Sunteți pe pagina 1din 158

Domestic Drones NegativeEarliest Bird


1NC- Substantial
Substantially is anything between 80% and 90%
Tax Law Manual 09, section 201.022, July 21, 2009,
There have been no court cases in Texas or other states construing the words "substantially all" as used in this subsection of the
Texas law or in a similar section of other state laws. The words have been used in other statutes, however, and have been

defined by court decisions; these decisions, taken together, indicate that

"substantially all" may be any percentage between 80 and 90 . It seems that 90% or
more of the assets may be safely construed as "substantially all ." A percentage of
assets ranging between 80% and 90% may logically be questioned as not being
"substantially all." It can be presumed by field personnel that liability will be established under this subsection if there is
an unquestionable finding that as much as 90% of the assets of the predecessor were acquired and that the other conditions of this
subsection have been met. If the facts clearly show the acquisition of assets by a percentage figure between 80 and 90, it can be
presumed that liability as an employer under this subsection will not be established by the Commission without additional facts
supporting a showing that the organization, trade or business has also been acquired. In any situation investigated, the conclusion
reached should not be totally based on the percentage of assets acquired if there is a possibility that further facts about the
organization, trade or business will make a stronger case for liability.

Armed drones perform a minority of surveillance operations by

the United StatesBergenas 13 (Johan Bergenas, Unarmed Drones Can Strengthen US And
African Security,, July 16, 2013)
Obamas use of armed drones to kill terrorists has dominated the debate about
while comparatively little attention has been given to nonweaponized drones. Yet these unarmed drones may be even more important
to managing terrorist threats. The United States should effectively use its fleet of unarmed
surveillance drones to comprehensively combat activities that sustain terrorist
organizations-- namely, transnational criminal enterprises that illegally trade in everything from arms and drugs to
President Barack

unmanned aerial vehicles,

counterfeit clothing and ivory, and even take part in kidnappings.

Voting issue for ground and limits- enables squirrely

affirmatives- vote negative for fairness and education


Executive CP

The President of the United States should request his Counsel
and the Office of Legal Counsel for coordination over ending
the use of surveillance operations performed by armed drones
in the United States. The President should end the use of
surveillance operations performed by armed drones in the
United States
Constraints through executive coordination solves signaling
Posner & Vermeule 6 --- *Prof of Law at U Chicago, AND ** Prof of Law at
Harvard (9/19/2006, Eric A. Posner & Adrian Vermeule, The Credible Executive,
the executives credibility problem can be solved by
second-order mechanisms of executive signaling . In the general case, well-motivated executives send credible signals by
IV. Executive Signaling: Law and Mechanisms We suggest that

taking actions that are more costly for ill-motivated actors than for well-motivated ones, thus distinguishing themselves from their ill-motivated mimics. Among the specific

an important subset involve executive self-binding , whereby executives

commit themselves to a course of action that would impose higher costs on illmotivated actors. Commitments themselves have value as signals of benign
motivations. This departs from the usual approach in legal scholarship. Legal theory has often discussed self-binding by government or government officials. In
mechanisms we discuss,

constitutional theory, it is often suggested that constitutions represent an attempt by the people to bind themselves against their own future decisionmaking pathologies, or
relatedly that constitutional prohibitions represent mechanisms by which governments commit themselves not to expropriate investments or to exploit their populations.71 Whether or

We are not concerned with

how he might bind himself or take other actions that
enhance his credibility, so that he can generate support from the public and other
members of the government. Furthermore, our question is subconstitutional; it is whether
a well-motivated executive, acting within an established set of constitutional and
statutory rules, can use signaling to generate public trust . Accordingly we proceed by assuming that no
not this picture is coherent,72 it is not the question we examine here, although some of the relevant considerations are similar.73
binding the president so that he cannot abuse his powers, but with

constitutional amendments or new statutes will be enacted. Within these constraints, what can a well-motivated executive do to bootstrap himself to credibility? The problem for the
well-motivated executive is to credibly signal his benign motivations; in general, the solution is to engage in actions that are less costly for good types than for bad types. We begin
with some relevant law; then examine a set of possible mechanisms, emphasizing both the conditions under which they might succeed and the conditions under which they might not;
and then examine the costs of credibility. A. A Preliminary Note on Law and Self-Binding Many of our mechanisms are unproblematic from a legal perspective, as they involve
presidential actions that are clearly lawful. But a few raise legal questions; in particular, those that involve self-binding.74 Can a president bind himself to respect particular first-order
policies? With qualifications, the answer is yes, at least to the same extent that a legislature can. Formally, a duly promulgated executive rule or order binds even the executive

The legal authority to establish a new

status quo allows a president to create inertia or political constraints that will
affect his own future choices. In a practical sense, presidents, like legislatures, have great de
facto power to adopt policies that shape the legal landscape for the future . A
president might commit himself to a long-term project of defense procurement or infrastructure or foreign policy, narrowing
his own future choices and generating new political coalitions that will act to
defend the new rules or policies. More schematically, we may speak of formal and informal means of self-binding: (1) The
president might use formal means to bind himself. This is possible in the sense that
an executive order, if otherwise valid, legally binds the president while it is in effect and may be enforced by the courts. It is not
possible in the sense that the president can always repeal the executive order if he can bear the political and reputational costs of doing so. (2) The president
might use informal means to bind himself. This is not only possible but frequent and important. Issuing an executive rule providing
unless and until it is validly abrogated, thereby establishing a new legal status quo.75

for the appointment of special prosecutors, as Nixon did, is not a formal self-binding.76 However, there may be large political costs to repealing the order. This effect does not depend
on the courts willingness to enforce the order, even against Nixon himself. Court enforcement makes the order legally binding while it is in place, but only political and reputational

Just as a dessert addict might announce to his friends that he is

going on a no-dessert diet in order to raise the reputational costs of backsliding
and thus commit himself, so too the repeal of an executive order may be seen as a
enforcement can protect it from repeal.

breach of faith even if no other institution ever enforces it. In what follows, we will invoke both formal and
informal mechanisms. For our purposes, the distinction between the authority to engage in de jure self-binding (legally limited and well-defined) and the power to engage in de facto

So long as policies are deliberately chosen with a view to

generating credibility , and do so by constraining the presidents own future
choices in ways that impose greater costs on ill-motivated presidents than on wellmotivated ones, it does not matter whether the constraint is formal or informal . B.
self-binding (broad and amorphous) is secondary.

Mechanisms What signaling mechanisms might a well-motivated executive adopt to credibly assure voters, legislators and judges that his policies rest on judgments about the public
interest, rather than on power-maximization, partisanship or other nefarious motives? Intrabranch separation of powers. In an interesting treatment of related problems, Neal Katyal
suggests that the failure of the Madisonian system counsels internal separation of powers within the executive branch.77 Abdication by Congress means that there are few effective
checks on executive power; second-best substitutes are necessary. Katyal proposes some mechanisms that would be adopted by Congress, such as oversight hearings by the minority
party, but his most creative proposals are for arrangements internal to the executive branch, such as redundancy and competition among agencies, stronger civil-service protections
and internal adjudication of executive controversies by insulated executive decisionmakers who resemble judges in many ways.78Katyals argument is relevant because the
mechanisms he discusses might be understood as signaling devices, but his overall approach is conceptually flawed, on two grounds. First, the assumption that second-best
constraints on the executive should reproduce the Madisonian separation of powers within the executive branch is never defended. The idea seems to be that this is as close as we can
get to the first-best, while holding constant everything else in our constitutional order. But the general theory of second-best states that approaching as closely as possible to the firstbest will not necessarily be the preferred strategy;79 the best approach may be to adjust matters on other margins as well, in potentially unpredictable ways. If the Madisonian system
has failed in the ways Katyal suggests, the best compensating adjustment might be, for all we know, to switch to a parliamentary system. (We assume that no large-scale changes of
this sort are possible, whereas Katyal seemingly assumes that they are, or at least does not make clear his assumptions in this regard). Overall, Katyals view has a kind of fractal
quality each branch should reproduce within itself the very same separation of powers structure that also describes the whole system but it is not explained why the constitutional
order should be fractal. Second, Katyals proposals for internal separation of powers are self-defeating: the motivations that Katyal ascribes to the executive are inconsistent with the
executive adopting or respecting the prescriptions Katyal recommends.80 Katyal never quite says so explicitly, but he clearly envisions the executive as a power-maximizing actor, in
the sense that the president seeks to remove all constraints on his current choices.81 Such an executive would not adopt or enforce the internal separation of powers to check himself.
Executive signaling is not, even in principle, a solution to the lack of constraints on a power-maximizing executive in the sense Katyal implicitly intends. Although an illmotivated
executive might bind himself to enhance his strategic credibility, as explained above, he would not do so in order to restore the balance of powers. Nor is it possible, given Katyals
premise of legislative passivity or abdication, that Congress would force the internal separation of powers on the executive. In what follows, we limit ourselves to proposals that are
consistent with the motivations, beliefs, and political opportunities that we ascribe to the well-motivated executive, to whom the proposals are addressed. This limitation ensures that
the proposals are not self-defeating, whatever their costs. The contrast here must not be drawn too simply. A well-motivated executive, in our sense, might well attempt to increase his
power. The very point of demonstrating credibility is to encourage voters and legislators to increase the discretionary authority of the executive, where all will be made better off by
doing so. Scholars such as Katyal who implicitly distrust the executive, however, do not subscribe to this picture of executive motivations. Rather, they see the executive as an
unfaithful agent of the voters; the executive attempts to maximize his power even where fully-informed voters would prefer otherwise. An actor of that sort will have no incentive to
adopt proposals intended to constrain that sort of actor. Independent commissions. We now turn to some conceptually coherent mechanisms of executive signaling. Somewhat

a well-motivated executive might establish

independent commissions to review policy decisions, either before or after the fact.
Presidents do this routinely, especially after a policy has had disastrous outcomes,
but sometimes beforehand as well. Independent commissions are typically blueribbon and bipartisan.82 We add to this familiar process the idea that the President might gain credibility by
publicly committing or binding himself to give the commission authority on some
dimension. The president might publicly promise to follow the recommendations of
such a commission, or to allow the commission to exercise de facto veto power
over a policy decision before it is made, or might promise before the policy is
chosen that the commission will be given power to review its success after the fact.
To be sure, there will always be some wiggle room in the terms of the promise, but
that is true of almost all commitments, which raise the costs of wiggling out even if
they do not completely prevent it. Consider whether George W. Bushs credibility would have been enhanced had he appointed a blue-ribbon
analogously to Katyals idea of the internal separation of powers,

commission to examine the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, and publicly promised not to invade unless the commission found substantial
evidence of their existence. Bush would have retained his preexisting legal authority to order the invasion even if the commission found the evidence inadequate, but the political costs
of doing so would have been large. Knowing this, and knowing that Bush shared that knowledge, the public could have inferred that Bushs professed motive elimination of weapons
of mass destruction was also his real motive. Public promises that inflict reputational costs on badly motivated behavior help the well-motivated executive to credibly distinguish
himself from the ill-motivated one. The more common version of this tactic is to appoint commissions after the relevant event, as George W. Bush did to investigate the faulty reports
by intelligence agencies that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.83 If the president appoints after-the-fact commissions, the commissions can enhance his credibility for the
next eventby showing that he will be willing, after that event, to subject his statements to scrutiny by public experts. Here, however, the demonstration of credibility is weaker,
because there is no commitment to appoint any after-the-fact commissions in the future merely a plausible inference that the presidents future behavior will track his past behavior.
Bipartisan appointments. In examples of the sort just mentioned, the signaling arises from public position-taking. The well-motivated executive might produce similar effects through
appointments to office.84 A number of statutes require partisan balance on multimember commissions; although these statutes are outside the scope of our discussion, we note that
presidents might approve them because they allow the president to commit to a policy that legislators favor, thus encouraging legislators to increase the scope of the delegation in the
first place.85 For similar reasons, presidents may consent to restrictions on the removal of agency officials, because the restriction enables the president to commit to giving the
agency some autonomy from the presidents preferences.86 Similar mechanisms can work even where no statutes are in the picture. As previously mentioned, during World War II,
FDR appointed Republicans to important cabinet positions, making Stimson his Secretary of War. Clinton appointed William Cohen, a moderate Republican, as Secretary of Defense in
order to shore up his credibility on security issues. Bipartisanship of this sort might improve the deliberation that precedes decisions, by impeding various forms of herding, cascades
and groupthink;87 however, we focus on its credibility-generating effects. By (1) expanding the circle of those who share the presidents privileged access to information, (2) ensuring
that policy is partly controlled by officials with preferences that differ from the presidents, and (3) inviting a potential whistleblower into the tent, bipartisanship helps to dispel the
suspicion that policy decisions rest on partisan motives or extreme preferences, which in turn encourages broader delegations of discretion from the public and Congress. A
commitment to bipartisanship is only one way in which appointments can generate credibility. Presidents might simply appoint a person with a reputation for integrity, as when
President Nixon appointed Archibald Cox as special prosecutor (although plausibly Nixon did so because he was forced to do so by political constraints, rather than as a tactic for
generating credibility). A person with well-known preferences on a particular issue, even if not of the other party or widely respected for impartiality, can serve as a credible
whistleblower on that issue. Thus presidents routinely award cabinet posts to leaders of subsets of the presidents own party, leaders whose preferences are known to diverge from the
presidents on the subject; one point of this is to credibly assure the relevant interest groups that the president will not deviate (too far) from their preferences. The Independent
Counsel Statute institutionalized the special prosecutor and strengthened it. But the statute proved unpopular and was allowed to lapse in 1999.88 This experience raises two
interesting questions. First, why have presidents confined themselves to appointing lawyers to investigate allegations of wrongdoing; why have they not appointed, say, independent
policy experts to investigate allegations of policy failure? Second, why did the Independent Counsel Statute fail? Briefly, the statute failed because it was too difficult to control the
behavior of the prosecutor, who was not given any incentive to keep his investigation within reasonable bounds.89 Not surprisingly, policy investigators would be even less constrained
since they would not be confined by the law, and at the same time, without legal powers they would probably be ignored on partisan grounds. A commission composed of members
with diverse viewpoints is harder to ignore, if the members agree with each other. More generally, the decision by presidents to bring into their administrations members of other
parties, or persons with a reputation for bipartisanship and integrity, illustrates the formation of domestic coalitions of the willing. Presidents can informally bargain around the formal
separation of powers90 by employing subsets of Congress, or of the opposing party, to generate credibility while maintaining a measure of institutional control. FDR was willing to
appoint Knox and Stimson, but not to give the Republicans in Congress a veto. Truman was willing to ally with Arthur Vandenbergh but not with all the Republicans; Clinton was
willing to appoint William Cohen but not Newt Gingrich. George W. Bush likewise made a gesture towards credibility by briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
including Democrats on the administrations secret surveillance program(s), which provided a useful talking point when the existence of the program(s) was revealed to the public.
Counter-partisanship. Related to bipartisanship is what might be called counterpartisanship: presidents have greater credibility when they choose policies that cut against the grain of
their partys platform or their own presumed preferences.91 Only Nixon could go to China, and only Clinton could engineer welfare reform. Voters and publics rationally employ a

political heuristic: the relevant policy, which voters are incapable of directly assessing, must be highly beneficial if it is chosen by a president who is predisposed against it by
convictions or partisan loyalty.92 Accordingly, those who wish to move U.S. terrorism policy towards greater security and less liberty might do well to support the election of a
Democrat.93 By the same logic, George W. Bush is widely suspected of nefarious motives when he rounds up alleged enemy combatants, but not when he creates a massive
prescription drug benefit. Counter-partisanship can powerfully enhance the presidents credibility, but it depends heavily on a lucky alignment of political stars. A peace-loving
president has credibility when he declares a military emergency but not when he appeases; a belligerent president has credibility when he offers peace but not when he advocates
military solutions. A lucky nation has a well-motivated president with a belligerent reputation when international tensions diminish (Ronald Reagan) and a president with a pacific

The well-motivated
executive might commit to transparency , as a way to reduce the costs to outsiders
of monitoring his actions.94 The FDR strategy of inviting potential whistleblowers from the opposite party into government is a special case of this; the
reputation when they grow (Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the Mexican War). But a nation is not always lucky. Transparency.

implicit threat is that the whistleblower will make public any evidence of partisan motivations. The more ambitious case involves actually exposing the executives decisionmaking
processes to observation. To the extent that an ill-motivated executive cannot publicly acknowledge his motivations or publicly instruct subordinates to take them into account in

The public will know that only a wellmotivated executive would promise transparency in the first place, and the public
can therefore draw an inference to credibility. Credibility is especially enhanced
when transparency is effected through journalists with reputations for integrity or
with political preferences opposite to those of the president. Thus George W. Bush gave Bob Woodward
decisionmaking, transparency will exclude those motivations from the decisionmaking process.

unprecedented access to White House decisionmaking, and perhaps even to classified intelligence,95 with the expectation that the material would be published. This sort of disclosure

the anticipation of
future disclosure can have a disciplining effect in the present . By inviting this
disciplining effect, the administration engages in signaling in the present through
(the threat of) future transparency. There are complex tradeoffs here, because transparency can have a range of harmful effects. As far as
to journalists is not real-time transparency no one expects meetings of the National Security Council to appear on CSPAN but

process is concerned, decisionmakers under public scrutiny may posture for the audience, may freeze their views or positions prematurely, and may hesitate to offer proposals or
reasons for which they can later be blamed if things go wrong.96 As for substance, transparency can frustrate the achievement of programmatic or policy goals themselves. Where
security policy is at stake, secrecy is sometimes necessary to surprise enemies or to keep them guessing. Finally, one must take account of the incentives of the actors who expose the
factsespecially journalists who might reward presidents who give them access by portraying their decisionmaking in a favorable light.97 We will take up the costs of credibility

the existence of costs does not mean that the credibility-generating

mechanisms are useless. Quite the contrary: where the executive uses such
mechanisms, voters and legislators can draw an inference that the executive is
well-motivated, precisely because the existence of costs would have given an illmotivated executive an excuse not to use those mechanisms.
shortly.98 In general, however,

2NC- AT: Perm CP

Severance- its a voting issue for fairness and education --justifies aff conditionality, killing neg CP and DA ground
A. Curtail means to restrict (
To curtail something is to slow it down, put restrictions on it, or stop it
entirely. If I give up cake, I am curtailing my cake-eating.

B. Restrictions are prohibitions

Supreme Court of Delaware 83 (THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF NEW
CASTLE, a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below,
Appellant, v. ROLLINS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., Defendant Below,
Appellee, No. 155, 1983, 475 A.2d 355; 1984 Del. LEXIS 324, November 21, 1983,
Submitted, April 2, 1984, Decided)
The term "restrict" is defined as: To restrain within bounds; to limit ; [**9] to confine.
Id. at 1182. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that HN5the term "regulate" necessarily
entails a possible prohibition of some kind. That Court has stated: "It is an oft-repeated truism that every
regulation necessarily speaks as a prohibition." Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 592, 8 L. Ed. 2d 130, 82 S.
Ct. 987 (1962). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts in reviewing a statute containing language similar to that
found in 22 Del.C. 301 (which empowered municipalities to "regulate and restrict" outdoor advertising on public

held that the statute in question

authorized a town to provide, through amortization, for the elimination of
nonconforming off-site signs five years from the time the ordinance was enacted.
ways, in public places, and on private property within public view)

The court held that the Massachusetts enabling act: Conferred on the Legislature plenary power to regulate and

it was
recognized that the unlimited and unqualified power to regulate and restrict can
be, for practical purposes, the power to prohibit [**10] "because under such power
the thing may be so far restricted that there is nothing left of of it." (Citations omitted.)
restrict outdoor advertising . . . . Although the word "prohibit" was omitted from [the enabling act],

The court continued its discussions of the two terms by stating: The distinction between regulation and outright
prohibition is often considered to be a narrow one: "that regulation may take the character of prohibition, in
proper cases, is well established by the decisions of this court" . . . quoting from United States v. Hill, 248 U.S.
420, 425, 63 L. Ed. 337, 39 S. Ct. 143 (1919). John Donnelly and Sons, Inc. v. Outdoor Advertising Board, Mass.
Supr., 369 Mass. 206, 339 N.E.2d 709 (1975). We hold that, through Article II, Section 25 of the Delaware
Constitution and 22 Del.C. 301, the General Assembly has authorized New Castle to terminate nonconforming
off-site signs upon reasonable notice, that is, by what has come to be known as amortization. We hold that the
power to "regulate and restrict" as such term applies to zoning matters includes the power, upon reasonable
notice, to prohibit some of those uses already in existence.

C. Distinction between exercise and restrict --- the CP is an

McFadden 8 (Daniel McFadden, Boston College Law Review, 49 B.C. L. Rev
1131, Retrieved 6/1/2013 from Lexis/Nexis)

or not the President has independent power , absent congressional

authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations
that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his
powers." (citing Steel Seizure, 343 U.S. at 637 ( Jackson, J., concurring))); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984) (stating that, in an administrative law context, "the [C]ourt, as well as

the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"); Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2
Cranch) 170, 177-78 (1804) (declaring unlawful a military order authorizing captures on the high seas because
the order exceeded authority granted by Congress). But see David J. Barron & Martin S. Lederman, The
Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb--Framing the Problem, Doctrine, and Original Understanding, 121 HARV.

the Court has accepted the proposition that

Congress may restrict executive military activity, the Court has not ruled out the possibility
L. REV. 689, 766 (2008) (concluding that, although

that the executive retains some inherent and inviolable military authority).

2NC- AT: Perm Do Both

Links to net benefit:
(A) External checks trigger backlash against Obama --- both
international and domestically
(B) Perception of the micromanagement by the plan causes
military backlash
Ruffaa et al 13 [Chiara Ruffaa, Department of Peace and Conflict Research,
Uppsala University, Christopher Dandekerb, Department of Peace and Conflict
Research, Uppsala University, Pascal Vennessonc, S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Soldiers drawn
into politics? The influence of tactics in civil military relations, June, Small Wars
& Insurgencies, Vol. 24, No. 2, 322334,]
Actions in the theater of operation may have consequences for civilmilitary relations
back home. Furthermore, the desired objectives to be achieved have shifted. Recent literature
has agreed on a shift away from the idea of the pursuit of victory to that of success specifically at establishing security

Another feature of contemporary operations is the process of dispersion

of military authority to lower levels of the command chain .17 The dispersion of
military authority combines coercive and hierarchical elements typical of a
military organization with group consensus and persuasive forms of authority and it has led to the
emergence of different leadership styles.18While sometimes combined with micromanagement, this dispersion has
led to greater autonomy for soldiers in the field and to a reduced control. Military

operations have traditionally been exceptional environments but in contemporary missions decisions often have to be taken
without orders.19 To be sure, communication technology has encouraged both decentralization and centralization. Still, it is only
a technology and much depends on culture and organization of the user. This becomes particularly difficult to control when
soldiers have wider margins of maneuver. These interventions, Afghanistan and Iraq in particular, are wars of contested choice,
meaning that notwithstanding their differences they are not of existential necessity.20 To complicate things further,

politicians get involved while the operation is ongoing; they sometimes change
the political objectives during the mission or they have a moral and politically unrealistic view of
the political objectives to be achieved. This is the result of a combination of two constituent elements, of what has been called

Dispersion occurs when the military

authority is dispersed across levels of command; while micromanagement refers to
a growing tendency of centralizing control.22 Dispersion and micromanagement
lead to a compression of the three levels of war, namely strategic, operational,
and tactical.23 While these two elements may seem at odds with each other, they are in fact connected.
Micromanagement matters as much as dispersion. The tensions between micromanagement which refers
to a centralized control and a topdown process and diffusion lead to inconsistencies between
orders given from the top (without in-depth knowledge of the context) and
diffusion of the level of command. While potentially effective for operational activities,
micromanagement risks being potentially frustrating when soldiers have to carry out activities that
the dialectic of control: dispersion and micromanagement.21

range from humanitarian tasks to building bridges because they need to assess on the ground where this is needed. Thus
communications technologies are double edged: (a) technology allows for either dispersion with local actors being able to use a
common picture with others to make local decisions that nonetheless conform to the strategic principles set down by higher
authority, or (b) they allow senior officers to micromanage as they think they know best because they can see the detail that the

which direction is taken (a) or (b) depends on factors

such as the command culture of the military organization; the personality and orientation of
lower levels can not. The key point here is that

senior officers; and the political nervousness/sensitivity/choices of ministers worried or not about what is going on down there

elements taken together have created a set of conditions that have changed soldiers role
in operations and have made the tactical level more relevant and altered the ways
in which they connect to politicians and the political process.
and the consequences for the mission, their reputation, and that of the government of which they are a part.

That triggers an independent nuclear war impact

Cohen 97 [Eliot, PhD from Harvard in political science, Professor of Strategic
Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the
Johns Hopkins University, Director of the Strategic Studies Program at SAIS,
served as Counselor to the United States Department of State under Secretary
Condoleezza Rice from 2007 to 2009,]
The most serious
possibility is that of a dramatic civil-military split during a crisis involving the use
of force . In the recent past, such tensions did not result in open division. For example, Franklin Roosevelt insisted that the
Left uncorrected, the trends in American civil-military relations could breed certain pathologies.

United States invade North Africa in 1942, though the chiefs of both the army and the navy vigorously opposed such a course,

Back then it was inconceivable

that a senior military officer would leak word of such a split to the media, where it
would have reverberated loudly and destructively. To be sure, from time to time individual officers
favoring instead a buildup in England and an invasion of the continent in 1943.

broke the vow of professional silence to protest a course of action, but in these isolated cases the officers paid the accepted price

In the modern environment, such cases might no longer be

isolated. Thus, presidents might try to shape U.S. strategy so that it complies with military opinion, and rarely in the annals of
of termination of their careers.

statecraft has military opinion alone been an adequate guide to sound foreign policy choices. Had Lincoln followed the advice of
his senior military advisers there is a good chance that the Union would have fallen. Had Roosevelt deferred to General George C.
Marshall and Admiral Ernest J. King there might well have been a gory debacle on the shores of France in 1943. Had Harry S.
Truman heeded the advice of his theater commander in the Far East (and it should be remembered that the Joint Chiefs generally
counseled support of the man on the spot) there might have been a third world war . Throughout much of its
history, the U.S. military was remarkably politicized by contemporary standards. One commander of the army, Winfield Scott, even
ran for president while in uniform, and others (Leonard Wood, for example) have made no secret of their political views and

until 1940, and with the exception of periods of outright warfare, the
military was a negligible force in American life, and America was not a central
force in international politics. That has changed. Despite the near halving of the defense budget from its high in
aspirations. But

the 1980s, it remains a significant portion of the federal budget, and the military continues to employ millions of Americans. More

civil-military relations in the United States now no longer affect merely the
closet-room politics of Washington, but the relations of countries around the
world . American choices about the use of force , the shrewdness of American
strategy , the soundness of American tactics , and the will of American leaders have
global consequences. What might have been petty squabbles in bygone years are
now magnified into quarrels of a far larger scale, and conceivably with far more
grievous consequences. To ignore the problem would neglect one of the cardinal purposes of the federal government:

to provide for the common defense in a world in which security cannot be taken for granted.

Only the CP triggers Congressional follow-on and avoids

Brzezinski 12, national security advisor under U.S. President Jimmy Carter
(Zbigniew, 12/3/12, Obama's Moment,

In foreign affairs, the central challenge now facing President Barack Obama is how
to regain some of the ground lost in recent years in shaping U.S. national security policy. Historically and politically, in America's
system of separation of powers, it is the president who has the greatest leeway for decisive action
in foreign affairs. He is viewed by the country as responsible for Americans' safety in an increasingly
turbulent world. He is seen as the ultimate definer of the goals that the United States should
pursue through its diplomacy, economic leverage, and, if need be, military compulsion. And the world at large sees him -for
better or for worse -as the authentic voice of America . To be sure, he is not a dictator. Congress has a voice. So does the
public. And so do vested interests and foreign-policy lobbies. The congressional role in declaring war is especially important not when the United States
is the victim of an attack, but when the United States is planning to wage war abroad. Because America is a democracy, public support for presidential

no one in the government or outside it can match the president's

authoritative voice when he speaks and then decisively acts for America. This is
true even in the face of determined opposition. Even when some lobbies succeed in
foreign-policy decisions is essential. But

gaining congressional support for their particular foreign clients in defiance of the
president, for instance, many congressional signatories still quietly convey to the White
House their readiness to support the president if he stands firm for "the national interest." And
a president who is willing to do so publicly , while skillfully cultivating friends and allies on Capitol Hill, can then
establish such intimidating credibility that it is politically unwise to confront him .
This is exactly what Obama needs to do now.

2NC- Politics NB
OLC deflects loss/blame on the President
Posner 11 Kirkland & Ellis Professor, University of Chicago Law School (Eric A. Posner,
Deference To The Executive In The United States After September 11: Congress,
The Courts, And The Office Of Legal Counsel,
However, there is an important twist that complicates the analysis. The president may choose to publicize OLCs

the president will be tempted to publicize only favorable opinions .

When Congress 22 claims that a policy is illegal, the president can respond that his
lawyers advised him that the policy is legal. This response at least partially deflects
blame from the president. There are two reasons for this. First, the Senate
consented to the appointment of these lawyers; thus, if the lawyers gave bad
advice, the Senate is partly to blame, and so the blame must be shared . Second, OLC
lawyers likely care about their future prospects in the legal profession, which will
turn in part on their ability to avoid scandals and to render plausible legal advice;
they may also seek to maintain the offices reputation. When OLCs opinions are not merely
private advice, but are used to justify actions, then OLC takes on a quasi-judicial
function . Presidents are not obliged to publicize OL Cs opinions, but clearly they see an advantage to doing so,
opinions. Naturally,

and they have in this way given OLC quasi-judicial status.

