theyre

working with professors

who do crop breeding with literally thousands of plant crosses. Seeds are planted in patches, and larger fields are filled
with thousands of patches. Professors walk the field looking at each patch and its phenology, which is the way the plant looks its height and
shape, Price says. This information is then used to estimate yields. Every patch is harvested, and seeds of the different varieties are weighed,
he continues. It can take up to 1,500 hours of labor to get one phenotype, which is a bottleneck for moving the genetic breeding program
along. To speed up the process, he looked to a spectroradiometer, which measures the energy coming off the plants in thousands of

wavelengths. With two wavelengths red and near-infrared we can explain over 80% of the variability in yields on these thousands of
phenotypes. If we can take those two wavelengths and build them into a camera, we

can fly a field, take an image, and

project the yield on every plot in minutes. We can ignore the bad plots and not have to collect
that data. Its going to save millions of dollars in research time. Beyond the crop, he can see
UAS counting cattle, checking for water in the pond, or determining if blue-green algae that can
kill livestock is present. Other jobs that once took hours, if not days, are reduced to minutes. We mapped an area of about 640 acres
in 18 minutes, he says. The camera system they have, which is a Canon s100 converted to color infrared, takes a picture every four seconds.
This provides us a lot of coverage, and the more coverage, the better, he says. Agisoft, a Russian software program, splices together the
hundreds of images taken to create a mosaic. All of the fields over a 640-acre area are then pulled together into one large image at 1-inch
resolution. Im looking at individual plant leaves now, Price says. Images are going to get even better in the near future with the new camera
systems coming out. Rugged business Finding a device rugged enough to take some abuse and to not cause people to lose valuable equipment
like cameras is another area his team is looking at. The RiteWing Zephyr II is made of expanded polypropylene, which is high-grade engineering
foam that has an elastic nature, allowing it to regain its shape. It is rugged and flies stable, Price notes. It also has fewer parts, which means
less breakage. On a typical aircraft, the rudder and movable flaps called ailerons on the rear edge of each wing make a plane turn to the left or
right. Moving flaps called elevators on the tail make the nose of the plane go up or down. The RiteWing Zephyr II has elevons, which combine
the functions of the elevator and the aileron, Price explains. Besides fewer moving parts, other

advantages include less mass,

less cost, less draft, and faster control response. To date, Price says they have spent about $25,000 on their equipment.
However, through trial and error, he believes they could build a unit for less than $2,000. We tell farmers to expect to pay around $5,000,
because they have to buy a radio, which is about $400, he notes. Taking flight As the new owner of a RiteWing Zephyr XL (similar to the
Zephyr II but with an 81-inch wing span), Brining

has tried several forms of aerial imagery in the past. I have

used custom-flown, traditional aerial imagery, he says. The resolution was poor. The costs
were extremely high (around $3.50 per acre per flight), and they didnt get the flights accomplished in a
timely enough fashion to meet my objectives. What intrigued him about this technology is its incredible flexibility, speed,
and low cost for flights combined with a very high-resolution final product. I think the new system will let me make tactical decisions, which
have all been done strictly based on ground scouting and sampling, Brining adds. He estimates the entire system will cost $5,000 to $7,000. In
the first year, he wants to get the system operational, learn to process images, and use the flights as a tool so his agronomists can make better use
of their time by scouting the right parts of the field. I think it will also be extremely helpful in locating leaks in my subsurface drip-irrigation
systems, he adds. Crunching the numbers According to The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States,

precision agriculture is one of the markets with the largest potential for this technology. The document, which
was released by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), estimates that in just two years the economic and
employment impacts of ag spending in all 50 states will be nearly $2.1 billion and creating more than 21,500 jobs. UAS

are tools to
apply precision agriculture techniques, says Chris Mailey, vice president of Knowledge Resources for AUVSI. They
are a key piece in the future of precision ag riculture.

UAVs are key to effective precision agriculture

Tokekar et al 13 [P. Tokekar, J. Vander Hook, and V. Isler are with the Department of Computer
Science & Engineering, University of Minnesota, D. Mulla is with the Deparment of Soil, Water
and Climate, University of Minnesota, Sensor Planning for a Symbiotic UAV and UGV system
for Precision Agriculture, http://rsn.cs.umn.edu/images/3/39/Iros2013precag.pdf]

Precision agriculture can improve crop productivity and farm prots through better management
of farm inputs, leading to higher environmental quality [1]. By measuring soil nitrogen levels across a
farm and applying the right level of nitrogen at the right time and place, it is possible to reduce
fertilizer usage by 25% without affecting corn yield [2]. One of the key components of precision
agriculture is data collection, typically done manually and through remote sensing. However, satellite and
aerial remote sensing can be severely limited by cloud cover [3], and may not be available at
desired times (update frequency can be from 3 to 26 days). Remote sensing from a manned or remotelypiloted

aerial device is costly and difcult to plan against weather conditions. Further, soil moisture, crop height, and
pest infestations cannot be measured remotely in a vegetated crop. Data can also be gathered manually or by guiding a vehicle equipped with
sensors through the eld [4]. This process can be tedious. Hence,

we are building a robotic data collection system

with small, low-cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) working together. Our system
will provide on-demand sensing capabilities, and combine the strengths of ground and aerial
robots: ground robots are capable of traveling long distances, carrying large loads and measuring
soil data but cannot obtain aerial imagery. Small aerial vehicles can take images from a low altitude but have limited battery
life.

Drone Industry Ag Impact Prec. Ag K2 Industry

Status quo agriculture is unsustainable- precision is key to prevent collapse
Watrous 5-23-13 [Graciela, researcher at the Jonikas Lab at Princeton Universitys Department
of Plant Biology, The Promise of Precision Agriculture,
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/05/23/the-promise-of-precision-agriculture/]

agriculture relies heavily on water and soil quality. We are in the process
of exhausting both. The collapse of water and soil quality takes many forms globally: over-fertilization in Asia, nutrient
depletion in American soil, exorbitant draining from the Ogallala aquifer in the western US and high salinity of water in Africa. Climate
change is surely exacerbating this problem, shifting weight in the ever-precarious balancing act between what man does and what man can sustain.
No matter where it is practiced in the world,

As most people know, the United States suffered a severe drought this past year that may end up costing this country more taxpayer dollars than any other natural
disaster in the history of America. More of these sorts of events are on their way. Around the globe, climate change will upset traditional forms of agriculture. For
example, increasing temperatures will affect developing nations in which the majority of agriculture is rain-fed.

Adaptation to a more sporadic and extreme

will almost certainly be necessary. CGIAR, for instance, released a 2012 study stating that agriculture was responsible for 30 percent of
agriculture (especially in developed nations)
should bring itself up to date technologically, taking advantage of the internet and advancements in weather-tracking technology and positioning
monitors. Luckily, this form of agriculture already exists: its called precision agriculture. Precision agriculture is the use of modern technology to create a
more efficient and site-specific form of agriculture. It aims to optimize farm inputs, improve efficiency and reduce
pollution destructive to the environment. Technologies traditionally used in this form of agriculture include GPS, GIS and Variable Rate Treatment
(VRT). This technology takes several forms and serves many different purposes. Most improve efficiency and therefore have the
potential to reduce the use of exhaustible resources and greenhouse gas emissions. Forms of precision
agriculture technology can communicate when and which fields need to be watered and when they dont, as well as when
weather system

greenhouse gas emissions, most of which comes from developed nations. In order to combat these changes,

fields need to be fertilized or not. It can categorize soil with a level of detail that allows a farmer to plant certain crops in certain areas that, given this new information,

technologies can monitor crop yields and space the seeds efficiently in fields to
grow as much food per acre as possible for a given plant. All this can lead to less water and pesticide use,
which, in turn, can reduce things like the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, 45 percent of corn and soy
he knows will grow well there. These

acres in the US used yield monitors, which are often the first form of precision technology that farmers adopt. A USDA-initiated study showed that corn and soy yields
were significantly higher for farmers that adopted this technology and that, overall, these same farmers had reduced fuel costs and use for these acres. The United
States uses almost all of its available arable land for crop production, and the rest of the world is increasingly doing the same. Forest is being converted to cropland to
meet food demand and that demand will only increase as the world population grows to over 9 billion people in the next 40 years. While it is true that out current
agricultural system produces enough food to feed the people of the planet, and that hunger is in many ways a distribution issue, that doesnt mean we shouldnt be
concerned with using land area as efficiently as possible, which precision agriculture can help us do. But of course there are some costs to implementing this
technology, both in the U.S. and abroad. The first is that capital costs are high. The technology, given that it is all relatively new, can be extremely expensive and does
not necessarily pay itself off right away. For technologies that monitor input-to-output ratios, it may take years for the machines to collect enough data before a farmer
can change his practices to more efficient ones. Furthermore, these technologies are not always the most user-friendly, and it may be hard for farmers to understand
the implications of the data. Implementing this technology can only be part of the answer; it can only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by so much and it can only
save so much of these limited resources. While precision agriculture should be part of the answer, it does not solve these problems completely. No matter the strength
of the sustainable agricultural movement in the U.S., which often advocates for a more localized agriculture system, it is likely that large-scale, industrial farming will

its important that we make this system as

sustainable as possible. Precision agriculture seems to be on the right track.
continue to make up the majority of agriculture in this country. Given that fact, I think

Precision agriculture is make-or-break for farming

Gonzalez 13 [Sarah, associated editor for AgriPulse, cum laude graduate in journalism with a
biology minor from Iowa State University, Data analysis, biotech are key in agriculture's future
sustainability, http://www.agri-pulse.com/ag-issues-biotech-future-22613.asp]

In fact, the

entire agriculture industry is currently moving into a data-centric era, said David Nicholson,
head of Bayer's Research and Development, during the forum. Using the information gained from technology in a
way that helps agriculture achieve the required 70 percent increase in productivity is the key to
success or failure, he said. Precision agriculture, in particular, is the focus of this data-driven era
allowing the farmer to know what to grow and where to grow it for the best results. When we think of
the farmer of the future we see a grower as CEO, said David Hollinrake, Bayer's Vice President of Agriculture Commercial Operations
Marketing, adding that farming

will increasingly become a business investment instead of a lifestyle or

family choice. We want to be able to participate as an enabler of using data as precision tools.

Precision agriculture is key to solve food security and harmful pesticides

Science Daily 4-23-13 [Precision Agriculture Improves Farming Efficiency, Has Important
Implications On Food Security,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423110747.htm?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+
(ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News)]

Precision agriculture promises to make farming more efficient and should have an important
impact on the serious issue of food security, according to a new study published in Significance, the magazine of the
Royal Statistical Society and the American Statistical Association. In an article about the study in the magazine's May issue, University of
Reading Professor Margaret A. Oliver, BSc, PhD, assesses how there

is potential to manage land more effectively to

improve the farming economy and crop quality, and to ensure food security. Spatial variation is
at the core of precision agriculture and geostatistics.. All aspects of the environment - soil, rocks,
weather, vegetation, water, etc. - vary from place to place over the Earth. The soil, landform, drainage, and so on all affect crop growth, and these
factors generally vary

within agricultural fields. Farmers have always been aware of this situation, but have not been
able to measure and map it in a quantitative way. Measurement is now possible with the tools
provided by geostatistics, which describes how properties vary within fields. This information is then used
to predict values at places where there is no information for eventual mapping. Geostatistics can also be used to design
sampling of the soil and crops to determine what the soil needs to improve crop growth, in terms
of crop nutrients, lime and irrigation, for example. This sample information is used for geostatistical prediction and mapping.
Such maps can then be used by farmers for decision-making. Examples include where to apply lime in a field,
where more water or drainage is needed, and what amounts of nutrients are required in different parts of a field. Precision agriculture
will reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides used by applying inputs only where they are
needed and in appropriate quantities. "Precision agriculture will aid efforts to improve food
security and also crop quality," Professor Oliver notes in the article. "It will also have a major effect on
reducing adverse effects on the environment from agriculture."

Precision ag is crucial to sustainable ag and food security

Treinish 7-23-13 [Lloyd A. Treinish, Chief Scientist, Deep Thunder, IBM Research, How To
Prevent Hunger In Upcoming Decades? Try Precision Agriculture,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lloyd-a-treinish/ibm-how-to-prevent-hunger_b_3605017.html]

How many mouths will the world be feeding by 2050? It is an estimated 9.2 billion, up from 7 billion today. To

keep pace with this

growing population, global food production will need to increase by 70 percent. That means
getting a lot smarter about how we raise crops. With 38 percent of the world's land already
dedicated to agricultural production, our existing infrastructure has the potential to meet these demands.
But farmers and manufacturers will need to rethink some of their existing practices so they can
make better decisions about how and when they plant, grow, irrigate, harvest and transport crops. Consider
"precision agriculture" by using smarter analysis of big data to make more precise and predictive
farming decisions. Such systems can have a big role to play in changing the future of farming.
Traditionally, set schedules determine when to plant, irrigate or harvest. These schedules may not reflect the dynamics of current environmental
conditions and how they can vary over a farm. But by collecting data about weather, soil, crop maturity, and even equipment and labor costs,
analytics can be used to make more timely and informed decisions. Here's how precision agriculture can play out. Measurements of the weather
and the soil, including data from sensors dotting a farm, multi-spectral images of fields taken from spacecraft or airplanes, characteristics of
irrigation systems, requirements for fertilizer and pesticide coupled with precise weather predictions, all can enable optimization of a farmer's
decisions. IBM's Deep Thunder can help enable such capabilities. Deep Thunder can forecast future conditions based upon the physics of how the
atmosphere interacts with the soil, which is needed to understand the impact of weather on farming operations.

Precision agriculture

systems can help predict exactly how and when different fields need to be watered, fertilized, or harvested
and what the weather and other conditions are forecasted to be for undertaking each of those different tasks. It's these kinds of jobs that Deep
Thunder was designed to address, although it is not limited to agriculture. It incorporates a weather model that utilizes data from many public and
private sources. It also provides hyper-local forecasts of weather and weather impacts up to three days ahead with great precision and accuracy.
Consider some of the key instances where precision agriculture can make a real difference for a farmer armed with such detailed weather
forecasting information: 90

percent of all crop loss is caused by the weather. Using predictive weather
modeling, this weather-related crop damage can be slashed by up to 25 percent. In fact, a new report by the National
Climatic Data Center found that May was the 339th consecutive month, which adds up to more than 28 years, with a global temperature above
the 20th century average. 70 percent of the world's fresh water is used for irrigation. If a farmer can predict more accurately if, and exactly
where, it will rain within the next 48 hours, he won't waste water irrigating a field that won't need it, helping conserve an increasingly precious
resource. And he can delay fertilization of an area of the farm if expecting heavy rains. Sending

labor into the field is time

consuming and costly. Through the understanding of different variables, such as humidity, frost
and rain forecasts, better decisions can be made in advance about where field workers should
work. Most food waste happens while food is being shipped from the farm. By knowing what weather is anticipated, companies can make
better decisions on which routes will be the fastest to transport their food. In Brazil, for example, many of the roads are dirt and heavy rain can
cause trucks to get stuck in mud. The island nation of Brunei

is turning to precision agriculture to bolster its food

security by improving its local agriculture and increasing rice production to account for 60 percent of the rice used in the country
by 2015, up from 3 percent now. In partnership with the Universiti Brunei Darussalam, we are using Deep Thunder to develop precision weather
forecast models to help Brunei achieve this goal. Coupled forecast models, which is meteorology driving hydrology, will help farmers know not
just when it will rain, but how much, for how long, and where the runoff in the hilly countryside of the island will go. Depending on the forecast,
adjustments can be made to affected parts of fields, including changes to irrigation systems to drain off excess water, or decisions such as holding
off on applying fertilizer or pesticides. Using

technology and science to meet -- along with smart, long-term use of resources -- the
challenges of our ever more crowded planet is becoming more crucial than ever. We have only one Earth.
But there are going to be a lot more humans on it. We need to become smarter and more responsible about how we go
about increasing food production and minimize the impact on the environment.

Precision ag is key to sustainable agriculture

Wang 6-5-13 [Brian, Director of Research at Next Big Future, a science and technology
publication, Drones and Precision Farming, http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/06/drones-andprecision-farming.html]

Drones are projected to be mostly utilized for precision agriculture and public safety (police, medical and fire departments). One industry group
projects an $82 billion economic impact from drones operating in the U.S. in 2015-2025. Precision

agriculture management practices can

significantly reduce the amount of nutrient and other crop inputs used while boosting yields.
Farmers thus obtain a return on their investment by saving on phytosanitary and fertilizer costs. The second, largerscale benefit of targeting inputsin spatial, temporal and quantitative termsconcerns environmental impacts. Applying the right amount of
inputs in the right place and at the right time benefits crops, soils and groundwater, and thus the entire crop cycle. Consequently, precision

agriculture has become a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture, since it respects crops, soils and
farmers. Sustainable agriculture seeks to assure a continued supply of food within the ecological,
economic and social limits required to sustain production in the long term. Precision agriculture therefore
seeks to use high-tech systems in pursuit of this goal. On farm research has shown that farmers who use precision nitrogen management alone
have reported increased net returns that vary from $17 per acre to $54 per acre. There are some cases of increasing crop yield by 15% while
reducing fertilizer usage by 40%. Water usage can be improved and harvesting can be more precisely timed. The costs of the computing and
sensor components needed to build a drones autopilotthe hardware and software system that navigates and communicates are

dropping

rapidly. Were having this homebrew computer club moment, where suddenly we can offer military-grade technologies for toy prices, said
Chris Anderson, former editor of Wired, when he spoke at a packed event about commercial drones at Stanford University earlier this year. After
he left Wired, Anderson founded a company, 3D Robotics, that sells simple ready-to-fly unmanned vehicle systems that cost as little as $599, and
DIY kits for less.

Drone Industry Ag Impact Precision Farming Key

Precision farming key- variable rate technology and mega-fields its not the root
cause of mega farming but makes it more efficient
Murray 11 (Peter Murray, PRECISION AGRICULTURE HIGH TECHNOLOGY
INVADES THE FARM, http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/13/precision-agriculture-hightechnology-invades-the-farm/, March 13, 2011)

Touchscreen consoles allow farmers to manage the new technologies now running their tractors,
which include GPS guidance and satellite imagery. Here at the Hub, we try to keep our finger on
the pulse of technology and how it affects our lives. Farming is no exception, and its about to
get an upgrade. With scrolling ads for the latest touchscreen control system, wireless
connectivity solutions, and Dell notebooks, PresionAgs website looks more like a site for tech
junkies than for farmers. The high technology decorating the website is symbolic of the infiltration of
high technologies onto farms across the world. Tractors operated by touchscreens are becoming
increasingly common. Words such as remote sensing, near-infrared, and algorithm that
evoke images of a space shuttle cockpit are steadily working their way into the vernacular of
everyday farmers. Welcome to the future of farming. Its called precision agriculture. The
mechanization of farming is considered one of the top ten engineering accomplishments of the 20th
century. Before the tractor it took 35 to 40 hours to plant and harvest 100 bushels of corn. Today

the same amount of corn takes 2 hours and 45 minutes. The effects of this staggering increase in
efficiency were felt across society at large as would-be farmers, no longer needed, moved into
the cities in droves (in 1900 41 percent of the U.S. workforce were employed in agriculture; in
2000, just 1.9 percent). Now farming is poised to undergo another revolution, delivered through another
of the 20th centurys technological breakthroughs: computers. Crop fields can be huge. In places like the
American Midwest and Canada fields can stretch for miles. Inefficiencies in farming operations over
distances like these can raise costs exponentially. Imagine the amount of seed wasted by
steering a tractor just six inches off track. Double-seeding that six inch strip is not only wasteful in terms
of seeds lost, but also due to lost production of a crop now growing under suboptimal conditions. Now
take that seed error and multiply it by a factor of water + fertilizer + herbicides + pesticides. GPS to the
rescue. Whereas before a farmer had to reckon with guideposts, they now have tractors that
communicate with satellites. The typical guidance system youre likely to find on a tractor has a
precision of under a meter, but more advanced systems can reach sub-inch precision. And the best
part is that the tractor drives itself! The GPS is hooked up to a control system that drives the tractor

so the farmer can sit back, crank up the music, and enjoy the ride (watch the tractor drive itself in
the video below). Considering the constant mental effort it requires to keep straight with the guideposts,
the relief afforded by a hands-off ride is a significant benefit. Farmers who have switched over to GPS
often cite increased productivity from less stressed drivers. Aside from the technology, a major
advancement of precision ag comes from a change in the way farmers think about their fields. In the

past, a field was viewed as a uniform unit: if its time to water, the entire field gets watered. But
the reality is that not every part of the field has the same need for water or fertilizer or pesticides. The
smartness of precision ag comes in the form of what are called variable rate technologies
that control delivery of water and chemicals according to what that subregion of the field needs. In the

past farmers could tell you what areas of the field needed more or less water from direct
observation. But a farm back then was typically a few hundred acres. As the fields of today
approach the massive expanses of tens of thousands of acres , comprehensive
hands-on assessments are becoming impossible. At the same time, effectively
managing a farm of this size requires an information gathering system that is quick and comprehensive.
Remote-sensing is just this system. Multi-spectral images taken from satellites and aircraft can provide
farmers with a wide range of information about their fields . Images of red light reveal relative levels

of silt, sand, calcium, and clay in the soil (soil texture is an important factor in determining the
right level of water and chemical application). Readings in infrared tell you which areas receive
more water and how water moves in the field. Infrared images can also be used to assess weed
coverage. Images in the thermal infrared range is used to assess plant health. This is due to the
fact that unhealthy plants are unable to cool off through transpirationthe release of water
through somata on their leavesand overheat as a result. Not surprisingly, green light which
reflects off the plants chlorophyll is used to assess plant growth. The multi-spectral data is
plugged into a computer model to generate a prescription map for the field. And its a pretty
smart system: whether youre scanning corn or cotton or peanut fields, the computer models used
to interpret the data can be modified to take into account the physical properties of the plant. The
three false-color images shown here were taken by sensors aboard NASAs Daedalus aircraft.
The top image shows crop density (dark blues and greens indicate vegetation, red indicates bare
soil) the middle image maps water deficit (dark blues and greens indicate wet soil, red indicates
dry) and the bottom image measures stress (red and yellow indicate high stress). Multi-spectral
imagery, such as these from NASA's Daedalus aircraft, reveal the heterogeneous reality of crop
fields. The remote-sensing data reveals to the farmer what he already knew: variability is part of the
fields. So how does he use this information? The multi-spectral data is entered into a computer
that then calculates the amount of water or chemicals needed, then automated sprayers vary their
application accordingly as the tractor moves across the field. Known as variable rate technology
(VRT), this automation again takes the hard decisions out of the farmers hands and gives them
to computers. Remote-sensing data is expensive, and farmers often get together and share the
cost by purchasing surveys that span multiple farms. One limitation of remote sensing is time
resolution. Ideally fields would be scanned on a daily basis, but many farmers simply cannot
afford to hire airplanes that frequently. And satellite coverage is broad, rarely scanning the same
field twice within a 24 hour period. But one neednt always take to the air to benefit from VRTs.
Several companies offer sensing systems that can be attached to tractor booms and read the
field on the go. Like the sensors on Daedalus, these sensors take multi-spectral readings to
determine plant growth and health, and this data is then used to modify output from applicators
on the boom. The proximity to the plants offers the advantage of active light sensing. Because
these sensors provide their own light theyre not affected by light interferences such as clouds or
shadows. And they can be used at night. The main motivation behind precision ag is, of course, to
increase profit margins. A farmer who adopts the technology saves about $2 to $8 per acre. If he
springs for the high-end, more sophisticated equipment, he can save up to $15 per acre. Concerns
by todays farmers hesitant to adopt the VRT approach (We never needed that junk! went one
blog comment I saw) that the expensive equipment will drive up food prices are
unfounded. The 60 percent of Alabama farmers who have adopted precision ag technologies saved an
estimated $10 million in 2009. The land profits as well. Applying chemicals only to sites and in amounts

needed cuts down on pollution due to runoff. But if a farmer still doesnt buy into the precision ag

and finds himself soon unable to match large-scale profits, theres always the local or organic
markets he can turn to. With remote-sensing imagery, computer modeling software, and high
tech tractors, this is definitely not your grandfathers farm. While strawberry-picking robots are
very cool, were probably a long way from seeing them roll past the cows out to pasture. Farmers
are a meat-and-potatoes type of folk who need a meat-and-potato kind of technology. Precision ag
is still young, and as the variable rate technologies become more capable and user-friendly theyll reach
more farms all across the world. Of course, mass food production has its downside, such as the

risks of monocultures and food chain corruption. Part of me worries that the precision ag
technologies will hasten the pace at which farms are growing. If we reach a point where the
average farm of tomorrow looks like the industrial farm monstrosities of today, we have to ask if
the pros really do outweigh the cons. But for now, as long as mass food production is going to
continue, its good to see that theyre doing it in more efficiently and using less resources. A hundred
years ago farming technology changed the world. Im hopeful that a hundred years from now we might be
saying the same thing.

Drone Industry Ag Impact AT: Precision inev

Cuts in precision ag shatter investor confidence- hurts the industry
Widmar et al 13 [David A. Widmar is research associate, Center for Food and Agricultural
Business at Purdue University. Dr. Bruce Erickson is agronomic education manager, American
Society of Agronomy, and Department of Agronomy at Purdue University. Jacqueline K. Holland
is graduate research associate in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University,
Survey: An Inside Look At Precision Agriculture In 2013, 5-29-13,
http://www.croplife.com/article/34108/2/survey-an-inside-look-at-precision-agriculture-in-2013]

For the adoption of precision technologies and services to expand, investments need to be made in
precision equipment. A dealerships decision to make an investment is dependent on the specific technology
how easily the benefits can be realized and confidence in the overall agricultural economy. A strong
agricultural economy makes cash available for such investments. Figure 5 shows dealership plans for
investments this year, 2013, and what they had planned to invest in 2011. For both years, the largest groups are those planning to invest less than
$10,000 or making no investment. The most striking difference between the current and previous surveys is the jump in the percentage of
respondents planning on making larger investments. In 2011, 19% of respondents planned to make investments in precision technology at a cost
more than $50,000. This year, however, nearly 26% of respondents are planning to make significant precision investments. Dealerships relying on
guidance systems to more efficiently move their equipment through fields are now adding additional preciseness across their spray booms.
Growers are using their agricultural retailers to obtain grid or zone soil nutrient information to guide their VRT fertilizer applications. It is
critical that every company and individual think about how precision agriculture is impacting its business. Does the precision technology pay?
Twenty-five percent of respondents are not generating a profit from their precision program. Other key questions include are there ways to keep
from replacing precision equipment so frequently and how do we find/recruit the employees who can work with these systems? Since the last
survey in 2011, a rising tide of overall agricultural prosperity has lifted dealership offerings of all precision services. However, looking at the
previous survey and the number of respondents who dont use precision technology, it suggests that this growth is mostly coming from
dealerships expanding their precision offerings rather than new recruits. From this years survey, its clear that technologies that dealerships can
easily identify the value of such as guidance systems and GPS-enabled sprayer boom control have enjoyed the fastest adoption rates. There
are also widespread offerings and more reported profitably with services that can be directly linked to crossing acres, such as GPS soil sampling
and VRT application. Others, such as the diagnostic tools and technologies used by the dealership internally for management, have struggled with
adoption rates by dealerships. Thinking forward, the

biggest challenge for any technologys successful and fast

adoption will be how obvious it is for dealerships and their grower-customers to realize the value. As the role of
precision technology in production changes, there is no doubt that dealership offering these precision technologies and services will find creative
ways to keep the industry relevant and growing.

Drone Industry- Public Rollback

Public backlash to drones spills over to commercial drone usage
Shalal-Esa 13 (Andrea Shalal-Esa, U.S. industry touts 'drone' promise as public debate
flares, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/23/us-usa-drones-industryidUSBRE94M02D20130523, May 23, 2013)

Public backlash against deadly overseas drone strikes may undermine promising uses of such technology
for anything from disaster response to mail delivery, a top U.S. industry group said as it launched a
lobbying effort to "demystify" unmanned planes. The Aerospace Industries Association wants to prevent
misperceptions and regulatory roadblocks from cutting into a market it says could be worth $89 billion
over the next decade, according to a report the trade group will release on Thursday. The report comes

as President Barack Obama on Thursday is expected to lay out the rationale for U.S. drone
strikes in a major speech on why the strikes are "necessary, legal and just. "Until public discussion
moves beyond misnomers and false assumptions about unmanned system, it will be difficult to advance
substantive policy changes that enable growth of this highly beneficial technology ," the AIA report said.

U.S. government sources told Reuters on Monday that the Pentagon would take over some drone
operations run by the CIA, a move that could increase congressional oversight of such missions.
Separately, Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday said four U.S. citizens were killed in
drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere, news that could stoke further controversy. Responding to
mounting backlash, aerospace spokesman Dan Stohr said lawmakers need to be more aware of
how unmanned systems could be used for everything from border patrol to weather forecasting
and boosting agricultural production, or even locating stranded hikers, and be able to separate
fact from "science fiction." "The notion that we're going to have armed drones in the U.S.
national air space is just a total misnomer," Stohr said. The AIA report, which kicks off a major
industry lobbying effort, had been in the works for a month and was not timed to coincide with
Obama's speech, Stohr added.