No opposition to the CP
Posner 11 Kirkland & Ellis Professor, University of Chicago Law School (Eric A. Posner,
Deference To The Executive In The United States After September 11: Congress,
The Courts, And The Office Of Legal Counsel,
a favorable advisory opinion from a neutral legal body that has
credibility with Congress will help the President . 49 OLC approval of Policy L would
cause political opposition (to the extent that it is based on the mistaken belief that Policy L is unlawful)
to melt away. Thus, the OLC enables the President to engage in Policy L, when without OLC participation that
In such a case,

might be impossible. True, the OLC will not enable the President to engage in Policy I, assuming OLC is neutral.

the President
will use the OLC only because he believes that on average, the OLC will strengthen
his hand.
Indeed, OLCs negative reaction to Policy I might stiffen Congresss resistance. Nevertheless,

2NC- Solvency Wall

CP is competitive and solves the case ---- Coordination with
OLC can ensure executive action
Borrelli et al 2000 - Professor of Government Chair of the Government and
International Relations Department, Connecticut College

(Maryanne Borrelli, Karen Hult,

Nancy Kassop, The White House Counsels Office,

The White House Counsels Office is at the hub of all presidential activity . Its
mandate is to be watchful for and attentive to legal issues that may arise in policy
and political contexts in which the president plays a role . To fulfill this
responsibility, it monitors and coordinates the presidencys interactions with other
players in and out of government. Often called the presidents lawyer, the
Counsels Office serves, more accurately, as the presidencys lawyer, with tasks
that extend well beyond exclusively legal ones. These have developed over time, depending on the needs of different presidents,
on the relationship between a president and a Counsel, and on contemporary political conditions. The Office carries out many routine tasks, such as vetting all presidential

it also operates as a
command center when crises or scandals erupt . Thus, the more sharply polarized political atmosphere in recent years has
led to greater responsibility and demands, as well as heightened political pressure and visibility, on the traditionally low-profile Counsels Office. The high-stakes
quality of its work has led to a common sentiment among Counsels and their staff
that there is zero tolerance for error in this office . In sum, the Counsels Office
might be characterized as a monitor, a coordinator, a negotiator, a recommender,
and a translator: it monitors ethics matters, it coordinates the presidents message
and agenda with other executive branch units, it negotiates with a whole host of
actors on the presidents behalf (not the least of which is Congress), it
recommends myriad actions to the president, and it translates or interprets the law
(whether it is the Constitution, federal rules and regulations, treaties or
legislation) for all executive branch officials.
appointments and advising on the application of ethics regulations to White House staff and executive branch officials, but

Past Counsels have lamented that there is no job description for this office, while the opening quote from

Peter Wallison makes clear that even if there was, it would be all-consuming and all-inclusive of everything that goes in and out of the presidents office. In simple terms, the Counsels Office performs five basic categories of
functions: (1) advising on the exercise of presidential powers and defending the presidents constitutional prerogatives; (2) overseeing presidential nominations and appointments to the executive and judicial branches; (3)
advising on presidential actions relating to the legislative process; (4) educating White House staffers about ethics rules and records management and monitoring adherence; and (5) handling department, agency and White House
staff contacts with the Department of Justice (see Functions section). In undertaking these responsibilities, the Counsels Office interacts regularly with, among others, the president, the Chief of Staff, the White House Office of
Personnel, the Press Secretary, the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, the Attorney General, the Office of Management and Budget (on the legislative process), the General Counsels of the departments and agencies, and
most especially, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice (see Relationships section). In addition to the Counsel, the Office usually consists of one or two Deputy Counsels, a varying number of Associate and
Assistant Counsels, a Special Counsel when scandals arise, a Senior Counsel in some administrations, and support staff. Tasks are apportioned to these positions in various ways, depending on the Counsels choices, though most
Counsels expect all Office members to share the ongoing vetting for presidential appointments (see Organization and Operations section). Certain responsibilities within the Office are central at the very start of an administration
(e.g., vetting for initial nominations and shepherding the appointment process through the Senate), while others have a cyclical nature to them (e.g., the annual budget, the State of the Union message), and still others follow an
electoral cycle (e.g., determining whether presidential travel and other activities are partisan/electoral/campaign or governmental ones) (see Organization and Operations). There is, of course, the always unpredictable (but almost
inevitable) flurry of scandals and crises, in which all eyes turn to the Counsels Office for guidance and answers. Watergate, Iran-contra, Whitewater, the Clinton impeachment, and the FBI files and White House Travel Office
matters were all managed from the Counsels Office, in settings that usually separated scandal management from the routine work of the Office, so as to permit ongoing operations to continue with minimal distraction. Among the
more regular tasks that occur throughout an administration are such jobs as directing the judicial nomination process, reviewing legislative proposals (the presidents, those from departments and agencies, and bills Congress has
passed that need the Counsels recommendation for presidential signature or veto), editing and clearing presidential statements and speeches, writing executive orders, and determining the application of executive privilege (see

Perhaps, the most challenging task for the Counsel is being the one
who has the duty to tell the president no, especially when it comes to defending
the constitutional powers and prerogatives of the presidency . Lloyd Cutler, Counsel for both Presidents Carter
and Clinton, noted that, in return for being on the cutting edge of problems, the Counsel
needs to be someone who has his own established reputationsomeone who is
willing to stand up t o the President, to say, No, Mr. President, you shouldnt do
that for these reasons. There is a great tendency among all presidential staffs to be very sycophantic, very sycophantic. Its almost impossible to avoid,
both Relationships and Organization and Operations sections).

This man is the President of the United States and you want to stay in his good graces, even when he is about to do something dumb; you dont tell him that. You find some way to

A helpful way to understand the

Counsels Office is to see it as sitting at the intersection of law, politics and policy.
put it in a very diplomatic manner. (Cutler interview, pp. 3-4)


Consequently, it confronts the difficult and delicate task of trying to reconcile all three of these without sacrificing too much of any one. It is the distinctive challenge of the Counsels
Office to advise the president to take actions that are both legally sound and politically astute. A 1994 article in Legal Times warned of the pitfalls: Because a sound legal decision can
be a political disaster, the presidential counsel constantly sacrifices legal ground for political advantage. (Bendavid, 1994, p. 13) For example, A.B. Culvahouse recalled his experience
upon arriving at the White House as counsel and having to implement President Reagans earlier decision to turn over his personal diaries to investigators during the Iran-contra
scandal. Ronald Reagans decision to turn over his diary - that sits at the core of the presidency. Youre setting up precedents and ceding a little power. But politically, President
Reagan wanted to get it behind him. (Bendavid, 1994, p. 13) Nonetheless, Culvahouse added, the Counsel is the last and in some cases the only protector of the

Presidents constitutional privileges. Almost everyone else is willing to give those away in part inch by inch and bit by bit in order to win the issue of the
day, to achieve compromise on todays thorny issue. So a lot of what I did was stand in the way of that process... (Culvahouse interview, p. 28) Because

the most essential function a Counsel can perform for

a president is to act as an early warning system for potential legal trouble spots
before (and, ultimately, after) they erupt. For this role, a Counsel must keep his or her antennae constantly attuned. Being at the
of this blend of legal, political and policy elements,

right meetings at the right time and knowing which people have information and/or the necessary technical knowledge and expertise in specific policy
or legal areas are the keys to insuring the best service in this part of the position. C. Boyden Gray, Counsel for President Bush, commented: As
Culvahouse said -- I used to say that the meetings I was invited to, I shouldnt go to. Its the meetings I wasnt invited to that Id go to. (Gray

the White House Counsel will learn by going to the staff

meetings, et cetera, that something is about to be done that has buried within it a
legal issue which the people who are advocating it either havent recognized or push under the rug. He says, Wait a minute. Weve got to
check this out, and goes to the Office of Legal Counsel and alerts them and gets their
opinion. But for the existence of the White House Counsel, the Office of Legal Counsel would never have learned about the problem until it was
interview, p. 26) Lloyd Cutler noted that .

too late. (Cutler interview, p. 4) One other crucial part of the job where the legal overlaps with the policy and the political -- and which can spell disaster
for Counsels who disregard this -- is knowing when to go to the Office of Legal Counsel for guidance on prevailing legal interpretations and opinions on

It is then up to the White House Counsel to sift through these

legal opinions, and to bring into play the operative policy and political
considerations in order to offer the president his or her best recommendation on a
course of presidential action. Lloyd Cutler described how this process works:
the scope of presidential authority.

Executive order establishing transparency of targeting

decisions resolves drone legitimacy and resentment
Daskal 13 (Jennifer Daskal, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Center
on National Security and the Law, Georgetown University Law Center, April 2013,
Pa. L. Rev. 1165)
officials in the executive branch carry out all such ex
ante review of out-of-battlefield targeting and detention decisions, reportedly with the involvement
of the President, but without any binding and publicly articulated standards
governing the exercise of these authorities. n163 All ex post review of targeting is also done
4. Procedural Requirements Currently,

internally within the executive branch. There is no public accounting, or even acknowledgment, of most strikes,
their success and error rates, or the extent of any collateral damage. Whereas the Department of Defense
provides solatia or condolence payments to Afghan civilians who are killed or injured as a result of military actions
in Afghanistan (and formerly did so in Iraq), there is no equivalent effort in areas outside the active conflict zone.
n164 Meanwhile, the degree of ex post review of detention decisions depends on the location of detention as
opposed to the location of capture. Thus, [*1219] Guantanamo detainees are entitled to habeas review, but
detainees held in Afghanistan are not, even if they were captured far away and brought to Afghanistan to be

Enhanced ex ante and ex post procedural protections for both detention and
targeting, coupled with transparency as to the standards and processes employed, serve
several important functions: they can minimize error and abuse by creating time
for advance reflection, correct erroneous deprivations of liberty, create
endogenous incentives to avoid mistake or abuse, and increase the legitimacy of
state action. a. Ex Ante Procedures Three key considerations should guide the development of ex ante
detained. n165

procedures. First, any procedural requirements must reasonably respond to the need for secrecy in certain
operations. Secrecy concerns cannot, for example, justify the lack of transparency as to the substantive targeting
standards being employed. There is, however, a legitimate need for the state to protect its sources and methods
and to maintain an element of surprise in an attack or capture operation. Second, contrary to oft-repeated rhetoric
about the ticking time bomb, few, if any, capture or kill operations outside a zone of active conflict occur in
situations of true exigency. n166 Rather, there is often the time and need for advance planning. In fact, advance
planning is often necessary to minimize damage to one's own troops and nearby civilians. n167 Third, the
procedures and standards employed must be transparent and sufficiently credible to achieve the desired
legitimacy gains. These considerations suggest the value of an independent, formalized, ex ante review system.
Possible models include the Foreign Intelligence [*1220] Surveillance Court (FISC), n168 or a FISC-like entity
composed of military and intelligence officials and military lawyers, in the mode of an executive branch review

board. n169 Created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, n170 the FISC grants ex parte
orders for electronic surveillance and physical searches, among other actions, based on a finding that a
"significant purpose" of the surveillance is to collect "foreign intelligence information." n171 The Attorney General
can grant emergency authorizations without court approval, subject to a requirement that he notify the court of
the emergency authorization and seek subsequent judicial authorization within seven days. n172 The FISC also
approves procedures related to the use and dissemination of collected information. By statute, heightened
restrictions apply to the use and dissemination of information concerning U.S. persons. n173 Notably, the process
has been extraordinarily successful in protecting extremely sensitive sources and methods. To date, there has
never been an unauthorized disclosure of an application to or order from the FISC court. An ex parte review
system for targeting and detention outside zones of active hostility could operate in a similar way. Judges or the
review board would approve selected targets and general procedures and standards, while still giving operators
wide rein to implement the orders according to the approved standards. Specifically, the court or review board
would determine whether the targets meet the substantive requirements and would [*1221] evaluate the
overarching procedures for making least harmful means-determinations, but would leave target identification and
time-sensitive decisionmaking to the operators. n174 Moreover, there should be a mechanism for emergency
authorizations at the behest of the Secretary of Defense or the Director of National Intelligence. Such a
mechanism already exists for electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to FISA. n175 These authorizations
would respond to situations in which there is reason to believe that the targeted individual poses an imminent,
specific threat, and in which there is insufficient time to seek and obtain approval by a court or review panel as
will likely be the case in instances of true imminence justifying the targeting of persons who do not meet the
standards applicable to operational leaders. As required under FISA, the reviewing court or executive branch
review board should be notified that such an emergency authorization has been issued; it should be time-limited;
and the operational decisionmakers should have to seek court or review board approval (or review, if the strike
has already taken place) as soon as practicable but at most within seven days. n176 Finally, and critically, given
the stakes in any application namely, the deprivation of life someone should be appointed to represent the
potential target's interests and put together the most compelling case that the individual is not who he is assumed
to be or does not meet the targeting criteria. The objections to such a proposal are many. In the context of
proposed courts to review the targeting of U.S. citizens, for example, some have argued that such review would
serve merely to institutionalize, legitimize, and expand the use of targeted drone strikes. n177 But this ignores the
reality of their continued use and expansion and imagines a world in which targeted [*1222] killings of operational
leaders of an enemy organization outside a zone of active conflict is categorically prohibited (an approach I reject
n178). If states are going to use this extraordinary power (and they will), there ought to be a clear and
transparent set of applicable standards and mechanisms in place to ensure thorough and careful review of
targeted-killing decisions. The formalization of review procedures along with clear, binding standards will help to
avoid ad hoc decisionmaking and will ensure consistency across administrations and time. Some also condemn the
ex parte nature of such reviews. n179 But again, this critique fails to consider the likely alternative: an equally
secret process in which targeting decisions are made without any formalized or institutionalized review process
and no clarity as to the standards being employed. Institutionalizing a court or review board will not solve the
secrecy issue, but it will lead to enhanced scrutiny of decisionmaking, particularly if a quasi-adversarial model is
adopted, in which an official is obligated to act as advocate for the potential target. That said, there is a
reasonable fear that any such court or review board will simply defer. In this vein, FISC's high approval rate is
cited as evidence that reviewing courts or review boards will do little more than rubber-stamp the Executive's
targeting decisions. n180 But the high approval rates only tell part of the story. In many cases, the mere
requirement of justifying an application before a court or other independent review board can serve as an internal
check, creating endogenous incentives to comply with the statutory requirements and limit the breadth of
executive action. n181 Even if this system does little more than increase the attention paid to the stated
requirements and expand the circle of persons reviewing the factual basis for the application, those features in
and of themselves can lead to increased reflection and restraint. Additional accountability mechanisms, such as
civil or criminal sanctions in the event of material misrepresentations or omissions, the granting of far-reaching
authority to the relevant Inspectors General, and meaningful ex post review by Article III courts, n182 are also
needed to help further minimize abuse. Conversely, some object to the use of courts or court-like review as
stymying executive power in wartime, and interfering with the President's Article II powers. n183 According to
this view, it is dangerous and potentially unconstitutional to require the President's wartime targeting decisions to
be subject to additional reviews. These concerns, however, can be dealt with through emergency authorization
mechanisms, the possibility of a presidential override, and design details that protect against ex ante review of
operational decisionmaking. The adoption of an Article II review board, rather than an Article III-FISC model,
further addresses some of the constitutional concerns. Some also have warned that there may be no "case or
controversy" for an Article III, FISC-like court to review, further suggesting a preference for an Article II review
board. n184 That said, similar concerns have been raised with respect to FISA and rejected. n185 Drawing heavily
on an analogy to courts' roles in issuing ordinary warrants, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel
concluded at the time of enactment that a case and controversy existed, even though the FISA applications are
made ex parte. n186 [*1224] Here, the judges would be issuing a warrant to kill rather than surveil. While this is
significant, it should not fundamentally alter the legal analysis. n187 As the Supreme Court has ruled, killing is a
type of seizure. n188 The judges would be issuing a warrant for the most extreme type of seizure. n189 It is also

important to emphasize that a reviewing court or review board would not be "selecting" targets, but determining
whether the targets chosen by executive branch officials met substantive requirements much as courts do all the
time when applying the law to the facts. Press accounts indicate that the United States maintains lists of persons
subject to capture or kill operations lists created in advance of specific targeting operations and reportedly
subject to significant internal deliberation, including by the President himself. n190 A court or review board could
be incorporated into the existing ex ante decisionmaking process in a manner that would avoid interference with
the conduct of specific operations reviewing the target lists but leaving the operational details to the operators. As
suggested above, emergency approval mechanisms could and should be available to deal with exceptional cases
where ex ante approval is not possible. Additional details will need to be addressed, including the temporal limits
of the court's or review board's authorizations. For some high-level operatives, inclusion on a target list would
presumably be valid for some set period of [*1225] time, subject to specific renewal requirements. Authorizations
based on a specific, imminent threat, by comparison, would need to be strictly time-limited, and tailored to the
specifics of the threat, consistent with what courts regularly do when they issue warrants. In the absence of such

the President ought to, at a minimum, issue an executive order establishing a

transparent set of standards and procedures for identifying targets of lethal killing
and detention operations outside a zone of active hostilities. n192 To enhance legitimacy,
the procedures should include target list reviews and disposition plans by the top
official in each of the agencies with a stake in the outcome the Secretary of Defense, the
a system,

Director of the CIA, the Secretary of State, the Director of Homeland Security, and the Director of National
Intelligence, with either the Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, or President himself,

decisions should be unanimous, or, in the

absence of consensus, elevated to the President of the United States. n194 Additional details
responsible for final sign-off. n193 In all cases,

will need to be worked out, including critical questions about the standard of proof that applies. Given the stakes,
a clear and convincing evidentiary standard is warranted. n195 While this proposal is obviously geared toward the

same principles should apply for all states engaged in targeting

operations. n196 States would ideally subject such determinations to independent
review or, alternatively, clearly articulate the standards and procedures for their decisionmaking, thus
enhancing accountability. b. Ex Post Review For targeted-killing operations, ex post reviews serve
only limited purposes. They obviously cannot restore the target's life. But retrospective review either by a
United States, the

FISC-like court or review board can serve to identify errors or overreaching and thereby help avoid future
mistakes. This can, and ideally would, be supplemented by the adoption of an additional Article III damages
mechanism. n197 At a minimum, the relevant Inspectors General should engage in regular and extensive reviews

post hoc analysis helps to set standards and controls that

then get incorporated into ex ante decisionmaking. In fact, post hoc review can often
serve as a more meaningful and often more searching inquiry into the legitimacy of
targeting decisions. Even the mere knowledge that an ex post review will occur can help to protect against
of targeted-killing operations. Such

rash ex ante decisionmaking, thereby providing a self-correcting mechanism. Ex post review should also be
accompanied by the establishment of a solatia and condolence payment system for activities that occur outside

Extension of such a system beyond Afghanistan and Iraq

would help mitigate resentment caused by civilian deaths or injuries and would
promote better accounting of the civilian costs of targeting operations . n198
the active zone of hostilities.


Mexico/ Terror DA

Surveillance operations by Predator drones key to Mexico
border securityRT 14 (RT, Drone surge: Predators patrol nearly half of US-Mexico border,, November 13, 2014)
Predator drones are silently patrolling almost half of the United States border
with Mexico, looking for illegal immigrants, human traffickers and drug cartels in
desolated areas the government agents cant realistically patrol. The unmanned
aircraft fly over about 900 miles of rural areas where there are no US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB)
agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences along the 1,954-mile border, according to a new report by the Associated
Press. The Predator Bs use a high-resolution video camera and then return within three days for another video in the same spot,
two officials told the wire service. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny
changes. There are changes in terrain in only eight percent of the drone missions under the current strategy known internally as
change detection since it began in March 2013. Of those flagged missions, about four percent were false alarms, like tracks
from livestock or farmers, and about two percent are inconclusive to the agents dispatched to the area to investigate. The
remaining 2 percent offer evidence like footprints, broken twigs, trash of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results
in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. In the last year and a half, CPB has operated about 10,000 drone flights,
with much of their missions over Texas. Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort
Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and between 25 and 60 miles of the
border. The program is expected to expand the Canadian border by the end of 2015.
The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border

"You have
finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not
Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country, told AP.

traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have

McNeal, a law professor and drone expert at

Pepperdine University, told NBC News in July that the money spent on drones is
worth it. "This is a better way to patrol the border than helicopters," he said. "Its not a comprehensive immigration solution
or border security solution, but more surveillance time in the air will help plug gaps in the
border." A typical Predator drone can fly for 12 hours before landing, compared to three for a standard helicopter. But the
a greater risk, a greater threat." Gregory

cost is much higher: Predator drones require a crew of between five to eight people plus maintenance staff to operate, coming
out to about $3,000 an hour to fly. And each one has an $18 million price tag, NBC News reported. CPB began rolling out
Predators in 2005, but rapidly expanded the unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the US-Mexico border at the
beginning of this decade, the Washington Post reported in 2011. Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general and former test
pilot who is the assistant commissioner of CPBs Office of Air and Marine, told the Post then that he had yet to be challenged in
Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. Instead, the question is: Why cant we have more of them in my district?
Kostelnik said. In July, President Barack Obama requested $39.4 million for aerial surveillance, including troops, along the USMexican border. The emergency funding was for 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance,
and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. The request was in
response to the humanitarian crisis after tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families illegally entered the country in
the first half of the year. Border Patrol wants the money and it wants the drones, McNeal said. This is the kind of crisis where, if
you are Border Patrol, you seize the opportunity to get more funding from Congress. The agencys unmanned and manned
aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border
smuggling operations, a CBP official told Nextgov. The presidents request was part of a larger funding appeal of $3.7 billion to
deal with the illegal immigrants and border security problems. In January, CPB was forced to ground its entire fleet of drones after
a mechanical function forced a crew to crash an unmanned aircraft valued at $12 million. The mishap lowered the number of
agency drones to only nine.

Armed drones are key- newest upgrade

Bump 13 (Philip Bump, The Wire, The Border Patrol Wants to Arm Drones,, July 2,
the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border
Patrol indicate that the agency is close to finalizing payload standards for its drone
Documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation from

aircraft. Among the things the CBP might want to use in its unmanned aircraft: "non-lethal weapons
designed to immobilize" targets. In 2009, the agency announced that it had acquired its sixth Predator
drone, stationed at an Army Airfield in Arizona. The agency trumpeted its successes: Since 2004, CBP unmanned aircraft have
flown more than 3,000 hours, directly contributing to 4,766 arrests and the seizure of 22,823 pounds of marijuana in support of
the Department of Homeland Security's border security mission. A fact sheet provided by the agency notes the current capabilities
of the aircraft, including electro-optical/infrared sensors and "Surface Search Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator."


specific drone rolled out in 2009 was loaded with "the Raytheon MTS-B Multi-Spectral
Targeting System (with electro-optical, infrared, laser designation, and laser illumination capabilities) and Synthetic Aperture

MTS-B: "provides long-range surveillance, high-altitude target

acquisition, tracking, rangefinding, and laser designation for the HELLFIRE missile and for
all tri-service and NATO laser-guided munitions." You can see the surveillance systems at
work in this video, shot at the Mexican border; obviously, the CBP drones aren't HELLFIRE equipped. But they may
soon have weapons . The 2010 document released to the EFF under the Freedom of Information Act, titled "Concept
Radar." Raytheon describes the capabilities of the

of Operations for CBPs Predator B Unmanned Aircraft System," suggests that the FAA is mandating standards affecting the
devices' Communication, Navigation, Surveillance / Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment, which could require upgrades.
In a section titled "Far-Term CONOPS" (Concept of Operations), the document outlines future possible enhancements (emphasis
added). Mission sensor upgrades could include improving SAR point target resolution to well below one foot, a simultaneous SARGMTIIMMTI mode and advanced ATR/ATC algorithms. Visual and IR band sensors will be updated with newer generation arrays.
The addition of an Electronic Support Measures suite with specific emitter identification will increase mission effectiveness by

payload upgrades could

include expendables or non-lethal weapons designed to immobilize TOIs. Decoding the
enabling the UAS to independently perform the SDCIP Identification task. Additional

abbreviations: SAR: Synthetic Aperture Radar SAR-GMTIIMMTI: GMTI is ground moving target indication, as above; MMTI,
micro-motion target indication ATR/ATC: Automatic Target Recognition/Automatic Target Correlation UAS: Unmanned Aircraft
System SDCIP: Surveillance, Detection, Classification, Identification, and Prosecution And, of course, TOI: Targets of Interest.
Elsewhere in the document this term is loosely defined: "personnel and conveyances possibly involved in illegal activity, a

Predator aircraft patrolling the Mexican (and

border equipped with "non-lethal" weapons and advanced targeting
systems. The EFF notes in its blog post: However, this is the first weve heard of any federal agency proposing using
developing storm system, etc." The prospect, then, is this.

weapons on drones flown domestically. That CBP has, without broader public discussion, considered this stepcombined with the

the agency (with Congress blessing, if the immigration bill is approved (pdf, p. 92)) is
planning to sharply increase the number of drones it flies should cause serious

fact that

concern for Americans. (We assessed the effectiveness of the CBP's recent expansion of its resources on the border last month.
There hasn't been a correlation between increased resources and more apprehensions.) Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric
Holder replied to a question from Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized
drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?" the letter asked, responding with a terse "no." Even if the
CBP's full slate of upgrades to its drones go into effect which there's no indication that they have that question still holds

The CBP would have a weaponized drone it could use to incapacitate a

person that the agency persumably considers a criminal and flight risk .


Assuming that, unlike what can happen with other non-lethal weapons, the drones actually do merely incapacitate the targets of
interest. As Jennifer Lynch, a staff attorney for the EFF, told The Atlantic Wire by phone Tuesday afternoon, it's not just the CBP
that uses these drones. The FOIA request stems from a lawsuit filed by Lynch after a 2011 Los Angeles Times article that indicated

the agency was sharing its aircraft with other agencies at all level of government. Among the ones
she identified off the top of her head: the Coast Guard, the FBI, the U.S. Marshalls, the Minnesota Bureau of
Criminal Investigation, the Texas Department of Public Safety. The drone's surveillance capability "is what we're actually
focused on," Lynch said, but the possibility of using weapons stood out. "This is the first I've seen any
mention of any plans to weaponize any drones that fly domestically," she said. "I haven't seen this anywhere else."

Mexican border instability hamstrings US hegemony- destroys

military effectiveness
Kaplan 12 chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor (Robert D., With the Focus on
Syria, Mexico Burns, Stratfor, 3-28-2012,
While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United
States -- more than 47,000 people have died in drug-related violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state as well as a

Mexico will affect America's destiny

in coming decades more than any state or combination of states in the Middle
East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute the world's seventh-largest economy in the near
future. Certainly, while the Mexican violence is largely criminal, Syria is a more clear-cut moral issue, enhanced by its own
demographic and economic giant on the United States' southern border,

strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in Damascus is stamping out dissent with guns and artillery barrages.
Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow to Iranian influence in the Middle East,
an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or even decades. Nevertheless, the Syrian rebels are
divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might conceivably bring to power an austere
Sunni regime equally averse to U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words, all military intervention scenarios in
Syria are fraught with extreme risk. Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite has continued for months to
feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention, while utterly ignoring the vaster panorama of violence
next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions and interests, which are not always aligned with the

Mexico ultimately
matters more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of
parity in the amount written on these subjects. I am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one
country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but

country to the other, just a bit more balance. Of course, it is easy for pundits to have a fervently interventionist view on Syria

miscalculation in Mexico on America's part would

carry far greater consequences. For example, what if the Mexican drug cartels took
revenge on San Diego? Thus, one might even argue that the very noise in the media about Syria,
coupled with the relative silence about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter issue that
actually is too sensitive for loose talk . It may also be that cartel-wracked Mexico -- at some rude subconscious
precisely because it is so far away, whereas

level -- connotes for East Coast elites a south of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the crime movie "Traffic," that
holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and the Middle East certainly
seem closer to New York and Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin American bureaus and studies

the fate of
Mexico is the hinge on which the United States' cultural and demographic future rests.
U.S. foreign policy emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and
nothing will affect its society more than the dramatic movement of Latin
history northward. By 2050, as much as a third of the American population could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central
departments simply lack the cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in government and universities. Yet,

America constitute a growing demographic and economic powerhouse with which the United States has an inextricable
relationship. In recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern neighbor. Mexico's population of 111
million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population of the United States. Because of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United States, even as half of Central America's trade is
with the United States. While the median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the aging tendency of the U.S. population,
the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for example). In part
because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south, rather than the east-west, seato-shining-sea of continental and patriotic myth. (This will be amplified by the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal,
which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to megaships from East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico
port cities in the United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since 1940, Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold.
Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985 and 2000 it rose by more than a third. Mexico's population is now more
than a third that of the United States and growing at a faster rate. And it is northern Mexico that is crucial. That most of the drugrelated homicides in this current wave of violence that so much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of Mexico's 32 states,
mostly in the north, is a key indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the

If the military-led
offensive to crush the drug cartels launched by conservative President Felipe Calderon falters, as it
seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes back to cutting deals with the cartels,
then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further control of the north,
with concrete implications for the southwestern United States. One might argue
that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United
States can coexist with a dysfunctional and somewhat chaotic northern Mexico.
But that is mainly true in the short run . Looking deeper into the 21st century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A
Study of History (1946), a border between a highly developed society and a less highly
developed one will not attain an equilibrium but will advance in the more
backward society's favor. Thus, helping to stabilize Mexico -- as limited as the United States' options
may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the relationship -- is a more urgent national interest than
stabilizing societies in the Greater Middle East. If Mexico ever does reach coherent
violence in the city of Veracruz and the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable).

First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy melding of
the two societies will quicken to the benefit of both . Today, helping to thwart drug cartels in rugged
and remote terrain in the vicinity of the Mexican frontier and reaching southward from Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El
Paso, Texas) means a limited role for the U.S. military and other agencies -- working, of course, in full cooperation with the
Mexican authorities. (Predator and Global Hawk drones fly deep over Mexico searching for drug production facilities.) But the
legal framework for cooperation with Mexico remains problematic in some cases because of strict interpretation of 19th century
posse comitatus laws on the U.S. side. While the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to affect historical
outcomes in Eurasia, its leaders and foreign policy mandarins are somewhat passive about what is happening to a country with
which the United States shares a long land border, that verges on partial chaos in some of its northern sections, and whose

Mexico, in addition to the obvious challenge of China as a

rising great power, will help write the American story in the 21st century. Mexico will
partly determine what kind of society America will become , and what exactly will be its
population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

demographic and geographic character, especially in the Southwest. The U.S. relationship with China will matter more than any
other individual bilateral relationship in terms of determining the United States' place in the world, especially in the economically

If policymakers in Washington calculate U.S. interests properly regarding

those two critical countries, then the United States will have power to spare so that its
elites can continue to focus on serious moral questions in places that matter less.
crucial Pacific.