Drone Industry Ag Impact Biodiversity

Biodiversity collapse causes extinction
Young 10 (PhD coastal marine ecology, 10 [Ruth, Biodiversity: what it is and why its
important, February 9th, http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/biodiversity/biodiversity-whatand-why/]

Different species within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function, they all have a niche. They interact with each other and the
physical environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival . For example plant species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from
the atmosphere and energy from the sun into useful things such as food, medicines and timber. Pollination carried out by insects such as bees enables the production of of our food crops.
Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential for many fishery species. To make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of

Certain
species play a keystone role in maintaining ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the removal of these species can
result in the collapse of an ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem services. The most well known example of this occurred during the 19th century
services offered by biodiversity, a team of researchers estimated their value it amounted to $US33 trillion per year. By protecting biodiversity we maintain ecosystem services

when sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters main source of prey, sea urchins. Because the
urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted
for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the
kelp forests and fish stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hances post at Mongabay). During the last 35
years, over fishing of large shark species along the US Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of control
population has led to the closure of a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how biodiversity can maintain the services that ecosystems provide for us, such as

we only need to protect the species and functional groups

that fill the keystone roles. However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for most ecosystems we dont know which species are the keystones! Ecosystems
fisheries. One could argue that to maintain ecosystem services we dont need to protect biodiversity but rather,

are so complex that we are still discovering which species play vital roles in maintaining them. In some cases its groups of species not just one species that are vital for the ecosystem. Second,

what back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g.

led to the demise of these keystone species? Would there be another species to save the day and
take over this role? Classifying some species as keystone implies that the others are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone species being considered ecologically
even if we did complete the enormous task of identifying and protecting all keystone species,
pollution or disease)

worthless and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes we may not even know which species are likely to fill the keystone roles. An example of this was discovered on Australias Great Barrier
Reef. This research examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The over-fishing was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from
them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem the coral became overgrown with algae. When the time came to remove
the fences the researchers expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a coral dominated ecosystem. But,
surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed unimportant species the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was previously thought to feed on invertebrates small crabs and
shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore a cow of the sea grazing the algae in no time. So a fish previously thought to be unimportant is actually a
keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae! Who knows how many other species are out there with unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases its easy to see who the

The more biodiverse

an ecosystem is, the more likely these species will be present and the more resilient an ecosystem is to future impacts . Presently were
only scratching the surface of understanding the full importance of biodiversity and how it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is immense. In the meantime, a wise
insurance policy for maintaining ecosystem services would be to conserve biodiversity . In doing so, we increase the
keystone species are but in many ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant species are also capable of changing niches and maintaining ecosystems.

chance of maintaining our ecosystem services in the event of future impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This is the international year of biodiversity a time

biodiversity makes our survival on this planet possible and that our protection of
biodiversity maintains this service.
to recognize that

Drone Industry Ag Impact US Ecosystem Key

US ecosystems are globally important- unparalleled biodiverse regions
NatureServe 2 [NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific
knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action States of the Union: Ranking
Americas Biodiversity, April 2002, http://www.natureserve.org/library/stateofunions.pdf]

with its dazzling array of wild species and natural habitats, America has
much to be proud of. Indeed, to find world-class biodiversity we need not look to foreign shoresit is right here in our own
backyard. But while the concept of biodiversity has global connotations, conservation is a quintessentially local activity. To place conservation efforts in context, States of the Union:
Pride in place is a powerful impulse. And

Ranking Americas Biodiversity offers new information on state patterns of biological wealth and riskwhere our wild plants and animals are found, and how they are faring. Each of
Americas 50 states maintains an important part of the nations biological heritage. Taking best advantage of conservation opportunities, however, requires an understanding of the varying roles
each state can play. States of the Union offers a striking picture of the state of the states, based on an analysis of more than 21,000 plant and animal species. Providing new insights into the
scale of the nations conservation challenges and opportunities, these analyses find that in one out of every four states, more than ten percent of native species are at risk. Our rankings of the 50
states and the District of Columbia focus on several key biological characteristics: diversity of species; levels of rarity and risk; distinctiveness of the flora and fauna, termed endemism; and
number of species already lost to extinction. The top-ranking states for these measures are: RANK DIVERSITY RISK ENDEMISM EXTINCTIONS 1 California Hawaii California Hawaii 2

Four states in particular

emerge from these analyses as having exceptional levels of biodiversityCalifornia, Hawaii,
Texas, and Alabama. Looking at specific groups of plants and animals, however, reveals some surprising nuances. For instance, while freshwater fishes are most diverse
Texas California Hawaii Alabama 3 Arizona Nevada Texas California 4 New Mexico Alabama Florida Texas 5 Alabama Utah Utah Georgia

in the rain-drenched southeastern United States, Arizonaa state more commonly associated with cactileads the nation in proportion of at-risk fish species. The condition of nature in
America reflects an interplay between natural history and human history. And it is the breadth and intensity of this interaction that tends to define a geography of risk for wild species. As States
of the Union demonstrates, each state has a vital role to play in sustaining Americas plants and animals for future generations. But for the many U.S. species that are at risk of extinction, time is

With sufficient knowledge, resources, and commitment, the nations remarkable

biodiversity can be safeguarded, leading to a more perfect union. State of the States State of the States The United States harbors a
dazzling variety of life. From Maines Great North Woods to Californias giant redwoods, and from Hawaiis tropical peaks to the Florida Everglades river of grass,
the 50 states feature an unparalleled spectrum of wild places and wild species. While efforts to protect Americas
running out.

natural treasures began in earnest more than 130 years ago with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, the pace of environmental change over recent decades has sparked a renewed
commitment to conserving our remaining natural lands and waters. As a nation we have also achieved a deeper understanding of the complexity and fragility of our ecosystems, and for the wild
species they sustain. Even the term biodiversity, which celebrates a scientifically inclusive view of life on Earth, was coined within the past two decades. This improved understanding is proving
essential for increasing the effectiveness of conservation efforts and for targeting actions towards areas of greatest ecological significance. Although the concept of

biodiversity

has global connotations, conservation is a quintessentially local activity. To place these conservation efforts in context, States of the Union: Ranking Americas
Biodiversity offers new information on state patterns of biological wealth and riskwhere our wild plants and animals are found, and how they are faring. We rank the 50 states and the District
of Columbia based on analyses of several key species measures: diversity, risk, endemism, and extinctions. This newly updated information from NatureServes scientific databases offers a
striking picture of the state of the states. Riches in Our Backyard Riches in Our Backyard Two years ago NatureServe and The Nature Conservancy published a comprehensive assessment of
the condition of Americas biological riches in the book Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. 1 This critically acclaimed volume documented the full breadth and
complexity of life in America, and considered what will be needed to protect these living resources into the future. Key findings from that study include: Scientist have documented more than

The United States is a global

center of diversity for many groups of organisms, especially those that rely on aquatic systems such as salamanders,
200,000 species from the United States, representing more than 10% of formally described species worldwide.

freshwater mussels, and freshwater turtles. About one-third of species in the best-known groups of plants and animals are at risk, and more than 500 U.S. species are already extinct or are
missing. Habitat destruction and degradation are the leading threats to U.S. biodiversity, followed by the spread of harmful alien species. Wild plants and animals are not distributed uniformly
across the landscape, but rather concentrations of species are found in certain regions, termed biodiversity hotspots. Nonetheless,

important species and

ecosystems are found across the country, and each state has a crucial role to play in efforts to protect the nations rich biological heritage. By considering
the distribution and condition of more than 21,000 plant and animal species2,200 more than were included in our previous analysesStates of the Union provides new insights into the scale
of the nations conservation challenges and opportunities.

Drone Industry Ag Impact Food War Impacts

US ag key to prevent extinction
Lugar 2K (Richard Lugar, US Senator from Indiana, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a member and former
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 2000)

In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats
and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril.
One of the most daunting of them is meeting the worlds need for food and energy in this
century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the environment, but
also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war over access to
resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed
the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of
[WMDs] weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6
billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase
well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will
have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that
means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing
world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem
is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited
arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people
destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed
themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for
the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the
next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the
land we have. Thats a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on
average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our
production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we
possibly boost output that much? Well, its been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer
and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold
increase in yields since 1935 on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per
hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that
we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet
world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward
projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that
will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental
research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The United States
can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production
may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our
planet.

US key to global supplies- causes starvation, wars, and extinction

Klare 12 (Michael, Hampshire College security studies professor, defense correspondent of
The Nation magazine, serves on the boards of directors of Human Rights Watch, and the Arms

Control Association, As Food Prices Rise, Dangers of Social Unrest Seem Imminent, August
9, 2012)

The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences
will be severe. With more than one-half of Americas counties designated as drought disaster
areas, the 2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed to fall far short of
predictions. This, in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing increased
misery for farmers and low-income Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in
countries that rely on imported U.S. grains. This, however, is just the beginning of the likely
consequences: If history is any guide, rising food prices of this sort will also lead to widespread
social unrest and violent conflict. Foodaffordable foodis essential to human survival and
well-being. Take that away, and people become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United
States, food represents only about 13 percent of the average household budget, a relatively small
share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably not prove overly taxing for most middle
and upper-income families. It could, however, produce considerable hardship for poor and
unemployed Americans with limited resources. You are talking about a real bite out of family
budgets, commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omahas Creighton University.
This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and high-unemployment areas,
perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and other forms of
dissent and unrest. It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to
have its most devastating effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S.
to supplement their own harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops
elsewhere as well, food supplies are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. What
happens to the U.S. supply has immense impact around the world , says Robert Thompson, a food expert
at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn and
soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is
likely to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough
food to feed their families. The Hunger Games, 2007-2011 What happens next is, of course,
impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn ugly. In 2007-2008, when
rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply higher prices
especially for breadsparked food riots in more than two dozen countries, including
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting
became so violent and public confidence in the governments ability to address the problem
dropped so precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the countrys prime minister,
Jacques-douard Alexis. In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police
forces, leaving scores dead. Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely attributed to the
soaring cost of oil, which made food production more expensive. (Oils use is widespread in
farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and pesticide manufacture.) At the same time,
increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being diverted from food crops to the
cultivation of plants used in making biofuels. The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however,
closely associated with climate change. An intense drought gripped much of eastern Russia
during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that breadbasket region by one-fifth

and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt Chinas grain harvest, while
intense flooding destroyed much of Australias wheat crop. Together with other extreme-weatherrelated effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50 percent and the price of
most food staples by 32 percent. Once again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social
unrest, this time concentrated in North Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose
over the cost of staples in Algeria and then Tunisia, whereno coincidencethe precipitating
event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, setting himself on fire to protest
government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices combined with long-simmering
resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what became known as the
Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a cause of
unrest in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic regimes,
may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian
Parenti, wrote, The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of
bread. As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa, where corn
is a major staple, and of increased popular unrest in China, where food prices are expected to rise
at a time of growing hardship for that countrys vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and
poor peasants. Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also lead to reduced consumer
spending on other goods, further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and
producing yet more worldwide misery, with unpredictable social consequences. The Hunger
Games, 2012-? If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would
undoubtedly absorb the ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come.
Unfortunately, its becoming evident that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a
single heartland nation, but rather an inevitable consequence of global warming which is only
going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse
years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United States, but globally for the indefinite
future. Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on
global warming. Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be
demonstrated in certain cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011,
for instance, climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and Great Britains National Weather Service concluded that human-induced climate
change has made intense heat waves of the kind experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than
ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, it reported that
global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas heat wave was 20 times more likely
than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm temperatures like those
experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because of global
warming. It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the
effect of global warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but
we can assume the level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the
warming gains momentum? When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we
envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising
sea levels. Among other things, this will result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food
supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of warming in the physical world, not the social
world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our daily well-being and survival. The

purely physical effects of climate change will, no doubt, prove catastrophic. But the social effects
including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass migrations,
and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive
and deadly. In her immensely successful young-adult novel, The Hunger Games (and the movie
that followed), Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce,
post-apocalyptic future where once-rebellious districts in an impoverished North America must
supply two teenagers each year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for
all but one of the youthful contestants. These hunger games are intended as recompense for the
damage inflicted on the victorious capitol of Panem by the rebellious districts during an
insurrection. Without specifically mentioning global warming, Collins makes it clear that climate
change was significantly responsible for the hunger that shadows the North American continent
in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are about to be selected, the mayor of
District 12s principal city describes the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the
encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and] the brutal war for what little
sustenance remained. In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence
on which such a world might be organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of
those hunger games, do not doubt that some version of them will come into existencethat, in
fact, hunger wars of many sorts will fill our future. These could include any combination or
permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008 collapse of Haitis government, the pitched
battles between massed protesters and security forces that engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab
Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and water sources that have made
Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable distribution of agricultural
land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites of India. Combine
such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of
people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns and expanding
slums surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such
eruption, with grisly results, occurred in Johannesburgs shantytowns in 2008 when desperately
poor and hungry migrants from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases
burned to death by poor South Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station
from the raging mobs, said she fled her country because there is no work and no food. And
count on something else: millions more in the coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from
drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to migrate to other countries, provoking even
greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the possibilities that lie in our hunger-games
future. At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still
ongoing Great Drought: dying crops, shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye
out for the social and political effects that undoubtedly wont begin to show up here or globally
until later this year or 2013. Better than any academic study, these will offer us a hint of what we
can expect in the coming decades from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent
droughts, recurring food shortages, and billions of famished, desperate people.

Topicality

2AC- Substantial
Substantial means importance of worth and essential
Google.com (https://www.google.com/search?
q=substantial+definition&oq=substantial+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.2668j0j7&sourceid=ch
rome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8)
substantial sbstan(t)SHl/ adjective 1. of considerable importance, size, or worth. "a substantial amount of cash"
synonyms: considerable, real, significant, important, notable, major, valuable, useful More 2. concerning the essentials of
something. "there was substantial agreement on changing policies" synonyms: fundamental, essential, basic
"substantial agreement"

We meet- armed drones represented the important and central question of drone
surveillance- 1AC advantages prove
Prefer our interpretation
1- -Substantial is intrinsically arbitrary- default to aff predictability- in some
instances substantial means only 5%- legal code agrees
USLEGAL.com (http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/substantial-interest/)
Substantial interest is a term that applies in many contexts and often isn't
capable of a precise definition. It may be defined as a percentage of ownership, but may be more generally used to mean an
interest that is not remote or nominal and affects a proprietary or pecuniary interest. The following is an example of a school board's
definition of substantial interest, in the context of a conflict of interests: Definition of substantial interest: Any interest that is not a remote interest as
defined by law and university policy. Substantial interests generally involve pecuniary or proprietary interests. For example: * Substantial
interest in stock would be ownership of more than 3% of the shares of a
company and/or more than 5% of your income is derived from this interest.

2- Aff ground- their interpretation overlimits- 80% means only 1 or 2 affirmatives

could be topical- breadth of depth- enables more debates- research and longevity of
the topic solve depth
3- We still solve- our advantages are all in the context of domestic armed drone
surveillance- proves we are predictable and substantial in the literature base
Default to reasonability- competing interpretations create a race to the bottom and
allow lazy negative argumentation

Counterplans

2AC- Exec CP
CP doesnt solve- Congress is key
1) Drone Industry Advantage- congress is key to establish transparency over
executive agencies- thats 1AC Barry
2) Latin American Advantage- 1AC Cupolo is explicit that only congressional
bills send a signal that gets modeled in Latin American legislatures
Executive loopholes prevent effective regulation- dont resolve domestic fears or
create transparency- only Congress solves- this card is devastating
Bernd 15 (Candice Bernd, Truthout, News Analysis, Proposed Rules Regulating Domestic
Drone Use Lack Police Warrant Requirement, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29250proposed-rules-regulating-domestic-drone-use-lack-police-warrant-requirement, 24 February
2015)
Rules governing the commercial use of drones contain loopholes that would allow law
enforcement agencies to deploy domestic drones without a warrant in some cases.
(Image: via Shutterstock) This story could not have been published without the support of readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible
donation to Truthout and fund more stories like it! In about two years, the number of municipal police departments and federal
agencies using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for surveillance purposes is expected to
skyrocket as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) streamlines the process by which a drone operator can apply for a permit. The FAA
released proposed rules governing the commercial use of UAS on February 15 in a move widely expected to give thousands of businesses and
public agencies the green light to use UAS for work purposes sometime in 2017, after the rules undergo a lengthy public review process. The White House
simultaneously released an executive order February 15 intended to safeguard privacy and civil rights by directing federal agencies to publicly disclose information
about how they use UAS in domestic airspace. The proposed rules, which apply to drones that weigh only 55 pounds or less, would make it much easier not only for
police departments, but also a variety of businesses, including journalists, photographers and agricultural workers, to fly domestic drones for work purposes. The FAA
is currently working on a separate set of rules for larger drones, which the agency is expected to release in a few years. Under the rules, operators will be required to
pass a proficiency exam, and pay about $200 in fees to register their drone. Operators will have to fly their drones at speeds of less than 100 miles-per-hour, at
altitudes under 500 feet, during daylight hours only and within either their own unaided line of sight or within the eyesight of designated observers on the ground. The
White House's executive order directs federal agencies using domestic drones to draft a policy framework governing oversight and transparency of UAS use within 90
days. The directive outlines guidelines for data retention and dissemination of policies, as well as reporting requirements which mandate public disclosure of how
federal agencies use UAS. But

the executive order doesn't go far enough in the eyes of

the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), despite being described as a step in the right direction. Neema Singh Guliani, who is legislative counsel with
the ACLU, praised the White House's directive for its public reporting requirements, saying the requirements will allow greater public discourse and debate about the
appropriate uses of domestic drones by federal agencies. She also celebrated the fact that federal agencies will be mandated to draft policy frameworks on UAS use,
because many of those agencies currently have no such policy framework. However, Guliani said the

directive alone isn't sufficient to protect

people's privacy from the particularly invasive surveillance opportunities that domestic
drones represent as used by law enforcement agencies. While federal agencies will be required to create a
basic framework regulating domestic drone use, each agency will be developing those
guidelines separately, which could lead to inconsistency or deficient
standards within some agencies, according to Guliani. She also took issue with certain
aspects of the directive's information-sharing rules, saying they were vague on the question of
whether or not federal agencies can share information unrelated to the reason the
data was collected by UAS in the first place. The executive order outlines that agencies can use UAS for
any "authorized purpose," but the order does not outline exactly what an
"authorized purpose" is. The executive order maintains that agencies must purge the data collected from UAS after 180 days, that is,
unless an agency decides to keep the information because, again, it relates to an "authorized purpose." In this instance, too, Guliani maintains that
"purpose" is vague, and could potentially lead to a broad interpretation by federal

agencies. "I think there are certain minimum guidelines that I think should have been put in place by [the executive order] or should certainly be a part of
whatever agency guidelines are produced," Guliani said. A crucial element that is missing from the White House order and proposed FAA rules, according to Guliani:
a warrant requirement for law enforcement officials seeking to deploy domestic drones for surveillance purposes. "The fact that [the memo] leaves that to the
discretion of each agency could be a concern down the line if the agency decides not to adopt that requirement," Guliani said. Many state, federal agencies and
corporations are already using domestic drones, with more than 80 law enforcement agencies having applied for a special "Certificate of Authorization" from the FAA
to use UAS since 2008. While the White House directive is aimed at addressing federal agencies, many states are still grappling with how to regulate the use of
domestic drones. More than a dozen states have enacted legislation regulating domestic drone use, while more than half of all states have introduced legislation
regarding domestic drones, with a majority of those bills as well as already-enacted legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain a probable cause warrant
before a drone can be deployed. But in

the states that have enacted legislation, the laws vary

widely and establish inconsistent standards . States such as Texas, for example, restrict domestic drone use, but
the legislation contains so many exemptions for law enforcement agencies the ACLU have called it "an
outlier" in terms of protecting privacy. Meanwhile states such as Florida, Oregon, Illinois, Montana and Tennessee require a warrant for law
enforcement use in nearly all cases. "That there are states that have looked at, and have adopted that warrant requirement, makes the omission in the presidential
memo even more obvious," Guliani said. With

no national legislation regulating domestic drone

use, inconsistent and varying standards by which law enforcement
agencies and corporations can deploy UAS in states, and the glaring omission of a warrant requirement
at this point in the White House's guidelines, a dangerous loophole remains present in which law
enforcement agencies , and potentially corporations, in only a couple of years, can deploy UAS in masse to
conduct surveillance on civilians who have not been charged with any crime. But beyond the immediate concerns about domestic drone use,
when we look at how drones may be integrated with other forms of nascent police surveillance technology, an even more Orwellian picture of the future of domestic
drones begins to emerge. Drones That Can See Through Walls, Read Your Texts and Recognize Your Face With loopholes in national and state standards regulating
UAS, law enforcement agencies could potentially be able to use invasive police surveillance technologies in conjunction with UAS to obtain information on large
numbers of people that they otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain without a warrant. "The fact that drones now have also been combining with other forms of
technology creates even a larger privacy risk," Guliani says. "Imagine if there was a drone that was also combined with facial recognition technology. A drone flying
overhead could identify large numbers of people and be tracking their movements." A leading manufacturer of the "StingRay" surveillance technology, used by federal
agencies and municipal police departments alike to sweep up vast numbers of cell phone records from people who are simply in the radius of a targeted suspect, has
already developed a kit to deploy the technology on aerial vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles. This type of deployment may become the next logical step for the
industry. The use of StingRay technology as it currently stands is already incredibly secretive, with police departments and manufacturers such as Harris Corporation
concealing their use of the phone-tracking equipment from the courts through the use of non-disclosure agreements. The Department of Homeland Security's US
Customs and Border Protection and the FBI already use planes and drones in areas that are more than 100 miles of the Mexican border to conduct aerial surveillance,
and government agencies have been revealed to have been using Cessna planes outfitted with StingRay technology to track suspects. The FBI has been resistant to
answer even lawmakers' questions about how many drones it operates and how often they are used. "It is both technologically possible and by no means a leap to
imagine that once the FAA approves broader use of drones within the US by law enforcement, [law enforcement officials] may put StingRays on them," said Nathan
Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, and an expert on StingRay technology. UAS have also been outfitted with
thermal sensing technologies to produce heat maps of people inside buildings. Other advocates worry if domestic drones are deployed as a platform for providing
temporary internet service to consumers, it could potentially give corporate drone operators access to the internet data of those consumers and threaten net neutrality.
"If internet companies were to deliver internet service in hard-to-reach places, which would be a good thing, would they then be collecting information in large
quantities and would that information then be something that their contacts would then have access to?" asked Drew Mitnick who is junior policy counsel at Access,
an organization dedicated to issues of internet freedom. It's questions like this that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has been ordered
by the White House to answer in a collaborative process, alongside civil society and industry groups, to develop guidelines for commercial drone use. The ACLU's
Guliani pointed out, however, that invasive forms of surveillance, especially police surveillance, often impact communities of color disproportionately, pointing to US
Customs and Border Protections' ubiquitous use of drone surveillance in vast border regions impacting huge swaths of the populations that live in those areas. "You're
not just talking about the physical border, you're talking about an area that encompasses many major cities that have large minority populations, and the idea that these
drones can be flown with little or no privacy protections really mean that, people, just by virtue of living in that region are somehow accepting that they have a right to
less privacy," she said. African-American communities could well feel the disproportionate impacts of the integrated use of domestic drones and other surveillance in
the coming years, as technologies such as StingRay are already being used mostly in the ongoing war on drugs to track those suspected of selling and buying drugs.
The drug war has long negatively impacted communities of color, based on racialized drug policies and racial discrimination by law enforcement; two-thirds of all
those convicted of drug crimes are people of color, despite similar rates of drug use among whites and people of color. These already-existing racial disparities in
intrusive policing tactics and deployment of surveillance technologies are one of the primary reasons civil liberties experts are saying the government often gets it
backward when thinking about privacy issues: deploying intrusive technologies first, and coming up with privacy policies governing their use afterward (when they
may already be violating many people's civil rights). "What we see with StingRays is the same phenomenon that we're seeing with [UAS], where federal agencies are
using them," Guliani said. "State and local agencies are using them. There's federal dollars that are going to buy them, and we're kind of having the privacy debate
after the fact with very little information."

2AC- Links to PTX

Links to politics immense opposition to bypassing debate
Hallowell 13 [Billy Hallowell, writer for The Blaze, B.A. in journalism and broadcasting from the College of Mount Saint Vincent in
Riverdale, New York and an M.S. in social research from Hunter College in Manhattan, HERES HOW OBAMA IS USING EXECUTIVE
POWER TO BYPASS LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Feb. 11, 2013, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/11/heres-how-obamas-usingexecutive-power-to-bylass-legislative-process-plus-a-brief-history-of-executive-orders/, KB]

presidents
have powerful incentive to go it alone. And they do. And the political opposition howls. Sen.
Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a possible contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, said that on the gun-control front in
particular, Obama is abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them
to be debated in Congress. The Republican reaction is to be expected, said John Woolley, co-director of the American
Presidency Project at the University of California in Santa Barbara. For years there has been a growing concern about
unchecked executive power, Woolley said. It tends to have a partisan content, with contemporary complaints
coming from the incumbent presidents opponents.
In an era of polarized parties and a fragmented Congress, the opportunities to legislate are few and far between, Howell said. So

1AR- Exec CP
More evidence- the President doesnt resolve the trust deficit due to in-house secrecy
Groll 13 (Elias Groll, The Sudden and Unexpected Return of the Drone War,
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/08/the_sudden_and_unexpected_return_of_the_dron
e_war_yemen, August 8, 2013)
The drone war is back. Amid fears that al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in Yemen are plotting a major attack, U.S. drones reportedly
launched three strikes in the country on Thursday alone, killing 12 suspected al Qaeda militant s. In fact, the
Obama administration is arguably waging its most intense drone campaign ever in Yemen, with nine
suspected drone strikes in the last 13 days and six in the last three. The concentrated bombing is all the
more striking considering that just days ago the State Department was shuttering nearly two dozen
embassies around the world in response to what seemed an amorphous terrorist threat. The fierce
campaign comes on the heels of the White House announcing a major overhaul of its use of drones. With his
speech in May outlining a plan to take the United States off its "perpetual wartime footing," the president gave hope to critics of his
surprisingly robust drone policy that the strikes would soon be curtailed. But according to Josh Begley, a
web developer who tracks drone strikes and runs Dronestream, U.S. drones have struck five
times in Pakistan and 11 times in Yemen since Obama's speech. Not since January -- when, during
a five-day period, Washington carried out eight suspected strikes -- have U.S. missiles rained down on
Yemen with such frequency. While three-strike days are not unprecedented in Yemen, they are far more
common in Pakistan. According to Begley's analysis, there have been three likely instances in which U.S. drones
struck Yemen three times in one day. In Pakistan, that has occurred 13 times. The interactive map below, courtesy of
Begley, shows strikes in Yemen before (yellow dots) and after (red dots) Obama's speech (the first U.S. drone strike in Yemen took place way back in 2002). Some
dots below are obscured because of multiple strikes in the same location. The

flurry of strikes raises questions about the Obama

administration's stated commitment to dial back its aggressive wartime tactics. In a major speech
earlier this year, President Obama announced to much fanfare that he hoped to wind down the war on terror and that stricter guidelines would be put in place to govern
the use of drone strikes, though those rules largely remain classified and unreleased. "America does not take strikes to punish individuals; we act against terrorists who
pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat," Obama said.
"And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set." In a letter to Congress in
May, Attorney General Eric Holder hinted at this new, stricter policy. "When capture is not feasible, the policy provides that lethal force may be used only when a
terrorist target poses a continuing, imminent threat to Americans, and when certain other preconditions, including a requirement that no other reasonable alternatives
exist to effectively address the threat, are satisfied." What those "other preconditions" amount to remains shrouded in mystery. But as articulated in the letter, the
administration's new critieria for drone strikes turn on the presence of a "continuing, imminent threat" directed at Americans. Administration officials explain that the
prior guidance allowed drone strikes against groups or individuals threatening "U.S. interests" whereas the new policy tightens that guideline to require "U.S. persons"
to be threatened by those targeted by drones. This time around, the U.S. government has been making an elaborate, dramatic argument that the latest threat out of
Yemen poses imminent danger to Americans. The administration's decision to close and evacuate a slew of diplomatic posts served as a highly visible signal of the
perceived seriousness of this threat -- and, most importantly, its implications for U.S. persons. While

Obama's speech in May and

subsequent policy guidance has been interpreted as an effort by the president to avoid having his legacy
defined by the aggressive use of drones, the address itself was notable for its defense of the
administration's tactics, which Obama argued have not only undermined terrorist groups but also saved
civilian lives. That conviction has been on manifest display in the administration's response this week to
the threat emanating from Yemen. Beyond vague hints, apocalyptic warnings, and bizarre leaks, however,
U.S. officials have released little information about the nature of that threat. As a result, it remains
difficult to evaluate Obama's commitment to his new policy. "There has been an
awful lot of chatter out there. Chatter means conversation about terrorists, about the planning that's going
on, very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican, said on NBC's Meet the Press. Later in the
week, administration officials revealed that the source of the warning came from an intercepted communication between the head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and
the chief of the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Given the murky nature of the threat, it remains unclear whether, in repeatedly striking targets in
Yemen in recent days, the Obama administration is ramping up the pressure on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in general or simply responding to a specific
intelligence threat. The

White House's secret legal guidelines would appear to require that the strikes be tied to a
specific threat to U.S. persons, but that's a legal standard for which there is no outside
oversight or determination. If the U.S. government wants to up the pressure and
return to the 2009-2010 heyday of the decade-long drone war, there is nothing

stopping it. Meanwhile, for observers of the U.S. national security establishment, the strikes in Yemen
upset a commonly accepted wisdom in Washington: that the accession of John Brennan as CIA director
heralded the end of aggressive drone strikes. Brennan reportedly favors moving the drone program from the the CIA to the Pentagon, where
it will theoretically be subject to greater oversight and transparency. With the transfer of the program, it was also thought that
drone strikes would gradually decrease as they moved out of the shadowy world of the CIA and into the,
comparatively speaking, more open world of the Defense Department. But events this week in Yemen
represent a profound challenge to that line of thinking. And until the White House offers a clear
explanation for how it is targeting terrorists and why, prickly questions about the administration's
commitment to dialing back the war on terror are likely to persist.

CP signaling to Latin America fails

Alston 11 [Philip, professor of law at NYU School of Law and former UN Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial executions, The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders, Harvard National
Security Journal, Vol. 2, http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Vol.-2_Alston1.pdf]
This Article has not sought to spell out the options open to the United States in order to bring its conduct within the law. The bottom line is that
intelligence agencies--particularly those that are effectively unaccountable--should not be conducting lethal operations abroad. Beyond that
proposition, there is a great deal that the CIA could do if it so wished, including making public its commitment to comply with both IHL and
IHRL, disclosing the legal basis on which it is operating in different situations involving potential killings, providing information on when,
where, and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and publishing its estimates on the number and rate of civilian casualties. Full

transparency is neither sought nor expected, but basic compliance with the standards applied by
the U.S. military, and both consistently and insistently demanded of other countries by the United States, is indispensable.
Examining the CIA's transparency and accountability in relation to targeted killings also sheds light on a range of other issues that international
human rights law needs to tackle in a more systematic and convincing manner. They include the approach adopted by international law to the
activities of intelligence agencies, the (in)effectiveness of existing monitoring mechanisms in relation to killings governed by a mixed IHL/IHRL
regime, and the techniques needed to monitor effectively human rights violations associated with new technologies such as unmanned drones and
robotics. International human rights institutions need to respond more robustly to the growing chorus of proposals that targeted killings be
liberated from the hard-fought legal restraints that apply to them. There is a great deal at stake and these crucial issues have been avoided for too
long. The principal focus of this Article has been on the question of CIA accountability for targeted killings, under both U.S. law and international
law. As the CIA, often in conjunction with DOD Special Operations Forces, becomes ever more deeply involved in carrying out extraterritorial
targeted killings both through kill/capture missions and drone-based missile strikes in a range of countries, the question of its compliance with the
relevant legal standards becomes even more urgent. Assertions

by Obama administration officials, as well as by many scholars,

that these operations [*446] comply with international standards are undermined by the total absence
of any forms of credible transparency or verifiable accountability. The CIA's internal control
mechanisms, including its Inspector General, have had no discernible impact; executive
control mechanisms have either not been activated at all or have ignored
the issue; congressional oversight has given a "free pass" to the CIA in this area; judicial review has been effectively precluded; and
external oversight has been reduced to media coverage which is all too often dependent on information leaked by the CIA itself. As a result,

there is no meaningful domestic accountability for a burgeoning program of international killing.

This in turn means that the United States cannot possibly satisfy its obligations under international law to
ensure accountability for its use of lethal force, either under IHRL or IHL. The result is the steady undermining of the
international rule of law, and the setting of legal precedents which will inevitably come back to haunt the
United States before long when invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas.

More evidence- executive agencies are not modeled abroad and fail to create
transparency necessary to prevent drone wars in Latin America
Maxwell 12 (Mark David Maxwell, Colonel, Judge Advocate with the U.S. Army,
TARGETED KILLING, THE LAW, AND TERRORISTS, Joint Force Quarterly,
http://www.ndu.edu/press/targeted-killing.html, Winter 2012)
The weakness of this theory

is that it is not codified in U.S. law; it is merely the extrapolation

of international theorists and organizations. The

only entity under the Constitution that can frame and settle Presidential
power regarding the enforcement of international norms is Congress. As the check on executive power, Congress must amend the
AUMF to give the executive a statutory roadmap that articulates when force is appropriate and under what
circumstances the President can use targeted killing. This would be the needed endorsement from Congress, the other political
branch of government, to clarify the U.S. position on its use of force regarding targeted killing. For example, it would spell out the limits of
American lethality once an individual takes the status of being a member of an organized group. Additionally, statutory

clarification will give other states a roadmap for the contours of what constitutes anticipatory selfdefense and the proper conduct of the military under the law of war. Congress should also require that the President brief it on the decision matrix
of articulated guidelines before a targeted killing mission is ordered. As Kenneth Anderson notes, [t]he point about briefings to Congress is
partly to allow it to exercise its democratic role as the peoples representative.74 The desire to feel safe is understandable. The consumers who
buy SUVs are not buying them to be less safe. Likewise, the champions of targeted killings want the feeling of safety achieved by the elimination
of those who would do the United States harm. But allowing

the President to order targeted killing without

congressional limits means the President can manipulate force in the name of national security without tethering it
to the law advanced by international norms. The potential consequence of such unilateral executive action is that it gives
other states, such as North Korea and Iran, the customary precedent to do the same. Targeted killing might
be required in certain circumstances, but if the guidelines are debated and understood, the decision can be executed with the full faith of the
peoples representative, Congress. When the decision is made without
safer, but the

Congress, the result might make the United States feel

process eschews what gives a state its greatest safety: the rule of law.

1AR- AT: CMR DA on Perm

Civil-military conflict inevitable- no impact and no spill over
Davidson 13 (Janine Davidson is assistant professor at George Mason Universitys Graduate
School of Public Policy. From 2009-2012 she served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Plans in the Pentagon, Presidential Studies Quarterly, " Civil-Military Friction and
Presidential Decision Making: Explaining the Broken Dialogue", Vol. 43, No. 1, Ebsco, March
2013)
In the 2010 bestselling book, Obamas Wars, Bob Woodward recounts President Barack Obamas friction with his military chain of command as
he sought options for ending the war in Afghanistan.1 Woodward paints a compelling picture of a frustrated president who felt boxed in by his
military commanders who were presenting him with only one real optiondeploy 40,000 more troops for a comprehensive counterinsurgency
strategy and an uncertain timeline. The president and his civilian advisors could not understand why the military seemed incapable of providing
scalable options for various goals and outcomes to inform his decision-making. Meanwhile the military was frustrated that their expert advice
regarding levels of force required for victory were not being respected (Woodward 2010). Such mutual

frustration between civilian

leadership and the military is not unique to the Obama administration. In the run-up to the Iraq War in
2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously chastised the military for its resistance to altering
the invasion plan for Iraq. The military criticized him for tampering with the logistical details and concepts of operations, which they
claimed led to the myriad operational failures on the ground (Gordon and Trainor 2006; Ricks 2007; Woodward 2004). Later, faced with spiraling
ethnic violence and rising U.S. casualties across Iraq, George W. Bush took the advice of retired four-star General Jack Keane and his think tank
colleagues over the formal advice of the Pentagon in his decision to launch the so-called surge in 2007 (Davidson 2010; Feaver 2011; Woodward
2010). A similar dynamic is reflected in previous eras, from

John F. Kennedys famous debates during the Cuban Missile

Crisis (Allison and Zelikow 1999) to Lyndon Johnsons quest for options to turn the tide in Vietnam
(Berman 1983; Burke and Greenstein 1991), and Bill Clintons lesser-known frustration with the military
over its unwillingness to develop options to counter the growing global inuence of al-Qaeda.2 In each
case, exasperated presidents either sought alternatives to their formal military advisors or simply gave up
and chose other political battles. Even Abraham Lincoln resorted to simply ring generals until he got one who
would fight his way (Cohen 2002). What accounts for this perennial friction between presidents and the military in planning and executing
military operations? Theories about civilian control of the military along with theories about presidential decision making provide a useful
starting point for this question. While civilian control literature sheds light on the propensity for friction between presidents and the military and
how presidents should cope, it does not adequately address the institutional drivers of this friction. Decision-making theories, such as those
focused on bureaucratic politics and institutional design (Allison 1969; Halperin 1974; Zegart 2000) motivate us to look inside the relevant black
boxes more closely. What unfolds are two very different sets of drivers informing the expectations and perspectives that civilian and military
actors each bring to the advising and decisionmaking table. This article suggests that the mutual

frustration between civilian

leaders and the military begins with cultural factors, which are actually embedded into the uniformed militarys
planning system. The militarys doctrine and education reinforce a culture of military professionalism, that outlines a set of expectations about
the civil-military decision-making process and that defines best military advice in very specic ways. Moreover, the

institutionalized
military planning system is designed to produce detailed and realistic military plans for executionand
that will ensure victoryand is thus ill suited to the rapid production of multiple options desired by
presidents. The output of this system, framed on specific concepts and definitions about ends, ways,
means, and expectations about who provides what type of planning guidance, is out of synch with the
expectations of presidents and their civilian advisors, which in turn have been formed from another set of cultural and
institutional drivers. Most civilian leaders recognize that there is a principal-agent issue at work, requiring them to rely on military expertise to
provide them realistic options during the decision-making process. But, their definition of options is framed by a broader set of political
objectives and a desire to winnow decisions based, in part, on advice about what various objectives are militarily feasible and at what cost. In
short, civilians diverse political responsibilities combined with various assumptions about military capabilities and processes, create a set of
expectations about how advice should be presented (and how quickly), how options might be defined, and how military force might or might not
be employed. These expectations

are often considered inappropriate, unrealistic, or irrelevant by the military.

Moreover, as discussed below, when civilians do not subscribe to the same hands off philosophy
regarding civilian control of the military favored by the vast majority of military professionals, the table is
set for what the military considers meddling and even more friction in the broken dialogue that is the presidents
decision-making process. This article identifies three drivers of friction in the civil-military decision-making dialogue and unpacks them from top
to bottom as follows: The first, civil-military, is not so much informed by theories of civilian

control of the military as it is driven

by disagreement among policy makers and military professionals over which model works best . The second
set of drivers is institutional, and reflects Graham Allisons organizational process lens (model II). In this case, the outputs of the militarys
detailed and slow planning process fail to produce the type of options and advice civilians are hoping for. Finally, the third source of friction is
cultural, and is in various ways embedded into the first two. Powerful cultural factors lead to certain predispositions by military planners
regarding the appropriate use of military force, the best way to employ force to ensure victory, and even what constitutes victory in the
American way of war. These cultural factors have been designed into the planning process in ways that drive certain types of outcomes. That
civilians have another set of cultural predispositions about what is appropriate and what success means, only adds more fuel to the flame.

Policy disagreements dont spill over --- no turns case

Hansen 9 Victor Hansen, Associate Professor of Law, New England Law School, Summer 2009, SYMPOSIUM: LAW, ETHICS, AND
THE WAR ON TERROR: ARTICLE: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF MILITARY LAWYERS IN THE WAR ON TERROR: A
RESPONSE TO THE PERCEIVED CRISIS IN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS, South Texas Law Review, 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 617, p. lexis
According to Sulmasy and Yoo, these conflicts

latest examples of a

between the military and the Bush Administration are the

crisis in civilian-military relations. n32 The authors suggest the principle of civilian

[*624]
control of the military must be measured and is potentially violated whenever the military is able to impose its preferred policy outcomes
against the wishes of the civilian leaders. n33 They further assert that it is the attitude of at least some members of the military that civilian
leaders are temporary office holders to be outlasted and outmaneuvered. n34 If

the examples cited by the authors do in fact

suggest efforts by members of the military to undermine civilian control over the military, then
civilian-military relations may have indeed reached a crisis. Before such a conclusion
can be reached, however, a more careful analysis is warranted. We cannot accept at face
value the authors' broad assertions
duty or retired, disagrees

that any time a member of the military, whether on active

with the views of a civilian member of the Department of Defense or

other member of the executive branch, including the President, that

such disagreement or difference of opinion

equates to either a tension or a crisis in civil-military relations . Sulmasy and Yoo

claim there is heightened tension or perhaps even a crisis in civil-military relations, yet they fail to define what is meant by the principle of
civilian control over the military. Instead, the authors make general and rather vague statements suggesting any policy disagreements
between members of the military and officials in the executive branch must equate to a challenge by the military against civilian control. n35
However, until we have a clear understanding of the principle of civilian control of the military, we cannot accurately determine whether a
crisis in civil-military relations exists. It is to this question that we now turn.

No impact empirics prove

Feaver and Kohn 5 - Peter Feaver, professor of Political Science and Public Policy and the director of the Triangle Institute for
Security Studies at Duke University, and Richard H. Kohn, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, 2005, The Gap: Soldiers,
Civilians, and Their Mutual Misunderstanding, in American Defense Policy, 2005 edition, ed. Paul J. Bolt, Damon V. Coletta, Collins G.
Shackelford, p. 339

Concerns about a troublesome divide between the armed forces and the society they serve are hardly
new and in fact go back to the beginning of the Republic. Writing in the 1950s, Samuel
Huntington argued that the divide could best be bridged by civilian society tolerating, if not embracing, the conservative values that animate
military culture. Huntington also suggested that politicians allow the armed forces a substantial degree of cultural autonomy. Countering this
argument, the sociologist Morris Janowitz argued that in a democracy, military culture necessarily adapts to changes in civilian society,
adjusting to the needs and dictates of its civilian masters.2 The end of the Cold War and the extraordinary changes in American foreign and
defense policy that resulted have revived the debate. The contemporary

heirs of Janowitz see the all volunteer

military as drifting too far away from the norms of American society, thereby posing problems for
civilian control. They make tour principal assertions. First, the military has grown out of step
ideologically with the public, showing itself to be inordinately right-wing politically, and much more religious (and
fundamentalist) than America as a whole, having a strong and almost exclusive identification with the Republican Party. Second, the
military has become increasingly alienated from, disgusted with, and sometimes even explicitly
hostile to, civilian culture. Third, the armed forces have resisted change, particularly the integration of
women and homosexuals into their ranks, and have generally proved reluctant to carry out constabulary missions. Fourth, civilian
control and military effectiveness will both suffer as the militaryseeking ways to operate without
effective civilian oversight and alienated from the society around itloses the respect and support of that society. By

contrast, the heirs of Huntington argue that a degenerate civilian culture has strayed so far from traditional values that it intends to eradicate
healthy and functional civil-military differences, particularly in the areas of gender, sexual orientation, and discipline. This camp, too, makes
four key claims. First, its members assert that the military is divorced in values from a political and cultural elite that is itself alienated from
the general public. Second, it believes this civilian elite to be ignorant of, and even hostile to, the armed forceseager to employ the military
as a laboratory for social change, even at the cost of crippling its warfighting capacity. Third, it discounts the specter of eroding civilian
control because it sees a military so thoroughly inculcated with an ethos of subordination that there is now too much civilian control, the
effect of which has been to stifle the military's ability to function effectively Fourth, because support for the military among the general
public remains sturdy, any gap in values is inconsequential. The problem, if anything, is with the civilian elite. The
lively (and inside the Beltway, sometimes quite vicious), but it has

debate has been

rested on very thin evidence(tunneling

anecdotes and claims and counterclaims about the nature of civilian and military attitudes. Absent

has been a body of

systematic data exploring opinions, values, perspectives, and attitudes inside the military compared
with those held by civilian elites and the general public. Our project provides some answers.

1AR- Links to PTX

Links to politics the narrative inevitably gets twisted
Gyatso 13 (Ngawang Gyatso, B.A. in Political Economies from the University of California, Berkeley, Obamas Counterterrorism
Strategy Isnt Popular or Idealistic. Its Realistic! May 24, 2013, http://jamandbutter.com/2013/05/24/obamas-counterterrorism-strategy-isntpopular-or-idealistic-its-realistic/, KB)

No sooner had the President delivered his speech, than superficial narratives on Obama not living up to
humanitarian image and campaign promises surfaced in the media . And what is especially disappointing is
reputable sources like the New York Times joining in unison with sensationalist news outlets like Huffington
Post and Slate in drumming the blame-it-on-Obama beat, when they surely understand the enormous weight
Obama shoulders in carefully repairing a failed and messy neoconservative American foreign policy in the Middle-East while his administration
aggressively confronts the undeniable reality of terrorism.

Disads

2AC- DTO DA
The plan is key to effective Latin American drone regulations- prevents doubleedged sword- internal link turns the DA
HSNW 11 (homeland Security Newswire, Experts call for rules of the road for drone use in
the Americas, http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/experts-call-rules-road-drone-useamericas, April 22, 2011)
More and more Latin and Central American countries are using UAVs for domestic policing missions; these drones are employed
as a high-tech answer by government to problems such as drug trafficking, gang violence, deforestation, and other illegal activities;
experts say that Latin American countries should collaborate in developing
a code of conduct that will prevent the arming of drones and assuage
civilian concerns Mexico purchased several Israeli-built Heron UAVs // Source: defence.pk More and more Latin and Central American countries
are using UAVs for domestic policing missions. The These drones are employed as a high-tech answer by government to problems such as drug trafficking, gang
violence, deforestation, and other illegal activities. The Christian Science Monitor reports that from Canada to Brazil, at least eleven nations are flying UAVs often
Israeli made over the Western Hemisphere: The United States has been using drones to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border, and the New York Times and Reuters
recently revealed that U.S. drones, with the consent of the Mexican government, have been flying missions deep into Mexico in order to track the drug cartels Mexico
in 2008 deployed its own drones to crime-plagued Ciudad Jurez and today operates up to thirty UAVs nationwide UAV surveillance programs also exist in Argentina,
Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has sold its Heron to Mexico and Ecuador, where it has a branch in
addition to offices in Brazil, Colombia, and Chile Another Israeli firm, Elbit Systems Ltd., has sold its Hermes to Mexico and Brazil In April, Elbit signed a strategic
agreement with Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer, which lauded drones dual-use for monitoring of ports, agricultural, forest, and coastal areas, traffic, etc.
Brazil has been dispatching the Heron to its porous western frontier the 10,500-mile border touches ten nations Brazilian police are considering flying drones over
violent cities and the Amazon to fight deforestation and illegal exploitation of natural resources. Police spokesman said that fourteen Heron drones will be purchased
by 2014 for $395 million The growing presence of drones has led to calls for regulating their use . Experts say that Latin
American countries should collaborate in developing a code of conduct that will prevent the arming of drones and assuage civilian concerns. Johanna Mendelson

Forman, a Latin America specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in Washington, D.C., told the
Monitor: I think its the maturation of Latin American defense systems, she
says, while cautioning that the potential to arm drones could turn the
project into a double-edged sword.

2AC- Mexico/ Terror DA

Armed drones ineffective at cross-border operations- require boots on the ground
which upset the mission and trade off with the P-3 Orions which work better
Bennett 12 (Brian Bennett, Washington Bureau, LA Times, Predator drones have yet to prove
their worth on border, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/28/nation/la-na-drone-bust20120429, April 28, 2012)
The nine unmanned aircraft are expensive to operate but their results are
unimpressive, critics say. But one official says the criticism is shortsighted. The drug runners call it "el mosco," the mosquito, and one recent evening
on the southern tip of Texas, a Predator B drone armed with cameras buzzed softly over the beach on South Padre Island and headed inland. "We're going to get some
bad guys tonight, I've got a feeling," said Scott Peterson, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection supervisory air interdiction agent. He watched the drone's live video
feed in the Predator Ops room at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, about 50 miles away. As the unmanned plane flew up the winding Rio Grande, which forms the
border with Mexico, Peterson fielded excited phone calls. One agent had seen known scouts for a Mexican cartel at a Dairy Queen, suggesting a load of drugs was
coming through. Another called in the precise spot where the shipment would land. Soon the drone's infrared camera picked up a man hauling bales of marijuana from
an inflatable rubber boat into a minivan on the Texas side of the river. Then it spotted a second boat. Agents readied for a major bust. But the

April 18 raid
was not the success Peterson had envisioned. He wanted the drone to track the smugglers to a stash house, and perhaps
to ranking cartel members. Instead, Border Patrol agents rushed to the riverbank, sirens blaring. They seized half a ton of pot, a 1996
Plymouth Voyager van and a boat. The smugglers escaped and no one was arrested. The mixed results highlight a glaring problem for
Homeland Security officials who have spent six years and more than $250 million building the nation's largest fleet of domestic surveillance drones:
The nine Predators that help police America's borders have yet to prove very useful in stopping contraband or illegal immigrants. The
border drones require an hour of maintenance for every hour they fly, cost more to operate than anticipated, and are
frequently grounded by rain or other bad weather, according to a draft audit of the program last month by the Homeland Security Department's inspector
general. Last year, the unmanned fleet flew barely half the number of flight hours that Customs and Border Protection had
scheduled on the northern or southern borders, or over the Caribbean, according to the audit. And the drones often are unavailable
to assist border agents because Homeland Security officials have lent the aircraft to the FBI, Texas Rangers and
other government agencies for law enforcement, disaster relief and other uses. The audit slammed Homeland Security for buying two drones last year and
ordering an additional $20.5-million Predator B system in Cocoa Beach, Fla., this year, saying it already owns more drones than it can utilize. Each drone costs about
$3,000 an hour to fly. "The big problem is that they

are more expensive than traditional methods" of

patrolling, said T.J. Bonner, former president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union of border agents. To help pay for the drones, Customs and Border
Protection has

raided budgets of its manned aircraft . One result: Flight hours were cut
by 10% for the P-3 Orion maritime surveillance planes that hunt smuggling ships on the West Coast and in the
Caribbean. The amount of illicit drugs seized in Predator raids is "not impressive," acknowledged Michael Kostelnik, a retired
Air Force major general who heads the office that supervises the drones. Last year, the nine border drones helped find
7,600 pounds of marijuana, valued at $19.3 million. The 14 manned P-3
Orions helped intercept 148,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $2.8 billion .

Turn- effective regulation key to ensure effective drones in Latin America and
prevent their use in sustaining corruption which is the root cause of terror and drug
cartels- solves and turns the impact
Cawley 14 (Marguerite Cawley, InSightCrime, Offnews.info, Latin American Crime Think
Tank, Drone Use in Latin America: Dangers and Opportunities,
http://www.offnews.info/verArticulo.php?contenidoID=49669, April 24, 2014)
Drones are gaining popularity in Latin American surveillance due to their technological advantages, but their use currently lacks a
legal framework. While people commonly associate drones with extrajudicial killings, in this region unregulated
use raises a different set of issues regarding human rights and sovereignty.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, are now possessed by 14 countries in the region. While their use, or planned use, has included
monitoring agricultural activities or filming protests for media coverage, various militaries have been ramping up their deployment in intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) operations. Brazil currently has the highest number of drones in the region, and is also making serious efforts to increase domestic production of

UAVs. The country's military and police have used Israeli drones to monitor drug trafficking and smuggling, particularly in the border regions, while the navy
employs small drones to monitor the coast. Meanwhile, Mexico's market for drones reportedly grew sevenfold last year, making it Latin America's biggest market for
the technology. Additionally, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela all own UAVs and are working to develop
their own drone technology. Currently, Israel is the top supplier of drones to Latin America, providing $500 million in drones to the region between 2005 and 2012.
The country's biggest sale during this time was 14 drones to Brazil in 2010 for a total of $350 million. China, Russia and Iran, meanwhile, all provided assistance to
Venezuela in developing its first domestic drone. The United States, despite being a principal supplier of security aid to the region, has largely stayed out of the drone
industry in Latin America. This is partly due to relatively strict controls regarding who US manufacturing companies can sell to. However, Colombia has been using
US drones since 2006, according to a WikiLeaks cable, and the US flies Predator B drones -- the unarmed version of their MQ-1 Predator counterparts used in Iraq
and Afghanistan -- over Mexico for cross-border surveillance. Currently, the region's drones are unarmed vehicles used for intelligence gathering on drug trafficking
and rebel groups, to monitor deforestation, and to control illegal migration. The potential presence of armed drones in Latin America is likely still years away,
according to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), as this technology is heavily guarded by the countries that possess it. However, a

"thirst for
further militarization" makes armed drones a distinct possibility for the
future. InSight Crime Analysis The use of drones in Latin America presents a number of unprecedented opportunities and challenges. They provide the
potential for monitoring previously uncontrolled territory, which in the dense jungle regions of Latin America could be a highly useful tool against drug trafficking,
human smuggling, arms trafficking and other criminal activity. US "Argus" drones can detect movement within a 100 square kilometer area. They have also already
proven effective: in 2012, Bolivian authorities credited Brazilian drone surveillance with the discovery of 240 drug labs in Bolivia's Santa Cruz department in June
that year. Additionally, drones require less maintenance or fuel than traditional aircraft, are comparatively inexpensive, and do not imply human costs in regard to crew

have also raised serious concerns about their

use. While many people hear the word "drone" and immediately shudder, thinking of armed drone strikes by the US on Middle East terrorist groups that have
killed numerous civilians, in Latin America these concerns center largely on a lack of
regulation or civilian oversight over the use of unarmed drones. Currently,
there is no legal framework regulating domestic drone use in Latin
American countries, except in Brazil, while control over the technology remains largely in military hands. Nor are there any international
or potential loss of life. Yet these same technological advantages

treaties to regulate drone use. Human rights advocates have expressed concerns over the implications of drone use if they are used for mass surveillance. At a recent
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) meeting, Argentine human rights lawyer Santiago Canton said, "When

people want
to have public demonstrations drones can have a chilling effect and can
intimidate people into not doing it." This is a particular concern in certain Latin American
countries with a history of political repression and the silencing of opposition .
There are already major concerns about freedom of expression in countries like Venezuela and Ecuador, where dissident media is targeted with arrests, threats and

raise the specter of a "big

brother" situation, in which citizen rights are further repressed through spying and constant
surveillance. Another concern lies in the potential implications of drone use that breaches sovereignty,
which has already led to some political clashes. Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina have all accused Brazil of
fines, and in Brazil, where the state was accused of using illegal force against protesters last year. Drones

flying UAVs for surveillance purposes in their territories without permission, particularly in the Triple Frontier region bordering the latter two. Former Colombian
Defense Minister Gabriel Silva admitted in 2012 that Colombia performed unauthorized intelligence operations in Venezuela with drones under the administration of

If armed drones were to enter the mix in the future, the

problem presented by this "gray area" in regard to appropriate drone use
would, predictably, become more serious . There is a precedent here with a different technology: in 2008, Colombia
launched US-made "smart bombs" -- weapons equipped with GPS guidance -- across the border into Ecuador to kill FARC
commander Raul Reyes. The fallout from this led to more than a year of severed ties
between the two nations. Drone use also raises another question: what
happens if this technology falls into the wrong hands? According to COHA, the difficulty of setting
former President Alvaro Uribe.

up and utilizing drones reduces the possibility of criminal use, but crime groups are constantly evolving their techniques and using more sophisticated machinery, and
it would not be impossible for them to acquire the technology from private companies. In criminal or insurgent hands, even an unarmed drone would be a powerful
intelligence weapon. In the end, drones offer novel intelligence and surveillance solutions and could be successfully deployed in the fight against organized crime, but

it is essential that their use be closely monitored. Both national and international regulations will need to be put in place to ensure they are
not used for the wrong reasons, by the wrong people, or without authorization from neighboring countries. If this is done effectively,
their use could present interesting opportunities for so-called "southsouth" cooperation in anti-narcotics and anti-smuggling efforts .

Mexican economic growth and cooperation with the United States high- no risk of
US invasion
YT 1/6 (Yucatan Times, U.S.Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue Fact Sheet,
http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/01/u-s-mexico-high-level-economic-dialogue-fact-sheet/,

January 6, 2015)
U.S. Vice

President hosted the Mexican government for the second meeting of the U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic
is a flexible platform that allows the
U.S. and Mexican governments to advance our economic priorities, foster growth, create jobs, and
improve competitiveness. Cabinet officials from the U.S. and Mexico meet annually, while sub-cabinet
officials work toward these goals year-round. Private sector and civil society representatives are an
important part of this process. Together, the two countries discuss the best way to develop our economic
relationship with a view toward strengthening the North American economy
while supporting our workers and companies. HLED will also help advance our efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Dialogue (HLED) in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington DC. HLED

agreement, a 21st-century historic trade and investment agreement that includes 12 Asia-Pacific countries, intended to further deepen regional
economic relations and boost economic growth, development, prosperity, and job creation in both countries. The HLED dialogue was launched
through a cabinet-level meeting in September 2013 in Mexico. Vice President Biden hosted the January 6, 2015 meeting in Washington the
second cabinet-level meeting of the dialogue giving us the opportunity to take stock of our accomplishments to date and establish new priorities
for 2015. Who Participates in HLED On the U.S. side, the HLED is co-chaired by the Departments of State and Commerce, and the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative, and also includes the participation of other agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Homeland
Security, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Treasury, together with the U.S. Agency for International Development and other governmental
entities. On the Mexican side, it is co-chaired by the Secretariats of Economy, Finance, and Foreign Relations, and includes the participation of
the Secretariats of Agriculture, Communications and Transport, Education, Energy, Labor, and Tourism, together with Mexican Customs, the
investment promotion agency ProMexico, the National Institute for Entrepreneurship, and others. Stakeholder input is key to making the HLED a
dynamic platform and we welcome input from the private sector and civil society on our website: www.trade.gov/hled. Vice President Joe Biden
with Mexican Finance Secretary Luis Videgaray during the U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic Dialogue (HLED) in Washington, D.C. (Photo:
www.state.gov) Vice President Joe Biden with Mexican Finance Secretary Luis Videgaray during the U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic
Dialogue (HLED) in Washington, D.C. January 6th, 2015. (Photo: www.state.gov) HLED Goals To elevate the economic relationship and in
order to open opportunities for consumers, employees, private sector representatives, and business owners on both sides of the border, the United
States and Mexico have developed a work plan with three pillars: Promoting

Competitiveness and Connectivity; Fostering

Economic Growth, Productivity, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation; and Partnering for Regional and Global Leadership Within these pillars,
our governments have committed to the priorities below for 2015: Energy and climate change cooperation. At

the January 2015

meeting, for the first time, our governments agreed to add energy and climate cooperation to the HLED work-plan. The
United States and Mexico will enhance communication and collaboration between our energy agencies,
facilitate cross-border flow of energy-related equipment, improve information on U.S.-Mexico energy
flows, create a binational business-to-business energy council, increase regulatory cooperation, and
enhance safety and capacity-building programs, including training energy regulators, to support Mexicos
energy reform. We will also continue efforts that help our governments meet our climate change goals,
including by promoting renewable energy, sharing strategies for low-emission development, and working
together through technical cooperation and information exchange on how best to implement our shared
climate objectives, before and after 2020. In support of broader regional energy and climate collaboration,
Mexico is hosting in 2015 the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas and the Clean Energy
Ministerial. Deepen regulatory cooperation. Regulatory cooperation can increase economic
growth in each country; lower costs for consumers, businesses, producers, and governments; increase
trade in goods and services; and improve our ability to protect the environment, health, and safety of our
citizens. Our governments have pledged to collaborate in priority areas and continue the work of the
High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council. Strengthen and modernize our border. Our
governments have agreed to focus not only on the infrastructure and the facilitation of trade and legitimate
travel, but also the social, economic, financial, and environmental elements for the adequate development of the region. Also, through
complementary processes like the 21st Century Border Management Initiative, our governments have pledged to identify priority projects and
reduce bottlenecks at the border. Increase

educational exchanges and boost workforce

development. The U.S. and Mexico created the Bilateral Forum on Education, Innovation, and Research (FOBESII) to increase
educational and professional exchange programs, promote joint science and technology research, and spur innovation. FOBESII complements
President Obamas 100,000 Strong in the Americas initiative, which seeks to increase student mobility between the United States and the
countries of the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico. By investing in our citizens, this initiative creates a stronger workforce and regional
economy for the benefit of both of our nations. Support

transparency and anti-corruption efforts. We support measures

to enhance government transparency, including under the global Open Government Partnership, chaired

this year by both the Mexican government and civil society. In 2015, we will continue to work with our
OGP partners around the world to support advances in open government, open budgeting, access to
information, transparency and anti-corruption. This includes support for government efforts to implement
commitments contained in their OGP National Action Plans. Promote entrepreneurship and innovation.
The U.S. Department of State and the Mexican National Entrepreneurship Institute (INADEM) launched
the Mexican-U.S. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Council (MUSEIC) to foster the role that
entrepreneurship and innovation play in economic growth. The goal of this unique, binational publicprivate partnership is to enhance regional competitiveness by boosting North Americas high-impact
entrepreneurship ecosystem. Promote investment. Investment promotion agencies on both sides of the
border SelectUSA and ProMxico are building on their agreement signed in 2014. They have started
to share information and collaborate at investment promotion events in order to leverage our shared
economic strength to achieve competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Promote womens
economic empowerment. Both governments recognize womens empowerment and economic
participation are essential for competitiveness. When promoting entrepreneurship, educational exchange,
or regional competitiveness, Mexico and the U.S. have integrated gender as a top program priority. HLED
Successes The HLED has produced tangible results . We have initialed an air transport agreement which will
benefit travelers, shippers, airlines, and the economies of both countries with competitive pricing and
more convenient air service. Our two countries have increased cooperation to more efficiently manage
our telecommunications systems. Infrastructure improvements at the border have cut wait times
significantly for people crossing into the United States at San Diego, CA, and Nogales, AZ. We signed an
agreement for mutual recognition of our trusted trader programs to ease the flow of goods across
borders and we signed a Memorandum of Intent to promote investment. Together we created the Bilateral Forum for
Higher Education, Innovation and Research (FOBESII), which held a series of six workshops that included over 450 stakeholders from
government, private, and academic spheres all working to propel the studies and careers of hundreds of students and professionals. With
academia and the private sector, we facilitated sending more than 27,000 Mexican students and teachers to the United States in 2014 and signed
23 new bilateral education agreements. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding to begin a consular exchange program between our foreign
ministries. We formed the Mexico-U.S. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Council (MUSEIC) and held events designed to improve access to
finance for businesses and launched entrepreneurship training sessions. We connected Small Business Networks in Mexico and the
United States to share innovative practices and support entrepreneurs on both sides of the border. These actions are only the beginning, and 2015
promises to be another successful year for the HLED. With the HLED, we prosper together.