2NC Impacts

2NC- Grid Scenario

ISIS threat through Mexico highest ever- qualified experts
agree- will shut down the grid - extinction
WND 9/4 (WND, WorldNetDaily News Company, ISIS THREAT LOOMS OVER
U.S. HOMELAND,, September 9, 2014)
*edited for language
'Militants expressing increased interest in notion they could infiltrate' ISIS bluster
that threatens the U.S. Long-known al-Qaida links to south-of-the-border drug
cartels. A porous U.S-Mexico border. Gunshots at a California power plant. The
individual reports may not cause immediate alarm, but a panel of experts who have connected the
dots on threats against the U.S. is warning that the nation needs to be looking at
the big picture and preparing its defenses appropriately. Now. The warnings come
from a panel set up by the Secure the Grid Coalition at the Washington-based
Center for Security Policy. At a National Press Club news conference this week
were Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international
security affairs and now president of the CSP; threat expert Dr. Peter
Vincent Pry; Ambassador Henry F. Cooper; actress and activist Kelly Carson;
and F. Michael Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst in the office
of the secretary of defense and now a senior writer with WND. Hes authored A
Nation Forsaken on the dangers to the U.S. from an attack on its power
grid, especially from electromagnetic pulse. There have been multiple
reports of ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria making statements threatening an
attack on the U.S. homeland. And its well-documented that al-Qaida, the Muslim
terror worlds bad boy before ISIS arrived, is linked closely with drug cartels,
many of which have a presence inside some 1,200 of Americas large cities.
Further, the U.S. southern border now easily can be crossed illegally. And there
already may have been a dry run attack on the U.S. power grid, which, in a
collapse, would leave Americas defense capabilities severely handicapped.
Such concerns have been underscored in recent days by an interview Judicial
Watch had with U.S. intelligence officials and the Texas Department Safety. It
confirmed that ISIS is present across the Texas border in Juarez, Mexico ,
where an intelligence unit has picked up increased chatter in recent days. While
Mexican authorities have denied ISIS presence in Mexico and its ability to illegally enter the U.S., Maloof pointed out
that three hardened Ukrainian criminals walked into the U.S. from Mexico
undetected and have yet to be apprehended. Similarly, there has been evidence
uncovered that various nationalities from Pakistan and various Arab countries have
entered the U.S. undetected, taking advantage of the porous southern border.
Put it all together, panel members said at a news conference in Washington on
Wednesday, and the threat the U.S. is facing should be considered immediate and
substantial. Its all related, Maloof said. One thing leads to another Its the
domino effect. He noted a series of incidents at a Metcalf power plant in San Jose, California, that suggest someone
still unknown has been exploring what it takes to bring down a major
component of the nations grid. Former Rep. Allen West bluntly called the situation a dry run for

something bigger. WND reported the utility company, whose operation was disabled in the attack, has offered a $250,000 reward
for the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators. West explained, On April 16, 2013, snipers waged a 52-minute attack on a
central California electrical substation. According to reports by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, the sniper attack started
when at least one person entered an underground vault to cut telephone cables, and attackers fired more than 100 shots into
Pacific Gas & Electrics Metcalf transmission substation, knocking out 17 transformers. Electric officials were able to avert a
blackout, but it took 27 days to repair the damage, he wrote. My concern is that this may have been a dry run for something far
bigger. We should be demanding an update on the investigation as to the perpetrators of this attack who escaped without

WB248Pry pointed out that jihadists already are aware of the

vulnerability of a countrys grid system by having knocked out completely
the entire grid of the country of Yemen last June. Read the book thats documenting the worry
detection, he said.

about the EMP threat, A Nation Forsaken. The Metcalf attack came one day after the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three
people and wounded 264 others. The Boston Marathon suspects are from the Russian North Caucasus, which prompted the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to get involved in the investigation of the sniper attack on the transformers. There is a large
community of Chechen and North Caucasus immigrants in the San Jose area. Chechen jihadists also have been very prominent in
Syria where it is battling to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. There also were reports only days
after the California sniper attack of a shoot-out when a security guard at the TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City,
Tennessee, was confronted by a suspect at 2 a.m. TVA spokesperson Jim Hopson said the subject traveled up to the plant on a
boat and walked onto the property. When the officer questioned the suspect, the individual fired multiple shots at the officer. The

And just a few days

ago, the California plant, after spending millions of dollars on heightened security,
again was targeted by a break-in attempt, authorities have reported. Maloof
explained after the news conference that the big picture underscores the
potential for an ISIS threat on the grid. He pointed out how al-Qaida, which is known to have drug
officer shot back, and when he called for backup, the suspect sped away on his boat, reports said.

cartel links and likely sleeper agents in the United States through those organizations, has been morphing into ISIS, and the

And he noted that the U.S. grid remains

vulnerable and taking it down in any significant way could cause calamities for
the U.S., since the nations food, fuel, energy, banking and communications
industries all are dependent on electricity. Whenever you start tampering
with the grid, youre affecting the life-sustaining critical infrastructures,
Maloof said. Our entire survival is based on technology and electronics that, in turn,
are based on the electrical flow. If thats interrupted for any period of time, there
are catastrophes over a wide geographic area. Reports just this week revealed
social media chatter shows Islamic State militants are keenly aware of the porous
U.S.-Mexico border, and are expressing an increased interest in crossing over to
carry out a terrorist attack. A law enforcement advisory said, A review of ISIS social media messaging during
belligerent threats made against the U.S. by that group.

the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely

enemies know the vulnerabilities of our grid they will at some point try to
attack. The threat is there, he said. ISIS operatives can easily come through the
[southern] border. And because they [ISIS] have proxies in the U.S., the potential
for a catastrophe exists. The president could take his pen and make [the problem] a priority, he said. At the
infiltrate the southwest border of U.S., for [a] terror attack. Maloof explained at the news conference that

federal level they dont have a plan, so the state and local level wont have a plan.

2NC- Latin America Scenario

Drug cartels instability will spill over throughout Latin America
Bonner 10 (Robert C., senior principal of the Sentinel HS Group, former
administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, The New Cocaine
Cowboys, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2010,
The recent headlines from Mexico are disturbing :

U.S. consular official gunned down in broad

wave of violence is eerily reminiscent of the carnage that plagued Colombia 20
years ago, and it is getting Washington's attention. Mexico is in the throes of a
battle against powerful drug cartels, the outcome of which will determine who controls the country's
law enforcement, judicial, and political institutions. It will decide whether the state will destroy
the cartels and put an end to the culture of impunity they have created. Mexico
could become a first-world country one day, but it will never achieve that status
until it breaks the grip these criminal organizations have over all levels of
government and strengthens its law enforcement and judicial institutions . It cannot do
one without doing the other. Destroying the drug cartels is not an impossible task . Two
daylight; Rancher murdered by Mexican drug smuggler; Bomb tossed at U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo.

decades ago, Colombia was faced with a similar -- and in many ways more daunting -- struggle. In the early 1990s,
many Colombians, including police officers, judges, presidential candidates, and journalists, were assassinated by
the most powerful and fearsome drug-trafficking organizations the world has ever seen: the Cali and Medelln
cartels. Yet within a decade, the Colombian government defeated them, with Washington's help. The United States

The stakes
in Mexico are high. If the cartels win , these criminal enterprises will continue to
operate outside the state and the rule of law, undermining Mexico's democracy.
The outcome matters for the United States as well -- if the drug cartels succeed,
the United States will share a 2,000-mile border with a narcostate controlled by
powerful transnational drug cartels that threaten the stability of Central and
South America.
played a vital role in supporting the Colombian government, and it should do the same for Mexico.

That causes nuclear war and extinction

Manwaring 5 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
President Chvez also understands that the process leading to

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. 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,

instability and the threat of subverting or

destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away.
economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively,

Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and

failing and failed

states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states , or
best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence,

new peoples 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

the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace,
and prosperity.65

2NC- Economy Scenario

Border insecurity causes economic collapse and global oil
Moran 9 (Michael Moran, Six Crises, 2009: A Half-Dozen Ways Geopolitics
Could Upset Global Recovery Roubini Global Economics,, July 31, 2009)
horrific drug-related
violence across the northern states of Mexico, where Felipe Calderon has deployed
the national army to combat two thriving drug cartels, which have compromised
the national police beyond redemption. The tales of carnage are horrific, to be sure: 30 people were
A story receiving more attention in the American media than Iraq these days is the

killed in a 48 hour period last week in Cuidad Juarez alone, a city located directly across the Rio Grande from El
Paso, Texas. So far, the impact on the United States and beyond has been minimal. But there also isnt much sign

The CIAs
worst nightmare during the Cold War (outside of an administration which forced
transparency on it, of course) was the radicalization or collapse of Mexico. The
template then was communism, but narco-capitalism doesnt look much better. The
that the army is winning, either, and that raises a disturbing question: What if Calderon loses?

prospect of a wholesale collapse that sent millions upon millions of Mexican refugees fleeing across the northern
border so far seems remote. But Mexicos army has its own problems with corruption, and a sizeable number of
Mexicans regard Calderons razor-thin 2006 electoral victory over a leftist rival as illegitimate. With Mexicos
economy reeling and the traditional safety valve of illegal immigration to America dwindling, the potential for

Meanwhile, Mexico ranks with Saudi Arabia and Canada as the

three suppliers of oil the United States could not do without. Should things come
unglued there and Pemex production shut down even temporarily, the shock on
oil markets could be profound, again, sending its waves throughout the
global economy. Long-term, PEMEX production has been sliding anyway, thanks to oil fields well-beyond
serious trouble exists.

their peak and restrictions on foreign investment. Domestically in the U.S., any trouble involving Mexico invariably
will cause a bipartisan demand for more security on the southern border, inflame anti-immigrant sentiment and
possibly force Obama to remember his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA, a pledge he deftly sidestepped
once in office.

2NC- WMD Terrorism Scenario

Mexican border instability causes a flood of refugees, resulting
in terrorism.
Brown 9 (Michael Brown, Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and
Response in the Department of Homeland Security, Border Control: Collapse of
Mexico Is A Homeland Security & National Security Issue, 1/14/2009,
By failing to secure the borders and control immigration, we have opened
ourselves up to a frightening scenario. The United States could face a flood of
refugees from Mexico if it were to collapse, overwhelming state and local
governments along the U.S.-Mexico border. During a time of economic duress ,
the costs would be overwhelming and would simply add to the already burgeoning
costs at the federal level. Immigration and border control never was nor should it ever be about racism.
Immigration and border control are national security and homeland security issues. Sleeper cells from
numerous terrorist groups could, and probably already have, infiltrated the United
States, just laying in wait to attack at an appropriately vulnerable time.

Drug cartel instability leads to WMD terrorism on the U.S.

Associated Press 8 (US Officials Fear Terrorist Links With Drug Lords,
There is real danger that Islamic extremist groups such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah
could form alliances with wealthy and powerful Latin American drug lords to
launch new terrorist attacks, U.S. officials said Wednesday. Extremist group operatives
have already been identified in several Latin American countries , mostly involved in
fundraising and finding logistical support. But Charles Allen, chief of intelligence analysis at the
Homeland Security Department, said they could use well-established smuggling
routes and drug profits to bring people or even w eapons of m ass d estruction to the U.S. "The
presence of these people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will
attempt to attack the U nited S tates," said Allen, a veteran CIA analyst. " The threats in this
hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them."

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.

2NC- Bioterror Terrorism Scenario

US-Mexican border terrorism results in bioterror attacks.
Timmerman 10 (Ken Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, FBI Director
Mueller: Al-Qaida Still Wants Nuclear Bomb, 3/18/2010,
FBI Director Robert Mueller warned Congress on Wednesday of ongoing al-Qaida
efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States . AlQaida remains committed to its goal of conducting attacks inside the United
States, Mueller told a House appropriations subcommittee. Further, al-Qaidas continued efforts to
access chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious threat
to the United States. To accomplish its goals of new attacks on the American homeland, al-Qaida
seeks to infiltrate overseas operatives who have no known nexus to terrorism into
the United States using both legal and illegal methods of entry , Mueller said. In February,
Sheikh Abdullah al-Nasifi, a known al-Qaida recruiter in Kuwait, boasted on al
Jazeera television that Mexicos border with the United States was the ideal
infiltration point for terrorists seeking to attack America . Four pounds of
anthrax in a suitcase this big carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the
U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly
spread in population centers there, al-Nasifi said.

Steinbruner 97 Brookings senior fellow and chair in international security
(John D. Steinbruner, Brookings senior fellow and chair in international security,
vice chair of the committee on international security and arms control of the
National Academy of Sciences, Winter 1997, Foreign Policy, Biological weapons: a
plague upon all houses, n109 p85(12), infotrac)
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of
mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not.

Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage
in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has
immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs
immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a
reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to
estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an
essential component for tactical military planning. The use of

a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process

whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the
predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a

pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most
likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A
lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be
capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately
threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated
the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.

DTO Scenario

Predator drones key to joint US-Mexico military operationsdrones are unique in generating cooperation over boarder
Licn 11 (Adriana Gmez Licn, El Paso Times, US drones help fight Mexico
drug cartels,, March 17, 2011)

The U.S. government has begun deploying drones into Mexico after Mexican officials
requested U.S. aircraft to help them fight drug-trafficking organizations.
Although U.S. agencies remained tight-lipped Wednesday on flying drones over Mexico, the chief of the Mexican National Security
Council, Alejandro Poir, admitted that his government asked for this type of support to gather intelligence. Poir in a statement
said the Mexican government defines the operations, most of which take place in border areas. "When these operations take place,
they are authorized and supervised by national agencies, including the Mexican Air Force," Poir said Wednesday. Furthermore,
Poir said, the governments were not breaking any national sovereignty laws because they were simply assisting in gathering
intelligence. The drones are for surveillance only and are not armed. The announcement came the day The New York Times

U.S. agencies have been sending an undetermined number of

Global Hawk drones to interior Mexico since last month. Homeland Security
drones flew along the U.S.-Mexico border in past years to gather intelligence on
organized crime. Global Hawks are military drones that have been used for surveillance missions in Afghan istan as well
published a story revealing that

as for relief efforts in natural disaster zones. Global Hawks can look over areas as large as 40,000 square miles. The newspaper
cited officials who spoke anonymously because the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, who
reportedly operate the drones, did not publicly comment. "All

U.S. cooperation with Mexico is at the

government of Mexico's invitation and is fully coordinated with the government of
Mexico ," said Matt Chandler, Homeland Security spokesman. Chandler declined to comment specifically on the use of

unmanned aircraft in Mexico. Department of Defense officials did not return calls on Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, RTexas, is the chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee. McCaul said he did not know that drones flew over Mexico before

McCaul said it is a positive sign to

increase the role of the United States in the Mexican drug war . Mexico, he said, has
been reluctant to accept U.S. intervention , but he said times are changing. "It's a
significant departure in the right direction," he said. "We are seeing the (Mexican
President) Felipe Caldern administration welcoming our military presence."
Wednesday. "They are probably trying to do it under the radar," he said. But

McCaul said he learned from agencies on Wednesday that a drone helped Mexican law enforcement capture gang members in
connection to the murder of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata. He was killed on a highway in

The drones may also set a precedent to devise a joint military

operation with Mexico , McCaul said. When President Caldern visited the White House on March 3, he said,

San Luis Potos on Feb. 15.

officials sought to be "very open-minded and search for more creative solutions." "It seems to me that we are experiencing
extraordinary circumstances that call for extraordinary actions by our governments," Caldern said. Mexican army and embassy
officials declined to comment on the U.S. drones flying over Mexico, and instead referred inquiries to the National Security
Council. Earlier this week, Jurez Mayor Hctor Murgua hosted Carlos Pascual, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico, to discuss
national security matters. Murgua appeared welcoming to ideas such as placing ICE agents on the ground in Jurez. He also said
he is pleased to receive any support the neighboring country could give to the city of 1.3 million that has been ravaged by drugcartel violence. Murgua refused to comment on whether he and Pascual spoke about the drones, calling it a matter of "national

drones are flying inland by the request of the Mexican government shows the two
countries' relations are deepening , said Eric Olsen, senior associate at the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Mexico Institute in Washington,
D.C. "Of course these kinds of operations are shrouded in secrecy," he said. "There is enormous sensitivity, but there is also a
security." The fact that U.S.

realization that the threat posed by drug cartels is severe." Olsen said the U.S. presence is still limited. There are no law
enforcement operations on the ground, and American agents are not armed. While Mexican officials said on Wednesday that they
will heighten their use of technology with the help of the United States, Olsen said a military intervention in Mexico is not likely. "I
certainly believe that Mexico with the appropriate support and help from the United States has the ability to tackle its problems."
The question of how secure the U.S.-Mexico border is was raised last week during a judiciary committee hearing with U.S.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. At the hearing, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, cited a Government Accountability

Office report for fiscal 2010 on the U.S. border with Mexico. "The Government Accountability Office points out that of the 2,000
miles along the southern border that 1,120 of those miles were not yet under operational control by the federal government,"
Cornyn said. Cornyn also said that of 445,000 people detained on the Mexican border, 45,000 came from 140 countries, according
to Border Patrol figures for fiscal 2009. At least four countries on this list of 140 have been designated by the U.S. Department of
State as state sponsors of terrorism, Cornyn said. "With our porous border admitting people coming from 140 different countries
other than Mexico, including four nations that are state sponsors of international terrorism -- this is a national security threat,"
Cornyn said. Napolitano during the hearing said the federal government was working to secure the border. "You have to
understand first of all that operational control is a term of art by the Border Patrol. It doesn't include all of the assets that are
being deployed to the border -- the technology and so forth," she said.

DTO: NPT Addon

Latin American instability breaks down NPT
Garner 10 (Calvin Garner, Staff writer @ International Affairs Review,
Venezuelas nuclear program the alarmists are right,, December 13, 2010)
A Venezuelan nuclear program is bad for global non-proliferation efforts. The
civilian program is a necessary precondition for a weapons program and makes such a program possible.

Venezuelas close ties with Syria and Iran should cause observers to doubt just how
seriously it will take its non-proliferation requirements under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the 1967 treaty making all of
Latin America a nuclear weapons-free zone. Assuming that Chvez has the best of intentions now,
there is the possibility that in the future he will choose to pursue nuclear weapons as a way to blunt U.S. power,
shore up domestic support by rallying his people behind a nuclear crusade, or assert Venezuelas role in the
Americas. It is worth noting that leaders rarely announce that they plan to use peaceful nuclear technology as a
stepping stone to a weapons program. Given Venezuelas rich oil, gas, and hydroelectric resources, the need for a
nuclear power program seems questionable. Considering Chvezs willingness to stand with those who snub the
global non-proliferation regime and his hostility towards the United States and western institutions, he must be
considered a candidate to say one thing and do another on the nuclear issue. Playing cat-and-mouse with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has proven to be a good way to win international attention, exact
concessions from the West, or raise fears in neighbors minds about the possibility that a country has nuclear
weapons capabilities. Unfortunately, the IAEA has not come up with a good way to keep leaders from stonewalling
or punish those who do so. Even if Chvez neither has nor develops the intention to pursue nuclear weapons, he
will find it increasingly attractive to evade or complicate the IAEA inspection regime for other reasons. In so
doing, he will provide yet another example of ways to exploit weaknesses in the global non-proliferation regime.

Mixed signals from a nuclear Venezuela would have troubling implications for
keeping Latin America free of nuclear weapons. Brazil and Argentina would
most likely seriously reconsider their earlier decisions to forgo nuclear
weapons in the face of a Venezuela with ambiguous nuclear priorities. If
either country concluded it could not trust Venezuelas statements on its nuclear
program, a South American nuclear arms race could quite likely happen.
Proliferation on the continent may start in Caracas but it would almost
certainly spread, ending the international success story of Latin America
as a nuclear-weapons free zone. Lastly, a nuclear deal between Russia and
Venezuela will lock Russia into behavior and rhetoric that are inherently antiAmerican, jeopardizing the progress that has been made in U.S.-Russia relations
since 2009. The history of this deal explains why this is the case. Russia offered Venezuela nuclear power in
2008, the absolute low-point in U.S.-Russia relations, when Russia was fighting a shooting war with Georgia, a U.S.

The realization of the nuclear

partnership will place Russia back into a position of confronting the West as it did
two years ago when tensions were running high. Additionally, it will move Russia
away from those nations that seek to prevent the spread of nuclear
capabilities. In light of Russias large nuclear weapons stockpile,
knowledge, and technology, this would be a costly development for global
non-proliferation efforts.
partner that was supporting the NATO coalition in Afghanistan.

NPT collapse causes nuclear war

Kissinger et al. 8 (Henry, political scientist, diplomat, and recipient of the
Nobel Peace Prize. He served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently
as Secretary of State in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and

Gerald Ford, The Wall Street Journal, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,, January 17, 2008)
Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace" address to the United Nations in 1953,
Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged America's "determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its
entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his
death, but consecrated to his life." John F. Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear disarmament, said,
"The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution." Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N.
General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed, " Nuclear

war will not mean the death of a hundred million

will mean the extinction of four thousand million:
the end of life as we know it on our planet earth. We come to the United Nations to seek your
people. Or even a thousand million. It

support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness." Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all
nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing,
possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which had also been
expressed by previous American presidents. Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve
the goal of an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in turning the arms race on its head.
They initiated steps leading to significant reductions in deployed long- and intermediate-range nuclear forces,
including the elimination of an entire class of threatening missiles. What will it take to rekindle the vision shared
by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps
leading to major reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the challenge posed by

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of all nuclear weapons. It
provides (a) that states that did not possess nuclear weapons as of 1967 agree not to obtain
them, and (b) that states that do possess them agree to divest themselves of these weapons
over time. Every president of both parties since Richard Nixon has reaffirmed these treaty obligations, but
non-nuclear weapon states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear powers. Strong
non-proliferation efforts are under way. The Cooperative Threat Reduction
program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation Security
Initiative and the Additional Protocols are innovative approaches that provide
powerful new tools for detecting activities that violate the NPT and endanger
world security. They deserve full implementation. The negotiations on proliferation of nuclear weapons by
these two questions.

North Korea and Iran, involving all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Japan, are
crucially important. They must be energetically pursued. But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to
the danger. Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev aspired to accomplish more at their meeting in Reykjavik 20
years ago -- the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the doctrine of nuclear
deterrence, but galvanized the hopes of people around the world. The leaders of the two countries with the largest
arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the abolition of their most powerful weapons. * * * What should be done?
Can the promise of the NPT and the possibilities envisioned at Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We believe that a
major effort should be launched by the United States to produce a positive answer through concrete stages. First

foremost is intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of nuclear weapons to
turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise,
by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons,
would lend additional weight to efforts already under way to avoid the emergence
of a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran.

DTO: Oil Shock

Violence in Mexico causes catastrophic oil shocks
Moran 9 (Michael is an executive editor and policy analyst at the Council on
Foreign Relations. (Six Crises, 2009: A Half-Dozen Ways Geopolitics Could Upset
Global Recovery, 7/31/09,
Mexico Drug Violence: At Stake: Oil prices, refugee flows, NAFTA, U.S. economic
stability A story receiving more attention in the American media than Iraq these days is the horrific drugrelated violence across the northern states of Mexico, where Felipe Calderon has deployed the national
army to combat two thriving drug cartels, which have compromised the national police beyond
Risk 2:

redemption. The tales of carnage are horrific, to be sure: 30 people were killed in a 48 hour period last week in
Cuidad Juarez alone, a city located directly across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas. So far, the impact on the
United States and beyond has been minimal. But there also isnt much sign that the army is winning, either, and
that raises a disturbing question: What if Calderon loses? The CIAs worst nightmare during the Cold War
(outside of an administration which forced transparency on it, of course) was the radicalization or collapse of
Mexico. The template then was communism, but narco-capitalism doesnt look much better. The prospect of a
wholesale collapse that sent millions upon millions of Mexican refugees fleeing across the northern border so far
seems remote. But Mexicos army has its own problems with corruption, and a sizeable number of Mexicans

With Mexicos
economy reeling and the traditional safety valve of illegal immigration to America dwindling,
the potential for serious trouble exists. Meanwhile, Mexico ranks with Saudi Arabia
and Canada as the three suppliers of oil the United States could not do without.
Should things come unglued there and Pemex production shut down even
temporarily, the shock on oil markets could be profound, again, sending its waves
throughout the global economy. Long-term, PEMEX production has been sliding anyway, thanks
regard Calderons razor-thin 2006 electoral victory over a leftist rival as illegitimate.

to oil fields well-beyond their peak and restrictions on foreign investment. Domestically in the U.S., any trouble
involving Mexico invariably will cause a bipartisan demand for more security on the southern border, inflame antiimmigrant sentiment and possibly force Obama to remember his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA, a
pledge he deftly sidestepped once in office.

Oil shocks would cause extinction

Henderson 7 (Besline Research CEO/President/consultant (Bill,, February 24, Climate Change, Peak Oil, and Nuclear War,, 7/9/07)
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, unilateralist America on record that it
will use military power to secure vital resources and to not allow any other country
Damocles had one life threatening sword hanging by a thread over his head. We have three:

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 preemptive 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

DTO: 1AR- Oil Shock XT.

Drug violence destabilizes PEMEXmakes oil shocks uniquely
Martin and Longmire 11 (Jeremy Martin is Director of the Energy Program
at the Institute of the Americas. Sylvia Longmire is a Mexico Security Expert &
President, Longmire Consulting. (The Perilous Intersection of Mexicos Drug War
& Pemex, March 22, 2011,
oil theft from Pemex pipelines, money laundering by way of service
stations, and, worst of all, provocative kidnappings of the companys executives and those of service companies
working with the state firm, are all on the rise. Unofficial figures place thefts from the Pemex network at
roughly $2 billion annually . And security experts point to this as an important source of
revenue for drug cartelsespecially as the Mexican government continues to crack down on them. Thefts from the
As discussed previously,

Pemex network are not new, but the increase and the strain it is placing on the already-taxed company is important. And the illegal
tapping has grown significantly in the areas where the drug war is the most pervasive. The spike in fuel thefts and illegal trading,
as well as kidnappings, has led some to question whether Pemex is fully in charge of all its facilities across the nation. For some
experts following the situation, the answer is a resounding no. Indeed, many analysts indicate that the

physical security

and monitoring of pipelines belonging to Pemex are severely lacking. According to Mexican daily El
Universal, oil looting has occurred in almost every state in Mexico, while the Wall Street Journal, citing Pemex statistics, indicated
that between January and November 2010, Pemex discovered 614 illegal siphons368 in liquid fuels pipelines, 196 in oil
pipelines, and 50 in liquefied petroleum gas ducts. Pemex has begun installing systems to detect declines in pressure in some oil

Kidnappings of Pemex
executives and subcontractors, including workers from international firms, have taken place across the country
but most notably in Tabasco, Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, sending shudders throughout the company
and Mexico. The kidnappings have terrorized a community where, according to a Los Angeles Times story, jobs on the oil
product pipelines but the project is expected to take years to complete. Kidnappings send shudders

rigs and at the gas wells are handed down, father to son, for generations. How is it, asked a relative of a kidnapped worker, that
Pemex, supposedly the backbone of the nation, can be made to bow down like this? One analysis, published by Grupo Reforma
highlighted the oil town of Reforma, Chiapas, where at least 30 Pemex employeesranging from executives to laborershave
been kidnapped over the past year. Mexico Weekly has also reported on other forms of violence that have flared in prime Pemex
production zones, such as the Burgos Basin, site of Mexico's biggest natural gas field in Tamaulipas. Last spring, gunmen seized
the Gigante Uno gas plant and kidnapped five Pemex workers. Increasingly unsafe conditions are severely hindering Pemexs
ability to produce natural gas in the Burgos Basin. The Burgos Basin stretches across the northern border state of Tamaulipas,
where the Gigante Uno plant is located, and spills into the states of Nuevo Len and Coahuila. All three states are experiencing
extremely high levels of drug-related violence, especially along these states border with Texas. The stretch from Nuevo Laredo to
Matamoros is in the midst of a bloody conflict between the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas, former paramilitaries and enforcers for the
Gulf cartel who are now one of the more vicious DTOs in their own right. Los Zetas are viewed as largely responsible for the
kidnapping of Pemex employees in that region. Once

Pemex comes under regular attack from the

cartels, rather than just random, disorganized thugs, then you have far more serious national
security problems much worse in the government's eyes than a bunch of homicides in the slums of Ciudad Jurez,"
said Malcolm Beith, author of The Last Narco, a book about the hunt for Joaquin El Chapo Guzmn Loera. Regrettably, Burgos is
becoming synonymous with the perilous intersection of Mexicos raging drug war with Pemexs efforts to produce the critical
energy supplies the nation and region demand. The Murphy Energy case One case of fuel theft from Pemex thats winding its way
through the justice system provides a unique insight into that part of the problem the company is confronting. According to
MarketWatch, federal documents released in August 2010 revealed a Texas chemical plant, owned by German chemical company
BASF Corp., bought $2 million worth of petroleum products that had been stolen from Pemex and smuggled across the US border.
The documents also showed the stolen condensate passed through several companies' hands before arriving on a barge at the
BASF facility in Port Arthur, Texas. The actual transport of stolen oil from Mexican pipelines into US corporate hands is
complicated at best. Donald Schroeder, former president of Trammo Corp., testified that in January 2009, two companies, Murphy
Energy Corp. and Continental Fuels, contacted him. Both wanted to sell him stolen condensate. Apparently he agreed to buy it,
and the transfers began. Unnamed import companies would sell the condensate to intermediary companies like Continental
(which has since shuttered its headquarters in Houston). Those import companies would smuggle the condensate across the
border and store it in Continental facilities. No details were available on how those trucks managed to successfully cross the US
Mexico border. These piecemeal transfers would continue until there was enough oil in the storage facility to fill a barge and ship
to BASF. Jim McAlister, an Assistant US Attorney, said he has no reason to believe that BASF has any involvement in the alleged
wrongdoing. The President and founder of Murphy Energy Corp., Matt Murphy, said the company did not know that the
condensate was stolen. Josh Crescenzi, the vice president of Continental Fuels, has not been indicted in the case, nor has anyone
else from Continental. This particular case has been a success, resulting in the handover of $2.4 million by US customs authorities
to the Mexican government. But the extent of corruption in Mexicowithin Pemex, in particularand the ease with which oil can

be stolen from pipelines makes the mitigation of oil looting an almost insurmountable challenge. Adding to the problem is the fact
that Mexican cartels are involved. According to Reuters, the Mexican government believes the cartels use stolen jet fuel in their
aircraft to cover up any evidence of illicit flights. In August 2009, Mexicos federal police commissioner Rodrigo Esparza said Los
Zetas used false import documents to smuggle at least $46 million worth of oil in tankers to unnamed US refineries. President
Felipe Caldern has said that DTOs in northern Mexico are responsible for most oil theft. On some levels Pemex is not just a victim
of oil-thieving DTOs; sometimes, its directly involved. In February 2010, Mexican military units seized more than four tons of
marijuana at Pemex installations in Reynosa, Tamaulipas. The discovery was made after Pemex security alerted officials that
armed men were removing Pemex employees from a fuel supply station. In response, a Mexican Naval helicopter was dispatched
to the scene but retreated after receiving heavy weapons fire from the ground. When military units arrived on the ground, they
found the marijuana loaded on trucks abandoned at the site. These alarming facts have led to perhaps the most ominous question
of all: Is the company being infiltrated by the perpetrators of the nations drug business? In light of the increasing number of
incidents President Caldern has acknowledged, there may well be internal operatives at Pemex aiding and abetting the DTOs. For
its part, Pemex is soliciting the help of the Mexican people to try to put a stop to oil looting. Last August, the Mexican government
posted a Pemex press release, in which exhorts that oil looting is not just an unpatriotic crime against the company and the
government, but against the Mexican people. It also offers the number of a hotline where individuals can anonymously report
pipeline breaches. Why the perilous intersection matters The relevance of what is happening in Mexico matters on a variety of
levels, but in particular, there are three broad reasons that bear discussion. First, and as best portrayed in Figure 2, Pemex has
seen its oil production drop precipitously since 2004. The firm has been struggling for the better part of the last decade to deal
with a burdensome tax straitjacket, poor planning at its largest field, a lack of new discoveries of oil and production, and an
inability to implement serious reform. Moreover, by the nature of being dragged intoand becoming part ofMexicos massive

Pemex is clearly suffering from the additional strain and havoc wrought by the
myriad elements of the conflict on its business. From huge financial losses to the increasing inability to control its network and
drug war,

prevent theft to the more serious kidnapping threats, the evidence is only becoming clearer. The second reason concerns Mexicos
fiscal dependency on oil and Pemex. As assorted struggles impact the company's and the nations fiscal well-being, broader and
longer term economic growth and employment discussions become ever more complicated for policy makers. These issues are
particularly critical as the nation appears far from passage of the necessary and far-reaching national tax and fiscal reforms that

all of the above leads to the

further erosion of Mexicos critical role as a secure and constant energy
supplier for the United States and the Western Hemisphere. As oil prices steadily rise in early 2011,
it is quite rational to revisit the significant energy security aspects of Mexicos persistent
energy woes, which are now clearly exacerbated by the overflow of drug war violence and corruption. On the heels of yet
could ameliorate some of the burden on Pemex and the nations oil dependency. Third,
real potential for

another State of the Union address in the United States that included elegant rhetoric about the countrys energy imbalance and
energy security risks, a comprehensive, all of the above approach and solution remains far from reach. Conclusion Clearly oil, and
energy more broadly, is not a sector of the economy where Mexico needs any further impediments. Pemexs huge hurdles derive
largely from its inability to replace declining oil production and navigate a burdensome nationalistic legacy. What is now added to
the combustible mix is an increasing drain on the companys finances and, worse, a sense of trepidation among executives in the
field. Threats against its executives and loss of its resources are surely not a useful element as the company makes efforts to
reform itself. All of the above analysis is of extreme relevance to Mexico for its financial and overall well-beingand especially for
Pemex. It is also critical for North American energy security as the United States, in the wake
of the Deepwater Horizon incident, deals with offshore drilling restrictions and slow downs in the formerly prolific Gulf of Mexico.
Moreover, there are thorny issues surrounding increased production from Canadas oil sands for the US market. This was made
abundantly clear during an early February visit by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the White House. More than 80

concerns do not appear to

make the United States' need to count on Mexico greater

environmental groups used the occasion to send a letter of protest to President Obama. These
have any immediate or simple resolutions and

than ever before.