Heg inevitable
economics, military dominance, geography, alliances and demographics

Donilon 14, Tom, distinguished fellow at the council on foreign relations, senior partner at the international law firm OMelveny and
Myers, We're No. 1 (and We're Going to Stay That Way) July 3rd,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way_american_decline

Every 10 years or so, a new bout of profound pessimism has swept the nation. In his fine book, The Myth of America's
Decline, the German journalist and author Josef Joffe documents these periodic waves of declinism. Declinists in the late 1960s asserted
that the cost of the Vietnam War and social and racial tensions would bring about what one prominent historian called "the unraveling of
America." In the 1970s, declinists signaled the end by pointing to inflation, oil shocks, and unemployment.
An ally fell in Iran and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. In the 1980s, Americans looked with awe and fear at Japan's growing economic strength,
and historians said we would soon become one of history's forgotten empires. But in each instance, the sky didn't fall, the United
States didn't sink into the ocean, and it remains the most preeminent nation on Earth. We need to be humble about our ability to predict the future
with certainty, but the evidence is that there

has long been a tendency to underestimate America's staying power .

Today, the declinists are back, arguing that China will soon overtake us and that our gridlocked politics, long-term deficits, and
decaying infrastructure will prevent us from playing the same global role that we have since World War II. We must take these concerns seriously
and not assume that America will retain its primacy simply because declinists in the past have turned out to be wrong. Leadership is not
something the United States has by happenstance -- it is something we have had to earn over and over again. So how

do we actually
quantify power? Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his latest book, Strategic Vision, assigned the United States a
strategic balance sheet of assets and liabilities. His framework sets up a useful way of analyzing where we stand today. We certainly have

strategic liabilities that we cannot ignore. But what is sometimes lost in the periodic wringing of hands is just how extraordinary and enduring
America's assets are -- first and foremost our ability to deal with whatever challenges may come our way. Measuring power in today's globalized
world is a complex task. A country's

strength and influence go beyond the old, one-dimensional quantifiers that

we used to use, like steel outputs and troop numbers. While our military might is tremendous and essential, power
today is more often exercised through economic vitality, the capacity for innovation, a vibrant and stable
political system, and a resilient society. It is not measuring strength in one or two dimensions that captures a country's position, but
rather the accumulation and the interaction between these assets. Here, then, are five of those core strengths: Economic resiliency More than
anything else, the

American economy is the wellspring of our global leadership . There are not a lot of iron
laws of history, but one of them is that a nation's power is directly related to its economic strength . As
President Barack Obama has said, "Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power." The 2008 financial crisis tested our
resilience and dealt a real blow to our international prestige and authority. Long-term challenges remain. But the fact is that no
country comes close to matching our fundamental economic strength. The U.S. economy is built on a sound structural
foundation, combining an entrepreneurial orientation, deep and efficient capital markets, highly experienced managers, and strong technological
leadership. By

every measure, the United States has the largest national economy in the world today,
generating nearly $17 trillion in GDP. Our economy is nearly double the size of the second-largest, China's. Our
stock market capitalization is five times bigger than China's. We lead the world in attracting foreign direct
investment and are also the world's largest single investing economy. An economy's most important asset, however, is not its sheer size.
China's enormous population base will put it on a path to become the largest economy in the world at some point in the future. But history shows
that size alone has not been the most important factor in determining the most powerful nation. At the peak of Britain's global power, it was China
that had the world's largest economy, even though the country was then a middling power in the throes of what the Chinese refer to as their
"century of humiliation." A far better measure of an economy's health is its quality and sustainability. We

have the wealthiest large

economy in the world, as well as one of the most diversified and technologically advanced . China has a very
large economy, but it's still a poor country. According to the World Bank, U.S. GDP per capita is $53,143; China's is $6,807. That provides an
important perspective. And when we look to our prospects for the future, it's clear that the

United States is well poised to maintain

our leading position. Think about three aspects of our economy: innovation, energy, and higher education. First, the United States
has an innovation edge over the rest of the world. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter -- all are synonymous
with American economic vitality today, but only one of these companies existed 15 years ago. The eight largest technology
companies in the world by market capitalization are based in the United States. And when it comes to the next frontiers in
extraordinary breakout technology, like 3-D manufacturing, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, cloud computing, robotics, big data, and
advanced material science, American entrepreneurs and companies are leading the way. The

United States also leads the world in

research and development, with a projected $465 billion in spending this year -- that's over 30 percent of all global R&D. Like so many of our
strengths, our innovation advantage didn't happen by accident. It stems from the combination of a risk-taking
culture, significant investment by the American government in research, the best universities in the world
churning out good ideas, and the kind of regulations and access to liquid and deep capital markets that
make it possible to turn those ideas into businesses. And all these strengths come together in Silicon Valley, which represents
to the world our spirit of creativity and innovation. A second -- and frankly unexpected -- U.S. economic asset is our national
energy outlook. For most of the past 40 years, the United States thought of itself as a nation dependent on oil and energy-related events
beyond our shores. Now, as U.S. innovation and technology allow us to tap unconventional resources, nearly every
prediction about our energy future has been turned on its head. Today, the United States is the No. 1 producer
of natural gas in the world, and the price of natural gas here is a fraction of what it is elsewhere. The International Energy Agency
projects that the United States will be the world's largest producer of oil by the end of the decade. Unconventional energy will propel our
economy and support American jobs -- nearly 900,000 by next year will come just from shale gas. Meanwhile, our

new energy security

is allowing us to engage the world from a position of strength . It gives us the latitude to support allies and,
if need be, punish adversaries. The success of the international sanctions on Iran, for example, was made possible in large part because
Washington was confident that increased American supply afforded it the possibility of removing a million barrels of Iranian oil off the market
each day without dramatic increases in gasoline costs to U.S. consumers. And it was the bite of those sanctions that ultimately brought the
Iranians to the negotiating table last year. Like our success in innovation, this energy renaissance did not happen by accident or because of luck -it is truly an only-in-America story. Many other countries have promising shale deposits. The reason that the United States has seen such dramatic
and fast-paced energy changes is because decades ago, we made wise, significant investments in key technologies, and we have the right balance
of an open investment climate, an innovative and entrepreneurial spirit, environmental safeguards, infrastructure, and property ownership rights.
Today, the wide availability of cheap natural gas in the United States has become a major competitive advantage for our energy-intensive
manufacturers, particularly compared with Europe and China. Meanwhile, the

reduction of energy imports has brought our

trade deficit to a four-year low, which allows a greater share of the money Americans spend on energy to remain within the country.
We also now have the opportunity for the export of both natural gas and crude oil to the world, which will support our allies, stabilize the world's
energy supply, and expand our own prosperity. Another

source of long-term economic strength is America's higher

education system. Our universities are the envy of the world. We are home to 17 of the top 20 research
universities. Our scientists publish far more papers in prominent journals than those in any other country.
In 2013, a record 820,000 foreign students were enrolled at U.S. universities. Warren Buffett summed it up nicely in his latest letter to his
shareholders: "I have always considered a 'bet' on ever-rising U.S. prosperity to be very close to a sure thing. Indeed, who has ever benefited
during the past 237 years by betting against America? If you compare our country's present condition to that existing in 1776, you have to rub
your eyes in wonder. And the dynamism embedded in our market economy will continue to work its magic. America's

best days
lie ahead." Military might and alliances By any measure, our military power is unmatched, and that's not likely
to change anytime soon. In terms of sheer size, the United States spends more each year on defense than the next
10 nations put together. Our defense budget is more than five times bigger than that of our nearest competitor,
China -- despite that country's rapid military buildup. Even after 13 years of war -- the longest period of continuous conflict our armed forces
have ever seen -- we remain capable of defeating any adversary. But even these measurements underestimate our military's
true advantages. The U.S. Navy owns 11 of the world's 20 aircraft carriers , making America the only
country on Earth with a truly global power projection. With more than a decade of experience fighting terrorism, our
special operations forces have become a unique American asset . The May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in
Abbottabad, Pakistan -- over 7,000 miles away from the United States -- was only the most visible example of how our battle-tested special
operators successfully execute complex missions in dangerous places across the globe. And by historical measures, the current U.S. defense
burden is not excessive as a share of GDP. As we wind down the war in Afghanistan, our military now stands on a more sustainable footing,
without the kind of overstretch that some have worried about. We also possess

a network of formal alliances with over 50

nations -- the largest in history. Centered on our treaty alliances in Asia and Europe, this network has been built for over half a century
on a bipartisan basis. No other country can look to anything like it. These enduring partnerships are a unique
American strength, and we continue to deepen them across the globe today. The luck of geography Geography and natural
resources are our most natural advantage. These enduring strengths are rarely discussed, but they have
provided for the safety and prosperity of the American people from the days since the first settlers arrived .
We are an Atlantic and a Pacific power, an American and an Arctic nation . We are protected by oceans and
peaceful borders. We live in a hemisphere of mostly stable democracies, and we enjoy friendly, productive relations with our fellow
American states. The bottom-line strategic point is that the United States does not face any real threats in its own hemisphere. Almost uniquely,
the United States is not a dependent power. In addition to our energy resources, we have other diverse and valuable sets of natural resources.

The United States has the largest deposits of rare-earth minerals at a time when competition for those
resources is on the rise. Our country is situated on the largest fertile land mass, helping make us the
breadbasket of the world. We are the largest food exporter, and our rich farmlands help insulate Americans
against price shocks and food shortages. None of this means that the United States can afford to ignore what takes place beyond
our shores -- our interests are too great and the fate of nations is too interconnected -- but it provides us greater latitude to pursue our interests
across the globe. Demography and immigration We are likewise blessed to have

a bright demographic future. Our

workforce is relatively young and still growing. Between now and 2050, the U.S. population is expected to grow by nearly 100
million people, expanding our workforce by 40 percent. Contrast that with the populations of other developed nations in
Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea, which are aging and shrinking. By 2050, the median age in China will be
nearly 50; in the United States it will be 40. A big part of the reason our demographic profile looks better than the rest of the world's is that we
are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are both younger than the population at large and participate in the
workforce in larger numbers than those born in the U nited States. Immigrant communities are also a
tremendous source of creativity, and the United States has a distinct advantage over other developed nations when it comes to
attracting highly skilled immigrants. Foreign entrepreneurs and scientists choose to make the U nited States their home
because it is easier to enter our labor markets and move within them than in any other developed country. Our open
society allows for more seamless integration than anywhere else. That's why it's so important for Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration
reform bill. Reform is not just a domestic issue -- it's a strategic issue -- and it's crucial to locking in our global advantage in human capital. The
virtues of leadership The final asset is America's unique global leadership role. For generations, Americans

have taken up the

mantle of leadership in a world torn by war and scarred by oppression . We have repeatedly put American blood and
treasure on the line to defend our values and advance universal rights. The world still expects us to lead today. People everywhere look
to America to protect global commerce, ensure the free flow of energy, and control the spread of

dangerous weapons. Plenty of countries have leverage. But there is a very big difference between leverage
and leadership. The United States brings to bear more than just resources. It has an unmatched ability to
convene countries and coordinate international efforts . That's because of the attractiveness of our ideas, our tradition of
leadership, and the fact that we've nurtured such a successful international system.

Obama cant execute hegemony

Chapin 13 (Paul Chapin, Former director general for international security at the Department
of Foreign Affairs and is currently a director at the Atlantic Council of Canada, Ottawa Citizen,
Goodwill squandered, U.S. foreign policy is adrift,
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/story.html?id=8658880, July 15, 2013)
The foreign policy of the United States is beginning to accumulate a record of
diplomatic failure among the worst in U.S. history. Not since Woodrow Wilson raised the
hopes of the world after the First World War and then failed to deliver U.S. leadership has an American
president been such a disappointment. Barack Obamas international standing today is in free fall,
and that is bad news whatever ones political affiliations. The United States is on the road to losing the war against
Islamism, and among the futures we must now contemplate are mullah oligarchies ruling from North Africa to West Asia, nuclear brinkmanship
between regimes in the Gulf, more asymmetric warfare in the streets of the great cities of the world, and perhaps another war for Israels survival.
President Obama took office in 2009 amid some of the highest expectations ever for an incoming president of the United States. It was a classic
case of irrational exuberance. By

any objective measure, he had one of the weakest resums of any new president,
and his closest advisers had even less grounding in foreign affairs than he did. Moreover, the president
appointed no foreign policy veteran of stature as secretary of state or national security adviser to
compensate for his own limitations, and he marginalized the best people he had such as Hillary Clinton,
Jim Jones and Richard Holbrooke. Robert Gates was retained from the Bush administration as secretary of defence, but largely to
see through the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq and then Afghanistan. He was gone in two years. Nor did the president apparently
seek advice. According to the former foreign editor of Newsweek, Edward Klein, in 2011 when Bill Clinton was urging Hillary to
run again against Obama, he told a group of insiders: Ive had two successors since I left the White House
Bush and Obama and Ive heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than Ive heard from
Obama ... Obama doesnt know how to be president. He doesnt know how the world works. Hes
incompetent ... Barack Obama is an amateur. The stakes are high, and the tragedy is that such a great
opportunity has been lost. The Obama record provides an object lesson in squandering good will. In July
2008, while he was still just a candidate for president, Obama visited Berlin and was greeted by a crowd of 200,000. When he returned as

reported Hes
demystified and no longer a superstar in German eyes. Now hes just another world
leader on a state visit, and whatever problems people have with U.S. policy are on his shoulders. According
to an annual Gallup tracking poll, European approval of U.S. leadership dropped from 47 per cent in 2009 to 36 per
cent in 2012. Worldwide, the median approval of U.S. leadership across 130 countries declined from 49
per cent in Obamas first year to 41 per cent last year. In Canada innocent and blinkered as ever 59 per cent approved
president in June of this year, the crowd was not much more than 5,000, most of whom were invited guests. Reuters

and 32 per cent disapproved in 2012. Only in Africa is Obamas popularity still quite high. But it has fallen from the days when virtually the
entire population of the continent erupted in joy that an American of Kenyan descent had become president. The presidents approval numbers
today appear to be in the 70 per cent range, down some 20 points from four years ago. When he visited South Africa two weeks ago, he has met
by demonstrations. According

to the London Telegraph, presidents Bush and Clinton are more fondly
remembered in Africa for their multi-billion-dollar programs to treat AIDS and ease trade. It would not
be wrong, in the view of a senior academic at the University of Johannesburg, to say that George W.
Bush probably did more for this continent. The president is also in political trouble at home, with foreign
policy being one of the reasons. In the time that has passed since Obama was first elected president, a sense of inevitability has
attached to his victory which carried through to the 2012 election. But if his first win was comfortable, it was no landslide (52.9 per cent of the
popular vote) and his second was closer still (51 per cent). The mainstream media wrote off Mitt Romney, but he got a million more votes than
John McCain did, along with a very respectable 206 electoral college votes. In the 2010 midterm elections, Obama lost control of the House of
Representatives and he did not win it back in 2012. A sign

of the deterioration in Obamas domestic strength is that

Bushs ratings now beat Obamas. Americans views of the former president vilified as

few political personages have ever been are now more positive than negative (49 per cent to 46 per
cent) and are better than those of the current president (47 per cent to 44 per cent). Time obviously provides perspective.
Earlier this year, Micah Cohen of The New York Times reported that Obamas approval ratings in foreign
policy were barely above water. In April, polls indicated that the presidents net job approval on foreign policy (the percentage of
those who approve minus the percentage of those who disapprove) was in the range of plus-1 to plus-3, compared to plus-9 to plus-19 right after
the election. In the view of Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, things may get worse for Obama as current scandals further erode his
support. Obama

used Bush as an excuse for practically every miscue and problem right up through the
election. ... Obama, one suspects, has no net to catch him now as his support and credibility plunge. So
what happened? In his study of the world Obama faced on coming to office, The Inheritance, David Sanger of The New York Times wrote that:
The symbolism of electing a biracial president with the middle name Hussein is a powerful antidote to the caricature of America as an intolerant,
hegemonic power. But he warned that it would only take the U.S. so far in restoring our leverage and deploying our portfolio of influence
around the world. Three years later, in Confront and Conceal, Sanger would write that Obama promised to restore traditional American
engagement by talking and listening to Americas most troubling adversaries and reluctant partners ... But it quickly became evident that
engagement is just a tactic, not a real strategy. As it turned out,

the essence of Obamas foreign policy strategy was to act

unilaterally when confronted with a direct threat to American security and to decline to act on a threat
to the global order unless others with more immediate interests at stake were prepared to commit greater
resources and take greater risks. This is not a strategy any U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt would
have recognized, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter. And it is not one other democratic states should leave
unattended. If the U.S. is not going to take the lead in dealing with global problems, others must do so. To date, however, only France and Britain
have demonstrated any international leadership.

1AR- Mexico/ Terror DA Link Turn

Turn- non-armed surveillance solve- we are key to maintain those
AMAC 11 (AMAC News, Surveillance Drones on U.S.-Mexico Border,
http://amac.us/surveillance-drones-on-u-s-mexico-border/, December 27. 2011)
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is

utilizing high-tech surveillance drones to overfly the rugged Arizona

gather intelligence about drug cartel activities and illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico.
There are now six of the high-altitude, unmanned, unarmed surveillance craft in use along
the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexico border. Four are based in Sierra Vista, AZ and two more overfly the border
from Corpus Christi, Texas. The missions from these two centers allow CBP to deploy its unmanned
aircraft from the eastern tip of California across the common Mexican land borders of Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas, CBP said in a statement.
borderlands to

1AR- Mexico Failed State Defense

No Mexican or Latin American failed statereject media hype
by Martn Paredes El Paso News February 28, 2014 George Friedman: Mexico is not a Failed
State http://elpasonews.org/2014/02/george-friedman-mexico-failed-state/ ac 8-27
A failed state read the headlines. Doom

and gloom, Mexico was about to implode led the news cycles starting
around 2008. A revolution as about to start south of the US border, it was just a matter of days. Fast forward to today
and the notion that Mexico is on the verge of becoming a failed state is as
idiotic today as it was then. The news reporters happily interviewed the dubious characters
predicting Mexicos failures because to lead with Mexicos imminent demise was an easy sell for the US
appetite for sensational headlines. I understand that the news media has to attract eyeballs in
order to stay in business. Eyeballs sell advertising and the more eyeballs the more financially stable the
news outlet is. Most of the time when I am discussing the state of the news media with a reporter and news outlet executive the topic of
tabloids leads to heated discussions about ethics in journalism. That discussion invariably leads to how blogging has destroyed the
profession of the professional news outlet. I always counter that the demise of the newspapers and news outlets to Internet
delivered news is a direct result of the failure of the traditional news outlets adhering to the basics of fair and ethical news reporting. The
demise of the traditional news media came about when sensationalism became the accepted practice
rather than the exception. I dont blame the so-called experts on everything drug cartel related because
they are nothing more than individuals looking to make a quick buck by
proclaiming themselves experts on the drug traffickers in Mexico. The notion of the imminent failure
of Mexico was started by information peddler George Friedman in May of 2008 with his self-serving,
make-another-dollar opinion that was nothing more than another charlatan peddling his goods to
those willing to buy. The problem with people like Friedman is that the news media is too happy to label
them experts in order to ply their sensational headlines to their audience. George Friedmans company
and raison dete is his company Stratfor. Stratfor peddles strategic analysis about geopolitics. In essence,
the company has self-proclaimed itself as an expert in global security in order to sell its publications to
individuals and governments. It peddles self-proclaimed expertise in security. The problem though is that
their security expertise apparently doesnt include their own operations because in 2011, the hacker
group Anonymous broke into their systems. In February 2012, Wikileaks began publishing the stolen emails. Friedmans
Stratfor has taken the position that you cant trust the released emails because they will not confirm which ones are authenticate and which ones
may be doctored after they were stolen. To me, this position is nothing more than a desperate attempt to discount the theft of their emails.
Regardless, for a so-called expert on security the theft of their emails shows a distinct failure in their ability to protect themselves and thus the
security of their clients. For his part, George Friedman, born in Budapest Hungary is a former professor and now an author and owner of Stratfor.
He peddles information to those willing to buy it. I am sure you are all aware of the famous phrase; those who cant, teach. Most appropriate
for Friedman. A Failed

State is generally defined as a country that has lost some or all control over its
sovereignty. The fact is that Mexico, even at the height of the Mexican Drug War never relinquished
control over its sovereignty. I am sure some of you will argue that there were and are pockets of criminality in Mexico that seem to
surpass the governments ability to maintain control. However, all of that rhetoric ignores a fundamental reality; a failed
state has a failed economy and an ineffective government. So, lets take a look at those two functions. Has
the Mexican economy faltered? The World Bank ranks Mexicos economy as the second largest
economy south of the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande), behind Brazil. This month Moodys rated Mexico as A3, the first time
the country has received an A rating in its entire history. Keep in mind that the rating is derived from actions taken by two administrations
under two different political parties. I

wish George Friedman would explain to everyone how it is that a country on

the verge of collapse is able to attain an A rating for its econom y. Somehow, I dont expect he will, as it isnt something he
can sell to the news outlets and his subscribers looking for doom-and-gloom coming from Mexico. Somehow, a country on the verge
of collapse, according to George Friedman is on the road to becoming the United States number one
automobile exporter this year. Again, how is it that a country on the verge of collapse continues to build
enough automobiles to outpace Canada and Japan? Clearly, the Mexican economy is not on the verge of

collapse and therefore the countrys government is in full control. So, lets a take a look at the
transition of power. On December 1, 2012, President Enrique Pea Nieto took office. Mexico had
effectively transitioned power from one government to another. Former President Felipe Calderon
Hinojosa, who initiated the Mexican Drug War, democratically relinquished power in a transition from
one party to another. Both US president Barack Obama and leftist president Hugo Chavez both agreed that the transfer of power was
properly completed. In other words, two opposing political ideologies both agreed that Mexicos electoral process
was completed properly under the law. In fact, Mexico has now transitioned power from one party, to
another and back to the original party making Mexico a two-party country. So much for the notion that
Mexico was on the verge of collapse. The problem of the drug cartels is a significant problem for Mexico
but it is a geopolitical problem with many facets at work at the same time. For the most part Mexico has risen
to the occasion and has demonstrated that far from being a failed state, it is in fact an economically
growing country in full control of its sovereignty. As much as the naysayers want it to be, the facts are
that Mexico is not some backwards country on the border holding the US back . Rather it is a country that
the US should be proud to call a friend. Unfortunately, for people like George Friedman and those who
subscribe to his voodoo research the facts are just inconvenient things that should be ignored .

No Mexican state failure

Couch 12Brigadier, British Army (Neil, Mexico in Danger of Rapid Collapse. Reality or Exaggeration?, Royal College
of Defence Studies Seaford House Paper, 2012, dml)

A collapsed state, however, as postulated in the Pentagon JOE paper, suggests a total vacuum of authority, the state
having become a mere geographical expression.16 Such an extreme hypothesis of Mexico disappearing like those earlier
European states seems implausible for a country that currently has the worlds 14th largest
economy and higher predicted growth than either the UK, Germany or the USA; that has no
external threat from aggressive neighbours, which was the one constant in the European experience according to Tilly;
and does not suffer the disharmony between communities that Rotberg says is a feature
common amongst failed states.17,18 A review of the literature does not reveal why the JOE paper might have
suggested criminal gangs and drug cartels as direct causes leading to state collapse. Crime and
corruption tend to be described not as causes but as symptoms demonstrating failure. For example, a
study for Defense Research and Development Canada attempting to build a predictive model for proximates of state
failure barely mentions either.19 One of the principal scholars on the subject, Rotberg, says that in failed
states, corruption flourishes and gangs and criminal syndicates assume control of the streets, but again
as effect rather than trigger.20 The Fund for Peace Failed States Index, does not use either of them as a
headline indicator, though both are used as contributory factors. This absence may reflect an assessment that numerous states
suffer high levels of organised crime and corruption and nevertheless do not fail. Mandel describes
the corruption and extreme violence of the Chinese Triads, Italian Mafia, Japanese Yakuza and the
Russian Mob that, in some cases, has continued for centuries.21 Yet none of these countries were
singled out as potential collapsed or failed states in the Pentagons paper. Indeed, thousands of Americans were killed in gang
warfare during Prohibition and many people knew or at least suspected that politicians, judges, lawyers, bankers and business concerns
collected many millions of dollars from frauds, bribes and various forms of extortion.22 Organised crime and corruption were the
norm in the political, business, and judicial systems and police forces ran their own rackets rather than enforcing the law.23 Neither the
violence nor the corruption led to state failure .

Mexico wont become a failed state their ev is biased

Nava 10 Major Juan P Nava, US Army, Narco-Crime in Mexico: Indication of State Failure or
Symptoms of an Emerging Democracy? online pdf.
The Mexican military and security forces, branches of the executive branch of government with a long tradition of

domestic stabilization and an early history of political power, enjoy the respect of the people,
institutionally professionalize, and respond to the constituted authority of elected civilian leaders . Outresourced and underequipped, these forces struggle to establish control and achieve the delicate balance between policing a state and a police
state. The

Mexican economy demonstrates durability, diversity and resiliency as the second largest trading
partner to the United States. Largely due to the ongoing continued efforts at globalization and in no small
part due to previous free trade status with the US, the Mexican economy will achieve growth on pace or
ahead of the US. Wealth distribution inequities with Mexican society will continue to produce internal
tensions, but do not represent a threat to national economic progress . With increased enrollment in
education, increased life expectancy, decreased infant mortality, and modern public transportation,
energy, and medical care systems, Mexico provides essential services to its citizens .
Other characteristics identified by Rotberg also provided by Mexico for its citizens include: roads, railways, harbors, arteries of commerce,

overwhelming empirical evidence supports the finding

that Mexico will not fail and that the narco-criminal violence evidenced within Mexico reflects a
reformist governments attempts to exert strength by establishing sovereignty and governance with a
monopoly on the use of violence. Mexico has a complex criminal problem. The drug cartel organizations evolved
and currently permeate legitimate elements of Mexican society with expanded international networks. Though the cartels operate
among the Mexican people, the people still regard the cartel organizations negatively . Though overwhelmingly
poor, the people continue to try to achieve altruistic reform and achieve a society void of opportunistic and
greedy criminals. Drug crime in Mexico, and the violence associated with it, does not reflect an
insurgency movement. As the aggressive tactics of a reformist President stir the proverbial hornets nests within certain regions of
communications networks, and a banking system. The

Mexico, the increase in violence will likely increase. Calderon's clear-hold-build strategy continues to achieve results on both sides of the border,
both in terms of captured or eliminated cartel members, and in increased and successful prosecutions of narco-criminals, especially in the United
States. Metrics of Calderon's success or failure do not include the number of those killed in drug related crime. Rather, more appropriately,
President Calderon measurement of success centers on his ability to convince and maintain credibility with both the Mexican people and the
international community that his aggressive efforts will achieve a stable and secure environment within a highly competitive new media
information environment rife with counter-messaging of instability, violence, and potential state failure. The close election of Calderon
represented the exertion of the cartel political power as they strove to re-acquire positions of power within government. Calderon, however,
prevailed and decided to exert even more pressure on the cartels to the eventual tune of approximately 50,000 troops and police to combat the
drug networks. This

pressure caused cartels to react with both increased number and ferocity of attacks on all
elements, the citizens, police, military, judiciary and politicians . With the increased focus on the problem
of cartel organizations and their violent reactions, US media, especially those from the border regions,
leverage the spectacular nature of the deaths to agitate the US citizenry to the point of contemplating
Mexico as a failed state. Mexico exhibits all the necessary traits of a young and struggling democracy that, without significant support,
could easily fall back into previous semi-authoritarian practices that would embolden and further enable cartels to operate beyond the influence of
the Mexican government. However, a

return to a semi-authoritarian, or even an

authoritarian government does not mean the state will fail. The 400+ cases of
corruption within US agencies emerged from within the US system. These officials, possibly beholden to
Mexican cartels, stand accountable for their own actions. They operated within our systems. Likewise, the market for illegal
drugs stems from a prevalent US hunger for the substances. Most of the weapons used in the narco-violence originate from the US. Still,
American citizens living in Washington D.C., statistically and proportionately, are more likely to die from murder than will a Mexican citizen.
While the

Mexican economy, about the size of California, shows more promise of

emerging from the global recession. The ongoing drug-related violence in the northern
regions of Mexico and the Southwest border regions of the United States indicate Mexican state weakness
in the area of security, but falls well short of indicating that Mexico will fail . The violence epitomizes the will of the
people carried out by a duly and truly democratically elected government against a powerful system of opposition. Lacking any desire to
replace the current government, the cartel organizations respond to the deliberate pressures of the
Mexican government with coercive intimidation and heightened violence in an effort to outlast the will of
the government and continue to engage in lucrative illegal activity. As the democratic government continues to conduct
aggressive counterdrug operations on behalf of the Mexican people, this violence will also continue. The current security conditions
in Mexico, rather then representing a fragile or failing state, provide an opportunity for Mexicos full
emergence as a strong democracy, a strategic regional partner, and an important economic ally to the US.

The amount of violence indicates the amount of neglect and disregard for cartel proliferation during
previous administrations. The criminal problem appears to have penetrated both licit and illicit systems within Mexican society. Mexico
has gradually democratized since the Mexican Revolution of 1910. Evolving from military authoritarianism to reform
minded single-party rule and finally to a multi-party free election, the evolution has not been without
struggle, turmoil, or violence. The current struggle for power and influence between the Mexican
government and criminal entities or organizations will test the power of the current system. The resolve of
the Mexican people, reflective in free and fair elections will determine the viability of the government.
That Mexico could fail would require the unlikely deterioration of several currently strong elements of
government to include the military, economy and judiciary. If the government remains able to maintain the support of the
population and with increased indirect assistance from the US, Mexico will emerge from the current security struggle
stronger and better from it. To believe otherwise either reflects a myopic and biased view
of the facts, or a lack of understanding of the complex system that is Mexico.

1AR- Mexico Heg Defense

No Mexico failed state impact
Christopher Paul 14, Senior Social Scientist @ RAND, Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate
School, 2014, Mexico Is Not Colombia: Alternative Historical Analogies for Responding to the
Challenge of Violent Drug-Trafficking Organizations, RND Corporation,
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR548z1/RAND_RR548z1
.pdf
Another argument that has been used to explain Mexicos woes invokes the language of state failure. Most observers
admit that Mexico is not a full-blown failed state. As RAND colleague Gregory Treverton notes,
Mexico is not a failed state in the sense of Somalia , but it has failed in two critical senseslegitimate authorities long
ago lost both their monopoly over the use of force and their fiscal effectiveness, that is, their capacity to tax citizens
enough so the state can function.52 Those that invoke failed-state language use it either to describe a
hyperbolic threat of a possible future outcome or to call out the corruption, penetration, or
capture of parts of the government or the general inefficiency or weakness of state institutions.53 Some likely use it to raise the
issue in importance on an already daunting foreign and security policy agenda.
The fact that this argument is made at all lends support to the two Mexicos thesis that we advanced at the beginning of this chapter. Mexico

has a robust government bureaucracy that provides a wide range of services. Some of that bureaucracy is
ineffective, and there are aspects of governance that are not being effectively executed or are not being effectively
executed in significant swaths of the country.

No spillover- U.S. law enforcement, lack of competition, minimized corruption

Olson and Lee 12 (Eric, serves as Associate Director of the Mexico Institute at the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, and Erik, serves as
Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at Arizona
State University, August, 2012, The State of Security in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/State_of_Border_Security_Olson_Lee.pdf///TS)
The Mexican cartels have a presence in the United States, but we are not likely to see the
level of violence that is plaguing Mexico spill across the US border. We assess
that traffickers are wary of more effective law enforcement in the United States.
Moreover, the factor that drives most of the bloodshed in Mexicocompetition for
control of trafficking routes and networks of corrupt officialsis not widely applicable to the
small retail drug trafficking activities on the US side of the border. Unclassified Statement for the
Record on the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, February 2, 2012

1AR- Grid Defense

No impact to grid collapse- segmented
Leger 12 (Donna Leinwand Leger, USA Today, Energy experts say blackout like India's is
unlikely in U.S., http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-31/usa-india-poweroutage/56622978/1, July 31, 2012]
A massive, countrywide power failure like the one in India on Tuesday is "extremely unlikely" in the United
States, energy experts say. In India, three of the country's government-operated power grids failed Tuesday, leaving 620 million
people without electricity for several hours. The outage, the second in two days in the country of 1.21 billion people, is the world's biggest
blackout on record. The

U.S. electricity system is segmented into three parts with safeguards that
prevent an outage in one system from tripping a blackout in another system, "making
blackouts across the country extremely unlikely," Energy Department spokeswoman Keri Fulton said. Early reports from
government officials in India say excessive demand knocked the country's power generators offline. Experts say India's industry and economy are
growing faster than its electrical systems. Last year, the economy grew 7.8% and pushed energy needs higher, but electricity generation did not
keep pace, government records show. "We

are much, much less at risk for something like that happening here,
especially from the perspective of demand exceeding supply," said Gregory Reed, a professor of
electric power engineering at University of Pittsburgh. "We're much more sophisticated in our
operations. Most of our issues have been from natural disasters." The U.S. generates more than
enough electricity to meet demand and always have power in reserve, Reed said.
"Fundamentally, it's a different world here," said Arshad Mansoor, senior vice president of the
Electric Power Research Institute in Washington and an expert on power grids. "It's an order of
magnitude more reliable here than in a developing country." Grid operators across the country analyze power usage
and generation, factoring outside factors such as weather, in real time and can forecast power supply and demand hour by hour, Mansoor said. "In
any large, complex interactive network, the chance of that interconnection breaking up is always there," Mansoor said. "You cannot take your eye
off the ball for a minute." Widespread outages in the U.S. caused by weather are common. But the

U.S. has also had system

failures, said Ellen Vancko, senior energy adviser for the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Washington. On Aug. 14, 2003,
more than 50 million people in the Northeast and Canada lost power after a major U.S. grid
collapsed. The problem began in Ohio when a transmission wire overheated and sagged into a tree that had grown too close to the line,
Vancko said. That caused other power lines to overheat until so many lines failed that the system shut
itself down, she said. "That was less a failure of technology and more a failure of people, a
failure of people to follow the rules," Vancko said. "There were a whole bunch of lessons
learned." In 2005, in response to an investigation of the blackout, Congress passed a law
establishing the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to enforce reliability standards for bulk
electricity generation.

Zero impact to grid failures, even ones caused by cyber attacks

Birch 12 (Douglas Birch, former foreign correspondent for the Associated Press and the
Baltimore Sun who has written extensively on technology and public policy, 10/1/12, Forget
Revolution, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/01/forget_revolution?page=full, October 1, 2012)
Government officials sometimes describe a kind of Hieronymus Bosch landscape when warning of the possibility of a cyber attack on the electric
grid. Imagine, if you will, that the United States is blindsided by an epic hack that interrupts power for much of the Midwest and mid-Atlantic for
more than a week, switching off the lights, traffic signals, computers, water pumps, and air conditioners in millions of homes, businesses, and
government offices. Americans swelter in the dark. Chaos reigns! Here's another nightmare scenario: An electric grid that serves two-thirds of a
billion people suddenly fails in a developing, nuclear-armed country with a rich history of ethnic and religious conflict. Rail transportation is shut
down, cutting off travel to large swathes of the country, while many miners are trapped underground. Blackouts on this scale conjure images of
civil unrest, overwhelmed police, crippled hospitals, darkened military bases, the gravely injured in the back of ambulances stuck in traffic jams.

The specter of what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called a "digital Pearl Harbor" led to the creation of U.S. Cyber Command, which is
tasked with developing both offensive and defensive cyber warfare capabilities, and prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to warn in March that
cyber attacks would soon be "the number one threat to our country." Similar concerns inspired both the Democrats and Republicans to sound the
alarm about the cyber threat in their party platforms. But are cyber attacks really a clear and present danger to society's critical life support
systems, capable of inflicting thousands of casualties? Or has fear of full-blown cybergeddon at the hands of America's enemies become just
another feverish national obsession -- another of the long, dark shadows of the 9/11 attacks? Worries about a large-scale, devastating cyber attack
on the United States date back several decades, but escalatedfollowing attacks on Estonian government and media websites during a diplomatic
conflict with Russia in 2007. That digital ambush was followed by a cyber attack on Georgian websites a year later in the run-up to the brief
shooting war between Tbilisi and Moscow, as well as allegations of a colossal, ongoing cyber espionage campaign against the United States by
hackers linked to the Chinese army. Much of the concern has focused on potential attacks on the U.S. electrical grid. "If
I were an attacker and I wanted to do strategic damage to the United States...I probably would sack electric power on the U.S. East Coast, maybe
the West Coast, and attempt to cause a cascading effect," retired Admiral Mike McConnell said in a 2010 interview with CBS's 60 Minutes. But
the scenarios sketched out above are not solely the realm of fantasy. This summer, the

United States and India were hit by

two massive electrical outages -- caused not by ninja cyber assault teams but by force majeure. And, for most
people anyway, the results were less terrifying than imagined. First, the freak "derecho" storm that barreled
across a heavily-populated swath of the eastern United States on the afternoon of June 29 knocked down trees that crushed cars, bashed holes in
roofs, blocked roads, and sliced through power lines. According to an August report by the U.S. Department of Energy, 4.2 million homes and
businesses lost power as a result of the storm, with the blackout stretching across 11 states and the District of Columbia. More than 1 million
customers were still without power five days later, and in some areas power wasn't restored for 10 days. Reuters put the death tollat 23 people as
of July 5, all killed by storms or heat stroke. The second incident occurred in late July, when 670 million people in northern India, or about 10
percent of the world's population, lost power in the largest blackout in history. The failure of this huge chunk of India's electric grid was attributed
to higher-than-normal demand due to late monsoon rains, which led farmers to use more electricity in order to draw water from wells. Indian
officials told the media there were no reports of deaths directly linked to the blackouts. But this cataclysmic event didn't

cause

widespread chaos in India -- indeed, for some, it didn't even interrupt their daily routine. "[M]any people in major cities barely
noticed the disruption because localized blackouts are so common that many businesses, hospitals, offices and middle-class homes have backup
diesel generators," the New York Timesreported. The

most important thing about both events is what didn't happen. Planes

didn't fall out of the sky. Governments didn't collapse. Thousands of people weren't killed. Despite disruption
and delay, harried public officials, emergency workers, and beleaguered publics mostly muddled through. The summer's blackouts strongly
suggest that a

cyber weapon that took down an electric grid even for several days could turn out to be
little more than a weapon of mass inconvenience. That doesn't mean the United States can relax. James Lewis, director of
the technology program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes that hackers threaten the security of U.S. utilities and
industries, and recently penned an op-ed for the New York Times calling the United States "defenseless" to a cyber-assault. But he told Foreign
Policy the recent derecho showed that even

consequences.

a large-scale blackout would not necessarily have catastrophic

1AR- Terror Defense

No risk of terrorism
Mearsheimer 14 (John J. Mearsheimer, Does he need quals?, America Unhinged,
http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-unhinged-9639, January-February 2014)
Am I overlooking the obvious threat that strikes fear into the hearts of so many Americans, which is
terrorism? Not at all. Sure, the United States has a terrorism problem. But it is a minor threat. There is no question we fell victim to
a spectacular attack on September 11, but it did not cripple the United States in any meaningful way and another
attack of that magnitude is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Indeed, there has not been a
single instance over the past twelve years of a terrorist organization exploding a
primitive bomb on American soil, much less striking a major blow. Terrorismmost of it arising from domestic
groupswas a much bigger problem in the United States during the 1970s than it has been since the Twin
Towers were toppled. What about the possibility that a terrorist group might obtain a nuclear weapon? Such
an occurrence would be a game changer, but the chances of that happening are virtually nil. No nuclear-armed state
is going to supply terrorists with a nuclear weapon because it would have no control over how the
recipients might use that weapon. Political turmoil in a nuclear-armed state could in theory allow terrorists
to grab a loose nuclear weapon, but the United States already has detailed plans to deal with that highly
unlikely contingency. Terrorists might also try to acquire fissile material and build their own bomb . But that
scenario is extremely unlikely as well: there are significant obstacles to getting enough material and even
bigger obstacles to building a bomb and then delivering it. More generally, virtually every country has a
profound interest in making sure no terrorist group acquires a nuclear
weapon, because they cannot be sure they will not be the target of a nuclear attack, either by the
terrorists or another country the terrorists strike. Nuclear terrorism, in short, is not a serious threat. And to
the extent that we should worry about it, the main remedy is to encourage and help other states to place nuclear materials in highly secure
custody.

No nuke terror- cant use, steal, or transfer bombs

Clarke 4-17-13 [Michael, PhD, Senior Research Fellow at Griffith Asia Institute with a special
focus in terrorism, Griffith University, Bachelor of Arts (Honors) in Asian and International
Studies, Pakistan and Nuclear Terrorism: How Real is the Threat? Comparative Strategy, 32:2,
98-114, online]
Although the acquisition of an intact nuclear weapon would be the most difcult challenge for any terrorist organization, there remain a
number of scenarios that involve a terrorist organization acquiring an intact nuclear weapon,5 such as the deliberate transfer of a warhead by a
national government, insider collusion from senior ofcials, seizure or theft without collusion, and political instability or state failure/collapse.

The direct transfer scenario is difcult to imagine as it is almost impossible to conceive of any
national government voluntarily gifting their crown jewels to a terrorist group due to the
likely reprisals they would incur if the weapon were used and the probability that the weapon would be traced back to the state of
origin.6 The scenario of insider collusion in the diversion or transfer of nuclear materials has also been perceived as a
major threat. To cope with this threat, most advanced nuclear weapons states such as the United States,
France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, and the Peoples Republic of China have instituted
Personnel Reliability Programs (PRP), which establishes a centralized set of procedures designed to ensure that
individuals developing, managing, and guarding nuclear weapons and related facilities are trustworthy.7 It has been
asserted that theft of weapons-usable materials is a proven and recurring fact.8 However, such a claim
tends to refer to instances when small quantities of nuclear material have been stolen. For example.
Zimmerman and Lewis noted in 2006 that they were aware of only one particularly disturbing instance in which smugglers obtained a
signicant quality of highly enriched uranium: a 1994 case in Prague . . . involving Czech, Slovak and Russian nationals.9 In addition, in June
2011, authorities also interdicted a smuggling gang in Moldova attempting to smuggle a small quantity of nonweapons usable uranium-238

(U-238).10 The collapse or failure of a state with a nuclear arsenal would raise the potential for nuclear weapons and materials to be diverted or
stolen. However, even

if a terrorist organization did manage to acquire an intact weapon through one of these
scenarios, there would remain a variety of obstacles to be overcome in order to be able to detonate it.
In particular, there are a variety of safety and security measures/procedures that protect nuclear
weapons against accidents or unauthorized use, such as environmental sensing devices (ESD) that block
arming systems until a prescribed environment is achieved (e.g., missile launch acceleration); insensitive high
explosives (IHE) that make the weapon resistant to being detonated by mechanical shock; and permissive
action links (PALs), which is an electronic device that prevents arming of the weapon unless correct codes are
inserted.11 To produce an IND, terrorists would need to acquire signicant quantities of ssile
material, either HEU or plutonium.12 Two types of INDs are considered to be theoretically possible for a terrorist organisation to construct
the gun-type weapon and the implosiontype weapon.13The former consists of a gun barrel in which a projectile of subcritical HEU is red
into a stationary piece of subcritical HEU, producing a supercritical mass leading to a nuclear explosion. Bunn and Wier note that the gun type is
simple and robust and allows the builder high condence that it will perform properly without the trouble, expense and exposure of a test
explosion.14 However, as only a small amount of the HEU ssions in a gun-type weapon, a signicant quantitybetween 50 and 60 kilograms
(kg)of HEU is required.15 An implosion device, in contrast, uses a set of shaped explosives arranged around a less-than-critical mass of
HEU or plutonium to crush the atoms of material closer together to produce a nuclear explosion.16Weapons-grade plutonium (plutonium that
contains more than 90% of plutonium isotope 239) is the desired type of plutonium for production of such a device as it is most readily
detonated, although, reactor-grade plutonium (containing between 50 to 70% plutonium 239) could also produce a nuclear explosion.17 A much
smaller amount of plutoniumbetween 6 and 8 kgis also required for an implosion device compared to the HEU required for a gun-type
device. Unlike uranium, however, plutonium is not a naturally occurring element and is produced when U-238 absorbs neutrons in a nuclear
reactor where it is intimately mixed with the U-238. The plutonium must then be separated or reprocessed from the U-238 before it can be
used for either weapons applications or for reactor fuel.18 Plutonium separation is technically easier than uranium enrichment as it is affected
by chemical means rather than isotopic mass in the case of uranium enrichment. The production

of plutonium, however, is
made greatly more difcult by the intense radiation emanating from the commingled ssion products.19 The
complexity of an implosion device also poses additional challenges in terms of
manufacture/acquisition and testing of components, which could also increase the likelihood of
detection.20 The acquisition of the required quantity of ssile material remains the major obstacle to terrorists fabricating a nuclear device.
Acquisition of ssile material could be achieved in two ways: through terrorists undertaking the process of enrichment or through purchase or
theft of weapons grade HEU or plutonium. A terrorist

organization is unlikely to attempt the enrichment of

natural uranium as this is a technically demanding process, the technologies for which are tightly
controlled.21 The theft of a sufcient quantity and quality of HEU is the more likely option due not only to technical requirements but also
to the amount of HEU stockpiled around the world. According to the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), there exists approximately
1,700 metric tons of HEU worldwide in various locations, and 99% is estimated to be in possession of the nuclear weapons states.22 The bulk
of this HEU is accounted for by acknowledged military uses, although it is estimated that between 50 and 100 metric tons is in the civilian
sector, where it is primarily used in research reactors, the production of medical isotopes, and to fuel Russian icebreakers.23

1AR- LA Defense
Alt causes to Latin American stability
Robelo 13 (Daniel, Research Coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, Oregon Law
Review, 2013, Demand Reduction or Redirection? Channeling Illicit Drug Demand towards a
Regulated Supply to Diminish Violence in Latin America, Hein Online///TS)
Regulating marijuana and other drugs will by no means be a panacea for the
security crisis facing many Latin American countries today. Of course, there
are a host of critical issues outside the scope of this Article that must be addressed,
including vital institutional reforms (particularly of judicial and law enforcement
institutions), as well as the consideration of new policies regarding firearms,
migration, money laundering, and militarization .!13 But drug prohibition remains

a central cause of organized crime and violence in the Americas, and prohibition-related violence
and corruption continue to confound efforts at institutional reform in many countries.114
Exploring regulatory alternatives to prohibition is thus essential to finding durable solutions.

Diplomacy and cooperation prevent escalation

Jorge Heine 12, Chair in Global Governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, is
Professor of Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University, 10/26/12, Regional Integration and
Political Cooperation in Latin America,
http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/LARR/prot/fulltext/vol47no3/47-3_209-217_heine.pdf
Despite this fragmented picture of overlapping acronyms, schemes, and interests, there is little doubt that
the forces of convergence have prevailed over those of divergence. The launch of the Latin American and
Caribbean Community of Nations in 2010 is proof of this. Mexico, Chile, and Colombia are as much
members of this body as are Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Collective diplomacy, political cooperation,
and a regional vision are very much the order of the day, transcending ideological differences . As may be seen
in its reaction to the coup in Honduras in June 2009, a lack of understanding of this strong multilateral component in the foreign policies of Latin
American nations lies at the root of the difficulties that the administration of US president Barack Obama has faced in the region, despite the
enormous expectations raised there by his election.12 By imposing a unilateral solution that in effect condoned the coup, against the express
wishes of the OAS and the overwhelming majority of Latin American governments, the United States squandered its infl uence in Latin America.
Inter-American relations have gone downhill ever since, with the US ambassadors to Ecuador and to Mexico being forced to leave their posts in
quick succession in 2011.

Latin America is empirically deniedno escalation

Hartzell 2k (Caroline A, Middle Atlantic Council of Latin American Studies Latin American
Essays, Latin America's civil wars: conflict resolution and institutional change.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28765765_ITM, 2000)
Latin America has been the site of fourteen civil wars during the post-World War II era, thirteen of
which now have ended. Although not as civil war-prone as some other areas of the world, Latin America has endured some
extremely violent and destabilizing intrastate conflicts. (2) The region's experiences with civil wars and their
resolution thus may prove instructive for other parts of the world in which such conflicts continue to
rage. By examining Latin America's civil wars in some depth not only might we better understand the circumstances under which such conflicts
are ended but also the institutional outcomes to which they give rise. More specifically, this paper focuses on the following central questions
regarding Latin America's civil wars: Has the resolution of these conflicts produced significant institutional change in the countries in which they
were fought? What is the nature of the institutional change that has taken place in the wake of these civil wars? What are the factors that are
responsible for shaping post-war institutional change?

1AR- Economy Defense

No impact to economy
Drezner 14 (Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic
Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014,
pp. 123-164)
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession
on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted
that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42
They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in
conflictwhether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up
of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and
even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public
disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics
and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as
it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis,
as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great
Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen
conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five
years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been
reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist
nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Economy resilient
Boak and Condon 8/15 (Josh Boak (As the Washington Deputy Bureau Chief, Josh Boak
covers the economy, the Federal Reserve, and Capitol Hill politics. He previously worked on the
staffs of POLITICO, The Chicago Tribune, and The Toledo Blade. Educated at Princeton and
Columbia universities, Boak received the Livingston Award for a series about the Ohio economy
and was a Pulitzer finalist for his articles about troubling investments made by that state's
government. He also worked as a researcher/reporter on Bob Woodward's book, Obama's Wars
(2011), and Bernard Condon (Economist @ AP), MSN Money, Why global turmoil hasn't sunk
US markets. Yet., http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?
feed=AP&date=20140815&id=17863005, August 15, 2014)
NEW YORK, N.Y. - Europe appears on the brink of another recession. Islamic militants have seized
Iraqi territory. Russian troops have massed on the Ukraine border, and the resulting sanctions are
disrupting trade. An Ebola outbreak in Africa and Israel's war in Gaza are contributing to the gloom.
It's been a grim summer in much of the world. Yet investors in the United States have largely
shrugged it off so far at least. A big reason is that five years after the Great Recession officially
ended, the U.S. economy is showing a strength and durability that other major nations can only envy.
Thanks in part to the Federal Reserve's ultra-low interest rates, employers have ramped up hiring,
factories have boosted production and businesses have been making money. All of this has cushioned the
U.S. economy from the economic damage abroad. And investors have responded by keeping U.S. stocks
near all-time highs. Not even reports Friday of a Ukrainian attack on Russian military vehicles
unnerved investors for long, with blue chip stocks regaining nearly all their midday losses by the close.

"We're in a much better place psychologically," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's
Analytics. "And it's allowing us to weather the geopolitical threats much more gracefully."

1AR- Bioterror Defense

No risk of a bioterror attack, and there wont be retaliation - your evidence is hype
Matishak 10 (Martin, Global Security Newswire, U.S. Unlikely to Respond to Biological
Threat With Nuclear Strike, Experts Say,,
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100429_7133.php, April 29, 2010)
WASHINGTON -- The

United States is not likely to use nuclear force to respond to a biological

weapons threat, even though the Obama administration left open that option in its recent update to the nation's nuclear weapons
policy, experts say (See GSN, April 22). "The notion that we are in imminent danger of confronting a scenario
in which hundreds of thousands of people are dying in the streets of New York as a consequence of a
biological weapons attack is fanciful," said Michael Moodie, a consultant who served as assistant director for multilateral
affairs in the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the George H.W. Bush administration. Scenarios in which the
United States suffers mass casualties as a result of such an event seem "to be taking the discussion out
of the realm of reality and into one that is hypothetical and that has no meaning in the real
world where this kind of exchange is just not going to happen," Moodie said this week in a telephone interview. "There are a lot
of threat mongers who talk about devastating biological attacks that could kill tens of thousands, if not millions
of Americans," according to Jonathan Tucker, a senior fellow with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. " But in fact,
no country out there today has anything close to what the Soviet Union had in terms of mass-casualty
biological warfare capability. Advances in biotechnology are unlikely to change that situation, at least for
the foreseeable future." No terrorist group would be capable of pulling off a massive biological
attack, nor would it be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation, he added. The biological threat provision was addressed in the Defense
Department-led Nuclear Posture Review, a restructuring of U.S. nuclear strategy, forces and readiness. The Obama administration pledged in
the review that the United States would not conduct nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states that are in compliance with global nonproliferation
regimes. However, the 72-page document contains a caveat that would allow Washington to set aside that policy, dubbed "negative security
assurance," if it appeared that biological weapons had been made dangerous enough to cause major harm to the United States. "Given the
catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the United States reserves the right to make
any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities
to counter that threat," the posture review report says. The caveat was included in the document because "in theory, biological weapons could
kill millions of people," Gary Samore, senior White House coordinator for WMD counterterrorism and arms control, said last week after an
event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Asked if the White House had identified a particular technological threshold that
could provoke a nuclear strike, Samore replied: "No, and if we did we obviously would not be willing to put it out because countries would
say, 'Oh, we can go right up to this level and it won't change policy.'" "It's deliberately ambiguous," he told Global Security Newswire. The
document's key qualifications have become a lightning rod for criticism by Republican lawmakers who argue they eliminate the country's
previous policy of "calculated ambiguity," in which U.S. leaders left open the possibility of executing a nuclear strike in response to virtually
any hostile action against the United States or its allies (see GSN, April 15). Yet experts

say there are a number of

reasons why the United States is not likely to use a nuclear weapon to eliminate a non-nuclear
threat. It could prove difficult for U.S. leaders to come up with a list of appropriate targets to
strike with a nuclear warhead following a biological or chemical event, former Defense Undersecretary for Policy Walter Slocombe said
during a recent panel discussion at the Hudson Institute. "I don't think nuclear weapons are necessary to deter these kinds of attacks given
U.S. dominance in conventional military force," according to Gregory Koblentz, deputy director of the Biodefense Graduate Program at
George Mason University in Northern Virginia. "There's a bigger downside to the nuclear nonproliferation side of the ledger for threatening
to use nuclear weapons in those circumstances than there is the benefit of actually deterring a chemical or biological attack," Koblentz said
during a recent panel discussion at the James Martin Center. The

nonproliferation benefits for restricting the role

of strategic weapons to deterring nuclear attacks outweigh the "marginal" reduction in the
country's ability to stem the use of biological weapons, he said. In addition, the United States has efforts in place
to defend against chemical and biological attacks such as vaccines and other medical countermeasures, he argued. " We have ways to
mitigate the consequences of these attacks," Koblentz told the audience. "There's no way to mitigate the
effects of a nuclear weapon." Regardless of the declaratory policy, the U.S. nuclear arsenal will always provide a "residual
deterrent" against mass-casualty biological or chemical attacks, according to Tucker. "If a biological or chemical attack against the United
States was of such a magnitude as to potentially warrant a nuclear response, no attacker could be confident that the U.S. -- in the heat of the

moment -- would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, even if its declaratory policy is not to do so," he told GSN this week during a telephone
interview. Political Benefits Experts are unsure what, if any, political benefit the country or President Barack Obama's sweeping nuclear
nonproliferation agenda will gain from the posture review's biological weapons caveat. The report's reservation "was an unnecessary dilution
of the strengthened negative security and a counterproductive elevation of biological weapons to the same strategic domain as nuclear
weapons," Koblentz told GSN by e-mail this week. "The

United States has nothing to gain by promoting the

concept of the biological weapons as 'the poor man's atomic bomb,'" he added.