2NC Link Scenario

2NC- Link Wall

Armed drones key to check Mexican border instability
Becker 13 (Andrew Becker, New Drone Report: Our Border Is Not as Secure
as We Thought,, April 4, 2013)

Thanks to a previously unreported drone flying over the U.S.-Mexico border, we

now know that more people are crossing than previously thoughtand getting
away with it, reports Andrew Becker of the Center for Investigative Reporting. The
U.S. Border Patrol has caught a fraction of the border crossers spotted by a sophisticated sensor mounted on

casting doubts on claims that the

area is more secure than ever, according to documents obtained by the Center for Investigative
unmanned spy aircraft and flown over remote stretches of desert,

Reporting. Will Brazelton from the U.S. Office of Air and Marine (OAM) operates a Predator drone in March from a
flight-operations center near the Mexican border at Fort Huachuca in Sierra Vista, Arizona. (John Moore/Getty)
The border crossers were spotted with a new, all-seeing radar system developed for use in the Afghanistan War
and patrolling above the U.S.-Mexico border in parts of Arizona since March 2012. The system can reveal every
man, woman, and child under its gaze from a height of about 25,000 feet. Between October and December,
records show, the remotely operated aircraft detected 7,333 border crossers during its Arizona missions. Border
Patrol agents, however, reported 410 apprehensions during that time, according to an internal agency report. The
sensor was credited with providing surveillance that led to 52 arrests and 15,135 pounds of seized marijuana.
Dubbed VADER (Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar) and conjuring images of the Star Wars villain, the
sensor can cover a wide swath of land and follow movement as it happens. The system, which is on loan from the
U.S. Army, is used to identify roadside bombers in war zones. Customs and Border Protection officials, who aim to
buy two systems for the agency, have touted the systems effectiveness and testified before Congress that it is
changing the Border Patrols long-term strategy on securing the border. Yet its unique abilities could shine an

The radar system is

providing the Border Patrol with an important snapshot to judge what it calls
situational awarenesswhats actually happening at the border. But it has left
the agency grappling to measure its own success and define security. Using the
uncomfortable light on the agencys ability to effectively patrol the border.

system, remote operators can track vehicles and people on foot in real time and distinguish humans from animals.

The technology allows the aircraft to fly above bad weather or dust storms that
otherwise might ground it, while it sends signals to ground stations that display
the human targets as moving dots or black-and-white images. The internal Customs and
Border Protection intelligence report outlines several limitations of the system, including the obviousit cant tell
the difference between a U.S. citizen and noncitizen. On-the-ground video and other sensors are sometimes
needed to confirm these so-called nefarious tracks. And simply identifying someone crossing the border is just the
first step. On the ground, Border Patrol agents often are not available to respond because of rugged terrain or
other assignments. As a result, thousands of people have slipped through. At the Border Patrol, theyre known as
gotaways. In one week in January, for instance, the sensor detected 355 dismounts, or on-foot movement, on
the U.S. side of the border in Arizona. Border Patrol agents caught 125 of those, about 35 percent, while an
additional 141 people evaded apprehension and 87 more turned back south to Mexico. Two were unaccounted for.

VADER has proven to be an

extremely effective system in countering threats and supporting the ground
commanders mission in theater, Boomer Rizzo, a Department of the Army civilian
who helps run the radar program, said in an email. This sensor can track smaller
and slower moving targets that traditional radar systems are not able to effectively
operate against. As for whether the systems effectiveness has highlighted failures with the nations
The sensor detections led to more than 1,100 pounds of seized drugs.

border security, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Michael Friel said the technology is still being tested
and its accounting is being refined. The initial approach used to count who is caught and who evades arrest after
VADER detections was flawed and reflected an incomplete picture of border enforcement, he said. There is no
silver bullet in border technology.

The border is more secure than ever? Well, thats a

pretty low bar.

Specifically, the agency hadnt accounted for apprehensions once the unmanned spy plane
was no longer patrolling the area or ones made out of its view, he said. As Congress once again takes up

Obama administration officials and others have pointed to the

lowest levels of unauthorized border crossersas measured by Border Patrol
apprehensionsand plummeting crime statistics on the U.S. side as proof that
their methods are working. Conservatives have long said that immigration reform cannot come before
immigration reform,

the border is secure. Immigration-reform supporters, while acknowledging the political need for border security,
say the flood of migrants is a symptom rather than a root cause of complex problems now being addressed by

Amid this debate, unauthorized border traffic has picked up in recent

months in some parts of the country. In the Rio Grande Valley sector in South
Texas, apprehensions jumped to 97,762 last year, an increase of 65 percent from
the previous year, according to internal records. Some border experts speculate
that more immigrants, particularly from Central America, are crossing in recent
months because of excitement about an expected immigration-law overhaul,
federal budget cuts, and the recent release of detained immigrants by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. The border is more secure than ever? Well, thats a
pretty low bar, said Michael Nicley, who retired in 2007 as the Border Patrols
sector chief in Tucson, Arizona. Border Patrol agents would be the first to stick
out their chests and say the border is under control. Thats not what theyre
saying. Agents I talk to down here say were getting hammered. Another recent Border

Patrol report offers more insights into what VADER detects and how that information passes from one shift of onduty agents to the next. The March report highlights various sensor detectionsfrom groups of fewer than 10 to
more than 100 south of the border. One group of nearly 20 wore booties to disguise its tracks. More than eight
hours after VADER spotted them, they were labeled outstanding and passed to the next shift. Border Patrol
Drones A Predator drone takes off on a border-patrol mission from Fort Huachuca in Arizona in October 2007.
(Ross D. Franklin/AP) Originally designed for war zone Defense contractor Northrop Grumman, based in the
Washington, D.C., area, developed VADER for the U.S. Army to counter roadside bombs and other improvised
explosive devices (IEDs) in Afghanistan by detecting enemy combatants as they planted the weapons. The
program was launched in 2006 with sponsorship from the Pentagons research arm, known as the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), to create and test a new radar system within two years. In total,
Northrop Grumman has won about $188 million in related contracts, according to a review of contracting data by
the Center for Investigative Reporting. The Army announced in February that it was awarding a sole-source
contract to Northrop Grumman for continued support of two VADER systems in Afghanistan and a third in the
continental United States through the end of the year. Northrop Grumman referred questions to the U.S. Army,
which said information about the domestic use of the system should come from the Department of Homeland
Security. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, meanwhile, has been involved with the development and testing of

In 2009, the system was deployed along a 31-mile portion of the

Arizona border with Mexico over five days using a Customs and Border Protection
unmanned aircraft, according to a 2011 National Research Council report. The
demonstration was a great success as the system identified suspicious activities
four out of five nights, the report states. Mark Borkowski, a Customs and Border
Protection official, testified before a 2011 House panel of lawmakers that the
system demonstrated significant potential for helping the agency. Legislators, in turn,
the system for years.

have supported the technology with public statements and budget earmarks totaling millions of dollars. Rep.
Candice Miller (R-Michigan), who leads a House subcommittee on border and maritime security, said in a June

This tool is extremely valuable as CBP seeks

to identify and detect changing smuggling patterns, she said. At the same time, Miller
hearing that she was very encouraged by VADER.

and other lawmakers have questioned the use of apprehension statistics as the most accurate way to measure
border security. They have challenged Customs and Border Protection to do a better job of establishing
meaningful measurements of success. The truth is that we need to refine and strengthen the metrics we use to
determine how secure our borders and ports of entry are, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Delaware), chairman of the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement. Nicley, the retired Tucson sector
chief, said a key measurement has always been the number of people who evaded the Border Patrol rather than
apprehensions. Gotaways are readily discernible to the agency, he said, but theyre not made public readily. Its

easy to ascertain how secure the border is, he said. Just compare the number who came across the border and
the number who were caught, but thats not what they want to do. Why arent they doing it? The only logical

The Government
Accountability Office recently reported that the percentage of unauthorized
crossers caught by the Border Patrol has increased in six of the Southwest borders
nine sectors. Some of that increase has been negligible. In the Tucson sector between 2006 and 2011, for
explanation is because the numbers wont be good. Border-crossing data

instance, border apprehensions rose 2 percentage points. Agents there in 2011 caught 64 percent of crossers, up
from 62 percent in 2006.

Drones solve Mexican drug cartels

Ackerman 11 (Spencer Ackerman, U.S. Drones Are Now Sniffing Mexican
Drugs,, March 16, 2011)
Next, the narcocorridos will sing about the pilotless planes above the heads of
their patrons. It used to be that the Department of Homeland Security flew drones over the U.S.-Mexican
border to watch for illegal immigrants. That proliferation of military technology to a civilian mission isnt without
its share of malfunctions: Not only did the communications systems fritz out occasionally, but on at least one

But now the

drones are taking on a new mission: hunting drug gangs in Mexico. According
to a previously undisclosed agreement between President Barack Obama and his
Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon, the Pentagon is authorized to fly unmanned
surveillance flights over Mexico, a big expansion of U.S.-Mexico informationsharing on counternarcotics. One of the drones used for the mission is the Air Forces Global Hawk,
occasion, a small drone owned by the Mexican government crashed into an El Paso backyard.

reports The New York Times. The drone soars at up to 60,000 feet with a multitude of sensors. (Calm down, its
unarmed.) Its not known how many flights the Global Hawk has made above Mexico. But the Times reports that

drones helped catch the killers of Jaime Zapata. He was one of two special
agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement service who were shot
on the road between Mexico City and Monterrey. The drone flights are part of an
expansion of U.S.-Mexican antidrug cooperation thats risen to match the furious
violence brought by the drug cartels. (Violence, the Mexican government is quick
to point out, that relies on trafficked American guns.) In the heart of Mexico City, at 265 Paseo

de la Reforma, an office building is stacked with U.S. intelligence, law enforcement and military officials from the
FBI, CIA, NSA and many other agencies. According to the Times, a second fusion center to merge U.S. and
Mexican intel will soon open. Its not clear if that center, the previous one or a different facility receives data
swooped up by the Global Hawks. Nor is it clear what role if any the Mexican government plays in directing the
drone flights. An anonymous U.S. official quoted by the Times Ginger Thompson and Mark Mazzetti asserts that
counternarcotics activities [are] conducted at the request and direction of the Mexican government. Still,
welcome to yet another civilian mission for the drones. A much smaller unmanned spy vehicle, colloquially known
as the Flying Beer Keg, is now in the hands of Miami-Dade police (who, it should be noted, also hunt for drugs, if
Rick Ross is to be believed). And, while the Department of Homeland Security isnt so enthusiastic about using
drones for bomb detection inside the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration is slowly warming to the
idea of remotely piloted planes inside U.S. airspace. There are also Global Hawks flying in support of Japans
earthquake- and tsunami-relief efforts. No wonder Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Air Force that the era

Terrorists and insurgents have already

had to make adjustments to the drones hunting them overhead. Now its the
cartels turn to adjust.
of the drone will outlast the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Prevent spillover
Booth 11 (William Booth, More Predator drones fly U.S.-Mexico border,, December 21, 2011)

cutting edge of homeland security, where federal law

enforcement authorities are rapidly expanding a military-style unmanned aerial
reconnaissance operation along the U.S.-Mexico border a region that privacy watchdogs
say includes a lot of American back yards. Fans of the Predators say the $20 million aircraft are
a perfect platform to keep a watchful eye on Americas rugged borders, but critics
This is the semi-covert

say the drones are expensive, invasive and finicky toys that have done little compared with what Border Patrol
agents do on the ground to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smugglers or terrorists. Over Arizona, the
Predator circled a ranch, as unseen and silent as a hunting owl. On a bank of computer screens, the monitoring
team watched the truck, which appeared in ghostly infrared black and white, turn and pull up by a mobile home.
In the yard, three sleeping dogs quickly woke up, their tails wagging. Welcome home, one of the agents said.

popular security solution

Eight Predators fly for the Customs and Border Protection agency five, and
soon to be six, along the southwestern border. After a slow rollout that began in 2005, drones now patrol most of

For supporters, Predators are the

new, sexy, futuristic fix for immigration control. They are irresistible to border hawks and the
Drone Caucus in Congress, who consider the aircraft a must-have technology to meet the
threat of spillover violence yet unrealized from Mexican drug cartels.
the southern boundary, from Yuma, Ariz., to Brownsville, Tex.

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) has said that the drones are so popular that a Predator could be elected president.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) pronounced domestic drones invaluable. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) called them
ideal for border security and counter-drug missions. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a GOP presidential contender, argues

the solution to security along the frontier is not a border fence but more
Predators. In his trips to testify on Capitol Hill, Michael Kostelnik, the retired Air Force general and former

test pilot who runs the Office of Air and Marine for the CBP, said he has never been challenged in Congress about
the appropriate use of domestic drones. Instead, the question is: Why cant we have more of them in my district?
Kostelnik said. Planning documents for the CBP envision as many as 24 Predators and their maritime variants in
the air by 2016, giving the agency the ability to deploy a drone anywhere over the continental United States
within three hours. The drones, though operated by the CBP, have been deployed to assist sister law enforcement
agencies. This month, the Los Angeles Times reported that Predators were used in North Dakota to help police
run down a trio of ordinary crime suspects in a cow pasture. These unarmed Predator Bs are the same as the
aircraft known for lethal hunter-killer missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, except they dont carry the
missile package. One of the first Predators deployed by the border service crashed in 2006 when its remote pilot,
a contractor for the plane manufacturer General Atomics, turned off the engine by mistake. The plane missed a
residential area by 1,000 feet as it plunged. U.S. protocols require the drones to stay on the American side of the
Rio Grande. We dont do Mexico, said Lothar Eckardt, director of the Homeland Security Departments National
Air Security Operations Center in Corpus Christi. But the aerial platforms do peer a little over the fence into
Mexico. What can they see? We can see cows, pigs, coyotes, sometimes rabbits, Lothar said. At 20,000 feet, you

can see Border Patrol, but not their uniforms, and so we can communicate with
them and say, Wave your arms, and that way we can distinguish between our
guys and the bad guys.
can see windshield wipers, you can see if a person is running or walking, you can see backpacks sometimes.

Politics DA Links

1NC- Armed Drones Popular

Congress is on board with armed drone surveillance- restriction
Hill 12 (Kashmir Hill, Forbes, Congress Welcomes The Drones,, February 7, 2012)
Congress says, 'Bring in the drones!' The Senate passed a
$63 billion bill Monday to provide four years of funding for the F ederal Aviation Administration. One of the
provisions of the Reauthorization Act is that the FAA clear the path for wider spread use of
drones (a.k.a. unmanned aircraft) for governmental and commercial purposes. Within 90 days, the FAA has to speed up the
Congress Welcomes The Drones

process by which government agencies and law enforcement can get permission to use drones, and by 2015, it has to start
allowing commercial use of drones: The FAA is also required under the bill to provide military, commercial and privately-owned
drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace currently reserved for manned aircraft by Sept. 30, 2015. That means permitting
unmanned drones controlled by remote operators on the ground to fly in the same airspace as airliners, cargo planes, business jets
and private aircraft. via Congress OKs FAA bill allowing drones in U.S., GPS air traffic control Currently,
private use of drones is basically limited to hobbyists, and they have to keep the drones under 400 feet and within their line of
sight. Once the FAA changes the rules, a company such as Google for example could finally buy drones and use them for mapping
purposes. Yes, we may finally have Google Street Drone View. Currently, the FAA restricts drone use primarily to segregated
blocks of military airspace, border patrols and about 300 public agencies and their private partners. Those public agencies are
mainly restricted to flying small unmanned aircraft at low altitudes away from airports and urban centers. Within nine months of
the bills passage, the FAA is required to submit a plan on how to safely provide drones with expanded access. via Congress OKs
FAA bill allowing drones in U.S., GPS air traffic control

Drones are already being used

to patrol our borders (and occasionally to catch cattle rustlers), but their use beyond that is very limited. This Act
will change that. We are looking at border security using UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles)
research, law enforcement, firefighting, just to name a few, said Texas Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison. There are going to be more and more uses for unmanned aerial vehicles to
be able to do the surveillance and photographing that have taken helicopter pilots
and small general aviation and even large aircraft to do in the past.

2NC- Armed Drones Popular

Armed drone surveillance popular- funding proves
Jones 13 (Trahern Jones, Cronkite Borderlands Initiative, U.S. Set to Deploy
More Drones Along U.S. Borders, Despite Concerns about Effectiveness and Cost,
Despite critical reports saying that the use of drones to patrol the nations
borders is inefficient and costly, the leading Congressional proposal for
immigration reform would drastically expand their use . In fact, the compromise bill would

have U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which currently has a fleet of 10 Predator drones, using the unmanned aircraft to patrol
the southern border with Mexico 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An expanded drone program is also sure to draw the ire of
privacy advocates who already worry that increasing use of unmanned aircraft will result in intrusive surveillance of U.S. citizens.
The proposal for around-the-clock drone use flies in the face of recent reports from the Government Accountability Office and the
Office of the Inspector General. In a 2012 report, the OIG estimated that the agency only used its current Predator fleet about 40
percent of time the time it had projected for use of the crafts. The same report criticized CBP for failing to obtain reimbursement
for missions flown on stakeholders behalf, such as U.S. Border Patrol, local law enforcement or emergency organizations, like
FEMA. Criticism of the program also came in 2012 GAO report that said drone program staff frequently had to be relocated from
other regions to support Predator operations on the southwestern border. In spite of such measures, the report noted that air
support requests were more often left unfulfilled in this high-priority region when compared to lower-priority areas like the
Canadian border. Initiated in 2005 at a cost of nearly $18 million for each of the 10 drones and their support systems, the use of
unmanned aircraft is a relatively new tool for the Custom and Border Protections Office of Air and Marine. While agency officials
say that the program is useful in border surveillance, Predator aircraft cannot be launched on a 24/7 basis due to weather
conditions and safety regulations. Unmanned aerial vehicles are usually restricted to regions and altitudes where other aircraft do
not share the same airspace in order to prevent mid-air collisions. Thats why CBPs Predator fleet almost always flies at night,
further limiting potential operational hours. During an April visit to the National Air Security Operations Center in Corpus Christi,
Texas, which controls Predator flights over the Rio Grande, Cronkite student reporters observed that high winds deterred launches
for four days. A tire-puncturing device used by drug smugglers to evade Border Patrol agents. Known as 'caltrops,' such devices
are made from steel nails welded together. Photo by Trahern W. Jones. SLIDESHOW: A tire-puncturing device used by drug
smugglers to evade Border Patrol agents. Known as "caltrops," such devices are made from steel nails welded together. Photo by
Trahern W. Jones A pilot for the program, who requested to be unnamed for security reasons, described some of the challenges the
agency has had in learning the new systems. Were bringing our people up and getting more experience, he said. The
technology changes; they can change the software. They can give us new payloads. Things come pretty fast in the unmanned
aircraft world as opposed to the manned aviation world. The drones fly for an average of seven to nine hours a mission, often
covering many miles of uninhabited deserts, rivers and forests. CBPs Predator aircraft are equipped with high-tech cameras and
communications equipment to coordinate with Border Patrol and first responder agencies on the ground. Unlike the Predator
program used in overseas military missions, CBPs fleet does not carry weapons payloads. The aircraft often provide useful
information for agents in complex situations or difficult-to-reach areas, according to Hector Black, border patrol associate Chief,
and the agencys liaison with CBPs Office of Air and Marine at the Corpus Christi Predator Operations Center. When we come
across something, well contact the guys on the ground, Black said in a phone interview. Rather than sending agents in their
vehicle, where it may take an hour and a half or two hours to get out and look at these areas, we can cover it in five or ten minutes
with this aircraft. The camera equipment aboard CBP Predators is sophisticated enough, according to Black, that even from an
altitude of many thousands of feet, you can actually zoom in and get street names. While the same camera equipment can be
found on the agencys manned aircraft, the Predators longer flying time allows for increased surveillance and more immediate
responsiveness to situations on the ground, according to CBP officials. In attempting to measure the successes or failures of the
program, Black cautioned that metrics like apprehensions, seizures or flight hours might not be appropriate. Predator missions are
often used for intelligence-gathering purposes, alongside interceptions of illegal crossings. A more subtle measure of drones
effectiveness is how they impact smuggling patterns in areas they patrol, Black said. First well see a spike in apprehensions in
those zones, and then the spikes will start to show a direct downward trend, he noted. Not everyone is convinced of their
effectiveness, however. The perceived shortfalls noted by the GAO and OIG represent a systemic problem, according to Ed Herlik,
a researcher with Market Info Group, an aviation and defense analysis firm. They already dont fly their Predators much at all,
Herlik said in a phone interview. We ran the numbers. Part of the time there are no Predators in the air anywhere in the nation
and most of the time there might be one. Now, of course they can launch two or three or five if they want to, he added, but

The reason for the

programs existence in the first place may have had more to do with the politics of
border security than actual need, according to Herlik. The Predators were forced on them he said. Herlik
explained that such systems were adapted from their wartime purposes in Iraq and Afghanistan for domestic use. Congress
wanted Predators over the border, therefore it happened , Herlik said. The fact that
they almost never do, just by running the averages from what they report from flight times.

theyre not tremendously useful is not helpful.

2NC- Drone Caucus Link

Our evidence is comparative- massive lobbying funding for
armed border patrolling
Martin and Viveca 12 (Gary Martin and Viveca Novak, Drones: Despite
Problems, A Push to Expand Domestic Use,,
November 27, 2012)
WASHINGTON Are unmanned aircraft, known to have difficulty avoiding collisions, safe to use in Americas crowded airspace? And would their
widespread use for surveillance result in unconstitutional invasions of privacy? Experts say neither question has been answered satisfactorily. Yet the
federal government is rushing to open Americas skies to tens of thousands of the drones pushed to do so by a law championed by manufacturers of

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. And
over the last four years, caucus members have drawn nearly $8 million in drone-related campaign
contributions, an investigation by Hearst Newspapers and the Center for Responsive Politics shows. The Federal Aviation
Administration has been flooded with applications from police departments, universities and private corporations,
all seeking to use drones that range from devices the size of a hummingbird to full-sized aircraft like those used by
the U.S. military to target al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and elsewhere. PATROLLING THE
BORDER Domestic use of drones began with limited aerial patrols of the nations borders by
Customs and Border Patrol authorities. But the industry and its allies pushed for more , leading to
the unmanned aircraft. The

provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, signed into law on Feb. 14 of this year. cuellar.jpgThe law requires the FAA to fully integrate the
unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, into national airspace by September 2015. And it contains a series of interim deadlines leading up to that one: This
month, the agency was supposed to produce a comprehensive plan for the integration, and in August it was required to have a plan for testing at six
different sites in the U.S. Neither plan has been issued. These timelines are very aggressive, said Heidi Williams, a vice president of the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, one of the stakeholders taking part in a working group put together by the FAA to help develop a regulatory plan. These
issues are very complex, and we have a long way to go. Many potential uses for unmanned aircraft, which are cheaper to operate than piloted planes or
helicopters, have been identified. Among them: monitoring pipelines and power lines, finding lost hikers, surveying crops, and assessing environmental
threats and damage from natural disasters. The FAA has predicted that 30,000 drones could be flying in the United States in less than 20 years, sharing
space with commercial, military and general aviation. An FAA official, who spoke on background, said one of the main safety issues with drones is lack
of ability to sense and avoid other aircraft. A September report by the Government Accountability Office identified the same concern: Obstacles
include the inability . . . to sense and avoid other airborne objects in a manner similar to manned aircraft. In addition, the GAO report said, Concerns
about national security, privacy and interference with Global Positioning System signals have not been resolved. FAA Administrator Michael Huerta told
a conference on drones earlier this year in Las Vegas that the agency is making progress working through the issues. FAA is working with collision
avoidance experts from the Defense Department, NASA and private firms to determine what standards and requirements should be set. SOURCES OF

members from California, Texas, Virginia and New York on the bipartisan drone caucus
received the lions share of the funds channeled to lawmakers from dozens of firms

that are members of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Hearst and CRP found. Eleven drone caucus lawmakers from
California, where many aviation firms are located, received more than $2.4 million from manufacturers political action committees and employees
during the 2012 and 2010 election cycles, according to CRP tabulation of Federal Election Commission reports. Eight Texas House members in the
caucus received more than $746,000. And four caucus members from New York got more than $185,000 from companies connected to the business of
unmanned vehicles. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, said drone manufacturers contribute just as other interest groups do. We get contributions from
media PACs, from teachers, from doctors and from a whole lot of companies that produce drones, Cuellar said. EDUCATING LAWMAKERS The House
drone caucus was established three years ago. Senate lawmakers followed suit this fall. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., co-chairman of the fledgling
Senate drone caucus, said the caucus would help frame future legislation because the use of drones carries great potential and great risk. The
Senate caucus has only eight members, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Gillibrand did not return a request for comment. Cuellar also said the
purpose of the House caucus is to educate other members on the need for and uses of drones for public safety, border enforcement, search-and-rescue
and commercial uses. mckeon.jpgThe global market for drones is expected to double in the next decade, from $6.6 billion to $11.4 billion, and could top
$2.4 billion in the U.S. alone, said Philip Finnegan, director of corporate analysis with the Teal Group, an independent research group which studies the
industry. Growth in UAV technology and operations is encouraged by AUVSI, which represents drone and systems manufacturers. AUVSI firms have
been far more generous to Republicans than Democrats when it comes to campaign donations. According to CRP analysis, GOP drone caucus members
received 74 percent of the groups donations. In the House, the top recipient was Rep. Howard Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee. He received $833,650 in drone-related campaign contributions. McKeon and Cuellar are co-chairmen of the caucus. Other
Republican California lawmakers Reps. Darrell Issa, Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter and Ken Calvert each received more than $200,000 from drone
firms. And in Texas, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, a former U.S. Border Patrol sector chief who lost his seat in the Democratic primary, received
$310,000. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on oversight, received $100,000, and Cuellar

with drone aircraft currently used by the military , but with potential civilian applications, were
among the largest donors to caucus members. Those firms include BAE
Systems, which makes the Mantis and Taranis drones; Boeing Co., maker of the hydrogen-fueled Phantom Eye; Honeywell International,
RQ-16 T-Hawk; Lockheed Martin, RQ-170 Sentinel; Raytheon Co., Cobra; and General Atomics,
Predator. PRIVACY CONCERNS mccaul.jpgSome lawmakers remain skeptical. Along with civil rights advocates, they worry over government
received almost $77,000. The two have pushed for drone surveillance of the U.S.-Mexico border. CRPs analysis also showed that

eavesdropping, surveillance photography and other potential privacy violations. The drones are coming, shouted Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, earlier this
year from the House floor, as he warned of encroachment by government into the rights of citizens. A North Dakota court upheld the arrest of a Lakota,
N.D., farmer by a police SWAT team using information from a Customs and Border Protection Predator drone over the northern U.S.-Canadian border.
The June 2011 incident began when several cows found their way to Rodney Bossarts 3,000-acre farm. He claimed ownership of the wayward bovines
and allegedly brandished firearms at law enforcement officials. During the ensuing standoff, a SWAT team received surveillance information from
Customs and Border Protection, gathered from a high-flying Predator drone. That information was used to locate and arrest the farmer. The Bossart
case was apparently the first use of national security surveillance to aid the arrest of a U.S. citizen on non-terror-related charges. More such cases
should be expected, said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union. Based on current trends, technology development,
law enforcement interest, political and industry pressure, and the lack of legal safeguards it is clear that drones pose a looming threat to Americans
privacy, Stanley said. Law enforcement agencies say drones will better protect the safety of officers and the public in dangerous situations, and can be
used for search and rescue during natural disasters. They have joined drone manufacturers in pressuring Congress to relax limitations. vanguard
shadowhawk.jpgLast year the sheriff of Montgomery County, north of Houston, purchased a $300,000 Vanguard Shadowhawk a small unmanned
helicopter with a grant provided by the Department of Homeland Security. But deputies have yet to use the drone, mainly because of FAA restrictions,
said Randy McDaniel, the Montgomery County chief deputy. McDaniel created an Internet stir a couple of years ago when he mentioned that drones
could be armed with rubber bullets or tear gas, something he now says will never happen. This year McDaniel told Congress that FAA restrictions were
making it difficult to use the drone. He said the agency denied use of the drone during a raid on a compound with pit bulls because there was no
demonstrated potential loss of life. The FAA limits, as well as maintenance costs, battery-life problems and poor video quality, prompted the Texas
Department of Public Safety to discontinue its $298,000 drone program in 2010. The four hand-held WASP drones were used in fewer than 10 missions
in two years. SEEKING NEW OVERSIGHT Law enforcement officials are lobbying lawmakers to shift the oversight for use of drones from FAA to the
Department of Homeland Security. That position is supported by McCaul, who said DHS has more familiarity with drones and is best equipped to handle
a potential risk of hijacking by terrorists. Hes alarmed at the lack of federal preparation for the influx of drones, particularly in light of the Sept. 11,
2001 terrorist attacks. Anxiety over the possibility of drones falling into terrorist hands is bipartisan. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., said civilian drones
pose an emerging threat that needs to be addressed. While law enforcement has complained the FAA regulations are too confining, others believe that
the rules are too lenient. Seattle police held a public meeting in October to try to allay citizens concerns over two Draganflyer X6 drones it purchased
with an $82,000 DHS grant. The crowded meeting was disrupted with protesters shouting No drones! No drones! Seattle is working with the FAA on
guidelines to use the craft. Right now, all we are allowed to use them for is training, said Detective Mark Jamieson. Leonard Montgomery, the police
chief of North Little Rock, Ark., says privacy is a nonissue for his department. We have no plans to surveil peoples back yards, he said. The privacy

[W]e support pending legislation

to prevent unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance with
the exception of patrolling our national borders. The Fourth Amendment governs when, where and
issue also bothers both Democrats and Republicans. This years Republican platform stated:

how the government can gather information on an individual, including whether officials need a search warrant before acting. Courts have given the
greatest protection to people when theyre in the privacy of their homes. For instance, in a 2001 Supreme Court case, the justices nixed the Interior
Departments use of thermal imaging to detect heat patterns coming from the home of someone suspected of growing marijuana indoors using heat
lamps, saying it was an illegal search and required a warrant. The courts reasoning relied in part on the fact that the technology was not in general
public use. Thats language that might be applicable to drones using cameras to get glimpses of individuals inside their homes. NOT JUST POLICE
Outside a homes walls, though, privacy rights decrease. Courts blessed an arrest after a flyover by police revealed marijuana growing in someones
back yard. ed.markey.jpgLiberal Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have crafted legislation to put a tight rein on
drone use. Privacy advocates note that not just the police, but individuals and commercial enterprises will be using the devices. Paparazzi are already
using small drones on the Riviera to shoot photos of celebrities in otherwise hard-to-access areas. Texas Poe has offered another bill, which would ban
private citizens from using drones to spy on other citizens and strictly limit law enforcement use of drones. The Constitution limits eavesdropping,
snooping and spying on American citizens, Poe said. Customs and Border Protections use of drones began in 2004, when the agency began tests on
the craft along the U.S.-Mexico border. CBP has 10 drones operating along U.S. borders, including two stationed in South Texas and two operating out of
Arizona. Other CBP Predators are based in Grand Forks, N.D., and Cocoa Beach, Fla. The drones costs approximately $4 million apiece, and CBP wants
to expand its fleet from 10 to 24 within the next decade, according to Retired Maj. Gen. Michael Kostelnik, an assistant CBP commissioner. The need for
personnel to operate military drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan has created a shortage of trained operators for domestic drones. In June 2010, a
Predator drone flying to Texas from Arizona experienced a lost-link incident, when the craft and operators lost radio contact for roughly 30 seconds.
That forced the drone to automatically drop to a lower altitude until recovery. NTSB and congressional aides said the incident occurred when the radio
signal to the drone was blocked by severe weather. In 2006 a Predator crashed near the border city of Nogales, Ariz., just missing homes on a hillside.
NTSB ruled the cause of the crash was human error. Kostelnik said he is confident about the Predator in terms of safety to the national airspace, in

General Atomics, the builder of the Predator, supported

lawmakers with more than $287,000 in campaign contributions in the 2012 election cycle,
terms of safety to the public.

according to CRP research.

The drones lobby is incredibly influential

Replogle 6/5/12 (Jill, Fronteras, Investigative Newsource and Reporter Sam
Greenspan Contributed to this Story, The Drone Makers and Their Friends in
SAN DIEGO -- Youve probably heard of the Congressional Black Caucus, or
perhaps the Progressive Caucus. But what about the drone caucus? Officially, its
the Unmanned Systems Caucus. Primarily, the caucus advocates for drones
those pilot-less planes infamous for their role targeting insurgents in Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Theyre used as a spy tool in Iran, a drug-fighting tool in Mexico and
an anti-smuggling tool along the U.S.-Mexico border. Many of the most successful
drone manufacturers are based in Southern California and elsewhere around the
southwest. The drone caucus like the technology it promotes is becoming
increasingly important in the nations capitol as the government looks to
unmanned vehicles to help save money on defense, better patrol the countrys

borders and provide a new tool to U.S. law enforcement agencies and civilians.
Its definitely a powerful caucus, said Alex Bronstein-Moffly, an analyst with
First Street Research Group, a D.C.-based company that analyzes lobbying data.
Its probably up there in the more powerful caucuses that sort of is not talked
about. And, he says, caucus members are well placed to influence
government spending and regulations. You have members that are tapped
into sort of key places," he said. You also have members who have been around
for a long time."

2NC- Turf Battle Link

Plan reignites turf battles about Congressional oversight
Munoz, 13 -- The Hill staff writer, covering Defense and National Security
[Carlo, "Turf battle builds quietly in Congress over control of armed drone
program," The Hill, 4-9-13,, accessed 5-23-13, mss]

fight is a typical battle over who on Capitol Hill will retain power over the program,
There is always going to be a turf
battle when dealing with congressional oversight , said Lawrence Korb, a former DOD official
and defense analyst at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. But that battle could become
particularly heated, given the high-profile nature of the drone program , which since the
according to several analysts, who described it as predictable.

Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has become a huge factor in shaping counterterrorism policy, given its success, Korb said.
For congressional panels, the fight over who will control the drone program will have a say in the relevancy of
the two committees.

***ON CASE***

Domestic Drones Industry

1NC- Domestic Drones

Obama policy already solved- set the precedent for no armed
Franke-Ruta 13 (Garance Franke-Ruta, former senior editor covering national
politics at The Atlantic, The Atlantic, Obama's Domestic Drone Standard Is Now
Tighter Than Rand Paul's,, May 23, 2013)
There should be no armed drones over the U.S. under any president, Obama says.
President Obama's speech at the National Defense University Thursday offered a nuanced defense of the U.S.
drone program against Islamic militants in hard-to-reach areas of the world as the best of a bad set of military
options for fighting those who want to kill American civilians. The drone program costs fewer American military
and foreign civilian lives than would use of more conventional weapons or strategies, the president said, but still

president also laid out what the standard should be for domestic use of armed but unmanned
aerial vehicles: They should not be used. "For the record, I do not believe it would be
should only be used when the "detention and prosecution of terrorists" is "foreclosed" as an approach.

constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due
process," Obama said. "Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil." Let me repeat the second
part of that quote, since this has been such a controversial and much-discussed topic: "Nor should any president
deploy armed drones over U.S. soil." That's the standard. No armed drones over U.S. soil.
Obama's justification for the use of drones overseas involved an array of circumstances, but significant among the
factors he listed were the geographic and geopolitical challenges in using conventional force in "remote tribal
regions," "caves and walled compounds," and "empty deserts and rugged mountains" where "the state has only
the most tenuous reach" and the presence of conventional or special forces could trigger "a firefight with
surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us" or "a major international crisis." None of that describes
the United States. Obama's articulated standard for the domestic use of armed drones -- no president should use
them -- is tougher than the one the president's Republican critics in the U.S. Senate had been demanding. Sen.
Ted Cruz of Texas has suggested an imminent threat standard for the domestic use of armed drones, saying in
March, "It is unequivocal that if the U.S. government were to use a drone to take the life of a U.S. citizen on U.S.
soil and that individual did not pose an imminent threat that would be a deprivation of life without due process."
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who in March held a nearly 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to be CIA
director over the domestic drone-deployment question, endorsed a similar imminent threat standard in remarks in
April. "I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime
going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone
kills him or a policeman kills him," Paul told Fox Business's Neil Cavuto. "If there's a killer on the loose in a
neighborhood, I'm not against drones being used," he added. A number of Paul critics called those remarks a flipflop from what he'd said during his filibuster: "[N]o American should be killed by a drone on American soil without
first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." Paul's office objected that
picking that one quote out of his hours of remarks during the filibuster overlooked his earlier articulation of the
imminent threat standard. "Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations," Paul said in a
statement. "They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing,
imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster." And, in fact, Paul did make that
point clear, saying in March that he made an exception in his objection to using armed drones domestically for
"someone with a bazooka, a grenade launcher on their shoulder. Anyone committing lethal force can be repelled
with lethal force. No one argues that point.... No one is questioning whether the U.S. can repel an attack. No one

If no armed
drones are to be used over U.S. soil, they certainly are not going to be used by
a local police force against someone with a bazooka who could, presumably, be taken out by a sniper, a
is questioning whether your local police can repel an attack." But President Obama just did:

S.W.A.T. team, or some other domestic law enforcement approach using conventional weapons. Today's
presidential statement should but likely will not lay to rest the lingering controversy started by Paul in response to
a hypothetical scenario laid out by Attorney General Eric Holder in a March response to a February query from

"The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and
has no intention of doing so," Holder wrote to Paul on March 4. "As a policy matter, moreover, we

reject the use of military force where well-established law-enforcement authorities in this country provide the best
means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."

And the domestic drone industry is resilient- billion dollar

Thompson 15 (Cadie Thompson, CNBC, Heres where the real money is in
drones,, May 13, 2015)
The drone industry is expected to climb to a whopping $8.4 billion by 2019, according to
ABI Research. But most of that growth won't come from selling hardware. Instead, it's all the applications
and services on top of the hardware (sometimes literally), that hold the big opportunity,
said industry experts. All about commercial drone services "Application services, data services, licensing and legal
servicesonce you start adding all of this into the mix, the size of the marketplace starts growing very, very
quickly," said Dan Kara, an ABI Research analyst, at the RoboUniverse Conference this week in New York. "The
money to be made is actually in the application space to a large degree," he said. Companies playing in this space
include those like PrecisionHawkwhich combines unmanned aerial systems with information delivery and
sensing technologies to enhance business operations for a slew of different industriesand Airware, a developer
of drone software, hardware and cloud services. "So the services [offered by drones] are stored, manipulated and
optimized depending on what you are looking for. It's then georeferenced and tagged in a way that you can access
that data in the cloud," Kara said. "So really what it is is not a drone delivery platform, it's actually an information
services architecture." Last month, Airware launched an operating system for commercial drones to help big
companies both scale their drone operations, and to help them adhere to safety regulations and insurance
requirements. Read More Drone driver Airware ready to take flight "Big companies like GE, they can take a small
consumer system, and they can take some pictures, but what happens when they need to use hundreds of them?"
said Jesse Kallman, director of business development and regulatory affairs for Airware. "How do you do that
safely and reliably? How do you do that at scale? How do you get certification for these types of systems?"
Kallman said. "[Big companies] are not going to use this technology unless it's proven to be safe," he said. Read
More FAA makes big step for drones Follow the money In total, VC funding in drone companies was more than
$108 million across 29 deals in 2014, according to data from CB Insights. According to the research firm, Airware
was the best-funded drone start-up in 2014, having raised a total of $40 million from venture capital firms
including Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, Andreessen Horowitz and First Round Capital. Last month, the company
also received an undisclosed investment amount from Intel Capital, which is also invested in PrecisionHawk. "It's
a data play. We are going to sell servers and we are going to sell chipsets based on getting this new class of
information that we couldn't get before in the same degree in the same amounts," Kara said. Traditional drone

suppliers both in the consumer and military space are aware this is where the
money is flowing and are all trying to get a piece of the action, he said. For example,
more consumer-focused drone makers are adding more advanced capabilities, and military drones, which are
typically single-purpose, are beginning to add more technologies so that they can be used for many different
scenarios. "Every drone supplier knows this, they recognize this. So you see the military and civil guys moving
down and adding new technologies and the prosumer folks are also upgrading their systems," Kara said.

2NC- Domestic Drones Inevitable

FAA regulations solve- safe drone use inevitable
Whitlock 15 (Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, FAA rules might allow
thousands of business drones,, February 15, 2015)
Thousands of businesses could receive clearance to fly drones two years from
now under proposed rules that the Federal Aviation Administration unveiled Sunday, a landmark step that
will make automated flight more commonplace in the nations skies. Meanwhile,
the White House on Sunday issued presidential directive that will require federal agencies for the first time to publicly disclose
where they fly drones in the United States and what they do with the torrents of data collected from aerial surveillance.

Together, the FAA regulations and the White House order provide some basic rules of the sky
that will govern who can fly drones in the United States and under what conditions, while attempting to
prevent aviation disasters and unrestrained government surveillance. The FAAs draft rules would
make it relatively simple for real estate agents, aerial photographers, police departments, farmers and anyone else to fly small
drones for work purposes. Operators would need to pass a written proficiency test, register the drone and pay about $200 in fees

The long-awaited regulations

the FAA had been drawing them up for several years are expected to lead to a revolution in
commercial aviation. But they must first undergo a lengthy period of public review and comment that is projected
to take at least until early 2017. Once the rules are finalized, the FAA estimates that more than 7,000
businesses will obtain drone permits within three years. Drone crashes during House committee
but would not have to obtain a regular pilots license or demonstrate their flying skills.

hearing(1:15) Colin Quinn of 3D Robotics led a demonstration of a drone in flight during a House Science subcommittee meeting
on unmanned aircrafts. (AP) Were putting forward what we believe to be the safest possible approach at the moment, but of
course we look forward to hearing back from the public, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters Sunday on a
conference call. The proposed regulations carry some significant limitations. Businesses would be allowed to fly drones only
during daylight hours. And drones would have to remain within eyesight of the operator or observers posted on the ground. The
drones could fly no more than 100 mph and would have to stay below an altitude of 500 feet to avoid the risk of colliding with
other aircraft. They would also be prohibited from flying over bystanders not directly involved in their operation. As a result,
companies would not be permitted to fly drones over long distances. That would effectively preclude companies such as pizza
makers, and newspaper companies from delivering goods to customers doorsteps via drone (Amazons chief
executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, also owns The Washington Post). The rules, however, are expected to be modified and loosened over the
coming decade as drone technology advances. Unlike with regular aircraft, the FAA would not require drone operators or
manufacturers to certify in advance that the drones are safe to fly. Michael Huerta, head of the FAA, said such a requirement is
unnecessary because small drones pose the least amount of risk to our airspace. The regulations would apply only to drones
weighing 55 pounds or less. The FAA is still drafting rules for larger drones, and those are expected to take several more years to
sort out. In addition, FAA officials said they are considering a separate set of rules for micro-drones that weigh less than 4.4
pounds. Under those rules, operators would not have to pass any kind of test; they would only have to submit a written statement
to the FAA promising that they were familiar with basic aviation safety measures. The proposed FAA rules for small drones would
not apply to people who fly drones for fun or for recreational purposes. Small hobby drones have become hugely popular in the
United States, but under a law passed by Congress in 2012, the FAA is largely prohibited from regulating them as long as they do
not interfere with air traffic. Congress also ordered the FAA to integrate drones into the national airspace by September 2015.
Bogged down by staff shortages and a slow-moving regulatory structure, however, the FAA has been slow to keep up with rapid
technological advances in the drone industry and has missed several deadlines to introduce regulations. Until now, the FAA has
relied on an interim patchwork of guidelines. Businesses are prohibited from flying drones without special approval. Recreational
drone flights are allowed as long as the aircraft stay below 400 feet and five miles away from an airport. The military and other
government agencies need a certificate to fly in civilian airspace. The guidelines, however, have been routinely ignored by drone
enthusiasts. Pilots across the United States have reported a surge in near-collisions with small unlicensed drones, presenting a
major threat to aviation safety. Huerta, the FAA administrator, said the agencys gradual approach to adopting regulations, despite
pressure from the drone industry to move faster, was designed to enhance safety. We need to do this in a staged way that ensures
the highest levels of safety, because thats what people expect, he told reporters. When asked how the FAA would verify that
drone pilots get a license and do not flout safety restrictions, Huerta said the agency relies on public education campaigns but also
has enforcement tools, such as the power to levy fines, at its disposal. What we want to do is ensure that anyone who is flying in a
careless or reckless manner that would be endangering the public or other users of the airspace, that we take appropriate
enforcement action, he said. In reality, FAA officials have acknowledged that it is extremely difficult to police the skies or crack
down on rogue drone pilots. Most drones are too small to appear on radar. And even when they are spotted near airports or
intruding into congested airspace, it is hard to chase them, much less to track down whoever is flying them by remote control.
Although the proposed regulations announced Sunday are tailored for commercial drones, they are expected to trigger a huge
expansion in drone use by government agencies, such as police and fire departments. Under current rules, agencies must go
through a cumbersome application process to win FAA approval to fly drones, determined on a case-by-case basis. The new
regulations would lift many of those obstacles. Law enforcement agencies could fly their own drones to conduct surveillance or
could hire a contractor to do so. The FAA and the White House had intended to unveil their drone rules later this month. But an

official document highlighting some of the proposed regulations was inadvertently posted on a federal Web site Friday night,
prompting the Obama administration to announce the changes in the middle of a holiday weekend.

While the FAA rules

are designed to exploit the economic potential of drones without jeopardizing aviation safety, the
order issued Sunday by President Obama is intended to safeguard personal privacy and require the federal
government to be more forthcoming about when and where it uses drones to conduct surveillance. All federal agencies, for
example, would have to disclose where they conduct drone operations within the United States, as
well as their policies for storing and protecting personal information collected from surveillance flights. Agencies would also have

The order will have a

large impact on the Defense Department and law enforcement agencies such
as the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, which uses drones to patrol the nations
borders. The FBI has been especially secretive about its drone operations, even ducking lawmakers queries about how many
it has and how often they are used. It is a very big deal and a very positive step, said Lisa
to issue an annual report detailing the types of missions they flew in the previous year.

Ellman, a former Justice Department official who helped prepare the presidential order and works on drone issues as a lawyer in
private practice. The agencies, she said, understand that even with all the benefits of drones, the American public has concerns

Obama directed the Commerce

Department to work with companies and the drone industry to develop a
voluntary code of conduct for the private sector regarding surveillance and
privacy protections.
concerns about privacy and concerns about accountability. In addition,

Congress and states regulations solve- theyre inevitable

Fox 13 (Fox News, Lawmakers eye regulating domestic surveillance drones,,
May 19, 2013)
April 27, 2012: Seattle Police officer Reuben Omelanchuk is at the controls of the department's new, small radio-controlled

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
Draganflyer X6 drone with a camera attached, in Seattle. (AP)

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

According to FAA
estimates, as many as 7,500 civilian drones could be in use within five years.
Congress isn't alone in seeking to address the issues: Since January, dronerelated legislation has been introduced in more than 30 states, largely in
response to privacy concerns.
requires the Federal Aviation Administration to allow widespread drone flights in the U.S. by 2015.

Congress solves now- temporary measures

Dillow 15 (Clay Dillow, Fortune, Could drone-filled skies soon be a reality?
Senators push bill legalizing commercial drones,, May 13, 2015)

Temporary regulations would provide guidelines for companies to use drones

commercially while awaiting finalized FAA rules.

Two U.S. senators on Tuesday introduced legislation to establish a set of temporary

rules regulating commercial drone use. The aim of the bill is to allow companies to
fly commercial dronesif in only a limited capacitywhile awaiting a polished set
of rules from the FAA, which is expected sometime in the next few years.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. are pushing the
Commercial UAS Modernization Act as a means to foster innovation in the nascent
commercial drone industry, while also allowing U.S. companies to test drones in
the same way international firms are currently doing overseas.

There is so much potential that can be unlocked if we lay the proper framework to
support innovation in unmanned aircraft systems, Sen. Booker said in a
statement. But right now, the U.S. is falling behind other countries because we
lack rules for the safe operation of commercial [unmanned aircraft systems]
technology. The Commercial UAS Modernization Act sets up clear and immediate
rules of the road, helping to lay a foundation that will allow us to make cuttingedge progress in a rapidly emerging field.

Booker and Hoeven have both been outspoken supporters for integrating
commercial drone technology into the national airspace sooner rather than later.
The bipartisan bill, if passed, could go a long way to not only opening up the skies
for commercial drone applications, but also creating the legal headroom needed to
allow for drone technology development.

As things stand now, legal avenues for change are difficult to come by. Last year
the Federal Aviation Administration published a set of proposed regulations

governing commercial drone use in U.S. airspace, but those regulations arent
expected to be finalized for another year, or possibly longer. In the meantime,
companies that want to use drones for commercial use must apply for permission
on a case-by-case basis.

This slow process not only pulls limited FAA staff away from crafting permanent
regulations to review the one-off permits, but stifles innovation as companies often
wait months for their exemptions to be approved. The delay also adds long wait
times for companies in the U.S. working on new technology, thats if they dont take
their research and development elsewhere out of frustration.

Problems with current drone commercialization rules came to a head in March,

when Amazonwhich is seeking clearance to test drone delivery technologies
received an airworthiness certificate to test one of its early drone models after
nearly a year of waiting for approval. By the time the FAA granted the official goahead, the company had abandoned that particular drone model and moved ahead
with newer technology not covered under the FAAs certification.

We innovated so rapidly that the [unmanned aircraft systems] approved last week
by the FAA has become obsolete, Paul Misener, Amazons vice president of global
public policy, told a Senate subcommittee hearing at the time. We dont test it
anymore. Weve moved on to more advanced designs that we already are testing

Amazons AMZN 1.27% plight is one thats come to characterize the U.S.
commercial drone industry, and a problem Booker and Hoevens legislation hopes
to address. Under the proposed bill, companies operating drones within a set of
limited parameters (less than 500 feet above the ground, within line of sight of the
operator, etc.) would be permitted to operate without specific FAA certification.
Although it may seem like a small step, its a big deal for an industry that has the
potential to add 100,000 jobs and more than $80 billion in economic activity to the

The bill would also create a way for companies to register commercial drones with
regulators and called for the creation of an administrator position exclusively
responsible for safe integration of drones into U.S. airspace. The move drew praise
from industry groups like the Consumer Electronics Association, robotics industry
group AUVSI, and the Small UAV Coalition, a lobby that represents Google GOOG
1.66% and Amazon, among others.

Agriculture/ Pesticides

1NC- Agriculture
Global Industrial ag is locked intransition wont happen
Boyd, 2013, MBA in Finance from Stern School of Business at New York
University, USA, and a MA in Integrated Studies from Athabasca University(Roger,
Unsustainable Farming: From Bird Droppings to Corporate Agriculture,
The Cuban example shows that a nation can move away from industrial agriculture
dependent upon non-renewable fossil fuels, but what if such a transition was required
on a global level because of fossil fuel depletion and/or the need to reduce fossil fuel use to curtail
Climate Change? Such changes, especially if they required moves to smaller locally managed farms with less

would greatly challenge large vested

interests which yield significant economic and social power . As Fitzgerald-Moore
and Parai point out the Green Revolution new high yielding crop varieties require a
package of inputs which includes not only chemical fertilizers and irrigation, but
also biochemical programs to control for disease, insect and weeds, and increased
mechanization10. Without these inputs the new varieties would underperform the
traditional seeds, which have been bred for the previous much less modified ecosystems. The high
level of investments required to provide the required package of inputs for
modern agriculture encourages a move from subsistence to commercial
agriculture, and a consolidation of farms into larger entities. Thus, traditionally more
self-sufficient communities were integrated into the global market environment ,
dependency upon industrially produced inputs,

reliant upon the large conglomerates that provided the seeds, other agricultural inputs, and the financing for the
purchase of these inputs together with modern agricultural machinery. The net result was a wide dispersion in
incomes, with the larger farms and the providers of the new inputs and machinery taking the majority of the
economic benefits. This economically-driven Darwinian process removed both the knowledge of, and the political
support for, the traditional agricultural processes. Within a matter of generations the traditional ecological
knowledge gained over centuries that supported the previous low energy input farming methods was lost in one
area after another. Even the memory that proved that industrialized high energy agriculture was not the only way
of growing crops disappeared over time. The separation of people from the land through the urbanization that was
facilitated by the labor-saving mechanization of food production in general, also separated the vast majority of the
population from any first-hand knowledge of food production. In the rich countries of today the average person is
used to food magically appearing on the shelves of the supermarket, disembodied from the actual crops and

With populations disconnected

from the actual processes used to produce their food, questions about the current, and
long term impacts and sustainability, of the food industries rarely enters into public
discourse. On some occasions aspects of this industry do burst into public
consciousness, as in a significant case of food poisoning, or an investigation of horrendous practices in
slaughterhouses. These instances quickly fade away from public consciousness
though, and do not trigger wider ranging and more systemic questions . Limited
scientific solutions are provided, such as food irradiation, and working practices are changed to
assuage public concern. All such actions are incremental changes to the hegemonic
industrial food production systems rather than any fundamental change to them.
The production processes for many of the inputs required for industrialized
agriculture have large scale efficiencies which benefit larger organizations . In
addition, the large development of many new agricultural products requires
extremely large and lengthy research and development activities, with a
scale of investment only open to larger organizations. These factors supported the
animals that were the living inputs to the production of that food.

consolidation of supplying companies into a few very large organizations , with the
process of consolidation accelerating in the past few decades. The top 10 pesticide producing companies now
control almost 90% of the agrochemical business worldwide, the top 10 biotechnology companies have 75% of

There has also been significant concentration in seed

providers, with 6 of the leading seed companies also being within the top 10
companies for pesticides and biotechnology . With such significant concentration only a handful of
industry revenue.

profit maximizing companies have control over the majority of plant production that has been integrated into the

The fossil fuel inputs to the production processes for such

things as herbicides and fungicides, as well as the agricultural and food transport machinery, are
provided by the highly concentrated fossil fuel industry which includes some of
the largest private corporations in the world, such as Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, and
world market economy18.

Gazprom together with huge state owned organizations such as those of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Some of the
producers of farm and transportation equipment used by farmers are also very large corporations. In addition to

there are numerous industry associations that

concentrate the political weight of a given industry. An example is the International
the above levels of economic concentration,

Fertilizer Industry Association which has some 540 members in about 85 countries. About half of the membership
is based in developing countries. IFA member companies represent all activities related to the production, trade,
transport and distribution of every type of fertilizer, their raw materials and intermediates. 19 These


organizations, as well as individual companies, employ large numbers of

lobbyists and other staff to help direct government policies, and
international agency decisions, in ways beneficial to them.

Precision agriculture doesnt solve- culture of mistrust in

farmers and farmers dont know how to manage the data- and
the impact is hype from Monsanto
Bunge 14 (Jacob Bunge, WSJ, Big Data Comes to the Farm, Sowing Mistrust,,
February 25, 2014)
Big agricultural companies say the next revolution on the farm will come from feeding data gathered by tractors and other machinery into computers
that tell farmers how to increase their output of crops like corn and soybeans. Monsanto Co., DuPont Co. and other companies are racing to roll out
"prescriptive planting" technology to farmers across the U.S. who know from years of experience that tiny adjustments in planting depth or the distance

farmers are leery about the new

technology. They worry their data might be sold to commodities traders, wind
up in the hands of rival farmers or give more leverage to giant seed
companies that are among the most enthusiastic sellers of data-driven
planting advice. The companies vow not to misuse the information. CIO JOURNAL. For Small Farmers, Big
Data Adds Modern Problems to Ancient Ones "There's a lot of value to that information," says Brooks
Hurst, 46 years old, who works 6,000 acres with his father and brothers near Tarkio, Mo. "I'm afraid, as farmers, we are not
going to be the ones reaping the benefit." Many tractors and combines already are guided by Global Positioning
between crop rows can make a big difference in revenue at harvest time. Some

System satellites that plant ever-straighter rows while farmers, freed from steering, monitor progress on iPads and other tablet computers now common

many farmers have haphazardly

managed the information , scattered in piles of paperwork in their offices or
stored on thumb drives clattering in pickup-truck ashtrays. The data often were
turned over by hand for piecemeal analysis. Sellers of prescriptive-planting technology want to accelerate,
in tractor cabs. The same machinery collects data on crops and soil. But

streamline and combine all those data with their highly detailed records on historic weather patterns, topography and crop performance. Algorithms
and human experts crunch all the data and can zap advice directly to farmers and their machines. Supporters say the push could be as important as the
development of mechanized tractors in the first half of the 20th century and the rise of genetically modified seeds in the 1990s. The world's biggest seed
company, Monsanto, estimates that data-driven planting advice to farmers could increase world-wide crop production by about $20 billion a year, or
about one-third the value of last year's U.S. corn crop. The technology could help improve the average corn harvest to more than 200 bushels an acre
from the current 160 bushels, companies say. Such a gain would generate an extra $182 an acre in revenue for farmers, based on recent prices. Iowa
corn farmers got about $759 an acre last year. So far, farmers who use prescriptive planting have seen yields climb by a more modest five to 10 bushels
an acre, the companies say. The gains are likely to accelerate as companies gather information from more farmers. Monsanto has been testing a
technology-powered planting service called FieldScripts with farmers since 2010 and is starting to pitch it this year in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and

Indiana, four of the biggest corn-producing states. Farmers pay the company $10 an acre. ENLARGE ENLARGE No one knows how much is being spent
to develop and market high-tech planting services, but 20% of Monsanto's projected growth in per-share earnings by 2018 could come from FieldScripts
and other technology-fueled improvements, estimates Michael Cox, co-director of investment research at securities firm Piper Jaffray Cos. "I see it as
another potential transformation of the company," says Robert Fraley, chief technology officer for Monsanto, based in St. Louis. He helped develop
Monsanto's first genetically modified seeds in the early 1980s. In November, Monsanto paid $930 million to acquire Climate Corp., a weather-datamining company in San Francisco launched by former Google Inc. executives. Agricultural cooperative Land O'Lakes Inc. bought satellite-imaging
specialist Geosys in December for an undisclosed amount. DuPont announced earlier this month a collaboration with a weather-and-market analysis
firm, DTN/The Progressive Farmer, to provide real-time climate and market information to DuPont's data-services users. Late last year, Deere & Co.
agreed to beam data from the Moline, Ill., company's green tractors, combines and other machinery to computer servers where DuPont and Dow
Chemical Co. can formulate specialized seed-planting recommendations. "When a farmer buys a combine or buys a tractor, they've got all these ways to
collect information," says DuPont marketing manager Joe Foresman. The Wilmington, Del., company's Pioneer unit has been sifting through farm-level
data for about a decade, but now "this space is starting to mature." DuPont and Monsanto are excited about their data-driven services, partly because
they can be rolled out to farmers much faster than new seeds, which often must endure a decade of development and regulatory review. Many farmers
who have tried prescriptive planting are enthusiastic about the results. David Nelson, a farmer near Fort Dodge, Iowa, who began testing FieldScripts
about three years ago, says it recognized nutrients in soil on a patch of land previously used as a cattle feedlot. The conclusion was based on fertilizer
maps and soil samples gathered by Mr. Nelson, 39. Monsanto's system said the land could support denser rows of corn, and FieldScripts helped Mr.
Nelson increase his corn harvest last year by 8 to 12 bushels an acre above the 10-year average of 190 bushels. The increase brought Mr. Nelson an

Other farmers are

reluctant. The American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group for farmers, has
warned members that seed companies touting higher crop yields from prescriptive
planting have a vested interest in persuading farmers to plant more . The
trade group also says the services might steer farmers to buy certain seeds, sprays
and equipment for their land. Jerry Demmer, a 61-year-old corn and soybean farmer near Albert Lea, Minn., is thinking about
additional $34 to $51 an acre. "We're pushing every acre to its maximum potential," Mr. Nelson adds.

trying a data-analysis service but has "tossed and turned" over who will control the information. "It's our data," Mr. Demmer says, but "I'm not sure how

One reason that suspicions run deep among some farmers: a surge in
seed prices as the biggest companies piled up more market share during the past 15 years, largely through takeovers.
Monsanto and DuPont sell about 70% of all corn seed in the U.S. Last year, farmers paid about $118 an acre for corn
we're going to protect that."

seed, up 166% from the inflation-adjusted cost of $45 an acre in 2005, according to estimates from Purdue University. Companies say the higher prices
reflect the benefits of using their genetically modified seeds, including bigger crops and resistance to insects and weed-killing sprays that have helped
reduce the usage of harsh pesticides. Mr. Fraley, the technology chief at Monsanto, says it also decides annual seed prices based on seed supplies and
commodities prices. Data gathered by FieldScripts aren't likely to be "a particularly big" factor in pricing decisions, he says. "We'll price our seed the
way we've always priced our seed." Mr. Foresman of DuPont says the company doesn't use data it collects from farmers to help set seed prices.

Battles with seed makers over who controls the seeds produced by genetically modified crops make some farmers
even more wary about sharing information with the companies. In 2012, DuPont hired
Agro Protection USA Inc., an intellectual-property-protection firm staffed largely by retired law-enforcement officers, to watch for signs of farmers who
are saving second-generation seeds. Saving the seeds violates licensing agreements farmers sign when they buy seeds. Monsanto has filed lawsuits
against nearly 150 U.S. farmers since 1997 for replanting seeds that contain the company's proprietary characteristics. Last year, the company won a

The most-worried farmers

fear that somehow rivals could use the data to their own advantage. For example,
if nearby farmers saw crop-yield information, it might spur unwanted competition
to rent farmland, pushing land costs higher. Other farmers fret that Wall Street
traders could use the data to make bets on futures contracts . If such bets push
futures-contract prices lower early in the growing season, it might squeeze the
profits farmers otherwise could lock in for their crops by selling futures.
U.S. Supreme Court victory in a case against an Indiana farmer who was 75 years old at the time.