No extinction from bioweapons

ONeill 4 (Brendan, 8-19 Weapons of Minimum Destruction http://www.spikedonline.com/Articles/0000000CA694.htm)
David C Rapoport, professor

of political science at University of California, Los Angeles and editor of the Journal of
Terrorism and Political Violence, has examined what he calls 'easily available evidence' relating to the historic use of
chemical and biological weapons. He found something surprising - such weapons do not cause mass
destruction. Indeed, whether used by states, terror groups or dispersed in industrial accidents, they tend to be far less
destructive than conventional weapons. 'If we stopped speculating about things that might
happen in the future and looked instead at what has happened in the past, we'd see that our fears
about WMD are misplaced', he says. Yet such fears remain widespread. Post-9/11, American and British leaders have issued dire
warnings about terrorists getting hold of WMD and causing mass murder and mayhem. President George W Bush has spoken of terrorists who, 'if
they ever gained weapons of mass destruction', would 'kill hundreds of thousands, without hesitation and without mercy' (1). The British
government has spent 28million on stockpiling millions of smallpox vaccines, even though there's no evidence that terrorists have got access to
smallpox, which was eradicated as a natural disease in the 1970s and now exists only in two high-security labs in America and Russia (2). In
2002, British nurses became the first in the world to get training in how to deal with the victims of bioterrorism (3). The UK Home Office's 22page pamphlet on how to survive a terror attack, published last month, included tips on what to do in the event of a 'chemical, biological or
radiological attack' ('Move away from the immediate source of danger', it usefully advised). Spine-chilling books such as Plague Wars: A True
Story of Biological Warfare, The New Face of Terrorism: Threats From Weapons of Mass Destruction and The Survival Guide: What to Do in a
Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Emergency speculate over what kind of horrors WMD might wreak. TV docudramas, meanwhile, explore how
Britain might cope with a smallpox assault and what would happen if London were 'dirty nuked' (4). The term 'weapons of mass destruction'
refers to three types of weapons: nuclear, chemical and biological. A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical, such as
sarin, mustard gas or hydrogen cyanide, to kill or injure. A biological weapon uses bacteria or viruses, such as smallpox or anthrax, to cause
destruction - inducing sickness and disease as a means of undermining enemy forces or inflicting civilian casualties. We find such weapons
repulsive, because of the horrible way in which the victims convulse and die - but they appear to be less 'destructive' than conventional weapons.
'We know that nukes are massively destructive, there is a lot of evidence for that', says Rapoport. But when

it comes to chemical
and biological weapons, 'the evidence suggests that we should call them "weapons of minimum
destruction", not mass destruction', he says. Chemical weapons have most commonly been used by states, in military warfare. Rapoport
explored various state uses of chemicals over the past hundred years: both sides used them in the First World War; Italy deployed chemicals
against the Ethiopians in the 1930s; the Japanese used chemicals against the Chinese in the 1930s and again in the Second World War; Egypt and
Libya used them in the Yemen and Chad in the postwar period; most recently, Saddam Hussein's Iraq used chemical weapons, first in the war
against Iran (1980-1988) and then against its own Kurdish population at the tail-end of the Iran-Iraq war. In each instance, says Rapoport,
chemical weapons were used more in desperation than from a position of strength or a desire to cause mass destruction. 'The evidence is that
states rarely use them even when they have them', he has written. 'Only when a military stalemate has developed, which belligerents who have
become desperate want to break, are they used.' (5) As to whether such use of chemicals was effective, Rapoport says that at best it blunted an
offensive - but this very rarely, if ever, translated into a decisive strategic shift in the war, because the original stalemate continued after the
chemical weapons had been deployed. He points to the example of Iraq. The Baathists used chemicals against Iran when that nasty trench-fought
war had reached yet another stalemate. As Efraim Karsh argues in his paper 'The Iran-Iraq War: A Military Analysis': 'Iraq employed [chemical
weapons] only in vital segments of the front and only when it saw no other way to check Iranian offensives. Chemical weapons had a negligible
impact on the war, limited to tactical rather than strategic [effects].' (6) According to Rapoport, this 'negligible' impact of chemical weapons on
the direction of a war is reflected in the disparity between the numbers of casualties caused by chemicals and the numbers caused by conventional
weapons. It is estimated that the use of gas in the Iran-Iraq war killed 5,000 - but the Iranian side suffered around 600,000 dead in total, meaning
that gas killed less than one per cent. The deadliest use of gas occurred in the First World War but, as Rapoport points out, it still only accounted
for five per cent of casualties. Studying the amount of gas used by both sides from1914-1918 relative to the number of fatalities gas caused,
Rapoport has written: 'It took a ton of gas in that war to achieve a single enemy fatality. Wind and sun regularly dissipated the lethality of the
gases. Furthermore, those gassed were 10 to 12 times as likely to recover than those casualties produced by traditional weapons.' (7) Indeed,
Rapoport discovered that some earlier documenters of the First World War had a vastly different assessment of chemical weapons than we have
today - they considered the use of such weapons to be preferable to bombs and guns, because chemicals caused fewer fatalities. One wrote:
'Instead of being the most horrible form of warfare, it is the most humane, because it disables far more than it kills, ie, it has a low fatality ratio.'
(8) 'Imagine that', says Rapoport, 'WMD being referred to as more humane'. He says that the contrast between such assessments and today's fears
shows that actually looking at the evidence has benefits, allowing 'you to see things more rationally'. According to Rapoport, even Saddam's use

of gas against the Kurds of Halabja in 1988 - the most recent use by a state of chemical weapons and the most commonly cited as evidence of the
dangers of 'rogue states' getting their hands on WMD - does not show that unconventional weapons are more destructive than conventional ones.
Of course the attack on Halabja was horrific, but he points out that the circumstances surrounding the assault remain unclear. 'The estimates of
how many were killed vary greatly', he tells me. 'Some say 400, others say 5,000, others say more than 5,000. The fighter planes that attacked the
civilians used conventional as well as unconventional weapons; I have seen no study which explores how many were killed by chemicals and
how many were killed by firepower. We all find these attacks repulsive, but the death toll may actually have been greater if conventional bombs

terrorist use of chemical and

biological weapons is similar to state use - in that it is rare and, in terms of causing mass destruction,
not very effective. He cites the work of journalist and author John Parachini, who says that over the past 25 years only four
significant attempts by terrorists to use WMD have been recorded. The most effective WMD-attack by a
non-state group, from a military perspective, was carried out by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka in 1990. They used chlorine
gas against Sri Lankan soldiers guarding a fort, injuring over 60 soldiers but killing none. The Tamil Tigers' use of
chemicals angered their support base, when some of the chlorine drifted back into Tamil territory only were used. We know that conventional weapons can be more destructive.' Rapoport says that

confirming Rapoport's view that one problem with using unpredictable and unwieldy chemical and biological weapons over conventional
weapons is that the

cost can be as great 'to the attacker as to the attacked'. The Tigers have not used WMD since.

1AR- Forest Defense

Environmental improvements now their evidence ignores long term trends
Hayward, 11 [Steven P, american author, political commentator, and policy scholar. He argues
for libertarian and conservative viewpoints in his writings. He writes frequently on the topics of
environmentalism, law, economics, and public policy.2011 Almanac of Environmental Trends by
Steven F. Hayward April 2011 ISBN-13: 978-1-934276-17-4,
http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20110419_almanac2011.pdf]

Quick: Whats the largest public-policy success story in American society over the last generation? The dramatic reduction in the
crime rate, which has helped make major American cities livable again? Or welfare reform, which saw the nations welfare rolls fall by more than
half since the early 1990s? Both of these accomplishments have received wide media attention. Yet the right answer might well be the

environment. As Figure 1 displays, the reduction in air pollution is comparable in magnitude to the reduction in the welfare rolls, and
greater than the reduction in the crime rateboth celebrated as major public-policy success stories of the last two decades. Aggregate
emissions of the six criteria pollutants1 regulated under the Clean Air Act have fallen by 53 percent since 1970, while the
proportion of the population receiving welfare assistance is down 48 percent from 1970, and the crime rate is only 6.4 percent below its 1970
level. (And as we shall see, this aggregate nationwide reduction in emissions greatly understates the actual improvement in ambient air quality in

for water quality, toxic-chemical exposure, soil

erosion, forest growth, wetlands, and several other areas of environmental concern show
similar positive trends, as this Almanac reports. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the demise of the
environment have been greatly exaggerated. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that these kinds of
improvements will be experienced in the rest of the world over the course of this century. Well examine
some of the early evidence that this is already starting to occur . The chief drivers of environmental
improvement are economic growth, constantly increasing resource efficiency, technological innovation in
pollution control, and the deepening of environmental values among the American public that have
translated to changed behavior and consumer preferences . Government regulation has played a vital role, to be sure, but in
the areas with the worst levels of air pollution.) Measures

the grand scheme of things regulation can be understood as a lagging indicator, often achieving results at needlessly high cost, and sometimes
failing completely. Were it not for rising affluence and technological innovation, regulation would have much the same effect as King Canute
commanding the tides. INTRODUCTION introduction 3 figure 1 a comparison of crime rate, Welfare, and air Pollution, 19702007 -60.0%
-40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 % of Population on Welfare Crime Rate (per
100,000 population) Aggregate Emissions Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, EPA 4 Almanac
of Environmental Trends The American public

remains largely unaware of these trends. For most of the last 40

years, public opinion about the environment has been pessimistic, with large majoritiessometimes as
high as 70 percenttelling pollsters that they think environmental quality in the United States is getting
worse instead of better, and will continue to get worse in the future. One reason for this state of opinion is
media coverage, which emphasizes bad news and crisis; another reason is environmental advocacy
groups, for whom good news is bad news. As the cliche goes, you cant sell many newspapers with headlines about airplanes
landing safely, or about an oil tanker docking without a spill. Similarly, slow, long-term trends dont make for good
headline copy. INTRODUCTIONintroduction 5Improving Trends:Causes and ConsequencesMost environmental commentary dwells on the
laws and regulations we have adoptedto achieve our goals, but it is essential to understand the more important role of technologyand economic
growth in bringing about favorable environmental trends. Thebest way to see this is to look at some long-term trends in environmental quality
thatpredate modern environmental legislation.To be sure, the earliest phases of the Industrial Revolution led to severe environmentaldegradation.
But the inexorable process of technological innovation andthe drive for efficiency began to remedy much of this damage far earlier than
iscommonly perceived. In addition, new

technologies that we commonly regard as environmentally destructive

often replaced older modes of human activity that were far worse by comparison. A good example is the
introduction of coal for heating andenergy in Britain.

No impact to the environment

Easterbrook 95 (Gregg, Distinguished Fellow @ The Fullbright Foundation and Reuters

Columnist, A Moment on Earth, p. 25, 1995)

In the aftermath of events such as Love Canal or the Exxon Valdez oil spill, every reference to the environment is prefaced with the adjective
"fragile." "Fragile environment" has become a welded phrase of the modern lexicon, like "aging hippie" or "fugitive financier." But the notion of
a fragile environment is profoundly wrong. Individual animals, plants, and people are distressingly fragile. The

environment that
contains them is close to indestructible. The living environment of Earth has survived ice ages;
bombardments of cosmic radiation more deadly than atomic fallout; solar radiation more powerful than
the worst-case projection for ozone depletion; thousand-year periods of intense volcanism releasing global air pollution far
worse than that made by any factory; reversals of the planet's magnetic poles; the rearrangement of continents; transformation of plains into
mountain ranges and of seas into plains; fluctuations of ocean currents and the jet stream; 300-foot vacillations in sea levels; shortening and
lengthening of the seasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of asteroids

and comets bearing far more force than

man's nuclear arsenals; and the years without summer that followed these impacts. Yet hearts beat on,
and petals unfold still. Were the environment fragile it would have expired many eons before the advent
of the industrial affronts of the dreaming ape. Human assaults on the environment, though mischievous,
are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting.

Double bind- either the environment is resilient or its destruction is inevitable

Lazarus 10 (Richard J. Lazarus, prof of law at Georgetown University Law Center, Human
Nature, the Laws of Nature, and the Nature of Environmental Law 24 VA. ENVTL. L.J. 231261, January 2010)
Some environmental

pollution is, of course, unavoidable. Basic human life requires the consumption
of the surrounding natural environment. While the First Law of Thermodynamics provides for the conservation of
energy (and classical physics for the conservation Of mass),16 the Second Law provides for the inevitable increases
in entropy that result from human activity. The term "entropy" refers to the degree of disorder in a
system. For instance, as energy is transformed from one form to another, some energy is lost as heat;
as the energy decreases, the disorder in the system, and hence the entropy, increases. IS Natural
resource destruction and environmental contamination is a form of entropy. Disorder in the
ecosystem is increased when common resources such as air and water are polluted. Disorder is
likewise increased whenever complex natural resources are broken down into smaller parts. In
consuming natural resources to provide the basic necessities of energy, food, shelter, and clothing,
humankind necessarily increases entropy in parts of the ecosystem in the form of polluted global
resources and destroyed natural resources. Fundamental human biological processes compel it.
Human life depends, as life does in many animals, on a series of chemical reactions within the cells of the human
body capable of breaking down complex chemical compounds such as glucose into its component parts of carbon dioxide and water.19
The technical name of the necessary biochemical process for the breakdown of glucose is carbohydrate catabolism, which itself consists
of three major stages: glycosis, citric acid cycle (known as the "Krebs cycle") and phosphorylation.20 For the purposes of this essay,
however, what is important for the nonscientific reader to understand is how these many biochemical processes ultimately depend on
the breaking down of more complex and ordered chemical compounds into less complex and more disordered chemical elements. Some
natural resource destruction and environmental pollution are necessarily implicated by such processes .

As energy is
transformed from one form to another, natural resources are consumed and contamination of
existing natural resources results. To the extent, moreover, that it is human nature to seek to
survive, it is human nature to undertake activities that cause such natural resource destruction and
environmental pollution. That central threshold proposition should be noncontroversial. What is no doubt more controversial
is whether it is similarly human nature to consume the natural environment in a nonsustainable fashion. Garrett Hardin's
classic article "The Tragedy of the Commons," published in Science in 1968,21 offers a disturbing
answer to that question. Although Hardin's central thesis is well-known, it is worth emphasis here by repetition: The tragedy of
the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle
as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and
disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of

reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the
commons remorselessly generates tragedy. As a rational being, each

herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.

Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one
more animal to my herd?" . .. [T]he rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for
him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another. .. But this is the conclusion
reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons . Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked
into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit-in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination
toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes
in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all .22 Hardin describes his thesis in
the limited context of human nature faced with a pasture for animal grazing, but it all too easily extends with potentially catastrophic
results to many contemporary environmental settings. The expansive reach of modern technology has turned the once seemingly
infinite into the finite. Populations of ocean fisheries can be irreversibly destroyed. Underground aquifers of drinking water supplies
can be forever lost. And, of course, potentially destructive global climate change may occur from increased loadings of carbon to the
atmosphere from anywhere in the globe. Modern technology also has its limits, as the nation was tragically reminded in the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina this past year. Modern technology allowed for the development of a major metropolitan area where nature,
standing alone, would have precluded any such possibility. New Orleans was largely below sea level and existed only by grace of a
complex series of levees designed to keep water from flowing along its natural course. Even when properly constructed, such levees are
no match, however, for the enormous force of hurricanes like Katrina, especially when thousands of acres of surrounding wetlands,
which might have otherwise provided some natural protection from flood waters, are filled to satisfy ever-rising demands for
residential, commercial, and industrial development. The upshot: the devastation of a city, the loss of human life, and the destruction of
an invaluable aquatic ecosystem by floodwaters laden with toxic contaminants.23 Hardin's

central insight regarding the

implications of human nature for the natural environment extends much further, however, than to
just the potential tragic destruction of resource commons. Each of the individual actors in Hardin's
proffered tragedy cause ruin to all because of their inability to look beyond the here and now. They
perceive well their own, present short-term needs. They are unable to apprehend and take into account the
longerterm implications for individual persons at other times or in other places. Even if
presented by information detailing those broader spatial and temporal impacts, they would be unable on their own to temper their own
immediate actions as necessary to avoid the resource common's tragic destruction. The risks facing New Orleans have been well-known
for decades. Yet, short-term needs always trumped government's willingness and ability to expend the massive resources necessary to
guard against long-term, low-risk events, even if of potentially catastrophic consequences.z4 More recent research into behavioral
psychology and human cognitive biases offers contemporary confirmation of Hardin's basic thesis. Experimental research shows that

humans strongly favor avoidance of immediate costs over less immediate, longerterm, and distant
risks. Dubbed by some a "myopia" bias, scientists argue that a strong basic desire to avoid
immediate costs is present throughout nature and is deeply rooted in evolutionary biology.25 Others
similarly argue that human genetic evolution has systematically favored consumerism and materialism ,
i.e., the so-called "selfish gene. "26 When, over thousands of years ago, human beings relied on hunting and gathering
to get their next meal, long-term planning was of little value. After all, without a means of
preserving food, there was little reason to plan. It was better to consume what one found when one found it, especially
when there was no assurance that more would be found tomorrow. "Our brains were built for a world in which the
currency of the day did lose value over time. Put simply: food rotS."27 "[N]ature created within us
a short-sighted set of moral instincts."28 Selfish shortsightedness and materialism became
dominant tendencies in the competition with other species for survival . "Rather than leave some precious
energy lying around to mold or be stolen, put it in your stomach and have your body convert the food into an energy savings account.
"29 The drive for survival arguably extended to the production of heirs-survival by the passing of genes to one's children-and the
accumulation of material wealth often seen as a necessary prerequisite for successful reproduction. 3D And, "even though wealth may
not relate to babies in an industrialized world, our instincts come from a time when concerns over material possessions were crucial."31
One commentator has gone so far as to suggest, provocatively, that "[h]uman failings, such as those that some call the Seven Deadly
Sins, may all derive from our evolutionary traps. "32

1AR- Proliferation/ NPT Defense

The squo is reverse proliferating- no impact
Kahl et. al 13 (Colin H., Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and an
associate professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown Universitys Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service, Melissa G. Dalton, Visiting Fellow at the Center for a New
American Security, Matthew Irvine, Research Associate at the Center for a New American
Security, February, If Iran Builds the Bomb, Will Saudi Arabia Be Next?
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_AtomicKingdom_Kahl.pdf, 2013)
***cites Jacques Hymans, USC Associate Professor of IR***

I I I . LESSONS FRO M HISTOR Y Concerns over regional proliferation chains, falling nuclear dominos and nuclear tipping points are nothing new; indeed,
reactive proliferation fears date back to the dawn of the nuclear age.14 Warnings of an inevitable deluge of proliferation were commonplace from the 1950s to the
1970s, resurfaced during the discussion of rogue states in the 1990s and became even more ominous after 9/11.15 In 2004, for example, Mitchell Reiss warned that
in ways both fast and slow, we may very soon be approaching a nuclear tipping point, where many countries may decide to acquire nuclear arsenals on short notice,
thereby triggering a proliferation epidemic. Given the presumed fragility of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and the ready supply of nuclear expertise, technology
and material, Reiss argued, a single new entrant into the nuclear club could catalyze similar responses by others in the region, with the Middle East and Northeast

of inevitable proliferation cascades have historically proven

false (see The Proliferation Cascade Myth text box). In the six decades since atomic weapons were first developed, nuclear restraint has proven far more
common than nuclear proliferation, and cases of reactive proliferation have been exceedingly rare. Moreover, most countries that have started down
the nuclear path have found the road more difficult than imagined, both technologically and bureaucratically,
leading the majority of nuclear-weapons aspirants to reverse course. Thus, despite frequent warnings of an unstoppable nuclear
Asia the most likely candidates.16 Nevertheless, predictions

express,17 William Potter and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova astutely note that the train to date has been slow to pick up steam, has made fewer stops than anticipated,
and usually has arrived much later than expected.18 None of this means that additional proliferation in response to Irans nuclear ambitions is inconceivable, but the
empirical record does suggest that regional chain reactions are not inevitable. Instead, only certain countries are candidates for reactive proliferation. Determining the
risk that any given country in the Middle East will proliferate in response to Iranian nuclearization requires an assessment of the incentives and disincentives for
acquiring a nuclear deterrent, the technical and bureaucratic constraints and the available strategic alternatives. Incentives and Disincentives to Proliferate Security
considerations, status and reputational concerns and the prospect of sanctions combine to shape the incentives and disincentives for states to pursue nuclear weapons.

Analysts predicting proliferation cascades tend to emphasize the incentives for reactive proliferation while ignoring or
downplaying the disincentives. Yet, as it turns out, instances of nuclear proliferation (including reactive proliferation)
have been so rare because going down this road often risks insecurity, reputational damage and economic
costs that outweigh the potential benefits.19 Security and regime survival are especially important motivations driving state decisions to
proliferate. All else being equal, if a states leadership believes that a nuclear deterrent is required to address an acute security challenge, proliferation is more likely.20
Countries in conflict-prone neighborhoods facing an enduring rival especially countries with inferior conventional military capabilities vis--vis their opponents or
those that face an adversary that possesses or is seeking nuclear weapons may be particularly prone to seeking a nuclear deterrent to avert aggression.21 A recent
quantitative study by Philipp Bleek, for example, found that security threats, as measured by the frequency and intensity of conventional militarized disputes, were
highly correlated with decisions to launch nuclear weapons programs and eventually acquire the bomb.22 The Proliferation Cascade Myth Despite repeated warnings
since the dawn of the nuclear age of an inevitable deluge of nuclear proliferation, such fears have thus far proven largely unfounded. Historically, nuclear restraint is
the rule, not the exception and the degree of restraint has actually increased over time. In the first two decades of the nuclear age, five nuclear-weapons states
emerged: the United States (1945), the Soviet Union (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960) and China (1964). However, in the nearly 50 years since
China developed nuclear weapons, only four additional countries have entered (and remained in) the nuclear club: Israel (allegedly in 1967), India (peaceful nuclear
test in 1974, acquisition in late-1980s, test in 1998), Pakistan (acquisition in late-1980s, test in 1998) and North Korea (test in 2006).23 This significant slowdown in
the pace of proliferation occurred despite the widespread dissemination of nuclear know-how and the fact that the number of states with the technical and industrial
capability to pursue nuclear weapons programs has significantly increased over time.24 Moreover, in the past 20 years, several states have either given up their nuclear
weapons (South Africa and the Soviet successor states Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) or ended their highly developed nuclear weapons programs (e.g., Argentina,
Brazil and Libya).25 Indeed, by one estimate, 37 countries have pursued nuclear programs with possible weaponsrelated dimensions since 1945, yet the overwhelming

number of nuclear reversals has grown

while the number of states initiating programs with possible military dimensions has markedly
declined.26 Furthermore especially since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) went into force in 1970 reactive proliferation has been
number chose to abandon these activities before they produced a bomb. Over time, the

exceedingly rare. The NPT has near-universal membership among the community of nations; only India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea currently stand outside the
treaty. Yet the actual and suspected acquisition of nuclear weapons by these outliers has not triggered widespread reactive proliferation in their respective
neighborhoods. Pakistan followed India into the nuclear club, and the two have engaged in a vigorous arms race, but Pakistani nuclearization did not spark additional
South Asian states to acquire nuclear weapons. Similarly, the North Korean bomb did not lead South Korea, Japan or other regional states to follow suit.27 In the
Middle East, no country has successfully built a nuclear weapon in the four decades since Israel allegedly built its first nuclear weapons. Egypt took initial steps
toward nuclearization in the 1950s and then expanded these efforts in the late 1960s and 1970s in response to Israels presumed capabilities. However, Cairo then
ratified the NPT in 1981 and abandoned its program.28 Libya, Iraq and Iran all pursued nuclear weapons capabilities, but only Irans program persists and none of
these states initiated their efforts primarily as a defensive response to Israels presumed arsenal.29 Sometime in the 2000s, Syria also appears to have initiated nuclear

activities with possible military dimensions, including construction of a covert nuclear reactor near al-Kibar, likely enabled by North Korean assistance.30 (An Israeli
airstrike destroyed the facility in 2007.31) The motivations for Syrias activities remain murky, but the nearly 40-year lag between Israels alleged development of the
bomb and Syrias actions suggests that reactive proliferation was not the most likely cause. Finally, even countries that start on the nuclear path have found it very
difficult, and exceedingly time consuming, to reach the end. Of the 10 countries that launched nuclear weapons projects after 1970, only three (Pakistan, North Korea
and South Africa) succeeded; one (Iran) remains in progress, and the rest failed or were reversed.32 The successful projects have also generally needed much more
time than expected to finish. According to Jacques Hymans, the

average time required to complete a nuclear weapons program has

increased from seven years prior to 1970 to about 17 years after 1970, even as the hardware, knowledge and
industrial base required for proliferation has expanded to more and more countries.33 Yet throughout the nuclear age, many states with
potential security incentives to develop nuclear weapons have nevertheless abstained from doing so.34 Moreover, contrary to common expectations, recent statistical
research shows that states with an enduring rival that possesses or is pursuing nuclear weapons are not more likely than other states to launch nuclear weapons
programs or go all the way to acquiring the bomb, although they do seem more likely to explore nuclear weapons options.35 This suggests that a rivals acquisition of
nuclear weapons does not inevitably drive proliferation decisions. One reason that reactive proliferation is not an automatic response to a rivals acquisition of nuclear
arms is the fact that security calculations can cut in both directions. Nuclear weapons might deter outside threats, but leaders

have to weigh these

potential gains against the possibility that seeking nuclear weapons would make the country or regime less secure by
triggering a regional arms race or a preventive attack by outside powers. Countries also have to consider the possibility that
pursuing nuclear weapons will produce strains in strategic relationships with key allies and security patrons. If a states leaders
conclude that their overall security would decrease by building a bomb, they are not likely to do so.36 Moreover, although security considerations are often central,
they are rarely sufficient to motivate states to develop nuclear weapons. Scholars have noted the importance of other factors, most notably the perceived effects of
nuclear weapons on a countrys relative status and influence.37 Empirically, the most highly motivated states seem to be those with leaders that simultaneously believe
a nuclear deterrent is essential to counter an existential threat and view nuclear weapons as crucial for maintaining or enhancing their international status and
influence. Leaders that see their country as naturally at odds with, and naturally equal or superior to, a threatening external foe appear to be especially prone to
pursuing nuclear weapons.38 Thus, as Jacques Hymans argues, extreme levels of fear and pride often combine to produce a very strong tendency to reach for the
bomb.39 Yet here too, leaders contemplating acquiring nuclear weapons have to balance the possible increase to their prestige and influence against the normative
and reputational costs associated with violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If a countrys leaders fully embrace the principles and norms embodied in
the NPT, highly value positive diplomatic relations with Western countries and see membership in the community of nations as central to their national interests and
identity, they are likely to worry that developing nuclear weapons would damage (rather than bolster) their reputation and influence, and thus they will be less likely to
go for the bomb.40 In contrast, countries with regimes or ruling coalitions that embrace an ideology that rejects the Western dominated international order and
prioritizes national self-reliance and autonomy from outside interference seem more inclined toward proliferation regardless of whether they are signatories to the
NPT.41 Most countries appear to fall in the former category, whereas only a small number of rogue states fit the latter. According to one count, before the NPT went
into effect, more than 40 percent of states with the economic resources to pursue nuclear programs with potential military applications did so, and very few renounced
those programs. Since the inception of the nonproliferation norm in 1970, however, only 15 percent of economically capable states have started such programs, and
nearly 70 percent of all states that had engaged in such activities gave them up.42 The prospect of being targeted with economic sanctions by powerful states is also
likely to factor into the decisions of would-be proliferators. Although sanctions alone proved insufficient to dissuade Iraq, North Korea and (thus far) Iran from
violating their nonproliferation obligations under the NPT, this does not necessarily indicate that sanctions are irrelevant. A potential proliferators vulnerability to
sanctions must be considered. All else being equal, the more vulnerable a states economy is to external pressure, the less likely it is to pursue nuclear weapons. A
comparison of states in East Asia and the Middle East that have pursued nuclear weapons with those that have not done so suggests that countries with economies that
are highly integrated into the international economic system especially those dominated by ruling coalitions that seek further integration have historically been less
inclined to pursue nuclear weapons than those with inward-oriented economies and ruling coalitions.43 A states vulnerability to sanctions matters, but so too does the
leaderships assessment regarding the probability that outside powers would actually be willing to impose sanctions. Some would-be proliferators can be easily
sanctioned because their exclusion from international economic transactions creates few downsides for sanctioning states. In other instances, however, a state may be
so vital to outside powers economically or geopolitically that it is unlikely to be sanctioned regardless of NPT violations. Technical and Bureaucratic Constraints
In addition to motivation to pursue the bomb, a state must have the technical and bureaucratic wherewithal to do so. This capability is partly a function of wealth.
Richer and more industrialized states can develop nuclear weapons more easily than poorer and less industrial ones can; although as Pakistan and North Korea
demonstrate, cash-strapped states can sometimes succeed in developing nuclear weapons if they are willing to make enormous sacrifices.44 A countrys technical
know-how and the sophistication of its civilian nuclear program also help determine the ease and speed with which it can potentially pursue the bomb. The existence
of uranium deposits and related mining activity, civilian nuclear power plants, nuclear research reactors and laboratories and a large cadre of scientists and engineers
trained in relevant areas of chemistry and nuclear physics may give a country some latent capability to eventually produce nuclear weapons. Mastery of the fuelcycle the ability to enrich uranium or produce, separate and reprocess plutonium is particularly important because this is the essential pathway whereby states can
indigenously produce the fissile material required to make a nuclear explosive device.45 States must also possess the bureaucratic capacity and managerial culture to
successfully complete a nuclear weapons program. Hymans convincingly argues that many recent would-be proliferators have weak state institutions that permit, or
even encourage, rulers to take

a coercive, authoritarian management approach to their nuclear programs. This approach, in

turn, politicizes and ultimately undermines nuclear projects by gutting the autonomy and professionalism of the
very scientists, experts and organizations needed to successfully build the bomb.46 Alternative Sources of Nuclear Deterrence
Historically, the availability of credible security guarantees by outside nuclear powers has provided a potential alternative means for acquiring a nuclear deterrent
without many of the risks and costs associated with developing an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. As Bruno Tertrais argues, nearly all the states that
developed nuclear weapons since 1949 either lacked a strong guarantee from a superpower (India, Pakistan and South Africa) or did not consider the superpowers
protection to be credible (China, France, Israel and North Korea). Many other countries known to have pursued nuclear weapons programs also lacked security
guarantees (e.g., Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Switzerland and Yugoslavia) or thought they were unreliable at the time they embarked on their
programs (e.g., Taiwan). In contrast, several potential

proliferation candidates appear to have abstained from developing the

bomb at least partly because of formal or informal extended deterrence guarantees from the United States (e.g., Australia,
Germany, Japan, Norway, South Korea and Sweden).47 All told, a recent quantitative assessment by Bleek finds that security assurances have
empirically significantly reduced proliferation proclivity among recipient countries.48 Therefore, if a country perceives that a security
guarantee by the United States or another nuclear power is both available and credible, it is less likely to pursue nuclear weapons in reaction to a rival developing
them. This option is likely to be particularly attractive to states that lack the indigenous capability to develop nuclear weapons, as well as states that are primarily
motivated to acquire a nuclear deterrent by security factors (as opposed to status-related motivations) but are wary of the negative consequences of proliferation.

No widespread proliferation
Hymans 12 Jacques Hymans, USC Associate Professor of IR, 4/16/12, North Korea's Lessons
for (Not) Building an Atomic Bomb, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137408/jacques-e-chymans/north-koreas-lessons-for-not-building-an-atomic-bomb?page=show
Washington's miscalculation is not just a product of the difficulties of seeing inside the Hermit Kingdom. It is also a result of the

broader
tendency to overestimate the pace of global proliferation. For decades, Very Serious People have
predicted that strategic weapons are about to spread to every corner of the earth. Such warnings have
routinely proved wrong - for instance, the intelligence assessments that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - but
they continue to be issued. In reality, despite the diffusion of the relevant technology and the knowledge for
building nuclear weapons, the world has been experiencing a great proliferation slowdown. Nuclear
weapons programs around the world are taking much longer to get off the ground - and their
failure rate is much higher - than they did during the first 25 years of the nuclear age. As I explain in my
article "Botching the Bomb" in the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs, the key reason for the great proliferation
slowdown is the absence of strong cultures of scientific professionalism in most of the recent crop of wouldbe nuclear states, which in turn is a consequence of their poorly built political institutions. In such
dysfunctional states, the quality of technical workmanship is low, there is little coordination
across different technical teams, and technical mistakes lead not to productive learning but instead to fingerpointing and recrimination. These problems are debilitating , and they cannot be fixed simply by
bringing in more imported parts through illicit supply networks. In short, as a struggling proliferator, North Korea has a lot of company.

Their scholarship is horribleprefer Hymansbest studies

Potter 8 William C. Potter is Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation
Studies and Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey
Institute of International Studies, Summer 2008, Divining Nuclear Intentions,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/v033/33.1.potter.pdf
For much of the nuclear age, academic experts, intelligence analysts, and public commentators periodically have forecast

rapid

bursts of proliferation, which have failed to materialize. Central to their prognoses, often imbued with
the imagery and metaphors of nuclear dominoes and proliferation chains, has been the assumption that one state's nuclearization is
likely to trigger decisions by other states to "go nuclear" in quick succession. Today the proliferation metaphors of choice are
"nuclear cascade" and "tipping point," but the implication is the samewe are on the cusp of rapid, large-scale nuclear weapons spread. It is with
some justification, therefore, that the study of proliferation has been labeled "the sky-is-still-falling profession."1 Although proliferation

projections abound, few of them are founded on, or even informed by, empirical research
and theory.2 This deficiency, though regrettable, is understandable given the small body of theoretically or empirically [End Page 139]
grounded research on forecasting proliferation developments, and the underdeveloped state of theory on nonproliferation and nuclear
decisionmaking more generally. Also contributing

to this knowledge deficit is the stunted development of social science

research on foreign policyoriented forecasting and the emphasis on post hoc explanations, rather than
predictions on the part of the more sophisticated frameworks and models of nuclear decisionmaking. Two important
exceptions to this general paucity of nonproliferation theory with predictive value are recent
books by Jacques Hymans, The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy, and Etel Solingen,
Nuclear Logics: Alternative Paths in East Asia and the Middle East.3 These studies merit careful attention because of
their solid grounding in comparative field research and social science theory, their challenges to
prevailing conceptions about the sources of nuclear weapons decisions, and their promise for predicting
proliferation developments. As such, they go well beyond the influential but historically oriented explanatory frameworks developed

by scholars such as Peter Lavoy, Ariel Levite, T.V. Paul, Scott Sagan, and James Walsh.4 Although the approaches advanced by Hymans and
Solingen have their own limitations, these two books represent

the cutting edge of nonproliferation research and

should be of great interest to both policy practitioners and scholars. In particular, a careful review of their studies sheds new insights
into why past predictions of rapid proliferation have proved faulty, why the current alarm over
impending proliferation doom is largely without merit, and why we should not count on single theories of international
relationsat least in their [End Page 140] current stateto offer much guidance in explaining or predicting the dynamics of nuclear weapons
spread.

No impact to prolif its slow, only .05% of states have nukes, conventional war is
far more likely, 60+ years prove deterrence works
DeGarmo 11 Denise, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University,
Proliferation Leads to Peace
Unfortunately, while the

fear of proliferation is pervasive, it is unfounded and lacks an understanding of

the evidence. Nuclear proliferation has been slow. From 1945 to 1970, only six countries acquired nuclear weapons:
United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, and Israel. Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came
into effect in 1970, only three countries have joined the nuclear club: India, Pakistan, and North
Korea. In total, only .05% of the worlds states have nuclear weapons in their possession. Supporters
of non-proliferation seem to overlook the fact that there are states currently capable of making nuclear weapons and have chosen not to construct
them, which illustrates the seriousness with which states consider their entrance into the nuclear club. Included on this list are such actors as:
Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, and South Africa. The attraction of nuclear weapons is multifold. Nuclear weapons
enhance the international status of states that possess them and help insecure states feel more secure. States also seek nuclear capabilities for
offensive purposes. It is important to point out that while

nuclear weapons have spread very slowly, conventional

weapons have proliferated exponentially across the globe. The wars of the 21st century are being
fought in the peripheral regions of the globe that are undergoing conventional weapons
proliferation. What the pundits of non-proliferation forget to mention are the many lessons that are learned from the nuclear world. Nuclear
weapons provide stability just as they did during the Cold War era. The fear of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) loomed heavily on the minds
of nuclear powers through out the Cold War and continues to be an important consideration for nuclear states today. States do not strike first
unless they are assured of a military victory, and the probability of a military victory is diminished by fear that their actions would prompt a swift
retaliation by other states. In other words, states with nuclear weapons are deterred by another states second-strike capabilities. During the Cold
War, the United States and Soviet Union could not destroy enough of the others massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to make a retaliatory strike
bearable. Even the prospect of a small number of nuclear weapons being placed in Cuba by the Soviets had a great deterrent effect on the United
States. Nothing can be done with nuclear weapons other than to use them for deterrent purposes. If

deterrence works reliably, as

it has done over the past 60 plus years, then there is less to be feared from nuclear proliferation
than there is from convention warfare.

1AR- Oil Defense

No impact oil shocks
Jaffe 8 (Amy Myers Jaffe is the Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies at the James A.
Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, Opportunity, not War, Survival | vol.
50 no. 4 | AugustSeptember 2008 | pp. 6182)
Weve heard the argument before: scarcity of future oil supplies is a danger to the global international system and will create international
conflict, death and destruction. In 1982, noted historian and oil-policy guru Daniel Yergin wrote that the energy question was a question about
the future of Western society, noting that stagnation and unemployment and depression tested democratic systems in the years between World
War I and World War II and asserting that if there wasnt sufficient oil to drive economic growth, the possibilities are unpleasant to
contemplate.1 His words proved typical prose foreboding the top of a commodity cycle. A year later, oil prices began a four-year collapse to $12
a barrel. That oil is a cyclical industry is not in question. Since

1861, oil markets have experienced more than eight

boom-and-bust cycles. In 1939, the US Department of the Interior announced that only 13 years of oil reserves remained in the United
States. In more recent history, Middle East wars or revolutions produced oil price booms in 1956, 1973, 1979,
1990 and 2003. Each time, analysts rushed to warn of doomsday scenarios but markets
responded and oil use was curtailed both by market forces and government
intervention rather than by war and massive global instability. The question Nader Elhefnawy raises in The Impending Oil
Shock is whether this time will be different.

Adaption check impact

Kahn 11 (Jeremy, Boston Globe, Crude reality, http://articles.boston.com/2011-0213/news/29336191_1_crude-oil-shocks-major-oil-producers, February 13, 2011)
Among those asking this tough question are two young professors, Eugene Gholz, at the University of Texas, and Daryl Press, at Dartmouth
College. To

find out what actually happens when the worlds petroleum supply is interrupted, the duo
analyzed every major oil disruption since 1973. The results, published in a recent issue of the journal Strategic Studies, showed that
in almost all cases, the ensuing rise in prices, while sometimes steep, was short-lived and had little lasting
economic impact. When there have been prolonged price rises, they found the cause to be panic
on the part of oil purchasers rather than a supply shortage. When oil runs short, in other words,
the market is usually adept at filling the gap. One striking example was the height of the IranIraq War in the 1980s. If anything was likely to produce an oil shock, it was this: two major Persian Gulf producers
directly targeting each others oil facilities. And indeed, prices surged 25 percent in the first months
of the conflict. But within 18 months of the wars start they had fallen back to their prewar
levels, and they stayed there even though the fighting continued to rage for six more years. Surprisingly, during the 1984
Tanker War phase of that conflict when Iraq tried to sink oil tankers carrying Iranian crude
and Iran retaliated by targeting ships carrying oil from Iraq and its Persian Gulf allies the

price of oil continued to

drop steadily. Gholz and Press found just one case after 1973 in which the market mechanisms failed: the 1979-1980 Iranian oil strike
which followed the overthrow of the Shah, during which Saudi Arabia, perhaps hoping to appease Islamists within the country, also led OPEC to
cut production, exacerbating the supply shortage. In their paper,

Gholz and Press ultimately conclude that the markets

adaptive mechanisms function independently of the US military presence in the Persian Gulf, and
that they largely protect the American economy from being damaged by oil shocks. To the extent that
the United States faces a national security challenge related to Persian Gulf oil, it is not how to protect the oil we need but how to assure
consumers that there is nothing to fear, the two write. That is a thorny policy problem, but it does not require large military deployments and
costly military operations. Theres no denying the importance of Middle Eastern oil to the US economy. Although

only 15 percent
of imported US oil comes directly from the Persian Gulf, the region is responsible for nearly a
third of the worlds production and the majority of its known reserves. But the oil market is also elastic: Many
key producing countries have spare capacity, so if oil is cut off from one

country, others tend to increase their output rapidly to compensate. Today,

regions outside the Middle East, such as the west coast of Africa, make up an increasingly
important share of worldwide production. Private companies also hold large stockpiles of oil to
smooth over shortages amounting to a few billion barrels in the United States alone as does the US government,
with 700 million barrels in its strategic petroleum reserve. And the market can largely work around
shipping disruptions by using alternative routes; though they are more expensive, transportation costs account for only
tiny fraction of the price of oil.

Studies prove
Perumal, business reporter Gulf Times, 9/14/11 (Santhosh, http://www.gulftimes.com/site/topics/article.asp?
cu_no=2&item_no=458158&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28)
Oil price shocks are not always costly for oil-importing countries as a 25% increase in oil prices causes their GDP (gross
domestic product) to fall by about half of 1% or less, according to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) working paper.Across the
world, oil price shock episodes have generally not been associated with a contemporaneous decline in output but, rather,
with increases in both imports and exports, the paper said.There is evidence of lagged negative effects on output,
particularly for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) economies, but the magnitude has typically been
small, said the paper, authored by Tobias N Rasmussen and Agustn Roitman.For a given level of world GDP, the paper found that oil prices
have a negative effect on oil-importing countries and also that cross-country differences in the magnitude of the impact depend to a large extent
on the relative magnitude of oil imports. The effect is still not particularly large, however, with our estimates suggesting that a

25%
increase in oil prices will cause a loss of real GDP in oil-importing countries of less than half of 1%, spread over 23
years, the authors said. One likely explanation for this relatively modest impact is that part of the greater revenue accruing to oil
exporters will be recycled in the form of imports or other international flows, thus contributing to keep up demand
in oil-importing economies, the paper said.The negative impact of oil price shocks on oil-importing countries is partly offset by
concurrent increases in exports and other income flows, it said.

Politics

2AC- Politics
1- No link and turn
A) Obama wouldnt fight the plan
Baker 13 (Peter Baker, NY Times, Pivoting From a War Footing, Obama Acts to Curtail
Drones, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/pivoting-from-a-war-footing-obamaacts-to-curtail-drones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, May 23, 2013)

WASHINGTON Nearly a dozen years after the hijackings that transformed America, President Obama

said Thursday that it was time

to narrow the scope of the grinding battle against terrorists and begin the transition to a day when the
country will no longer be on a war footing. Declaring that America is at a crossroads, the president called for redefining what
has been a global war into a more targeted assault on terrorist groups threatening the United States. As part of a realignment of
counterterrorism policy, he said he would curtail the use of drones, recommit to closing the
prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, and seek new limits on his own war power. In a muchanticipated speech at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama sought to turn the page on the era that began on Sept. 11, 2001, when the
imperative of preventing terrorist attacks became both the priority and the preoccupation. Instead, the president suggested that the United States
had returned to the state of affairs that existed before Al Qaeda toppled the World Trade Center, when terrorism was a persistent but not
existential danger. With Al Qaedas core now on the path to defeat, he argued, the nation must adapt. Our systematic effort to dismantle
terrorist organizations must continue, Mr. Obama said. But this war, like all wars, must end. Thats what history advises. Its what our
democracy demands. The presidents speech reignited a debate over how to respond to the threat of terrorism that has polarized the capital for
years. Republicans contended that Mr. Obama was declaring victory prematurely and underestimating an enduring danger, while liberals
complained that he had not gone far enough in ending what they see as the excesses of the Bush era. The precise ramifications of his shift were
less clear than the lines of argument, however, because the new policy guidance he signed remains classified, and other changes he embraced
require Congressional approval. Mr. Obama, for instance, did not directly mention in his speech that his new order would shift responsibility for
drones more toward the military and away from the Central Intelligence Agency. But

the combination of his words and deeds

foreshadowed the course he hopes to take in the remaining three and a half years of his presidency so that
he leaves his successor a profoundly different national security landscape than the one he inherited in
2009. While President George W. Bush saw the fight against terrorism as the defining mission of his presidency, Mr. Obama has always viewed
it as one priority among many at a time of wrenching economic and domestic challenges. Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as
a boundless global war on terror, he said, using Mr. Bushs term, but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific
networks of violent extremists that threaten America. Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror, he added. We will
never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do what we
must do is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while
maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. Some Republicans expressed alarm about Mr. Obamas shift, saying it was a mistake to go
back to the days when terrorism was seen as a manageable law enforcement problem rather than a dire threat. The presidents speech today will
be viewed by terrorists as a victory, said Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Rather than continuing successful counterterrorism activities, we are changing course with no clear operational benefit. Senator John McCain,
Republican of Arizona, said he still agreed with Mr. Obama about closing the Guantnamo prison, but he called the presidents assertion that Al
Qaeda was on the run a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible. Mr. McCain said the president had been too passive in the Arab
world, particularly in Syrias civil war. American leadership is absent in the Middle East, he said. The liberal discontent with Mr. Obama was
on display even before his speech ended. Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the antiwar group Code Pink, who was in the audience, shouted at the
president to release prisoners from Guantnamo, halt C.I.A. drone strikes and apologize to Muslims for killing so many of them. Abide by the
rule of law! she yelled as security personnel removed her from the auditorium. Youre a constitutional lawyer! Col. Morris D. Davis, a former
chief prosecutor at Guantnamo who has become a leading critic of the prison, waited until after the speech to express disappointment that Mr.

Still, some
counterterrorism experts saw it as the natural evolution of the conflict after more than a decade. This is
both a promise to an end to the war on terror, while being a further declaration of war, constrained and
proportional in its scope, said Juan Carlos Zarate, a counterterrorism adviser to Mr. Bush. The new
classified policy guidance imposes tougher standards for when drone strikes can be authorized, limiting
them to targets who pose a continuing, imminent threat to Americans and cannot feasibly be captured,
according to government officials. The guidance also begins a process of phasing the C.I.A. out of the
drone war and shifting operations to the Pentagon. The guidance expresses the principle that the military should be in the lead
Obama was not more proactive. Its great rhetoric, he said. But now is the reality going to live up to the rhetoric?

and responsible for taking direct action even outside traditional war zones like Afghanistan, officials said. But Pakistan, where the C.I.A. has

waged a robust campaign of air assaults on terrorism suspects in the tribal areas, will be grandfathered in for a transition period and remain under
C.I.A. control. That exception will be reviewed every six months as the government decides whether Al Qaeda has been neutralized enough in
Pakistan and whether troops in Afghanistan can be protected. Officials said they anticipated that the eventual transfer of the C.I.A. drone program
in Pakistan to the military would probably coincide with the withdrawal of combat units from Afghanistan at the end of 2014. Even as he
envisions scaling back the targeted killing, Mr. Obama

embraced ideas to limit his own authority.

He expressed openness to the idea of a secret court to oversee drone strikes, much like the intelligence
court that authorizes secret wiretaps, or instead perhaps some sort of independent body within the
executive branch. He did not outline a specific proposal, leaving it to Congress to
consider something along those lines. He also called on Congress to refine and ultimately repeal the
authorization of force it passed in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Aides said he wanted it limited more clearly
to combating Al Qaeda and affiliated groups so it could not be used to justify action against other terrorist
or extremist organizations. In renewing his vow to close the Guantnamo prison, Mr. Obama highlighted one of his most prominent
unkept promises from the 2008 presidential campaign. He came into office vowing to shutter the prison, which has become a symbol around the
world of American excesses, within a year, but Congress moved to block him, and then he largely dropped the effort. With 166 detainees still at
the prison, Mr. Obama said he would reduce the population even without action by Congress. About half of the detainees have been cleared for
return to their home countries, mostly Yemen. Mr. Obama said he was lifting a moratorium he imposed on sending detainees to Yemen, where a
new president has inspired more faith in the White House that he would not allow recidivism. The

policy changes have been in the

works for months as Mr. Obama has sought to reorient his national security strategy. The speech was his
most comprehensive public discussion of counterterrorism since he took office , and at times he was almost
ruminative, articulating both sides of the argument and weighing trade-offs out loud in a way presidents rarely do. He said that the United States
remained in danger from terrorists, as the attacks in Boston and Benghazi, Libya, have demonstrated, but that the nature of the threat has shifted
and evolved. He noted that terrorists, including some radicalized at home, had carried out attacks, but less ambitious than the ones on Sept. 11.
We have to take these threats seriously and do all that we can to confront them, he said. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize
that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.

B) Obama uses the plan to shift blame- solves losers lose

Wehner 13 (Peter Wehner, Barack Obamas Staggering Incompetence,
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/02/barack-obamas-staggering-incompetence/,
September 2, 2013)
Its reported that President Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congresss blessing, but on Friday night, he
suddenly changed his mind. According to the Huffington Post: Senior administration officials describing Obamas about-face Saturday offered a
portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally
summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say hed had a change of heart. In light of all this, its worth posing a few
questions: 1. Why didnt the president seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the
idea not occur to him? Its not as if this is an obscure issue. When youre in the White House and preparing to launch military force against a
sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list. And why has the urgency to
act that we saw from the administration during the last weekwhen Assads use of chemical weapons was referred to by the secretary of state as a
moral obscenitygiven way to an air of casualness, with Obama not even calling Congress back into session to debate his military strike against
Syria? 2. The president didnt seek congressional approval for his military strike in Libya. Why does he believe he needs it in Syria? 3. Mr.
Obama, in his Rose Garden statement on Saturday, still insisted he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval. So what
happens if Congress votes down a use-of-force resolution? Does the president strike Syria anyway? If so, will it be an evanescent bombing,
intended to be limited in scope and duration, while doing nothing to change the wars balance of power? Or does the president completely back
down? Does he even know? Has he thought through in advance anything related to Syria? Or is this a case of Obama simply making it up as he
goes along? This latest volte-face by the president is evidence of a man who is completely overmatched by events, weak and confused, and
deeply ambivalent about using force. Yet hes also desperate to get out of the corner he painted himself into by declaring that the use of chemical
weapons by the Assad regime would constitute a red line. As a result hes gone all Hamlet on us. Not surprisingly, Obamas actions are being
mocked by Americas enemies and sowing doubt among our allies. (Read this New York Times story for more.) What

explains this
debacle? Its impossible for us to know all the reasons, but one explanation appears to be a CYA
operation. According to Politico, At the very least, Obama clearly wants lawmakers to co-own a
decision that he cant back away from after having declared last year that Assad would cross a red
line if he used chemical weapons against his own people . And the Washington Post reports: Obamas proposal to invite
Congress dominated the Friday discussion in the Oval Office. He had consulted almost no one about his idea. In the end, the president
made clear he wanted Congress to share in the responsibility for what happens in Syria. As one aide put it,
We dont want them to have their cake and eat it, too. Get it? The president of the United States is
preparing in advance to shift the blame if his strike on Syria proves to be unpopular and ineffective. Hes

furious about the box hes placed himself in, he hates the ridicule hes (rightly) incurring, but he doesnt see any way out. What he does see is a
political (and geopolitical) disaster in the making. And

so what is emerging is what comes most naturally to Mr.

Obama: Blame shifting and blame sharing. Remember: the president doesnt believe he needs
congressional authorization to act. Hes ignored it before. He wants it now. For reasons of political
survival. To put it another way: He wants the fingerprints of others on the failure in Syria. Rarely has
an American president joined so much cynicism with so much ineptitude.

2- Restricting armed domestic drones popular- their evidence about drones being
popular doesnt apply
FoxNews 13 (Fox News, Lawmakers eye regulating domestic surveillance drones,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/congress-eyes-regulating-drones/, May 19, 2013)

Amid growing concern over the use of drones by police and government officials for surveillance, a
bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to limit the use of unmanned
surveillance "eyes in the sky" aircraft. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., along with Rep. Zoe
Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, is sponsoring legislation that would codify due process
protections for Americans in cases involving drones and make flying armed drones in the
U.S. sky illegal. Sensenbrenner believes it is necessary to develop new standards to address the privacy issues associated with use of
drones which can be as small as a bird and as large as a plane. "Every advancement in crime fighting technology, from wiretaps to DNA, has
resulted in courts carving out the Constitutional limits within which the police operate," Sensenbrenner said at a House Judiciary subcommittee
hearing Friday on the issues surrounding drones. The subcommittee heard from experts who were divided on what actions Congress should take
to address the new technology. But the four witnesses all agreed that drones raised new, often unprecedented questions about domestic
surveillance. "Current

law has yet to catch up to this new technology," said Chris Calabrese, legislative
counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. Calabrese said he supported immediate regulation of the drone industry and
said his biggest concern was the overuse of drones by police and government officials for surveillance. But Calabrese said he doesn't want to
hinder the growth of drones with the power to do good, including helping find missing persons, assisting firefighters and addressing other
emergencies. Tracey

Maclin, a professor with the Boston University School of Law, said the issues raised by
drones haven't been addressed by courts before because the technology goes beyond what humans had
been capable of through aerial surveillance. Past court rulings, "were premised on naked-eye observations
simple visual observations from a public place," he said. Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., said he
wanted to know when drone technology will advance to the point where Congress will have to act on the
issue. He said he was concerned about the effect on privacy. "At what point do you think it's going to get to a point where
we have to say what a reasonable expectation of privacy is?" Richmond said. Republicans expressed similar concerns . "It
seems to me that Congress needs to set the standard, rather than wait and let the courts set the standard,"
Poe said. "Technology is great as long as it's used the right and proper way," Rep. Jason Chaffetz,
R-Utah, said at Friday's hearing. Some experts urged caution. Gregory McNeal, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University, said writing
laws to cover drones will be difficult because the technology continues to improve and Congress could think it's addressing key issues, only to
have new ones emerge. He compared drones to the privacy concerns raised by development of the Internet in the 1990s. Regulating then, he said,
could have stymied the rapid growth of the Internet and wouldn't have addressed today's Internet privacy issues. If Congress feels compelled to
act, McNeal said, it should think in terms broader than a "drone policy" and set standards for surveillance or realistic expectations of privacy. "A
technology-centered approach to privacy is the wrong approach," he said. But the ACLU's Calabrese said Congress should work quickly. "This

can't be adequately addressed by existing law," he said. "Manned aircraft are expensive to purchase.
Drones' low cost and flexibility erode that natural limit. They can appear in windows, all for much less
than the cost of a plane or a helicopter." A future with domestic drones may be inevitable. While civilian drone use is currently
limited to government agencies and some public universities, a law passed by Congress last year requires the Federal Aviation Administration to
allow widespread drone flights in the U.S. by 2015. According to FAA estimates, as many as 7,500 civilian drones could be in use within five
years.

1AR- Domestic Armed Drones Unpopular

The plan functions as an olive branch for bipartisanship- massively popular
Greenwald 13 (Glenn Greenwald, Business Insider, GLENN GREENWALD: The US Needs
To Wake Up To Threat Of Domestic Drones, http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-threatsstrikes-us-2013-3, March 30, 2013)

Notably, this

may be one area where an actual bipartisan/trans-partisan

alliance can meaningfully emerge, as most advocates working on these issues with whom I've spoken say that
libertarian-minded GOP state legislators have been as responsive as more left-wing Democratic ones in
working to impose some limits. One bill now pending in Congress would prohibit the use of surveillance drones
on US soil in the absence of a specific search warrant, and has bipartisan support. Only the most
authoritarian among us will be incapable of understanding the multiple dangers posed by a domestic drone regime (particularly when their party
is in control of the government and they are incapable of perceiving threats from increased state police power). But the

proliferation of
domestic drones affords a real opportunity to forge an enduring coalition in
defense of core privacy and other rights that transcends partisan
allegiance , by working toward meaningful limits on their use. Making people aware of exactly what these unique threats are from a
domestic drone regime is the key first step in constructing that coalition.

Limiting domestic armed drones is popular

Sasso 12 (Brendan Sasso, Lawmakers mull restrictions on domestic drones,
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/264189-lawmakers-mull-restrictions-ondomestic-drones, October 25, 2012)
At Thursday's forum, lawmakers,

academics and privacy advocates worried that widespread drone use would
pose a serious threat to privacy. "Persistently monitoring Americans' movements can reveal their political
identity, their religious views and even how safe your marriage is, how strong it is," Rep. Hank Johnson
(D-Ga.) said. "Both parties cast a skeptical eye toward drone surveillance in law enforcement," he added.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) emphasized that he believes drones are essential for killing suspected
terrorists overseas and monitoring the border, and he said drones have a "real benefit and use" for law
enforcement. But he added that he would support legislation to limit their use in domestic airspac e. Chris
Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, explained that drones can be
equipped with surveillance technologies such as night-vision cameras, body scanners and license plate
readers. "Drones should only be used if subject to a powerful framework that
regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and invasions of privacy," he said. The
lawmakers and witnesses agreed that domestic drones should not be
equipped with weapons, like the military drones that fly over Afghanistan. But David Crump, a professor
at the Houston University Law Center, said Poe should revise his legislation to allow for more uses of drones. He said the law should make it
clear that police can use drones in hostage situations, car chases and for security around sensitive government buildings or officials. He predicted
that as drones become more widespread, a university may want to use a drone to televise views of a sports game.

Limiting domestic TK popular with republicans and democratic

Wheeler 13 (Marcy Wheeler, PhD from Michigan, specialized in researching on politics, The
Ideological Diversity Behind Demands for Targeted Killing or Drone Oversight and
Transparency, http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/03/13/the-ideological-diversity-behinddemands-for-targeted-killing-or-drone-oversight-and-transparency/, March 13, 2013)
When Barbara Lee and 7 other progressives sent a letter to the President asking for more information on both the legal authorization for targeted

killings and the architecture of the program generally, a number of people on the left took it as a response to Rand Pauls filibuster. The

implication was that the liberal left had matched the Tea Party right in its
interest in targeted killing oversight and transparency, and that no one in between those
extremes had expressed such an interest. As I laid out the other day, that portrayal is nonsense. It ignores the number
of solidly centrist or mainstream, more authoritarian, Republicans who have called for targeted killing
oversight or transparency. Democrats run the risk of underestimating the degree to which
Republicans may make this a political, rather than just an oversight, issue (as I pointed out when Bob Goodlatte first
expressed an interest a month before Barbara Lee did). As I see it, the people who have called for more oversight or
transparency on drones or targeted killings fall into 6 overlapping groups . They fall roughly like this, though trying to
imagine anyones motivations is imperfect and Im obviously making rough judgments. (Note, Ive added people who dont appear on my list of
those who have formally asked for OLC memos, but have spoken out or sponsored legislation.) But

the groupings provide some

idea of where drone and targeting killing politics might head. A good many of people raising concerns are perfectly happy
to use drones to kill people; they just want it to either be more efficacious or legally justifiable, or they want to make political hay. Statutory
Oversight: Chuck Grassley, Pat Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Saxby Chambliss, Jerry Nadler, Ron Wyden, John Conyers, Bobby Scott, Mark Udall,
Dick Durbin, Bob Goodlatte, James Sensenbrenner, Trent Franks, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy, Tom Graves Civil Liberties: Ron Wyden, Pat Leahy,
Jerry Nadler, John Conyers, Bobby Scott, Ted Poe, Rand Paul, Mark Udall, Jeff Merkley, Mike Lee, Al Franken, Ted Cruz, Jusin Amash, Zoe
Lofgren, Ed Markey Good Government: Chuck Grassley, John McCain, Susan Collins, Tom Udall, Mark Begich Congressional Prerogative:
Chuck Grassley, Pat Leahy, John Cornyn, Jerry Nadler, John Conyers, Bobby Scott, Bob Goodlatte, James Sensenbrenner, Trent Franks, Ted Poe,
Trey Gowdy Progressive Principle: Pat Leahy, Dick Durbin, John Conyers, Jerry Nadler, Bobby Scott, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva,
Donna Edwards, Mike Honda, Rush Holt, James McGovern Oppositional Opportunisim: Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, John
Barrasso, Ted Cruz, Saxby Chambliss, Mark Kirk, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, John Thune, Jeff Flake, Ron Johnson, Tim Scott, Bob Goodlatte,
James Sensenbrenner, Trent Franks, Trey Gowdy, Justin Amash, Jeff Duncan, Scott Garrett, Jim Jordan, Billy Long, James Sensenbrenner

The plan is poplar

Rees 13 (Jennifer Rees is based in Seattle, Washington, United States of America, and is an
Anchor for Allvoices, Legislators push for restricted domestic drone use,
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14638539-legislators-push-for-legislation-to-restrictdomestic-use-of-drones, May 19, 2013)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's Opening Statement on 'Clean Up Government Act of 2011' In

the wake of rising apprehensions over

using drones for domestic surveillance purposes, a bipartisan group of legislators is trying to
restrict the use of unmanned observation aircraft or "eyes in the sky. Republican Reps. James
Sensenbrenner and Ted Poe have teamed up with Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren to sponsor legislation
aimed at codifying due process shields for US citizens regarding drones. It would also
prohibit the use of armed drones in the US. "Every advancement in crime fighting technology, from wiretaps to
DNA, has resulted in courts carving out the Constitutional limits within which the police operate," Sensenbrenner said at a House Judiciary
subcommittee hearing Friday on the issues surrounding drones, according to Fox News. Virginia, Florida, Montana and Idaho have already
approved laws to restrict the use of drones by police. According to a computation by the American Civil Liberties Union, laws to restrict drone
use has been proposed in 41 states and is operational in 32 states. Moreover, pressure

is increasing at the federal level

to restrict the domestic use of drones. It is pertinent to mention here that the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations has proposed to hold a hearing
called "Eyes in the Sky: The Domestic Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems."