No impact to environment- Niche construction solves

Ridley 14, Matt, visiting professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New
York, He has been a scientist, a journalist, and a national newspaper columnist,
and is the chairman of the International Centre for Life, in Newcastle, England,
The World's Resources Aren't Running Out: Ecologists worry that the world's
resources come in fixed amounts that will run out, but we have broken through
such limits again and again, April 25th,
How many times have you heard that we humans are "using up" the world's
resources, "running out" of oil, "reaching the limits" of the atmosphere's capacity to cope with pollution or
"approaching the carrying capacity" of the land's ability to support a greater population? The assumption

is that there is a fixed amount of stuff metals, oil, clean air, landand
that we risk exhausting it through our consumption. "We are using 50% more resources than the Earth
behind all such statements

can sustainably produce, and unless we change course, that number will grow fastby 2030, even two planets will
not be enough," says Jim Leape, director general of the World Wide Fund for Nature International (formerly the

here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through

such limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn't
end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this "niche construction"that people (and indeed some
other animals) can create new opportunities for themselves by making their habitats
more productive in some way. Agriculture is the classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying
World Wildlife Fund). But

on nature's bounty and substituted an artificial and much larger bounty. Economists call the same phenomenon
innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter's tendency to think in terms of static limits.
Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm
yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls. That frustration
is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think that economists espouse a sort of superstitious magic called "markets" or
"prices" to avoid confronting the reality of limits to growth. The easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of
ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists. I have lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of
ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist magazine for eight years. When
I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers
on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity viewpointthat there were limits to growth. I nowadays

there are no limits because we can invent new ways of doing

more with less. This disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much
lean to the view that

about why people disagree about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example, pessimists see a limit
to the atmosphere's capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming. So a continuing increase in
emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates. But optimists see
economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would
allow warming to level off long before it does much harm. It is striking, for example, that the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's recent forecast that temperatures would rise by 3.7 to 4.8 degrees Celsius compared
with preindustrial levels by 2100 was based on several assumptions: little technological change, an end to the 50year fall in population growth rates, a tripling (only) of per capita income and not much improvement in the
energy efficiency of the economy. Basically, that would mean a world much like today's but with lots more people
burning lots more coal and oil, leading to an increase in emissions. Most economists expect a five- or tenfold
increase in income, huge changes in technology and an end to population growth by 2100: not so many more
people needing much less carbon. In 1679, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the great Dutch microscopist, estimated
that the planet could hold 13.4 billion people, a number that most demographers think we may never reach. Since
then, estimates have bounced around between 1 billion and 100 billion, with no sign of converging on an agreed

we keep improving the productivity of each acre of land by

applying fertilizer, mechanization, pesticides and irrigation. Further innovation is
bound to shift the ceiling upward. Jesse Ausubel at Rockefeller University calculates that the
amount of land required to grow a given quantity of food has fallen by 65% over
the past 50 years, world-wide. Ecologists object that these innovations rely on
nonrenewable resources, such as oil and gas, or renewable ones that are being used up faster
figure. Economists point out that

than they are replenished, such as aquifers. So current yields cannot be maintained, let alone improved. In his
recent book "The View from Lazy Point," the ecologist Carl Safina estimates that if everybody had the living
standards of Americans, we would need 2.5 Earths because the world's agricultural land just couldn't grow
enough food for more than 2.5 billion people at that level of consumption. Harvard emeritus professor E.O. Wilson,
one of ecology's patriarchs, reckoned that only if we all turned vegetarian could the world's farms grow enough

since large parts of the world,

have yet to gain access to fertilizer and modern farming techniques,
there is no reason to think that the global land requirements for a given amount of
food will cease shrinking any time soon. Indeed, Mr. Ausubel, together with his colleagues Iddo
food to support 10 billion people. Economists respond by saying that
especially in Africa,

Wernick and Paul Waggoner, came to the startling conclusion that, even with generous assumptions about
population growth and growing affluence leading to greater demand for meat and other luxuries, and with

we will need less farmland in 2050

than we needed in 2000. (So long, that is, as we don't grow more biofuels on land that could be growing
ungenerous assumptions about future global yield improvements,

food.) But surely intensification of yields depends on inputs that may run out? Take water, a commodity that limits
the production of food in many places. Estimates made in the 1960s and 1970s of water demand by the year 2000

proved grossly overestimated: The world used half as much water as experts had projected 30 years before. The
reason was greater economy in the use of water by new irrigation techniques. Some countries, such as Israel and
Cyprus, have cut water use for irrigation through the use of drip irrigation. Combine these improvements with
solar-driven desalination of seawater world-wide, and it is highly unlikely that fresh water will limit human

The best-selling book "Limits to Growth," published in 1972 by the Club of Rome (an
influential global think tank), argued that we would have bumped our heads against all
sorts of ceilings by now, running short of various metals, fuels, minerals and space. Why did it not
happen? In a word, technology: better mining techniques, more frugal use of
materials, and if scarcity causes price increases, substitution by cheaper material.
We use 100 times thinner gold plating on computer connectors than we did 40
years ago. The steel content of cars and buildings keeps on falling. Until about 10
years ago, it was reasonable to expect that natural gas might run out in a few short

decades and oil soon thereafter. If that were to happen, agricultural yields would plummet, and the world would
be faced with a stark dilemma: Plow up all the remaining rain forest to grow food, or starve. But

thanks to

fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been postponed. They will run out one
day, but only in the sense that you will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a

we may
well find cheap substitutes for fossil fuels long before they run out. The economist
and metals dealer Tim Worstall gives the example of tellurium , a key ingredient of some kinds of
solar panels. Tellurium is one of the rarest elements in the Earth 's crustone atom per billion.
Will it soon run out? Mr. Worstall estimates that there are 120 million tons of it, or a
million years' supply altogether. It is sufficiently concentrated in the residues from refining
copper ores, called copper slimes, to be worth extracting for a very long time to come. One
day, it will also be recycled as old solar panels get cannibalized to make new ones.
Or take phosphorus, an element vital to agricultural fertility. The richest phosphate mines, such
as on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific, are all but exhausted. Does that mean the world
is running out? No: There are extensive lower grade deposits, and if we get desperate, all
the phosphorus atoms put into the ground over past centuries still exist , especially in
harbor in Ireland. Just as you are likely to stop rowing long before you bump into Newfoundland, so

the mud of estuaries. It's just a matter of concentrating them again. In 1972, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford
University came up with a simple formula called IPAT, which stated that the impact of humankind was equal to
population multiplied by affluence multiplied again by technology. In other words, the damage done to Earth
increases the more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have. Many ecologists still
subscribe to this doctrine, which has attained the status of holy writ in ecology. But the past 40 years haven't been
kind to it. In many respects, greater affluence and new technology have led to less human impact on the planet,

Richer people with new technologies tend not to collect firewood and
bushmeat from natural forests; instead, they use electricity and farmed chickenboth of which need
much less land. In 2006, Mr. Ausubel calculated that no country with a GDP per head greater
than $4,600 has a falling stock of forest (in density as well as in acreage). Haiti is 98% deforested
not more.

and literally brown on satellite images, compared with its green, well-forested neighbor, the Dominican Republic.
The difference stems from Haiti's poverty, which causes it to rely on charcoal for domestic and industrial energy,
whereas the Dominican Republic is wealthy enough to use fossil fuels, subsidizing propane gas for cooking fuel
specifically so that people won't cut down forests. Part of the problem is that the word "consumption" means
different things to the two tribes. Ecologists use it to mean "the act of using up a resource"; economists mean "the
purchase of goods and services by the public" (both definitions taken from the Oxford dictionary). But in what
sense is water, tellurium or phosphorus "used up" when products made with them are bought by the public? They
still exist in the objects themselves or in the environment. Water returns to the environment through sewage and
can be reused. Phosphorus gets recycled through compost. Tellurium is in solar panels, which can be recycled. As
the economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his 1980 book "Knowledge and Decisions," "Although we speak loosely of

Given that innovationor

"niche construction"causes ever more productivity, how do ecologists justify the
claim that we are already overdrawn at the planetary bank and would need at least another
'production,' man neither creates nor destroys matter, but only transforms it."

planet to sustain the lifestyles of 10 billion people at U.S. standards of living? Examine the calculations done by a
group called the Global Footprint Networka think tank founded by Mathis Wackernagel in Oakland, Calif., and

supported by more than 70 international environmental organizationsand it becomes clear. The group assumes
that the fossil fuels burned in the pursuit of higher yields must be offset in the future by tree planting on a scale
that could soak up the emitted carbon dioxide. A widely used measure of "ecological footprint" simply assumes
that 54% of the acreage we need should be devoted to "carbon uptake." But what if tree planting wasn't the only
way to soak up carbon dioxide? Or if trees grew faster when irrigated and fertilized so you needed fewer of them?
Or if we cut emissions, as the U.S. has recently done by substituting gas for coal in electricity generation? Or if we
tolerated some increase in emissions (which are measurably increasing crop yields, by the way)? Any of these
factors could wipe out a huge chunk of the deemed ecological overdraft and put us back in planetary credit.
Helmut Haberl of Klagenfurt University in Austria is a rare example of an ecologist who takes economics seriously.
He points out that his fellow ecologists have been using "human appropriation of net primary production"that is,
the percentage of the world's green vegetation eaten or prevented from growing by us and our domestic animals
as an indicator of ecological limits to growth. Some ecologists had begun to argue that we were using half or more
of all the greenery on the planet. This is wrong, says Dr. Haberl, for several reasons. First, the amount
appropriated is still fairly low: About 14.2% is eaten by us and our animals, and an additional 9.6% is prevented

most economic growth

happens without any greater use of biomass. Indeed, human appropriation usually
declines as a country industrializes and the harvest growsas a result of agricultural intensification
rather than through plowing more land. Finally, human activities actually increase the production
of green vegetation in natural ecosystems. Fertilizer taken up by crops is carried
into forests and rivers by wild birds and animals, where it boosts yields of wild
vegetation too (sometimes too much, causing algal blooms in water). In places like the Nile delta, wild
from growing by goats and buildings, according to his estimates. Second,

ecosystems are more productive than they would be without human intervention, despite the fact that much of the
land is used for growing human food.

Alt cause- skyrocketing bee deaths [California]

Wines 13 (Michael, NYT staff writer, "Mystery Malady Kills More Bees,
Heightening Worry on Farms,", March 28, 2013)
A mysterious malady that has been killing honeybees en masse for several years appears to have
expanded drastically in the last year, commercial beekeepers say, wiping out 40
percent or even 50 percent of the hives needed to pollinate many of the nations fruits and vegetables. A
conclusive explanation so far has escaped scientists studying the ailment, colony collapse disorder, since it first
surfaced around 2005. But beekeepers and some researchers say there is growing evidence that a powerful new
class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, incorporated into the plants themselves, could be an important factor.
The pesticide industry disputes that. But its representatives also say they are open to further studies to clarify
what, if anything, is happening. They looked so healthy last spring, said Bill Dahle, 50, who owns Big Sky Honey
in Fairview, Mont. We were so proud of them. Then, about the first of September, they started to fall on their
face, to die like crazy. Weve been doing this 30 years, and

weve never experienced this kind of

loss before.

In a show of concern, the Environmental Protection Agency recently sent its acting assistant
administrator for chemical safety and two top chemical experts here, to the San Joaquin Valley of California, for
discussions. In the valley, where 1.6 million hives of bees just finished pollinating an endless expanse of almond
groves, commercial beekeepers who only recently were losing a third of their bees to the disorder say the past
year has brought far greater losses. The federal Agriculture Department is to issue its own assessment in May. But
in an interview, the research leader at its Beltsville, Md., bee research laboratory, Jeff Pettis, said he was confident
that the death rate would be much higher than its ever been. Following a now-familiar
pattern, bee deaths rose swiftly last autumn and dwindled as operators moved colonies to faraway farms for the
pollination season.


Beekeepers say the latest string of deaths has dealt them a heavy

Bret Adee, who is an owner, with his father and brother, of Adee Honey Farms of South Dakota, the
nations largest beekeeper, described mounting losses. We lost 42 percent over the winter. But by the time we
came around to pollinate almonds, it was a 55 percent loss, he said in an interview here this week. They looked
beautiful in October, Mr. Adee said, and in December, they started falling apart, when it got cold. Mr. Dahle
said he had planned to bring 13,000 beehives from Montana 31 tractor-trailers full to work the California
almond groves. But by the start of pollination last month, only 3,000 healthy hives remained. Annual bee losses of
5 percent to 10 percent once were the norm for beekeepers. But after colony collapse disorder surfaced around

Nor is
the impact limited to beekeepers. The Agriculture Department says a quarter of
the American diet, from apples to cherries to watermelons to onions, depends on pollination by
honeybees. Fewer bees means smaller harvests and higher food prices .
Almonds are a bellwether. Eighty percent of the nations almonds grow here, and 80 percent of those
are exported, a multibillion-dollar crop crucial to California agriculture. Pollinating up to
2005, the losses approached one-third of all bees, despite beekeepers best efforts to ensure their health.

800,000 acres, with at least two hives per acre, takes as many as two-thirds of all commercial hives.

No impact to species loss

Ridder 8 (Ben Ridder, Phd School of Geography and Environmental Studies,
University of Tasmania, Questioning the ecosystem services argument for
biodiversity conservation Biodiversity and conservation yr:2008 vol:17 iss:4
pg:781, 2008)
*ES = environmental services
The low resilience assumption Advocates of the conservation of biodiversity tend not to acknowledge the

low resilience assumption gives rise to,

and is reinforced by the almost ubiquitous claim within the conservation
literature that ES depend on biodiversity . An extreme example of this claim is
made by the Ehrlichs in Extinction. They state that all [ecosystem services] will
be threatened if the rate of extinctions continues to increase then observe that
distinction between resilient and sensitive ES. This

attempts to artificially replicate natural processes are no more than partially successful in most cases. Nature
nearly always does it better. When society sacrifices natural services for some other gain it must pay the

This assertionthat the only

alternative to protecting every species is a world in which all ES have been
substituted by artificial alternativesis an extreme example of the low
resilience assumption. Paul Ehrlich revisits this flawed logic in 1997 i nhis response (with
costs of substitution (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1982, pp. 9596).

four co-authors) to doubts expressed by Mark Sagoff regarding economic arguments for species conservation

The claim that ES depend on biodiversity is also notably

present in the controversial Issues in Ecology paper on biodiversity and ecosystem
(Ehrlich et al. 1997, p. 101).

functioning (Naeem et al. 1999) that sparked the debate mentioned in the introduction. This appears to reflect
a general tendency among authors in this field (e.g., Hector et al. 2001; Lawler et al. 2002; Lyons et al. 2005).
Although such authors may not actually articulate the low resilience assumption, presenting such claims in the

That the low resilience assumption is

largely false is apparent in the number of examples of species extinctions that
have not brought about catastrophic ecosystem collapse and decline in ES,
and in the generally limited ecosystem influence of species on the cusp of
extinction. These issues have been raised by numerous authors, although given the absence of systematic
attempts to verify propositions of this sort, the evidence assembled is usually anecdotal
and we are forced to trust that an unbiased account of the situation has been
presented. Fortunately a number of highly respected people have discussed this
topic, not least being the prominent conservation biologist David Ehrenfeld . In
1978 he described the conservation dilemma, which arises on the increasingly
frequent occasions when we encounter a threatened part of Nature but can find
no rational reason for keeping it (Ehrenfeld 1981, p. 177). He continued with
the following observation: Have there been permanent and significant resource
effects of the extinction, in the wild, of John Bartrams great discovery, the
beautiful tree Franklinia alatamaha, which had almost vanished from the earth when Bartram
first set eyes upon it? Or a thousand species of tiny beetles that we never knew existed
absence of any clarification indicates its influence.

before or after their probable extermination? Can we even be certain than the
eastern forests of the United States suffer the loss of their passenger pigeons
and chestnuts in some tangible way that affects their vitality or permanence,
their value to us? (p. 192) Later, at the first conference on biodiversity, Ehrenfeld (1988) reflected that
most species do not seem to have any conventional value at all and that
the rarest species are the ones least likely to be missed by no stretch of
the imagination can we make them out to be vital cogs in the ecological
machine (p. 215). The appearance of comments within the environmental literature that are consistent
with Ehrenfeldsand from authors whose academic standing is also worthy of respectis uncommon but not

The low
resilience assumption is also undermined by the overwhelming tendency for the
protection of specific endangered species to be justified by moral or aesthetic
arguments, or a basic appeal to the necessity of conserving biodiversity, rather
than by emphasising the actual ES these species provide or might be able to
provide humanity. Often the only services that can be promoted in this regard relate to the scientific or
unheard of (e.g., Tudge 1989; Ghilarov 1996; Sagoff 1997; Slobodkin 2001; Western 2001).

cultural value of conserving a particular species, and the tourism revenue that might be associated with its

The preservation of such services is of an entirely different order

compared with the collapse of human civilization predicted by the more
pessimistic environmental authors. The popularity of the low resilience
assumption is in part explained by the increased rhetorical force of arguments
that highlight connections between the conservation of biodiversity, human
survival and economic profit. However, it needs to be acknowledged by those
who employ this approach that a number of negative implications are associated
with any use of economic arguments to justify the conservation of biodiversity.
continued existence.

Food shortages wont cause war

Allouche 11, research Fellow water supply and sanitation @ Institute for
Development Studies, frmr professor MIT (Jeremy, The sustainability and
resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay
between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade, Food
Policy, Vol. 36 Supplement 1, p. S3-S8, January)
The question of resource scarcity has led to many

debates on whether scarcity (whether of food or

water) will lead to conflict and war. The underlining reasoning behind most of these discourses over food
and water wars comes from the Malthusian belief that there is an imbalance between
the economic availability of natural resources and population growth since while food production
grows linearly, population increases exponentially. Following this reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite
natural resources place a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate consumption; if these

most empirical
studies do not support any of these neo-Malthusian arguments. Technological change and
greater inputs of capital have dramatically increased labour productivity in agriculture. More
generally, the neo-Malthusian view has suffered because during the last two centuries
humankind has breached many resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable.
limits are exceeded, social breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that

Lessons from history: alarmist scenarios, resource wars and international relations In a so-called age of

alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources

and food insecurity with wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant
uncertainty, a number of

discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international
organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that water scarcity threatens
economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of

discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict are here used for raising water/food as key policy

In the Middle East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign

ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; the next war in the
priorities at the international level.

Middle East will be over water, not politics (Boutros Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not
whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political tension and alarmist declaration, but rather to what

The evidence seems quite weak.

none of these declarations have

extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts.

Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan,

been followed up by military action.

The governance of transboundary water has gained increased

attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global food system as water allocation agreements
determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated agriculture. The likelihood of conflicts over water is an
important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food systems.

None of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water
as a casus belli. Using the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and supplementary data from the
University of Alabama on water conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes
where water seems to have been at least a partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In
fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were limited purely to governmental
rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18). As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR) water event
database, more than two-thirds of over 1800 water-related events fall on the
cooperative scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into account a much longer period, the following
figures clearly demonstrate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture

organized political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than
3600 water-related treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or
Organization (FAO),

allocations in international basins have been negotiated since 1945 (FAO, 1978 and FAO, 1984). The fear around
water wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates scarcity with violence, conflict and war.

There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and

transboundary conflict. Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se
but rather the allocation of water resources between the different riparian states (see for example Allouche, 2005,

Water rich countries have been involved in a number of

disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or
Allouche, 2007 and [Rouyer, 2000] ).

Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each states estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in
transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality,

perceptions of the

amount of available water shapes peoples attitude towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact,
some water experts have argued that scarcity drives the process of co-operation among riparians
(Dinar and Dinar, 2005 and Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006). In terms of international relations, the threat
of water wars due to increasing scarcity does not make much sense in the light of the
recent historical record. Overall, the water war rationale expects conflict to occur over water, and
appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing national water supplies, an argument which is
highly contestable. The

debates over the likely impacts of climate change have again popularised

the idea of water wars. The argument runs that climate change will precipitate worsening ecological
conditions contributing to resource scarcities, social breakdown, institutional failure, mass migrations and in turn
cause greater political instability and conflict (Brauch, 2002 and Pervis and Busby, 2004). In a report for the US
Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003) speculate about the consequences of a worst-case climate
change scenario arguing that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars (Schwartz and Randall, 2003, p. 15).

Despite growing concern that climate change will lead to instability and violent
conflict, the evidence base to substantiate the connections is thin ( [Barnett and Adger,
2007] and Kevane and Gray, 2008).

2NC- Industrial Ag Inevitable

Some industrial ag is inevitablelimits to organic production
Cornett, 2014, communications director @ Western Planet Health
Association(Richard, Organic is not the sustainable food of the future,
until organic farming can rival the production output of
conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for more cropland is devastating.
This shortfall of reduced organic crop yields is driven by limited pesticide options ,
difficulties in meeting peak fertilizer demand , and in some cases by not being able
to use biotech traits. If organic production were used for a significant portion of crop production, these
lower yields would increase the pressure for new land-use conversion a
serious environmental issue because of the biodiversity and greenhouse
ramifications. Another consideration regarding organic production is that the best approach to building soil
The unfortunate truth is that

quality is minimizing soil disturbance (e.g. no plowing or tilling) combined with the use of cover crops. Such
farming systems have multiple environmental advantages, particularly with respect to limited erosion and nutrient

Organic growers frequently do plant cover crops, but without

effective herbicides, they tend to rely on tillage for weed control . There are efforts under
way to find a way to do organic no-till, but they are really not scalable. Now, turning to genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs have the potential to increase crop yields , enhance
nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing the need for
synthetic chemicals which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. At this
moment, there are sweet potatoes being engineered to be resistant to a virus that
currently decimates the African harvest annually, which could feed millions of some of the poorest
movement into water.

nations on the globe. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to battle osteoperois, and tomatoes high in
antioxidants. Also,

potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic

glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in
some people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being designed to produce vaccines against hepatitis B,
allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. While the benefits
of these plants could improve the daily lives of millions of human beings across our planet, there are those
detractors who ignorantly refer to them as Frankenfoods unnatural and unsafe, that should be replaced with
organic foods. So, heres the bottom line. While

only natural may be appealing as a

marketing message, it is certainly not the best guide on sustainability for how to
farm with minimal environmental impact. Between rigorous, science-based
research and regulation, public and private investments in new technology
development and farmer innovation, modern agriculture has been achieving
remarkable environmental progress and will continue to be sustainable . To
continue to be successful, we need to encourage both systems relying on facts, and not
denigrating one system to market another.

Demand is still high for industrial ag

Cummins, 2014, Organic Consumers Association(Ronnie, What's Holding Back
the Organic Food and Farming Revolution,
Organic and climate-friendly food and farming are still a relatively
small niche market While organic advocates can perhaps pat ourselves on the back for finally crossing
Bad news:

most people are still buying highly

processed, chemical-contaminated and factory farmed food. Farmers continue
planting GMO crops and spraying their fields and crops with toxic chemicals .
Hapless, junk-food addicted Americans spend almost half of their food dollars
supersizing themselves on GMO and factory-farmed fare in fast food outlets and
chain restaurants. Although there are a growing number of non-chain, farm-to- table restaurants where
the 5-percent threshold in terms of grocery store sales,

cooked-from-scratch organic foods and grass-fed meats and animal products are featured on the menu, most

and climate-friendly food today represent no more than 3 percent of
combined U.S. grocery and restaurant sales. The life or death question is this: If the
overwhelming majority of U.S. consumers say they prefer organics and would like to buy
and consume healthier and more sustainable food, then why arent they doing so? There appear
to be several systemic, deeply embedded reasons why most Americans are
still buying and consuming junk foods rather than going organic . These
include the addictive nature and omnipresence of chemically engineered
processed foods; lack of money and time; rampant nutrition and cooking illiteracy ;
and labeling fraud. Lets take a closer look at these problems. Chemically engineered foods and consumers.
restaurant ( as well as school and institutional) food is still unhealthy, non-sustainable and expensive.

According to recent studies, including the best-selling book by New York Times columnist Michael Moss, Salt
Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, the bulk of the nations processed foods, beverages and restaurant
fare have been deliberately chemically engineered (i.e. laced with addictive, unhealthy combinations of sugar,
salts and fats) by a network of food technologists employed by large food corporations determined to turn us into
food addicts. As Moss explained to a CBC reporter: I spent time with the top scientists at the largest companies in
this country and it's amazing how much math and science and regression analysis and energy they put into finding
the very perfect amount of salt, sugar and fat in their products that will send us over the moon, and will send their
products flying off the shelves and have us buy more, eat more and make more money for them. These

modern day alchemists, aided and abetted by an army of advertising

wizards and lobbyists, have perfected the art of turning children and adults
into junk food addicts. How? By changing our taste buds, altering physiological
brain circuits, and engineering our appetites so as to reduce ingredient costs,
maximize profits and keep a growing, bulging army of food addicts , especially children,
adolescents and low-income Americans, coming back for more. The nutritional bottom line is that even though
most Americans are overweight and suffering from diet-related health problems, millions feel powerless and

The junk food

addict (especially children), brainwashed by thousands of commercials and ad images , and
whose sense of taste has been chemically mutated by constant exposure to junk food ,
truly believes that Coca-Cola tastes better than any beverage made from real,
organic ingredients, and that a large order of fries or soda or sweetened breakfast cereal is necessary to
satisfy their appetite. Lack of money and time. The majority of Americans are victimized not
only by a powerful, shadowy network of food technologists, chemical companies
and mass media propagandists, but also by a corporatized and inequitable economy.
helpless, (much like tobacco addicts) to change their eating habits and sedentary lifestyles.

Even if you want to feed yourself or your children organic food, and serve up healthy home-cooked meals, in

todays Fast Food Nation consumers face a host of major obstacles, including the
high cost of living, lack of free time, lack of cooking skills, cultural distractions and
sub-standard wages. If you ask the majority of people why they arent buying more organic food and grass
fed meat, their answer is certainly not that they prefer chemically engineered, GMO and unhealthy foods. What
they complain about is the high price of organics or that they dont have
enough free time (and if you press them, adequate cooking skills) to cook meals at home from scratch.

2NC- Agriculture Defense

Double bind either no food scarcity, or there are tons of alt
Adeline 13 food preservation specialist (02/17, Food Storage: The Solution to
Food Shortage,
We humans need food for proper nutrition. In times of crisis, access to a stable food supply is the key to continued

In the presence of natural disasters, human conflicts, climate change,

and overpopulation, the threat of food shortages and total famine is not as far-fetched

as it seems. Preparing long-term food supplies can buffer the effects of these potential catastrophes. The Anatomy
of a Catastrophe Many people think that food shortages may be a thing of the past. Thanks to the marvels of

we have a constant and abundant supply

of food. It is difficult to imagine how a food shortage can happen but it is still a possibility. During ancient
modern technology and scientific farming methods,

times, humans hunted and gathered for food. Then a revolution occurred and changed the course of history: we
learned how to cultivate the soil, plant crops, and domesticate animals for a stable source of food. Eventually,

modern technology has improved farming and fishing techniques, that food production
has now become large-scale. People now depend on hard-working farmers and fishermen for their
everyday supply of food. But what happens when the harvests are poor? The farmer will keep his produce to feed
his own family first other people are left without food. Such scenario is still possible today because there are
man-made disasters and natural calamities that threaten the worlds food supply. For example, a hurricane rages
across the country and floods several states. Our access to food is restricted because travel is nearly impossible.
To add to that, business establishments like groceries and supermarkets are probably closed down due to the flood
as well as a power outage. Some might argue that this is not a real food shortage scenario because the problem is
merely logistics: there is food; it is just that we have no access to it. It is true that natural calamities and wars

recent studies show that at present, we consume

more than we produce. The UN warns that grain reserves are progressively getting lower
because of droughts and crop failures in major food producing countries. The famine in
Africa may possibly be felt in other parts of the world. This is an emergency situation that
cause a food shortage only temporarily. However,

requires us to prepare beforehand. We must have a supply of food and water for us to survive.

Alt causes swamp the internal link new report, inefficient harvesting,
handling, transportation, and infrastructure, unsuitable storage conditions,
millions of tons of wasted food, competition for land w/ ecosystem preservation and
biomass, rising population, improved nutrition standards, shifting dietary

ENS 13 Environment News Service, cites the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers (01/11, Up to Half of Global Food Production Wasted,
LONDON, UK, January 11, 2013 (ENS) Four billion tonnes of food a year are produced globally. Yet, due to poor

between 30
and 50 percent of all food produced each year never feeds a human being, finds a new
report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, a registered British charity. This level of wastage is a
tragedy that cannot continue if we are to succeed in the challenge of sustainably meeting our
future food demands, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers said in a statement Thursday releasing
practices in harvesting, storage and transportation, as well as market and consumer wastage,

the report, Global Food: Waste Not Want Not. The amount of food wasted and lost around the world is
staggering, said Dr. Tim Fox, who heads the Energy and Environment Division at the Institution. This is food
that could be used to feed the worlds growing population as well as those in hunger today. It is also an
unnecessary waste of the land, water and energy resources that were used in the production, processing and
distribution of this food, said Fox. The reasons for this situation range from poor engineering and agricultural

practices, inadequate transport and storage infrastructure through to supermarkets demanding cosmetically
perfect foodstuffs and encouraging consumers to overbuy through buy-one-get-one free offers. In less-developed
countries, such as those of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, wastage tends to occur primarily at the farmer-

Inefficient harvesting, inadequate local transportation and

poor infrastructure mean that produce is frequently handled inappropriately and
stored under unsuitable farm site conditions. In India, the report finds, 21 million tonnes of wheat is
producer end of the supply chain.

wasted each year due to inadequate storage and distribution systems. In mature, fully developed countries, moreefficient farming practices and better transport, storage and processing facilities ensure that a larger proportion
of the food produced reaches markets and consumers. Yet, consumer cultural standards dictate that produce is
often wasted through retail and customer behavior. Major supermarkets, in meeting consumer expectations, will
often reject entire crops of perfectly edible fruit and vegetables at the farm because they do not meet exacting
marketing standards for their physical characteristics, such as size and appearance. For example, up to 30
percent of the UKs vegetable crop is never harvested as a result of such practices. Globally,


generate 1.6 million tonnes of food waste annually in this way. Of the produce that does
appear in the markets, commonly used sales promotions encourage customers to purchase excessive quantities
which, in the case of perishable foodstuffs, generate wastage in the home. Overall between 30 percent and 50
percent of what has been bought in developed countries is thrown away by the purchasers. In the UK, the report

seven million tonnes of food valued at about 10 billion is thrown away from
homes every year. Global food production now takes up about 50 percent of the available suitable land, the
estimates that

report estimates, adding that the amount of land used for towns and cities is relatively small and, despite future
growth of urban areas, is unlikely to become significant in proportional terms. Land used for producing wasted
food reduces the land available to grow renewable energy crops or to support natural resources such as forests
and wildlife, the report points out. Considerable

tensions are likely to emerge as

competition develops for use of available land between the need for food production,
demands for preservation of ecosystems and the desire to produce biomass as a source of
renewable energy. As water, land and energy resources come under increasing pressure from competing human
demands, engineers have a crucial role to play in preventing food loss and waste by developing more efficient
ways of growing, transporting and storing foods, said Dr. Fox. But in order for this to happen governments,
development agencies and organizations like the UN must work together to help change peoples mindsets on
waste and discourage wasteful practices by farmers, food producers, supermarkets and consumers, he said.
Today, the world population stands at approximately 7,059,016,541 people. By 2075, the United Nations midrange projection for global population growth predicts that human numbers will peak at about 9.5 billion people.

Rising population combined with improved nutrition standards and shifting dietary
preferences will exert pressure for increases in global food supply.