Our evidence is comparative

Even 13 (Erik Even, Journalist for Opposing Views an Online Journal, Congress To Regulate
Drones Over US Soil?, http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/warterror/congress-regulate-drones-over-us-soil#, May 19, 2013)
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed legislation that would ban armed drones
in the United States, and provide due process protections for Americans surveilled by
drones. The term drone refers to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), an aircraft without a human pilot
on board. Drones are increasingly used over US soil by police for surveillance, and overseas by the

military for information gathering and extralegal assassinations. Representatives James Sensenbrenner
(R-Wisconsin), Zoe Lofgren (D-California), and Ted Poe, R-Texas) are backing the legislation. "Every
advancement in crime fighting technology, from wiretaps to DNA, has resulted in courts carving out the Constitutional limits within which the
police operate," Sensenbrenner told a House Judiciary subcommittee Friday. "Current

law has yet to catch up to this new

technology," said Chris Calabrese, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. While
acknowledging the good drones can do in finding missing persona and assisting firefighters, he
expressed concern about overuse of drones in government surveillance.

No Republican or democratic backlash

Cook 13 (Jim Cook, Journalist @ the Irregular Times, Even Limping Tea Party Caucus
Outshines Congressional Progressives on Drones in the USA,
http://irregulartimes.com/2013/05/02/even-limping-tea-party-caucus-outshines-congressionalprogressives-on-drones-in-the-usa/, May 2, 2013)
In the meantime, the

Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives is trying to re-institute itself after
falling into disrepair. The Tea Party Caucus webpage is still trying to convince members of Congress to join its ranks and so it doesnt list
its full membership yet. Still, Rachel Maddow notes that Representatives Trent Franks and Louie Gohmert were among the attendees of the first
Tea Party Caucus meeting. Both

Trent Franks and Louie Gohmert have signed up in support of H.R. 1242, which
would prohibit the U.S. government from using drones to target and
assassinate people on U.S. soil. Both are Republicans Thats at least two members of the Tea
Party Caucus who have signed on to legislation to restrict drones and there could be more. Only one
Progressive Caucus member has bothered to take that step. The next time the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee calls you up and
asks for your money to stop those nefarious Republicans and their Tea Party fellow travelers, ask them why the

Tea Party
Caucus has a record on drones twice as good as the supposedly progressive
Democrats.

Addons

Drone Industry- Agriculture Scenario- Bees Impact

Pesticides push honeybees past the tipping point- causes planetary extinction
Weyler 6-11-13 [Rex, cofounder of Greenpeace International, was a director of the original
Greenpeace Foundation, the editor of the organisation's first newsletter, Worldwide Honey Bee
Collapse: A Lesson in Ecology, http://ecowatch.com/2013/worldwide-honey-bee-collapse-alesson-in-ecology/]

We know what is killing the bees. Worldwide Bee Colony Collapse is not as big a mystery as the chemical companies claim. The
systemic nature of the problem makes it complex, but not impenetrable. Scientists know that bees are dying from a variety of factorspesticides,
drought, habitat destruction, nutrition deficit, air pollution, global warming and so forth. The causes of collapse merge and synergize, but we
know that humanity is the perpetrator, and that the two most prominent

causes appear to be pesticides and habitat loss.

Biologists have found over 150 different chemical residues in bee pollen, a deadly pesticide cocktail
according to University of California apiculturist Eric Mussen. The chemical companies Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, Dow, DuPont and Monsanto
shrug their shoulders at the systemic complexity, as if the mystery were too complicated. They advocate no change in pesticide policy. After all,
selling poisons to the worlds farmers is profitable. Furthermore, wild

bee habitat shrinks every year as industrial agribusiness converts

with pesticides. To reverse the

grasslands and forest into monoculture farms, which are then contaminated

world bees decline, we need to fix our dysfunctional and destructive agricultural system.
Bee Collapse Apis melliferathe honey bee, native to Europe, Africa and Western Asiais disappearing around the world. Signs of decline also
appear now in the eastern honey bee, Apis cerana. This is no marginal species loss. Honey

beeswild and domesticperform about

80 percent of all pollination worldwide. A single bee colony can pollinate 300 million flowers each day. Grains are primarily
pollinated by the wind, but the best and healthiest foodfruits, nuts and vegetablesare pollinated by bees. Seventy out of the top 100 human
food crops, which supply about 90 percent of the worlds nutrition, are pollinated by bees. Tonio Borg, European Commissioner for Health and
Consumer Policy, calculates that bees contribute more than 22 billion ($30 billion U.S. dollars) annually to European agriculture. Worldwide,
bees pollinate human food valued at more than 265 billion ($350 billion). The

bee collapse is a challenge to

human enterprise on the scale of global warming, ocean acidification and
nuclear war. Humans could not likely survive a total bee collapse . Worker bees
(females) live several months. Colonies produce new worker bees continuously during the spring and summer, and then reproduction slows
during the winter. Typically, a bee hive or colony will decline by five to 10 percent over the winter and replace those lost bees in the spring. In a
bad year, a bee colony might lose 15-20 percent of its bees. In the U.S., where bee collapse first appeared, winter losses commonly reached 3050 percent and in some cases more. In 2006, David Hackenberg, a bee keeper for 42 years, reported a 90 percent die-off among his 3,000 hives.
U.S. National Agriculture Statistics show a honey bee decline from about 6 million hives in 1947 to 2.4 million hives in 2008, a 60 percent
reduction. The number of working bee colonies per hectare provides a critical metric of crop health. In the U.S., among crops that require bee
pollination, the number of bee colonies per hectare has declined by 90 percent since 1962. The bees cannot keep pace with the winter die-off rates
and habitat loss. Europe Responds, U.S. Dithers In Europe, Asia and South America, the annual die-off lags behind the U.S. decline, but the
trend is clear, and the response is more appropriate. In Europe, Rabobank reported that the annual European die-offs have reached 30-35 percent
and that the colonies-per-hectare count is down 25 percent. In the 1980s, in Sichuan, China, pear orchard pesticides obliterated local bees, and
farmers must now pollinate crops by hand with feather dusters. A European Food Safety Authority scientific report determined that three widely
used pesticidesnicotine-based clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxampose high acute risks for bees. These neonicotinoid

pesticidesused in soils, on foliage and embedded in seedspersist at the core of the toxic pesticide cocktail
found in bee hives. A Greenpeace scientific report identifies seven priority bee-killer pesticidesincluding the three nicotine culprits
plus clorpyriphos, cypermethrin, deltamethrin and fipronil. The three neonicotinoids act on insect nervous systems. They accumulate in individual
bees and within entire colonies, including the honey that bees feed to infant larvae. Bees that do not die outright, experience sub-lethal systemic
effects, development defects, weakness and loss of orientation. The die-off leaves fewer bees and weaker bees, who must work harder to produce
honey in depleted wild habitats. These conditions create the nightmare formula for bee colony collapse.
Bayer makes and markets imidacloprid and clothianidin; Syngenta produces thiamethoxam. In 2009, the world market for these three toxins
reached over $2 billion. Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont control nearly 100 percent of the world market for genetically engineered
(GE) pesticides, plants and seeds. In 2012, a German court criminally charged Syngenta with perjury for concealing its own report showing that
its genetically modified corn had killed livestock. In the U.S., the company paid out $105 million to settle a class-action lawsuit for
contaminating the drinking water for more than 50 million citizens with its gender-bending herbicide Atrazine. Now, these corporate polluters
are waging multi-million-euro campaigns to deny responsibility for bee colony collapse. In May, the European Commission responded, adopting
a two-year ban on the three neonicotinoid pesticides. Scientists will use the two years to assess the recovery rate of the bees and a longer-term ban
on these and other pesticides. Meanwhile, the U.S. dithers and supports the corporations that produce and market the deadly pesticides. In May,
as European nations took action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the neonicotinoid pesticides, in spite of a U.S.

Department of Agriculture report warning about the dangers of the bee colony collapse. Also in May, President Obama, signed the now infamous
Monsanto Protection Actwritten by Monsanto lobbyiststhat gives biotech companies immunity in federal U.S. courts from damages to
people and the environment caused by their commercial compounds. Solutions Exist Common sense actions could restore and protect the
worlds bees. Experienced bee keepers, apiculturists, farmers, the European Commission and the Greenpeace report, Bees in Decline have
outlined these solutions: Ban the seven most dangerous pesticides Protect pollinator health by preserving wild habitat Restore ecological
agriculture Ecological farming is the over-arching new policy trend that will stabilize human food production, preserve wild habitats and protect
the bees. The nation of Bhutan has led the world in adopting a 100 percent organic farming policy. Mexico has banned GE corn to protect its
native corn varieties. In January, eight European countries banned GE crops, and Hungary has burned over a 1,000 acres of corn contaminated
with GE varieties. In India, scientist Vandana Shiva and a network of small farmers have built an organic farming resistance to industrial
agriculture over two decades. Ecological or organic farming, of course, is nothing new. It is the way most farming has been done throughout
human history. Ecological farming resists insect damage by avoiding large monocultures and preserving ecosystem diversity. Ecological farming
restores soil nutrients with natural composting systems, avoids soil loss from wind and water erosion, and avoids pesticides and chemical
fertilizers. By restoring bee populations and healthier bees, ecological agriculture improves pollination, which in turn improves crop yields.
Ecological farming takes advantage of the natural ecosystem services, water filtration, pollination, oxygen production and disease and pest
control. Organic farmers have advocated better research and funding by industry, government, farmers and the public to develop organic farming
techniques, improve food production and maintain ecological health. The revolution in farming would promote equitable diets around the world
and support crops primarily for human consumption, avoiding crops for animal food and biofuels. Ecosystems The plight of the bees serves as a
warning that we still may not quite understand ecology. Ecological farming is part of a larger paradigm shift in human awareness. The corporate
denialists appear just like the Popes shrouded inquisitors in 1615, who refused to look through Galileos telescope to see the moons of Jupiter.
Todays denialists refuse to recognize that Earths systems operate within real limits. However, the state religion in this case
is money, and the state religion wont allow it. The denialists cling to the presumed right to consume, hoard, and obliterate Earths great bounty
for private profits. But hoards of money wont reverse extinction, restore lost soils or heal the worlds bee colonies. A

great
reckoning awaits humanity if we fail to awaken from our delusions. Earths delicately
balanced systems can reach tipping points and collapse . Bees, for example, work

within a limited range of marginal returns on the energy they exert to collect nutrition for their colonies. When winter bee
deaths grow from 10 percent to 50 percent, the remaining bees are weakened by toxins, and the wild habitats shrink that thin,
ecological margin of energy return can be squeezed to zero. Surviving bees expend more energy than they return in
honey. More bees die, fewer reach maturity and entire colonies collapse. This crisis is a lesson in fundamental ecology.

Drone Industry- Arctic Exploration Scenario- Japan Impact

Solves Japan Econ
ORourke 12 (Ronald O'Rourke, Coordinator Specialist in Naval Affairs August 1,
2012Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf)

The search for a shorter route from the Atlantic to Asia has been the quest of maritime powers since the
Middle Ages. The melting of Arctic ice raises the possibility of saving several thousands of miles and
several days of sailing between major trading blocs.42 If the Arctic were to become a viable shipping
route, the ramifications could extend far beyond the Arctic. For example, lower shipping costs could be
advantageous for China (at least its northeast region), Japan, and South Korea because their
manufactured products exported to Europe or North America could become less expensive relative to
other emerging manufacturing centers in Southeast Asia, such as India.43 Melting ice could

potentially open up two trans-Arctic routes (see Figure 3):44

That turns the global econ and prevents Sino-Japan war

The Guardian 2-11-2002, p ln
Even so, the west cannot afford to be complacent about what is happening in Japan, unless it
intends to use the country as a test case to explore whether a full-scale depression is less painful
now than it was 70 years ago. Action is needed, and quickly because this is an economy that
could soak up some of the world's excess capacity if functioning properly. A strong Japan is not
only essential for the long-term health of the global economy, it is also needed as a counter-weight to the
growing power of China. A collapse in the Japanese economy, which looks ever more likely, would have
profound ramifications; some experts believe it could even unleash a wave of extreme nationalism that
would push the country into conflict with its bigger (and nuclear) neighbour.

Sino-Japan war goes nuclear

Richard Samuels, IR prof at MIT, 1999, The U.S. Japan Alliance: Past, Present, and Future, p.
6-7
The same forces that lead China and Japan into an adversarial relationship in the first place might well
push them to the brink of war. From a U.S. perspective, this would be disastrous, for several

reasons: -War between two of America's largest trading partners would be devastating to the U.S.
economy -U.S. involvement would be difficult to avoid in a war between a former ally and a former
enemy -War between a nuclear power and a threshold nuclear power would push the envelope in new
and disconcerting ways -War between the two would be (another) humanitarian disaster
-Nuclearization in Japan would press both Koreas to do the same, and perhaps pressure other Asian
nations to follow suite. Even if China and Japan did not go to war, a Cold War between
the two great powers could impose high costs on the region, and indeed the globe, if the last simmering
conflict between two giants on the world scene has taught us anything . At a minimum, the remarkable

(and hard-earned) domestic politics stability in Japan would further unravel, creating even
greater uncertainties for its foreign policy and its evolving role as provider of global public
goods.

Drone Industry- Arctic Exploration Scenario- Korea Economy

Solves Korea Econ
ORourke 12 (Ronald O'Rourke, Coordinator Specialist in Naval Affairs August 1,
2012Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf)

The search for a shorter route from the Atlantic to Asia has been the quest of maritime powers since the
Middle Ages. The melting of Arctic ice raises the possibility of saving several thousands of miles and
several days of sailing between major trading blocs.42 If the Arctic were to become a viable shipping
route, the ramifications could extend far beyond the Arctic. For example, lower shipping costs could be
advantageous for China (at least its northeast region), Japan, and South Korea because their
manufactured products exported to Europe or North America could become less expensive relative to
other emerging manufacturing centers in Southeast Asia, such as India.43 Melting ice could

potentially open up two trans-Arctic routes (see Figure 3):44

The impact is global nuclear war

Richardson 6 (Corey, a Washington-based analyst who covered East Asian security issues as a
presidential management fellow with the US Department of Defense, and is a co-founder of The
Korea Liberator. South Korea must choose sides Asia Times,
www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html)
A Korea faced with an economic dilemma of such magnitude would find maintaining its conventional military forces at current
levels impossible. At the same time, it would feel more vulnerable than ever, even with US security assurances. For a nation
paranoid about the possibility of outside influence or military intervention, strapped for cash, and obsessed about its position
in the international hierarchy, the obvious route might be to either incorporate North Korean nuclear devices (if they actually exist), or
build their own, something South Korean technicians could easily accomplish. North Korea, after all, has set the example for economically
challenged nations looking for the ultimate in deterrence. One might argue that clear and firm US security guarantees for a reunified Korea would
be able to dissuade any government from choosing the nuclear option. If making decisions based purely on logic the answer would be
probably yes. Unfortunately, the recent Korean leadership has established a record of being motivated more by emotional and nationalistic factors
than logical or realistic ones. Antics over Dokdo and the Yasukuni Shrine and alienating the US serve as examples. But the continuation of the
"Sunshine Policy" tops those. Instead of admitting they've been sold a dead horse, the Roh administration continued riding the rotting and bloated
beast known as the Sunshine Policy, until all that are left today are a pile of bones, a bit of dried skin, and a few tufts of dirty hair. Roh, however,
is still in the saddle, if not as firmly after North Korea's recent missile tests. Japan must then consider its options in countering an openly nuclear,
reunified Korea without USFK. Already building momentum to change its constitution to clarify its military, it's not inconceivable that Japan

would ultimately consider going nuclear to deter Korea. As in South Korea, there is no technological barrier preventing
Japan from building nuclear weapons. While the details of the race and escalation of tensions can vary in any number of ways and are not
inevitable, that an

arms race would occur is probable. Only the perception of threat and vulnerability need be present for this to occur.
East Asia could become a nuclear powder keg ready to explode over something as childish as the Dokdo/Takeshima
dispute between Korea and Japan, a Diaoyu/Senkakus dispute between China and Japan, or the Koguryo dispute between Korea and China.

Drone Industry- Aerospace Scenario- Asian Stability

Aerospace solves Asian stability
Stokes 10 (Mark, International Conference on A Rising Chinese Hegemony & Challenges to
the Region, The Dynamic Aerospace Balance in The Asia-pacific Region: Implications for
Stability in the Taiwan Strait and Beyond,
http://www.braintrust.tw/download/20100719conference/paper-stokes.pdf//greenhill-sb)
Largely driven by a Taiwan scenario, Chinas

capacity to conduct a successful aerospace campaign to

swiftly gain a decisive air advantage is surpassing defenses that its neighbors, including Taiwan,
Japan, perhaps India, and even U.S. forces operating in the Western Pacific, can field. Among the most
significant capabilities that are contributing toward an imbalance are the PLAs long range precision strike systems, primarily its
conventional ballistic and land attack cruise missiles. Perhaps equally important, however, is an evolving sensor network that would be
needed to cue strike assets and offer situation awareness around Chinas periphery. Another factor is Chinas

growing ability
to defend its strike assets from interdiction on the ground and redundancy in its command
and control system. Over time, an expansion of its theater missile infrastructure, conventional air
power, and sensor systems could give China a decisive edge in securing control over the
skies around its periphery should territorial disputes erupt into conflict. The ability to dominate the airspace over a
given geographic domain has the potential to create instability should political disagreements flare. The more
confident that a country is of military success, the greater the chance that force could be
assertively applied in pursuit of political demands. Balance and stability require that no one single power be
assured of air superiority. Over the next 15 years, the PRC may be increasingly confident of its ability to dominate the skies around its
periphery within a region limited by a persistent surveillance architecture. If confident in its ability to dominate the skies around its
periphery, Beijing also could be more assertive in its dealings with others in the region. A strategic

shift in regional
aerospace balance also may increasingly unravel the fabric of U.S. alliances and
prompt allies and friends to consider weapons of mass destruction and means of
delivery as a means of security. Addressing these challenges requires maintaining or
developing the means to undercut the political and military utility of the PRC's theater missile-centric
strategy and striving for a balance that could deter PRC resort to force or other means of
coercion. However, alternative approaches could offer initiatives for moderating PLA force postures and address underlying security
dilemmas through cooperative threat reduction programs.

Nuclear war
Landay, 2k (Jonathon S, national security and intelligence correspondent, Top administration officials warn stakes for U.S.
are high in Asian conflicts, Knight Ridder)

Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan
are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the
global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and
North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic
relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on
Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile," said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian

policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "We see the convergence of
great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security
mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster."

Drone Industry- Aerospace Scenario- Bioweapons

BIO Prolif Is Inevitable -- Aerospace Power Builds Transparency for BWC
Compliance
Finel 99 (Dr. Bernard I. Finel (BA, Tufts University; MA, PhD, Georgetown University) is the
associate director of the National Security Studies Program and visiting assistant professor of
national security and international affairs at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,
Georgetown University. Dr. Finel has written extensively on proliferation, the revolution in
military affairs, and international politics. The Role of Aerospace Power, pg online @
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj99/win99/finel.htm)
THE PROLIFERATION OF nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons combined with the spread of
ballistic and cruise missile technology is a significant threat to US foreign policy interests. In particular, this
proliferation may significantly limit the ability of the United States to project power abroad, intervene in
regional conflicts, and support American allies in crises and conflicts. The potential use of NBC weapons in a
future conflict raises the possibility of increased US casualties and greatly complicates American use-of-force

The US
government's response to proliferation is multifaceted. The intelligence community,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of State (DOS), and the Department of
Defense (DOD) all have significant nonproliferation and counterproliferation
programs in place.1 DOD, in particular, has focused on counterproliferation, developing efforts to
decisions. This article examines the role of aerospace power in US counterproliferation strategy.

prevent and reverse proliferation through active and passive damage-limitation efforts.2
Counterproliferation is different from nonproliferation. Nonproliferation focuses on trying to prevent
proliferation directly through such means as export controls, multilateral regimes and treaties, and
inducements to cooperation.3 Counterproliferation, by contrast, seeks to prevent proliferation by
neutralizing the benefits of proliferation and to reverse proliferation through active military means. As such,
counterproliferation can occur both concurrently with nonproliferation and as the basis for policy once
proliferation has occurred. Although nonproliferation and counterproliferation require the cooperation of
many different agencies and departments in the US government ,

there is a special role for

aerospace power. Aerospace power, as the name suggests, is the use of instruments
of statecraft that rely upon travel through the air and space.4 Among the
major elements of aerospace power are surveillance satellites, aerial
sensors, space- and air-based missile defense systems, and air- and space-based military
power including Air Force fighters, strike and standoff aircraft, Navy carrier aviation,
and sea-based cruise missiles. Aerospace power has a number of specific attributes that
make it an especially potent tool for counterproliferation policy . We can examine its
utility by examining six major aspects of counterproliferation. This article also considers some of the
limitations on aerospace power by considering its use in three situations: pre-crisis, crisis, and intrawar. Six
Aspects of Counterproliferation Counterproliferation involves six major distinct activities, the first occurring
before weapons or technology proliferate, and the remaining five occurring after proliferation has taken
place. Counterproliferation is made up of the following elements: 1. Attempting to prevent proliferation
through engagement activities such as extending security guarantees, supporting confidence-building
measures such as increasing transparency, and helping support multilateral nonproliferation regimes; 2.
Detecting the possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by states and their intention to use them; 3.
Preemptively destroying WMDs before they can be used; 4. Deterring the use of WMDs, particularly once a
crisis has escalated to actual combat; 5. Protecting forces, logistical infrastructure, and civilians from WMDs
through active and passive defense measures; and 6. Restoring contaminated areas after WMD use.5 An
examination of these six goals in turn will help establish the importance of aerospace power to

Aerospace power plays a critical role

in sustaining the sort of engagement activities that might help prevent
proliferation. First, it is important to consider that states often seek WMDs because of
regional security concerns. The Indo-Pakistani nuclear competition is a prime example of this
counterproliferation policy. Engagement Activities

dynamic, as is the Israeli nuclear program and the now-dismantled South African nuclear program.6 Given
that fact, there is some possibility that the United States could help prevent WMD proliferation by judiciously
extending security guarantees to insecure actors.7 The problem with extending security guarantees for
nonproliferation purposes rather than narrow national interest is that the recipient of the guarantees may
not believe the guarantees are credible.8 Furthermore, the American public may resist extending security

guarantees if it believes that doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that US soldiers may be called

Because
aerospace power is able to strike at a distance and with great precision, the
up to defend these guarantees and hence be exposed to the possibility of casualties.

recipient of security guarantees may find them more credible. US cold war security guarantees, both implicit
and explicit, seem to have been very successful in preventing South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan from
proliferating. These successes, not surprisingly, occurred in cases where US aerospace power was an
especially potent threat given the geographical situation of these three countries. By contrast, Israel, France,
and Great Britain decided to build nuclear weapons despite implicit and explicit security guarantees,
perhaps because they wanted to bolster their own deterrence capabilities rather than rely completely on the
US ground forces that a war would have required.9 Of course, all of these countries faced unique security
challenges, historical legacies, and domestic constraints, but it does seem plausible to suggest that American
security guarantees are more likely to be credible where American intervention can be accomplished

Second,
aerospace power is crucial to building increased transparency in either
exclusively or largely through relative low-casualty means such as aerospace power .

bilateral relations or in support of an international regime.10 Since we might expect that

counterproliferation in the future will rely at least in part on bilateral or multilateral regional arms control

the United States will almost certainly be called upon to help guarantee
that none of the parties cheat. Aerospace power in the form of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV), satellites, and other sensor platforms will play an
important role. More generally, international regimes which rely on inspection systems, such as the
agreements,

Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and hopefully a strengthened
Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

transparency systems.11

will be bolstered by aerospace-based

Successful attack causes extinction.

Ochs MA in Natural Resource Management 02 from Rutgers University and Naturalist at
Grand Teton National Park [Richard, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS MUST BE ABOLISHED
IMMEDIATELY, Jun 9, http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html]
Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine,
are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to
the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories. While a "nuclear winter resulting from a massive exchange of
nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are
easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has
demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen
or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in
comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause . Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while
they can also kill millions of people outright, their persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical
weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized chemical extermination
is over, it is over. With nuclear and biological weapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing
cancers virtually forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race
than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine
hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE. Ironically, the Bush administration has just changed the U.S.
nuclear doctrine to allow nuclear retaliation against threats upon allies by conventional weapons. The past doctrine allowed such use only as a last resort when our
nations survival was at stake. Will the new policy also allow easier use of US bioweapons? How slippery is this slope? Against this tendency can be posed a rational
alternative policy. To preclude possibilities of human extinction, "patriotism"

needs to be redefined to make humanitys survival

primary and absolute. Even if we lose our cherished freedom, our sovereignty, our government or
our Constitution, where there is life, there is hope. What good is anything else if humanity is
extinguished. This concept should be promoted to the center of national debate.. For example, for sake of argument, suppose the
ancient Israelites developed defensive bioweapons of mass destruction when they were enslaved by Egypt. Then suppose these weapons were released by design or
accident and wiped everybody out? As bad as slavery is, extinction is worse Our generation, our century, our epoch needs to take the long view.
We truly hold in our hands the precious gift of all future life. Empires may come and go, but who are the honored custodians of life on earth? Temporal politicians?
Corporate competitors? Strategic brinksmen? Military gamers? Inflated egos dripping with testosterone? How can any sane person believe that national sovereignty is
more important than survival of the species? Now that extinction is possible, our slogan should be "Where there is life, there is hope." No

government, no
economic system, no national pride, no religion, no political system can be placed above human survival.
The egos of leaders must not blind us. The adrenaline and vengeance of a fight must not blind us . The game is over. If patriotism
would extinguish humanity, then patriotism is the highest of all crimes.

Drone Industry- Aerospace Scenario- Terror

Aerospace solves nuke terror
Finel 99 (Dr. Bernard, BA, Tufts University; MA, PhD, Georgetown University) is the
associate director of the National Security Studies Program and visiting assistant professor of
national security and international affairs at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,
Georgetown University. Dr. Finel has written extensively on proliferation, the revolution in
military affairs, and international politics. He has coedited and contributed to a book titled Power
and Conflict in the Age of Transparency, The Role of Aerospace Power in US
Counterproliferation Strategy,
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj99/win99/finel.htm#finel//greenhill-sb)
The process of deterring WMD use is also likely to rely heavily on aerospace power.13 There are
two forms of deterrence: deterrence by punishment and deterrence by denial.14 Although the former is more obviously within the realm of
aerospace power, aerospace

power can also play a role in deterrence by denial. The important thing
to remember about deterring the use of WMDs is that WMDs are not primarily military
weapons but rather terror weapons. WMDs are probably not particularly effective in achieving traditional military
goals such as the destruction of enemy military capabilities and the conquest and control of territory. To deter the use of
WMDs , deterrence by punishment requires the ability to threaten credibly to inflict severe
pain on a potential adversary. Fundamentally, given US power-projection capabilities, this sort of punishment
will rely on aerospace power in its various forms--from aircraft to cruise missiles. However, the
United States's ability to punish an adversary by airpower is variable. The key to punishment is to destroy assets the opponent particularly
values. Are these assets targetable through aerospace power? The answer is not clear. Ultimately, many

hostile regimes may

only value their own leadership.15 Aerospace power may be able to undermine some of the
bases of an adversary's leadership, but as the case of Iraq suggests, it is difficult to bring down a regime with airpower
alone.16 Even adjusting for the equivocal commitment to bringing down the regime in the Bush and Clinton administrations, it is difficult
to conceive of an alternate target set that could have finished off the regime without some sort of intervention on the ground. It is difficult
to undermine a regime by bombing it. Numerous studies have shown that civilians usually either rally around a leader or respond to
bombings by becoming passive.17 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombing of Serbia over the Kosovo situation has
apparently weakened the regime of Slobodan Milosevic; however, virtually all the large-scale demonstrations against Milosevic occurred
after the bombing stopped and are as much a response to the failure of his policies as the suffering inflicted by the bombing. Deterrence by
denial is also more difficult than it might seem on the surface. Deterring

the use of WMDs by denial does not

only mean preventing an adversary from achieving military goals since WMDs are most likely to be used
for political effect rather than narrow military missions. Rather, deterrence by denial in this context refers to steps
which nullify the effects of WMDs. Since these effects are both military and political, the deterrence calculus is difficult
to examine simply and precisely. That said, the inherent passive defense capabilities of aerospace power
seem to make it an ideal basis for denying an adversary the ability to constrain US use-offorce decisions. Aerospace assets are difficult to target and hence can be used without
exposing American soldiers to the effects of terror weapons. Certainly, the passive defense capability of
aerospace assets does not prevent the use of WMDs against civilian targets, but it does limit the forward-deploying military assets that can
be targeted. In this sense, the

ability to fly high and fast is itself a form of deterrence by denial.

Terrorism sparks full scale nuclear wars

Hellman 8 (Martin E. Hellman* * Martin E. Hellman is a member of the National Academy of
Engineering and Professor Emeritus at Stanford University. His current project applies risk
analysis to nuclear deterrence)
Nuclear proliferation and the specter of nuclear terrorism are creating additional possibilities for

triggering a nuclear war. If an American (or Russian) city were devastated by an act of nuclear terrorism,
the public outcry for immediate, decisive action would be even stronger than Kennedy had to deal with
when the Cuban missiles first became known to the American public. While the action would likely not be
directed against Russia, it might be threatening to Russia (e.g., on its borders) or one of its allies and
precipitate a crisis that resulted in a full-scale nuclear war. Terrorists with an apocalyptic
mindset might even attempt to catalyze a full-scale nuclear war by disguising their act
to look like an attack by the U.S. or Russia.