Empirically denied human development solves

Wish 10 writer for Allianz (study of demographics) (Vladish Whos Afraid of Thomas Malthus? Global |01
October 2010by Valdis Wish

None of the troubling predictions about overpopulation and global starvation have come to
pass. So should we still be worried about too many people on Earth? The specter of too many people
and not enough food has haunted scientists and philosophers since at least the
time of Aristotle. The most famous is Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 grimly predicted that population growth
would outpace food production, resulting in human death and misery. The Industrial Revolution and
new agricultural techniques during the 19th century, however, helped prevent a major
global starvation. Over 150 years later, Paul R. Ehrlich published a bestselling book called "The Population
Bomb," in which he projected the starvation of hundreds of millions during the 1970s-80s. While the world
saw some devastating famines during those decadesin Bangladesh and Ethiopia, for
examplethey were not on the global scale that Ehrlich had predicted. But even after
history proved Malthus and Ehrlich wrong, theories about the dangers of overpopulation still
capture the public interest. Jared Diamond, author of the bestseller "Collapse", says humanity still faces a perilous
"population explosion" in the coming decades. His book describes the bloody events in Rwanda, one of the world's
most densely populated countries, during the 1990s to illustrate what can happen when population growth
converges with problems like environmental degradation and food shortages. Diffusing the population bomb
Malthus, Ehrlich, and Diamond all have their critics, mainly economists and theorists who deny that population

growth negatively affects quality of life. One of them is U.S. political economist Nicholas Eberstadt, who argues

overpopulation alone is not to blame for poor living conditions. Global living
standards, he notes, have improved dramatically during the 20th century despite a
near-quadrupling of the human population. "In most people's minds, the notions of

'overpopulation,' 'overcrowding,' or 'too many people' are associated with images of hungry children, unchecked
disease, squalid living conditions, and awful slums," writes Eberstadt. "But the proper name for those conditions is

Countries like Taiwan, South Korea, or the Netherlands show that

densely populated countries can prosper as well. Nonetheless, concerns that population growth
human poverty."

obstructs development have inspired large-scale family planning measures since the 1950s. In 1969, the UN
created the UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), which supports family planning initiatives worldwide. In
the late 1970s, the Chinese government introduced its famous one-child-per-family policy. While many question
whether such schemes are humane, the policy clearly slowed down Chinese population growth to the extent that
India will soon be the world's most populous country.

2NC- Food Prices

Tons of alt causes to food prices extreme weather, long-term supply/demand crunch,
population growth, speculative futures investing, disease, less available land, feedstock competition from the
biofuels industry, warming

Wall 13 personal finance reporter for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and, citing Baring Asset Management (Emma, 03/02, As the price of
food rises, is there profit to be made?
Noticed the price of sugar lately? Potatoes? Fresh fruit? A weak pound, US drought and one of the wettest years
on record for Britain have all contributed to the cost of your shopping basket soaring. When sterling falls, your
money buys fewer of the commodities that need to be imported. In fact, the recent sharp falls probably haven't
had their full impact in yet. But the story of rising food prices is about much more than currency swings. And it

Extreme weather in 2012 led to sharp price rises

in the likes of corn, wheat and soya beans, and these prices look likely to remain elevated for
the next six months, according to Baring Asset Management. There is also a long-term
crunch between supply and demand. In fact, food production must increase by at least 70pc by
2050 to meet global demand. According to the United Nations, the world's population is forecast to
increase from 7 billion to 9.3 billion over the next 40 years, and to meet this demand investment
provides tempting possibilities for investors.

in food production is needed. The Ecclesiastical Investment Management Amity Insight report Hungry Planet
warned that our current food supply is just not sustainable in the medium to long term, and
can only be solved through extensive investment in global agriculture, which will help increase crop yields. Neville
White, socially responsible investment analyst at Ecclesiastical, said: "Increased food production will have to be
achieved with less land, water and people. Investing in companies with a focus on mechanisation, crop production
and fertilisation that aim to increase food production can not only have a real impact on food but can also ensure
that investors profit with principles." There are two ways to invest in food: you can buy commodities through
trading on the future price of a grain or crop and/or buying an exchange-traded fund. Or you can buy shares in
agriculture and food-production related companies. Sarasin AgriSar invests in the entire supply chain, from grain
to supermarkets. This means that although you may miss out on large upsurges in the soft commodities market,
growth should be smoother. Henry Boucher, manager of the AgriSar fund, said that holding food-related shares
was a more ethical way of investing handing your money to companies in the chain reduces their capital cost and
helps them invest to improve food supply. "Some speculators invest in food itself, which takes supply out of the
market [if they store it for later sale at higher prices]," said Mr Boucher. "Commodity traders invest directly in
corn, pork bellies, wheat and sugar. We're more interested in finding companies that help improve global
productivity." He cites investments like Japan's Kubota, which makes small rice transplanters, or Indian company
Syngenta, whose fertiliser and seed pre-mix is designed to improve productivity by up to four times. "Both make
products for the small farmer they can be used on land as little as one acre," he said. "This is not about mass-

Speculative "futures" investing

in food markets can also be more volatile. Futures are short-term punts one bad crop
season, due to disease or extreme weather, may mean significant losses. Agriculturefarming but helping the small businesses left in the Asian countryside."

related shares are held for longer and are less affected by natural disasters. Jonathan Blake, manager of the
Baring Global Agriculture fund, said last year's weather had enhanced the investment appeal of those companies
providing the likes of seeds, herbicides and fertilisers, which will enable farmers to maximise their crop output. "It
will take time to address the shortfalls caused by the severe weather events of 2012, from droughts in America to
washout conditions in the UK and Europe," said Mr Blake. "We do, however, expect crop prices to come down later
in 2013, providing we have a year of 'normal' weather, as significantly improved output will allow inventory levels
to begin to be rebuilt." The Baring fund has a sizeable proportion of listed fertiliser, herbicide and seed producers.
"Crop production, through the continuous cycle of planting, growing and harvesting, robs the soil of nutrients,"
said Mr Blake. "As a result, these nutrients need replenishing through the application of fertilisers. Additionally,
for many farmers these nutrients are highly affordable given the current high prices farmers are able to get for
their crops." Schroders Climate Change manager Simon Webber also likes investing in companies that offer
productivity solutions which will help bring down the price of food through use of their products to increase
farming production. He also invests in Syngenta and US company Trimble Navigation, which provides solutions
for levelling fields. It is not just population growth that provides investment opportunities in the food sector, but
the change in global diets. As disposable incomes swell in emerging markets, diets tend to become more

Westernised. The AgriSar fund invests in Asian supermarket chain Dairy Farm, whose revenues have risen as the
expanding middle classes change their dietary and shopping habits. "Incomes in China are increasing at 10pc a
year," said Mr Boucher. "People are no longer going to the market daily but visit a supermarket once a week,
where they will be buying more meat, dairy products and imported vegetables." Mr Webber said that on top of the

available productive land is

in decline, yield growth is reducing and there is a growing competition from the biofuel
industry for feedstock. "Climate change acts as a threat multiplier to the sector
on top of the dual impacts of increased demand and decreased supply , presenting various
global demand for more agricultural produce are the effects on supply, where

investment opportunities. The sectors that will benefit from this are companies involved in agricultural production
as well as food retailers, whose share price will increase as food prices inflate."

Population growth alone swamps the internal link so does ag

slowdown USDA forecast, 70-100% increase in demand by 2050
Johnson 13 writer for the Council on Foreign Relations (Toni, 01/16, Food
Price Volatility and Insecurity,
The Global Food Market Just fifteen food crops make up 90 percent of the world's energy intake, according to the
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with rice, maize (corn), and wheat comprising two-thirds of that
number. The world grows more grains (PDF)--also known as cereals--than any other crop type. Much of the global
increase in food prices stems from staple grains, which in some countries can represent more than half of calorie
intake. According to the World Bank, due to an incredibly dry summer in the United States and Europe, global
corn and soybean prices reached all-time highs in July 2012, while wheat soared to prices comparable to 2011
peaks. Because grains also represent a major food source for livestock, higher grain prices have contributed to

The USDA predicts that domestically, prices will continue to

rise in 2013 at a rate of 3 to 4 percent. A June 2011 report to G20 agriculture ministers from ten major
higher dairy and meat prices.

2050, food demand (PDF) will have increased by between 70 percent and 100 percent
to meet a projected population growth of at least 2.5 billion additional people. "This alone is
sufficient to exert pressure on commodity prices," the report said. Growth in agriculture
NGOs, including the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the UN World Food Program, noted that

production is largely expected to come from increased crop yields and will primarily be located in developing
countries, according to a 2009 UN report (PDF). Experts say there is plenty of opportunity to improve farming
techniques in the developing world. Meeting projected demand will require increasing cereal production by an
additional one billion tons, up from more than two billion tons currently, and more than doubling meat production

growth in agriculture
in the next decade is forecast to be a third less than the annual growth in
the previous decade. The report estimates that a 5 percent increase or decrease in harvest yield in major
from current levels. However, according to a 2011 report by the OECD, annual
production (PDF)

grains can lead to as much as a 25 percent difference in price. Food Price Volatility According to the FAO, price

the global food system is becoming

increasingly vulnerable to it. The 2011 NGO report argued that "volatility becomes an issue for
volatility has been extremely rare in agricultural markets, but

concern and for possible policy response when it induces risk-adverse behavior that leads to inefficient investment
decisions and when it creates problems that are beyond the capacity of producers, consumers, or nations to cope."

2NC- Biodiversity
Species adapt and migrate
Ian Thompson et al., Canadian Forest Service, Brendan Mackey, The
Australian National University, The Fenner School of Environment and Society,
College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA Forest
Service, Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 2009, Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate
Change Convention on Biological Diversity
resilience can be attributed to many levels of organization of biodiversity, the genetic
composition of species is the most fundamental. Molecular genet- ic diversity within a
species, species diversity within a forested community, and community or
ecosystem diversity across a landscape and bioregion represent expressions of
biological diversity at different scales. The basis of all expressions of biological diversity is the
genotypic variation found in populations. The individuals that comprise populations at each level of
ecological organization are subject to natural se- lection and contribute to the adaptive
capacity or re- silience of tree species and forest ecosystems (Mull- er-Starck et al. 2005). Diversity at
each of these levels has fostered natural (and artificial) regeneration of forest ecosystems and

facilitated their adaptation to dramatic climate changes that occurred during the quaternary period (review by:
DeHayes et al. 2000); this diversity must be maintained in the face of antici- pated changes from anthropogenic

Genetic diversity (e.g., additive genetic variance) within a species is important

because it is the basis for the natural selection of genotypes within popu- lations and
species as they respond or adapt to en- vironmental changes (Fisher 1930, Pitelka 1988, Pease et
climate warming.

al. 1989, Burger and Lynch 1995, Burdon and Thrall, 2001, Etterson 2004, Reusch et al. 2005, Schaberg et al.

evolutionary change has been demonstrated in numerous longterm programmes based on artificial selection (Fal- coner 1989), and genetic strategies for
reforestation in the presence of rapid climate change must focus on maintaining species
diversity and genetic diversi- ty within species (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992). In the face of rapid
environmental change, it is important to understand that the genetic diversity and
adap- tive capacity of forested ecosystems depends largely on in situ genetic
variation within each population of a species (Bradshaw 1991). Populations exposed to a rate of environmental
2008). The potential for

change exceeding the rate at which populations can adapt, or disperse, may be doomed to extinction (Lynch and
Lande 1993, Burger and Lynch 1995). Genetic diversity deter- mines the range of fundamental eco-physiological
tolerances of a species. It governs inter-specific competitive interactions, which, together with dispersal
mechanisms, constitute the fundamental de- terminants of potential species responses to change (Pease et al.

plants have responded to dramatic changes in climate both

through adaptation and migration (Davis and Shaw 2001). The capacity for long-distance migration of
1989, Halpin 1997). In the past,

plants by seed dispersal is particularly important in the event of rapid environmental change. Most, and probably

all, species are capable of long-distance seed disper- sal, despite morphological dispersal
syndromes that would indicate morphological adaptations primarily for short-distance dispersal (Cwyner and
MacDon- ald 1986, Higgins et al. 2003). Assessments of mean migration rates found no significant differences between wind and animal dispersed plants (Wilkinson 1997, Higgins et al. 2003). Long-distance migration can also
be strongly influenced by habitat suitabil- ity (Higgins and Richardson 1999) suggesting that rapid migration may
become more frequent and vis- ible with rapid changes in habitat suitability under scenarios of rapid climate
change. The discrepancy between estimated and observed migration rates during re-colonization of northern
temperate forests following the retreat of glaciers can be accounted for by the underestimation of long-distance
disper- sal rates and events (Brunet and von Oheimb 1998, Clark 1998, Cain et al. 1998, 2000). Nevertheless,
concerns persist that potential migration and ad- aptation rates of many tree species may not be able to keep pace
with projected global warming (Davis 1989, Huntley 1991, Dyer 1995, Collingham et al. 1996, Malcolm et al.
2002). However, these models refer to fundamental niches and generally ignore the ecological interactions that
also govern species dis- tributions.

New species displace losses

Biello 14,

David, associate editor for Scientific American, Biodiversity Survives Extinctions for Now, 4/20,

A meta-analysis of ecosystems finds that species losses in any given place do not yet
translate to large changes in the number of different species in that place . David Biello
reports We are living during what seem to be the opening stages of the sixth mass
extinction in our planet's 4.5 billion year history. Species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are disappearing
at speeds rarely experienced, thanks in large part to human activities: pollution, climate change, habitat
destruction and other damage. But extinction apparently does not mean less biodiversity
at least not yet. A new look at ecosystems from the poles to the tropics shows that losses in the number of species
in any given place do not yet translate to large changes in the overall number of different species there. The study
is in the journal Science. [Maria Dornelas et al, Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not

researchers analyzed 100 surveys that followed more than 35,000

different species over various lengths of time. These long-term studies found that the number of
different species in, say, a coral reef remains relatively constant. Because the loss of a
species, either locally or entirely, is often balanced by the arrival of a new species. The metaSystematic Loss] The

analysis showed that 40 percent of places had more species present, 40 percent had less and 20 percent were
unchanged. In other words, the ecosystems of the current Anthropocene era are transformed, but just as diverse
so far anyway.

We are living in a world of novel ecosystems.

Humans adapt
Sagoff 97 Mark, Senior Research Scholar Institute for Philosophy and Public
policy in School of Public Affairs U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review,
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N
Note Colin Tudge - Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy at the London
School of Economics. Frmr Zoological Society of London: Scientific Fellow and tons
of other positions. PhD. Read zoology at Cambridge.
Simon Levin = Moffet Professor of Biology, Princeton. 2007 American Institute of
Biological Sciences Distinguished Scientist Award 2008 Istituto Veneto di Scienze
Lettere ed Arti 2009 Honorary Doctorate of Science, Michigan State University
2010 Eminent Ecologist Award, Ecological Society of America 2010 Margalef Prize
in Ecology, etc PhD
Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the
brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that
human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge
have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the
10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated
systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared
that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think
about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny
minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being
of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species
(other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 " The

human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures
went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we
need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two
positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and
important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the
community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this
position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales
of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent
ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that
removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the

biologists believe, however, that species are so

fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support
systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general will function perfectly
well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can
expect to remain even if every threatened organism becomes extinct. n350
community or ecosystem." n349 Other

Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable"
context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory
and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains
hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging
consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the
balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the
functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the
ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already

What crucial ecological services does

the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened
with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which
humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them
have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is
little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the
land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the
biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result
of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantlyin limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned.

local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep
going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that

the sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers
that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready,
willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to

In the United States as in many other parts

of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing
dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the
hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed
the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber
write a large number of additions to that "library.")

extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the
time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000
non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more
than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves.
n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many
birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when
it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there
are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or
have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because
all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an
area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are
nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or
two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did

not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many
of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic
species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born
Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and
often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to
count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the
absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem
because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and

The Ecological Society of America

has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in
strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed,
"much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of
influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is
likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point ;
above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference."
n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no
scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be
edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively
cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food
in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359

the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is
now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are
not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their
broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason
the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the
world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses,
lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable.
n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but

Has anyone found any consumer

demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in
the human diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say,
would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant?

Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to

The species on which

agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed
by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild .
cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911]

n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command
us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course,
but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems
and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration;
we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these
goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are
ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral,
cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of

protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net

"benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential,
reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love
promoting human welfare,

not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the
economic sense, good for mankind.

The most valuable things are quite useless.

Wont collapse the environment

The Washington Post, August 29, 1997, Diversity Is Not Enough to Ensure
Hardy Ecosystems, p. A03, l/n
Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of natures greatest
strengths, but new research suggests that diversity alone does not guarantee

strong ecosystems. In findings that could intensify the national debate over
endangered species and habitat conservation, three new studies suggest that a
greater abundance of plant and animal varieties does not always translate to better
ecological health. At least equally important, the research found, are the types of
species and how they function together. Having a long list of Latin names isnt
always better than a shorter list of Latin names, said Stanford University biologist
Peter Vitousek, co-author of one of the studies published in the journal Science.
Separate experiments in California, Minnesota and Sweden found that diversity
often had little bearing on the performance of ecosystems -- at least as measured
by the growth and health of native plants. In fact, the communities with the
greatest biological richness were often the poorest when it came to productivity
and the cycling of nutrients. One study compared plant life on 50 remote islands in
northern Sweden that are prone to frequent wildfires from lightning strikes.
Scientist David Wardle of Landcare Research in Lincoln, New Zealand, and
colleagues at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, found that islands
dominated by a few species of plants recovered more quickly than nearby islands
with greater biological diversity. Similar findings were reported by University of
Minnesota researchers who studied savannah grasses, and by Stanfords Vitousek
and colleague David Hooper, who concluded that functional characteristics of plant
species were more important than the number of varieties in determining how
ecosystems performed. In aiming to protect natural ecosystems, we cannot just
manage for species variety alone, the Stanford researchers wrote. British plant
ecologist J.P. Grime, in a commentary summarizing the research, said there is not
yet convincing evidence that species diversity and ecosystem function are
consistently and causally related. It could be argued, he added, that the tide is
turning against the notion of high biodiversity as a controller of ecosystem function
and insurance against ecological collapse.

2NC- Resource Wars

Resource wars are self-defeating
Bennett and Nordstrom 2K (D Scott and Timothy, Department of political
science at Penn State, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44:1, Foreign policy
substitutability and internal economic problems in enduring rivalries, ProQuest,
Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue

Military competition between states requires large amounts

of resources, and rivals require even more attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate a
settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be
reallocated to the domestic economy. In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs, when
a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a
rivalry, it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace
when faced with internal problems.

dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely to be most important
and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate active

Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to
develop when the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for
ways to improve a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military

investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for

this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war
ended because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could no longer compete
economically with the United States.
a rivalry. Among other things,

No resource wars peaceful resolutions, substitutes, and

Itell 13, Jeffrey, senior wikistrat analyst, this report summarizes a 14-day crowdsourced simulation in which over 85 analysts from around the world collaboratively
explored scenario pathways countering the conventional wisdom that resource
scarcities in the future will lead to resource wars., Countering Conventional
Wisdom: the Coming Resource Wars, October,
Politicians can also employ policies that have long proven to be effective under similar
economic systems to keep resources flowing. Such is the case with rubber production in
southern Thailand, in which falling prices and overproduction have led to political protest and violence. The
Thai governments judicious employment of agriculture price and production controls, proven to work in Europe
and the U.S. and already employed for rice in Thailand, could limit turmoil and maintain production by providing
equitable subsidies to all agricultural producers, thereby reducing equity concerns between the haves (the rice

government assistance
to manage agricultural risk can lead to higher production , greater wealth and more
farmers) and have-nots (almost all other farmers). It has been demonstrated that

agricultural stability, factors that would benefit Thailands farmers as well as the entire countrys economy and
food stability situation. Finally, the United States faces huge infrastructure demands, including refitting its energy
infrastructure for renewable energy. Much of this infrastructure could be funded through U.S. corporate profits.
However, U.S. tax laws have resulted in U.S. corporations keeping $1.7 trillion dollars in profits offshore because
marginal U.S. corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world. A deal that reduces these tax rates in return
for set-aside investments in solar conversion could be a win-win for American corporations and American citizens.

emerging technology (plus some smart organizational changes) is all that is

necessary to unleash a win-win outcome and avoid a scarcity situation. Consider China:
Sometimes an

With one-fifth of the worlds population to feed, China is buying up agricultural land in Africa and elsewhere,

leading to concerns over who will eat or starve in fallow years. Yet this might prove to be a false concern, as

technology is improving so rapidly that China

will soon be able to increase production over demand on its own land. Chinese meat and
Chinese meat and dairy practices are so weak and

dairy consumption will also be aided by the emergence of in vitro technologies, which produce meat and dairy

The uranium market also lends itself to a win-win

solution. Shortages in uranium production lead many to worry that producers and
processors will hoard uranium, which could result in proxy wars and trade by criminal
products in laboratories rather than farms.

networks. In 2007, the Nuclear Energy Authority estimated that at then-current prices, untapped uranium
resources consisted of about 5.5 million tons in known deposits and an additional 10.5 million tons in likely
deposits, enough to supply reactors sufficient fuel for 100 years provided demand did not increase. (At higher
prices, known uranium deposits would likely be larger since untapped areas could be explored economically.)

Several ongoing technological and mechanistic processes could suppress fuel

demand even as demand for nuclear power increases, thus making conflict less
likely. New nuclear energy technologies require less fuel and recycle used fuel. Higher demand would lead to
higher prices, leading to the cost-effective exploitation of new sources of uranium. Alternatively, the ascent of
renewable energy, especially solar, would reduce global demand for uranium fuel .
As these examples indicate, there are many ways to address resources shortages in
a complex, dynamic economy other than simply looking for more resources.
Existing resources can be used more efficiently; substitute products can be found;
new technologies can re-popularize obsolete resources (consider the absence of panic over whale
oil). The interplay of pricing and the ingenuity under-laying technological process has time and
again proven resource scaremongers wrong. Some resource issues present
themselves as zero-sum problems. To the extent one side wins, the other side must lose. By their
nature, zero-sum resource issues often do not lend themselves to easy political resolutions. Losers must rely on

For example, Japan

(and most other technologically advanced countries) can defend itself against Chinas nearmonopoly of rare earth elements which are essential for many high tech products by
developing substitute materials. Continued Chinese hoarding would also push up the
marginal cost of using rare earth elements, making exploitation of other known sources
more economically viable. Similarly, potential U.S. hoarding of phosphates (important for
fertilizer) extracted in the Western Sahara would lead to the development of synthetic
fertilizer and make phosphate recycling economically feasible. Asian countries may find it
technological advancements or economic forces to make do with available resources.

difficult to fully power their rapid urbanization, especially if neighboring countries are unwilling to share
hydroelectric power at reasonable prices; but new technologies such as power grids and wireless transmission

Even water supply issues that do not lend

themselves to easy political resolution such as in the Sea of Galilee in Israel and with the Tigris
and Euphrates Rivers among Turkey, Syria and Iraq water conservation, recycling and
desalination will help losers meet some of their water needs. A political solution,
could ensure that supply outpaces demand.

sometimes, is the only way to resolve a zero-sum resource conflict. The post-World War II international system
offers countries a variety of dispute resolution mechanisms to forestall conflict, starting with the U.N. Security
Council but often residing at technical agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, for example, for
dispute resolution and monitoring. International treaties and regional organizations such as ASEAN provide
mechanisms for dispute resolution and, sometimes, interested stakeholders can provide ad hoc dispute resolution
services as well. Water issues typify this type of resource problem. The headwaters for some of Indias important
rivers lie within Chinese-controlled Tibet. Likewise, Armenias headwaters (important for hydroelectric
generation) lie in hostile countries like Azerbaijan. India and Armenia are not likely to receive what either
considers fair water allocations but, because of the importance of other regional political issues, third-party
mediation can help both India and Armenia obtain more water than they might normally expect. For example,
while India will continue to press its claims against China, likely seeking U.N. mediation, it can simultaneously
mitigate the effects of Chinas water diversion by introducing an economical desalination and aqueduct system to
funnel water from its coasts to its inland provinces. The World Bank and other lending institutions would likely
support Indias effort. Armenia may find itself in a tougher bind, although its ally Russia could help decrease its
reliance on water resources for energy by reducing tariffs on natural gas. In the long run, Armenia could leverage

a settlement over Nagorno-Karabakh in return for normalized relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan that would
include cooperative use of collective water resources for power. Such a scenario seems unlikely now, but a
disruption of regional geopolitics could make such an agreement feasible, especially if Armenias power situation

The allocation of scarce helium supplies is another example of a

zero-sum problem. Poorly thought-out U.S. helium reserve policies have led to frivolous waste on this
nonrenewable and hard-to-extract resource. However, changes to U.S. policy on the use and
price of helium, if adopted soon, can provide enough helium to meet supply until
technology invents substitutes. Similarly, enforceable fishing regulations may never return
becomes desperate.

Mediterranean tuna stocks to a level that meets the burgeoning middle class demand but they can prevent
collapse and restore stocks to levels that can assure reasonable supply, albeit at higher prices. Efficacious
regulatory structures are also needed to assure an adequate supply of recreational beachfront for middle class
consumers and low-altitude airspace (up to 500 meters) for solar and wind arrays. Although it is likely to take
many more decades to convince naysayers that earth has escaped the Malthusian Trap, this Wikistrat simulation

political and technological ingenuity can ameliorate virtually any type of

potential resource scarcity. Fears over resource scarcity are often caused by
political disputes that make it impossible to develop known resources (such as gas off the coasts of Cyprus,
Japan and the Spratly Islands), even when pricing would indicate that such development is warranted . These
situations are perhaps the easiest to resolve, since all sides can stand to benefit from
a solution. Determining how much each side wins is the lone sticking point. In addition, technological
advances can often make political disputes moot. By the time Africa and China
settle their issues over agricultural land purchases, agro-industrial scientists may
be growing enough food in their laboratories to feed the world. Technology can also
indicates that

transform the zero-sum resource conflicts of today into the win-win situations of tomorrow. Continued Chinese
hoarding of rare earth elements would likely result in technological innovation making the Chinese practice

Even in
the worst-case scenarios where political leaders have to confront true scarcity, technological
progress, higher prices leading to more production, recycling, efficiencies, substitute
products and better policies can all lead to increased resource supplies , albeit at higher
prices. Unresolved political conflict could lead to spot resource shortages around the globe, but in a
hyperconnected world that responds quickly to technological advances and price
signals and values conflict resolution, the dystopian future foretold in Soylent Green will remain in
the realm of science fiction.
counterproductive, just like butter shortages repeatedly gave rise to improved versions of margarine.


1NC- Aerospace
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 3 rd,

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

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

there has long been a tendency to underestimate

America's staying power. Today, the declinists are back, arguing that China will soon overtake
future with certainty, but the evidence is that

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.

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
Measuring power in today's globalized world is a complex task.

one or two dimensions that captures a country's position, but rather the accumulation and the interaction between

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
these assets. Here, then, are five of those core strengths: Economic resiliency More than anything else,

structural foundation, combining an entrepreneurial orientation, deep and efficient capital markets, highly

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
experienced managers, and strong technological leadership.

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

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
and sustainability.

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

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
entrepreneurs and companies are leading the way.

years, the United States thought of itself as a nation dependent on oil and energy-related events beyond our

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
shores. Now,

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.

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 onlyin-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

the reduction of energy

imports has brought our trade deficit to a four-year low , which allows a greater share of the
manufacturers, particularly compared with Europe and China. Meanwhile,

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,

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
and expand our own prosperity.

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."

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
Military might and alliances By any measure,

rapid military buildup. Even after 13 years of war -- the longest period of continuous conflict our armed forces

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
have ever seen -- we remain capable of defeating any adversary. But

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

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
of overstretch that some have worried about.

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

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
resources, we have other diverse and valuable sets of natural resources.

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

We are likewise blessed to have a bright

demographic future. Our workforce is relatively young and still growing. Between
across the globe. Demography and immigration

now and 2050, the U.S. population is expected to grow by nearly 100 million people, expanding our workforce by

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
40 percent.

in China will be nearly 50; in the United States it will be 40. A big part of the reason our demographic profile looks

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 United 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 United 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
better than the rest of the world's is that

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.

No impact to aerospace tech

Axe 9 (David, military correspondent, regular contributor to The Washington
Times, C-SPAN, and Wired, 3/30/9,
Analyst Gregory Martin, a retired Air Force general, said the erosion of world influence is largely the result of
weak public support for the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, which are built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and
Northrop Grumman. If you cant afford that [mix], then your national objectives have to be scaled back, Martin

In other words, stealth fighters equal national power. And the absence of stealth fighters
Hogwash. The economic crisis is having an effect on every country, unevenly. Arguably, the
U.S. is faring better than most as investors flee to the comparative safety of the dollar. Power in the world is a
relative thing: if everyone else gets much weaker, and we stay the same or only grow a little weak, then we are,

equals weakness.

in fact, more powerful than we were before. Get it? The global recession, alone, does not mean we are losing
influence. In fact, the recession might even boost our influence, by underscoring just how much the world depends

power does not hinge on

fighter jets. We could retire every single fighter in the U.S. Air Force, tomorrow, and still
remain the most powerful nation in the world, by far. National power is a complex and shifting
on America as a consumer market. But more importantly, American national

thing, comprising military force, financial and cultural influence, leadership in international coalitions and
organizations and even language. Every country in the world teaches American English to its business students,
aviators and sea captains. Does that have anything to do with the F-22? Do some of our biggest exports music,
movies and television depend on a squadron of F-35s flying orbits over North Dakota? Ignore the noise coming
out of Washingtons punditocracy as the Obama Administration shapes its first defense budget. And when that
budget is published, and it (inevitably) includes cuts to Air Force fighter programs, take a deep breath before

Nearly everyone telling you we must buy a given quantity of stealth

fighters, or lose global influence, has a financial stake in advocating such purchases.
Of the speakers at the Wednesday confab: * Loren Thompson, from the Lexington Institute, runs a
private consultancy for the defense industry, with clients including Lockheed Martin * Thompsons
colleague, Rebecca Grant, also runs her own consultancy for the defense industry * Gregory
Martin has been a Northrop Grumman consultant The U.S. Air Force is in deep trouble, but its
trouble of its own making. And its testimony to just how overwhelming, and sustainable, is
Americas military, cultural, linguistic and financial dominance in the world that
our primary military air service can commit slow, institutional suicide without
alarming too many people, aside from a few hardware nerds like me and the consultants who get rich
panicking and consider:

gabbing about certain pointy airplanes on behalf of wealthy corporate clients.

Its inevitable
Margolis 07 (Eric, contributing foreign editor Sun National Media, Canada,
The US has also developed reconnaissance capability of formidable capacity and
coverage. US satellites can read license plates through clouds, smoke, rain or
foliage, and track human infrared signatures. Drones, U-2 spy planes and a fleet of

electronic warfare aircraft provide unblinking, 24/7 "eyes in the sky" over almost
all of Afghanistan and Iraq. The flood of data from all these sensors is consolidated and distributed to
field commands or shared with HQ units in what is called "actionable" information. The US Air Force
has become to the American Imperium what the Royal Navy was to the
British Empire, the source of its might, and means of power projection. While the Royal Navy
ruled only the waves and littoral regions, the USAF can today reach and strike any
point on the globe with devastating accuracy, speed and force. It is the mightiest,
most technologically accomplished military force in history. In fact, the USAF, with
its new stealthy F-22 and upcoming F-35, are now so technologically advanced,
they are at least 1.52 generations ahead of the rest of the world. Russia has advanced
technology and anti-stealth systems on the drawing board but cannot yet afford to deploy them in sufficient

Russia, China, and India are unlikely to catch up with US military

technology for the next 25 years if ever. The US accounts for 50% of total global
military spending, and is simply too far ahead for any other powers to catch up

unless some radical new military technologies suddenly emerge that neutralize or make obsolete today's advanced

Only Europe could compete militarily, had it the will, which it does
not. In fact, America's air force and naval aviation have enjoyed near absolute air
superiority since 1943 with only temporary challenges during the Korean and
Vietnam Wars. The USAF also has the US military's smartest, best educated, and
most forward-thinking officers. The US Army's thankless role and I say this as a former Army
weapons systems.

infantryman has become to pin down enemy units so they can become targets for the USAF's smart bombs.

2NC- Hegemony Inevitable

Hegemony is inevitable they have not responded to any of the
warrants Donilon outlines
a.) Geography were protected by two oceans whereas our
rivals like China and Russia are bogged down in border
b.) Economy the objective evidence proves our GDP is over
26% of the worlds economic activity, America has a larger
economy of the next 4 countries combined, we produce most of
the worlds energy, and have 3 times as much land mass for
development compared to every other country and thats
Kim 14, Anne, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, citing Joe Kurtzman, former editor in chief of
the Harvard Business Review, Refuting U.S. Declinism, Sort of, April/ May 2014,

America has nothing

to fear and much to anticipate from its economic future. In Unleashing the Second American Century,
Kurtzman, former editor in chief of the Harvard Business Review, makes the case for why America will
continue to dominate the global economy and why its best days are yet to come. [E]ven in
To counter the doomsayers, Milken Institute senior fellow Joel Kurtzman argues that

an ailing world, he writes, America will grow stronger still. But while Kurtzman presents compelling evidence
that the American economy as a whole will prosper, he doesnt answer two questions of equal current salience:

four interlocking forces that he sees

as the foundation for future U.S. growth. First, he points to what he argues is a uniquely
American brand of creativity rooted in a desire for self-improvement. The American way of thinking
(We are antsy, eager to move upward and onward) enables the kind of game-changing innovation
that other countries cant match. For example, Kurtzman points to the burgeoning robotics
industry, which promises to transform not just high-tech manufacturing but also everyday life.
U.S. companies are developing robots that could take on such dangerous jobs as mining,
undersea exploration, or even fire fighting, as well as more mundane tasks such as housework
Who will benefit, and at what cost? To build his case, Kurtzman identifies

(think Rosie from The Jetsons). Overwhelmingly, Kurtzman says, robotics companies are based in America. At the
end of 2012, America had 373 robot makers, compared to eighty-one in Japan, sixty-seven in Germany, and forty in
France. While other countries might be ahead of America in deploying big but mindless industrial robots,
American companies such as iRobot and Boston Dynamics are pioneering the development of nimble,
autonomous robots that can essentially think for themselves. IRobot, for instance, manufactures a popular
robotic vacuum cleaner called the Roomba, which cleans the floor and then automatically returns itself to a
recharging station. Rosies robotic grandsire wont be a German industrial robot, but the Roomba. The rise of the

second trend Kurtzman identifies: the renaissance in

manufacturing. In addition to new manufacturing enterprises such as robotics, Kurtzman documents the
relatively recent trend of reshoring jobs from overseas. Among the companies
rebooting U.S. production are Ford, GE, Whirlpool, Caterpillar, Dow, and the cooler
manufacturer Coleman, as well as foreign companies investing in America. BMW,
for example, invested $1 billion in 2009 to expand its plant in Spartanburg, South
Carolina. In 2012 the company built 301,519 vehicles and exported nearly 70 percent of themmany to China.
U.S. robotics industry also exemplifies a

The reasons for this American resurgence, Kurtzman argues, include the higher productivity of American workers,
rising Chinese labor costs and considerations such as proximity to markets (shipping stuff from China is time

consuming and expensive), and the protection of intellectual property. (For another analysis of the reshoring

third American advantage

abundant energy from domestic shale reserves. According to one estimate he
cites, America now holds 17 percent of the worlds total fossil fuel reserves more
than Saudi Arabia and Russia. Cheaper energy, especially for electricity made from natural gas,
is helping to tip the balance for companies like Dow, for whom energy costs drive the
decision about where to locate. Kurtzman names eighty-nine companies planning to invest a total of
$65 billion in new domestic production facilities as a result of lower energy costs. The final force that will
undergird Americas economic preeminence, says Kurtzman, is the huge pools of capital that have
been stockpiled by companies since the financial crisis. Much of that capital is parked overseas but still
available for investment.
phenomenon, see Three Ways to Bring Manufacturing Back to America). A
Kurtzman identifies is

C) Energy makes hegemony sustainable

Donilon 13 (Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor between 2010 and 2013,
Foreign Affairs, Energy and American Power,, June 15, 2013)
Farewell to Declinism Energy is a profoundly important aspect of U.S. national
security and foreign policy: the availability of reliable, affordable energy is
essential to economic strength at home, which is the foundation of U.S. leadership
in the world. Scarce resources have driven both commerce and conflict since time immemorial and still do
today. Energy supplies present strategic leverage and disposable income for
countries that have them. The challenge of accessing affordable energy is shared by people and
businesses in every country young democracies, emerging powers, and developing nations allies and

Energy shapes
national interests and international relations. It influences politics, development,
governance, and the security and stability of the environment . For all these reasons and
more, increasing global access to secure, affordable, and clean energy is a national
interest of the United States and a top priority for those of us entrusted with U.S.
national security. Two recent developments have changed Washingtons approach toward energy: first, the
substantial increase of affordable energy resources within the United States affects
the countrys economic growth, energy security, and geopolitical position. Second, climate
change, driven by the worlds use of energy, presents not just a transcendent challenge for the world but a
present-day national security threat to the United States. Both forces should push the United
States and other countries toward cleaner, more sustainable energy solutions. The
current optimism about the U.S. energy picture is a relatively new development.
adversaries alike. Disruptions in supply in one location can have global economic impacts.

Even as recently as 2008, when President Barack Obama took office, energy experts predicted that the United

thanks to U.S. innovation and technology, nearly all of those estimates have been
turned on their head. U.S. oil consumption peaked in 2005 and has been
declining since and alternative energy sources are being developed. Domestic oil
and natural gas production has increased every year Obama has been in office
now at seven million barrels of oil per day, the highest level in over two decades. The International
Energy Agency projects that the United States could be the worlds largest oil
producer by the end of the decade. And the United States is already the top natural
gas producer in the world. Meanwhile, natural gas imports are down almost 60
percent since 2005, and the U.S. now exports more natural gas than ever to Mexico
States would need to double its imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the next five years.

and Canada. In addition, for the first time in over 60 years, the United States is
exporting more refined petroleum products than it is importing. And U.S. energyrelated greenhouse gas emissions have also fallen to 1994 levels due in large part
to Obamas success over the past four years in doubling electricity from
renewables, switching from coal to natural gas in power generation, and improving
energy efficiency. The new U.S. energy posture and outlook will directly
strengthen the nations economy. As Obama has said, a countrys political and military primacy
depends on its economic vitality. Strength at home is critical to strength in the world, and
the U.S. energy boom has proven to be an important driver for the countrys
economic recovery boosting jobs, economic activity, and government revenues.
In North Dakota, for example, unemployment has dropped to near three percent, the lowest in the country, and
the state has a $3.8 billion budget surplus, largely due to increased unconventional gas and oil production. IHS
Cambridge Energy Research Associates estimates that the shale gas industry directly or indirectly employed

Natural gas production has also

sparked a domestic manufacturing revival. Manufacturers in energy-intensive
sectors, including chemical, steel, plastics, and glass companies, have announced
up to $95 billion investments across the United States to take advantage of lowcost natural gas. Furthermore, as a result of U.S. investments in clean energy, tens of
thousands of Americans have jobs and the United States is now home to some of
the largest wind and solar farms in the world. Domestic economic developments
like these improve the countrys world standing and send a powerful message that
the United States has the resources, as well as the resolve, to remain a
preeminent power for years to come. The United States new energy posture
allows Washington to engage in international affairs from a position of strength.
Increasing U.S. energy supplies acts as a cushion that helps reduce the countrys
vulnerability to global supply disruptions and price shocks. It also affords
Washington a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing its international
security goals. For example, the United States is engaged in a dual-track strategy that marshals pressure on
600,000 Americans in 2010, a number that could double by 2020.

Iran in pursuit of constructive engagement that addresses global concerns about Irans nuclear program. As part
of the pressure track, the United States has engaged in tireless diplomacy to persuade relevant nations to end or
significantly reduce their consumption of Iranian oil while emphasizing to suppliers the importance of keeping the
world oil market stable and well supplied. The substantial increase in oil production in the United States and
elsewhere means that international sanctions and U.S. and allied efforts could remove one million barrels per day
of Iranian oil from the market while minimizing the burden on the rest of the world. The same approach is being
used in Syria today and was used in Libya in 2011.

d.) Military comparatively superior military have a navy that

is checking conflict at every single point in the world with
satellites tracking challengers down
No challengers
Kaplan, senior fellow Center for a New American Security, and Kaplan, frmr.
vice chairman National Intelligence Council, 11 (Robert D and Stephen S,
America Primed, The National Interest, March/April)
in spite of the seemingly inevitable and rapid diminution of U.S. eminence, to write
Americas great-power obituary is beyond premature. The United States remains a highly
capable power. Iraq and Afghanistan, as horrendous as they have proved to bein a broad historical
senseare still relatively minor events that America can easily overcome. The eventual
demise of empires like those of Ming China and late-medieval Venice was brought about

by far more pivotal blunders.

Think of the Indian Mutiny against the British in 1857 and 1858. Iraq in
particularever so frequently touted as our turning point on the road to destructionlooks to some extent eerily
similar. At the time, orientalists and other pragmatists in the British power structure (who wanted to leave
traditional India as it was) lost some sway to evangelical and utilitarian reformers (who wanted to modernize and
Christianize Indiato make it more like England). But the attempt to bring the fruits of Western civilization to the
Asian subcontinent was met with a violent revolt against imperial authority. Delhi, Lucknow and other Indian cities
were besieged and captured before being retaken by colonial forces. Yet, the debacle did not signal the end of the
British Empire at all, which continued on and even expanded for another century. Instead, it signaled the
transition from more of an ad hoc imperium fired by a proselytizing lust to impose its values on others to a calmer
and more pragmatic empire built on international trade and technology.1 There is no reason to believe that the

mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan have been

the United States own, but, though destructive, they are not fatal. If we withdraw sooner rather than later,
fate of America need follow a more doomed course. Yes, the

the cost to American power can be stemmed. Leaving a stable Afghanistan behind of course requires a helpful

terms of acute threats, Iran is the only state that has exported terrorism and
insurgency toward a strategic purpose, yet the country is economically fragile and politically
unstable, with behind-the-scenes infighting that would make Washington partisans blanch. Even
assuming Iran acquires a few nuclear devicesof uncertain quality with uncertain
delivery systemsthe long-term outlook for the clerical regime is itself unclear. The
administration must only avoid a war with the Islamic Republic. To be sure, America may be in decline in
relative terms compared to some other powers, as well as to many countries of the former third world, but
Pakistan, but with more pressure Washington might increase Islamabads cooperation in relatively short order.

in absolute terms, particularly military ones, the United States can easily be the first
among equals for decades hence. China, India and Russia are the only major Eurasian states prepared to
wield military power of consequence on their peripheries. And each, in turn, faces its own obstacles on the road to
some degree of dominance. The Chinese will have a great navy (assuming their economy does not implode) and

Beijing will lack the alliance

network Washington has, even as China and Russia will always bebecause of geography
inherently distrustful of one another. China has much influence, but no credible military
allies beyond possibly North Korea, and its authoritarian regime lives in fear of internal
disruption if its economic growth rate falters. Furthermore, Chinese naval planners look out
from their coastline and see South Korea and a string of islandsJapan, Taiwan and Australiathat are
American allies, as are, to a lesser degree, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand. To balance a rising China,
Washington must only preserve its naval and air assets at their current levels. India,
which has its own internal insurgency, is bedeviled by semifailed states on its borders
that critically sap energy and attention from its security establishment, and especially from its
land forces; in any case, India has become a de facto ally of the United States whose very rise, in
and of itself, helps to balance China. Russia will be occupied for years regaining
influence in its post-Soviet near abroad, particularly in Ukraine, whose feisty independence
constitutes a fundamental challenge to the very idea of the Russian state. China checks Russia in
Central Asia, as do Turkey, Iran and the West in the Caucasus. This is to say
nothing of Russias diminishing population and overwhelming reliance on energy exports.
Given the problems of these other states, America remains fortunate indeed. The United States is poised to tread
that will enforce a certain level of bipolarity in the world system. But

the path of postmutiny Britain. America might not be an empire in the formal sense, but its obligations and

air and
naval deployments will continue in a post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan world. No country is
in such an enviable position to keep the relative peace in Eurasia as is the United Statesespecially if
constellation of military bases worldwide put it in an imperial-like situation, particularly because its

it can recover the level of enduring competence in national-security policy last seen during the administration of

America has strategic advantages and can enhance

its power while extricating itself from war. But this requires leadershipnot great and inspiring
George H. W. Bush. This is no small point.

leadership which comes along rarely even in the healthiest of societiesbut plodding competence, occasionally
steely nerved and always free of illusion.

We control all the key alliancesdeter challengers and keep

world friendly to US
Bandow, 11 senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to Ronald Reagan, he is the
author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon) [1-31-2011, Doug Bandow, Solving the Debt
Crisis: A Military Budget for a Republic, January 31st,]

two decades after the Cold War dramatically ended, the U.S. maintains a Cold
War military. America has a couple score allies, dozens of security commitments, hundreds of overseas bases,
More than

and hundreds of thousands of troops overseas. Yet international hegemonic communism has disappeared, the

Soviet Union has collapsed, Maoist China has been transformed, and procommunist Third World dictatorships have been discarded in history's dustbin. The
European Union has a larger economy and population than America does. Japan spent
decades with the world's second largest economy. South Korea has 40 times the
GDP and twice the population of North Korea. As Colin Powell exclaimed in 1991,
"I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of enemies. I'm down to Castro and Kim Ilsung." Yet America accounts for roughly half of the globe's military outlays. In real terms the U.S. government

It is
difficult for even a paranoid to concoct a traditional threat to the American
homeland. Terrorism is no replacement for the threat of nuclear holocaust .
spends more on the military today than at any time during the Cold War, Korean War, or Vietnam War.

Commentator Philip Klein worries about "gutting" the military and argued that military cuts at the end of the Cold
War "came back to haunt us when Sept. 11 happened." Yet the reductions, which still left America by far the
world's most dominant power, neither allowed the attacks nor prevented Washington from responding with two
wars. And responding with two wars turned out to be a catastrophic mistake. Evil terrorism is a threat, but
existential threat it is not. Moreover, the best response is not invasions and occupations as the U.S. has learned
at high cost in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Rather, the most effective tools are improved intelligence, Special
Forces, international cooperation, and restrained intervention. Attempts at nation-building are perhaps even more
misguided than subsidizing wealthy industrialized states. America's record isn't pretty. The U.S. wasn't able to
anoint its preferred Somali warlord as leader of that fractured nation. Washington's allies in the still unofficial and
unstable nation of Kosovo committed grievous crimes against Serb, Roma, and other minorities. Haiti remains a
failed state after constant U.S. intervention. The invasion of Iraq unleashed mass violence, destroyed the
indigenous Christian community, and empowered Iran; despite elections, a liberal society remains unlikely. After
nine years most Afghans dislike and distrust the corrupt government created by the U.S. and sustained only by

The last resort of those who want America to do everything everywhere is

to claim that the world will collapse into various circles of fiery hell without a
ubiquitous and vast U.S. military presence. Yet there is no reason to believe that
scores of wars are waiting to break out. And America's prosperous and populous
allies are capable of promoting peace and stability in their own regions.
allied arms.

Latent power solves

Wohlforth 7 (William, Professor of Government Dartmouth College, Unipolar Stability, Harvard
International Review, Spring,
US military forces are stretched thin, its budget and trade deficits are high, and the country continues to finance

have prompted many analysts to warn that the U nited S tates suffers from imperial
overstretch. And if US power is overstretched now, the argument goes, unipolarity can hardly be sustainable
its profligate ways by borrowing from abroadnotably from the Chinese government. These

for long. The problem with this argument is that it fails to distinguish between actual and latent power. One must
be careful to take into account both the level of resources that can be mobilized and the degree to which a
government actually tries to mobilize them. And how much a government asks of its public is partly a function of
the severity of the challenges that it faces. Indeed, one can never know for sure what a state is capable of until it
has been seriously challenged. Yale historian Paul Kennedy coined the term imperial overstretch to describe the
situation in which a states actual and latent capabilities cannot possibly match its foreign policy commitments.
This situation should be contrasted with what might be termed self-inflicted overstretcha situation in which a
state lacks the sufficient resources to meet its current foreign policy commitments in the short term, but has

untapped latent power and readily available policy choices that it can use to draw on this power. This is arguably

But the US government has not attempted to

extract more resources from its population to meet its foreign policy commitments.
Instead, it has moved strongly in the opposite direction by slashing personal and corporate tax rates. Although
it is fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claims to be fighting a global war on terrorism, the
U nited S tates is not acting like a country under intense international pressure. Aside from the
volunteer servicemen and women and their families, US citizens have not been asked to make
sacrifices for the sake of national prosperity and security. The country could clearly devote a
greater proportion of its economy to military spending: today it spends only about 4
percent of its GDP on the military, as compared to 7 to 14 percent during the peak years of the Cold
War. It could also spend its military budget more efficiently, shifting resources from expensive
weapons systems to boots on the ground. Even more radically, it could reinstitute military
conscription, shifting resources from pay and benefits to training and equipping more soldiers. On the
economic front, it could raise taxes in a number of ways, notably on fossil fuels, to put its fiscal
house back in order. No one knows for sure what would happen if a US president undertook such drastic
measures, but there is nothing in economics, political science, or history to suggest
that such policies would be any less likely to succeed than China is to continue to
grow rapidly for decades. Most of those who study US politics would argue that the likelihood and
potential success of such power-generating policies depends on public support , which is a
function of the publics perception of a threat. And as unnerving as terrorism is, there is nothing like
the threat of another hostile power rising up in opposition to the United States for mobilizing
public support. With latent power in the picture, it becomes clear that unipolarity
might have more built-in self-reinforcing mechanisms than many analysts
realize. It is often noted that the rise of a peer competitor to the United States might be thwarted by the
the situation that the United States is in today.

counterbalancing actions of neighboring powers. For example, Chinas rise might push India and Japan closer to
the United Statesindeed, this has already happened to some extent. There is also the strong possibility that

peer rival that comes to be seen as a threat would create strong incentives for the U nited
S tates to end its self-inflicted overstretch and tap potentially large wellsprings of latent

2NC- Competitiveness Not K2 Heg

Competitiveness not key to heg
Brooks and Wohlforth 8 (Stephen G. Brooks is Assistant Professor and
William C. Wohlforth is Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth
College, World out of Balance, International Relations and the Challenge of
American Primacy, p. 32-35, 2008)

American primacy is also rooted in the county's position as the world's leading
technological power. The United States remains dominant globally in overall R&D
investments, high-technology production, commercial innovation, and higher
education (table 2.3). Despite the weight of this evidence, elite perceptions of U.S.
power had shifted toward pessimism by the middle of the first decade of this
century. As we noted in chapter 1, this was partly the result of an Iraq-induced
doubt about the utility of material predominance, a doubt redolent of the postVietnam mood. In retrospect, many assessments of U.S. economic and
technological prowess from the 1990s were overly optimistic; by the next decade
important potential vulnerabilities were evident. In particular, chronically
imbalanced domestic finances and accelerating public debt convinced some
analysts that the United States once again confronted a competitiveness crisis.23 If
concerns continue to mount, this will count as the fourth such crisis since 1945;
the first three occurred during the 1950s (Sputnik), the 1970s (Vietnam and
stagflation), and the 1980s (the Soviet threat and Japan's challenge). None of these
crises, however, shifted the international system's structure: multipolarity did not
return in the 1960s, 1970s, or early 1990s, and each scare over competitiveness
ended with the American position of primacy retained or strengthened.24 Our
review of the evidence of U.S. predominance is not meant to suggest that the
United States lacks vulnerabilities or causes for concern. In fact, it confronts a
number of significant vulnerabilities; of course, this is also true of the other major
powers.25 The point is that adverse trends for the United States will not cause a
polarity shift in the near future. If we take a long view of U.S. competitiveness and
the prospects for relative declines in economic and technological dominance, one
takeaway stands out: relative power shifts slowly. The United States has accounted
for a quarter to a third of global output for over a century. No other economy will
match its combination of wealth, size , technological capacity, and productivity in
the foreseeable future (tables 2.2 and 2.3). The depth, scale, and projected
longevity of the U.S. lead in each critical dimension of power are noteworthy. But
what truly distinguishes the current distribution of capabilities is American
dominance in all of them simultaneously. The chief lesson of Kennedy's 500-year
survey of leading powers is that nothing remotely similar ever occurred in the
historical experience that informs modern international relations theory. The
implication is both simple and underappreciated: the counterbalancing constraint
is inoperative and will remain so until the distribution of capabilities changes
fundamentally. The next section explains why.

2NC- Military Cuts Alt Cause/ Tech Superiority

Healthcare and other cost jack military defense budget
Murdoch 12 (Clark, Kelley, and Ryan, senior advisor, Sayler, and Crotty,
research associates @ CSIS, The Defense Budgets Double Whammy: Drawing
Down While Hollowing Out from Within,,
October 18, 2012)

Thus, this drawdown will be much more serious than those of years past. Why?
Because the aggregate impact of inflation in the cost of personnel, health care,
operations and maintenance (O&M), and acquisitions results in a defense dollar
that buys less and less capability. This internal cost inflation is driving DoD
toward a zero-sum trade-off between personnel end-strength and
modernization (see Figure 2). Among the largest contributors to internal cost
inflation is the military personnel (including health care) account. As DoDs own
Defense Budget Priorities and Choices: January 2012 has noted, the cost of
military personnel has grown at an unsustainable rate over the last decade
Within the base budget alonepersonnel costs increased by nearly 90 percent or
about 30 percent above inflation [since 2001], while the number of military
personnel has increased by only about 3 percent. Operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs have similarly ballooned over the past few decades. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports in Long-Term Implications of the 2012
Future Years Defense Program that O&M costs per active-duty service member
doubled from $55,000 to $105,000 (in constant 2012 dollars) between 1980 and
2001. These costs rose to $147,000 in DoDs 2012 base-budget request and were
projected to grow at more than one and one-half times the historical (pre-2001)
rate through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) period, reaching $161,000
in 2016. While the rate of growth is expected to slow beyond 2016, CBO expects
per capita O&M costs to reach $209,000 by 2030. In combination, inflation in
these accounts will squeeze out all funding for modernization (procurement
and research, development, test, and evaluation [RDT&E]) in 2020, as
depicted in Figure 2, if current trends are allowed to continue. This will, in the
absence of extensive reform, force DoD to choose between sustaining end-strength
and sustaining modernization. It cannot do both. The Zero-Sum Trade-Off The CSIS
study team calculates that restoring modernizations share of the FY2021 defense
budget to 32 percent (the level of effort in the FY2001 budget) would require
cutting end-strength by 455,000 active-duty service members, leaving the services
with an end-strength of 845,000 (see Figure 3). This zero-sum trade-off will
produce far more severe and disruptive consequences than is generally
recognized by the department, requiring, at the very least, a wholesale
recalibration of U.S. defense strategy and force posture. The Squeeze on
Discretionary Spending This choice between modernization and end-strength will
almost certainly remain even if sequestration is averted by congressional action.
This is because discretionary spending tradespace (for both defense and

nondefense accounts) is being squeezed out by mandatory spendingwhich

includes spending on veteran benefits, income security, social security, Medicare,
and Medicaidand interest payments. And given Democratic aversion to
entitlement cuts and Republican antipathy to tax increases, the defense budget,
which constitutes 54 percent of discretionary spending, will likely be forced to
absorb additional reductions under any scenario. (Estimates of the scale of
alternatives to sequestration range from a total of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. Senate
Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin has suggested that an additional
$100 billion reduction over 10 years would be realistic.) Regardless of the
distribution of any cuts, however, mandatory spending and interest payments are
expected to consume the entirety of the U.S. budget by 2036, leaving no
discretionary tradespace for either defense or nondefense accounts (see Figure

Jacks equipment and new tech

Spring 11 (Baker, research fellow in national security @ Heritage, An
Unacceptable Squeeze on Defense Modernization, December 21, 2011)

Following the enactment of the Budget Control Act earlier this year, the budget for
the core defense program is already operating under stringent spending caps. At
the same time, per capita expenditures for paying military personnel and operating
the force are high and growing rapidly. Under these circumstances, funding for
the procurement of new weapons and equipment and for research and
development on new defense technologies will be squeezed to a dangerous
degree. A Looming Disaster for the Military and U.S. Security Both the Obama
Administration and Congress will be tempted to leave the defense spending caps in
placeif not to go to even lower capsnow that the sequestration process could
be applied to the defense budget under the Budget Control Act. This is a result of
the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (super committee)
to agree on an alternative deficit-reduction plan and adopt a policy of people over
platforms in slicing up the defense budget pie. Given the uncertainties in the
application of the sequestration process, it is impossible to calculate precisely how
much more the modernization accounts will be squeezed if that process kicks in.
Suffice it to say that the problem is likely to become dramatically worse. The
implications of the coming squeeze on defense modernization under the existing
spending caps should cause great alarm for all concerned, particularly since it
comes on the heels of the procurement holiday of the 1990s. The result will be
a military that lacks the modern weapons and equipment it needs, loses its
technological edge over future enemies, and finds itself dependent on a seriously
eroded defense industrial base. Congress will have to take two essential steps to
avoid a disastrous outcome for the military and U.S. security. First, it will have to
increase the existing caps on spending for the core defense program and find
savings elsewhere in the federal budget to offset this change, in accordance with
Heritages December 5 recommendations.[1] Second, it will have to take steps to
constrain per capita growth in the cost of compensating military personnel. The

Sources of the Modernization Squeeze There are two sources of the squeeze on
military modernization. First, the Budget Control Act has established caps on
spending for national security and discretionary spending over the next 10 years
that translate into inadequate defense budgets under any circumstance. These
caps will constitute top-down pressure on the modernization accounts
(procurement and research and development) within the defense budget. This topdown pressure will be accompanied by significant pressure from underneath by
growth in both the overall and per capita costs of compensating military personnel.
These increasing costs are largely driven by the array of defined benefits offered
by the Department of Defense to military service members and their dependents,
which fall mostly in the areas of military retirement and health care. These would
be more effective and efficient if they were converted to defined-contribution
plans. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), its overall military
manpower costs will rise from roughly $148 billion today to more than $160 billion
in fiscal year (FY) 2016. This increase will come in spite of proposed reductions in
the number of people serving in the active-duty military. Although the number of
active-duty military personnel is projected to drop by about 5 percent from FY
2012 through FY 2016, military personnel spending will rise, thanks to growing
per capita compensation costs. Per capita compensation for active-duty personnel
is projected to rise by more than 13 percent during the same five-year period. The
reduction in the number of active-duty military personnel, as currently projected
by the Obama Administration, will create a force that is too small to defend the
vital interests of the United States. The Heritage Foundation has recommended
that this reduction not be imposed. Accordingly, DODs projection of total military
manpower costs is well below what is prudent. It is also appropriate to point out
that while, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the overall per capita
costs for operation and maintenance will come down with the withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the per capita costs for operations and
maintenance within the core defense program will continue to rise as well. The
Scope of the Modernization Squeeze As a result of the twin pressures of the
estimated spending caps on the core defense program derived from the Budget
Control Actwhich still excludes the more stringent caps that would result from
the imposition of a partial or full sequestration under the Actand the rising cost
of military compensation, the level of funding for military modernization will
necessarily fall to unacceptably low levels. (See chart.) Under this scenario,
funding for defense modernization within the core defense program (defined as the
sum of DODs procurement account and research, development, test, and
evaluation account) could fall to roughly $145 billion in current dollars in FY 2016.
By way of comparison, $188.4 billion was to go to these accounts under President
Obamas original budget request for FY 2012. Thus, the level of modernization
funding is estimated to decline by about $43 billion in current dollars, or 23
percent, over the four-year period. In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, the
decline will be roughly $54 billion (in FY 2012 dollars), or about 29 percent. In
other words, President Obamas original request for the core DOD budget would
have devoted roughly 34 percent of that budget to modernization. By 2016,
modernization funding could fall to about 26 percent of total DOD funding for its

core program. When these comparisons are expanded to provide a broader

perspective, the situation becomes even more alarming. For example, the
Department of Defense spent more than $226 billion on modernization in FY 1985
(in FY 2012 dollars). This was 39 percent of the total DOD budget. That means
DOD could be on a path to cutting modernizations share of its total budget to little
more than one-half of what it was in FY 1985.

Arctic Advantage

1NC- Arctic Conflict

Zero chance of conflict cooperation prevails
Kraska and Baker 14 (James Kraska 14 is Mary Derrickson McCurdy visiting scholar at Duke University Marine Laboratory and senior fellow at the Center
for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia School of Law. Betsy Baker is
associate professor of law and senior fellow for Oceans and Energy at the Institute
for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. "Emerging Arctic
Security Challenges" Policy Brief for the Center for a New American Study in
March 2014 from
It would be easy to become pessimistic about Arctic military stability; we are not .
International conflict in the region is unlikely because the Arctic nations are
committed to a rules-based approach to secu- rity. Worries about the potential
for conflict over seabed rights in the Arctic are misplaced.6 War is far less likely above the
Arctic Circle than in nearly any other part of the world.7 Cooperation is breaking out everywhere in the region; international law is followed; there is no political vacuum.8 While elsewhere
Russia is exhibiting its propensity toward military displays, in the Arctic, Russia is
playing a constructive role in maintaining regional stability . Russia is intently
focused on regional security in part because it sees in the Arctic an opportunity to
recapture the former influence and superpower standing that it enjoyed during the
Cold War. Russia strategically and successfully takes advantage of its dominant geographic posi- tion surrounding 170 degrees of the Arctic
Circle, and its energy and economic presence in the region dwarfs that of all other Arctic states combined. The United States and
Russia enjoy a pragmatic working relationship in managing the security of the
Bering Strait.9 The U.S. Coast Guard and Russian Border Patrol have cooperated for
nearly two decades under a bilateral treaty to manage safety and security in the
53-mile-wide strait.10 The neighbors also jointly led negotiations among all eight
Arctic states to adopt binding agreements on search and rescue and oil spill
preparedness and response. Now the United States and Russia are leading efforts to adopt agreements on marine pol- lution
prevention and marine scientific research in the region. The remoteness and physical isolation of the Arctic
region also reduces military risk. Arctic states find comfort in their exclusive and
shared geogra- phy. They are united to resist efforts from outside the region that
might erode, let alone upend, the contemporary order. The one thing all Arctic states have in common is a rather
circumspect view of states from outside the region that seek to play a greater role in the Arctic. Furthermore , all Arctic states are
invested in a rules-based approach to stability and security , based principally on the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 11 The consensus among Arctic states that UNCLOS is the framework for
distribution of rights and duties in the region minimizes risk of conflict over
maritime boundaries. Every Arctic nation is a party to the treaty except the United
States, which, since 1983, has made a commitment to adhere to most provi- sions of the
treaty.12 Finally, the likelihood of conflict breaking out over the regions vast
offshore resources is also remote since Arctic states are pursuing their mari- time
claims through the multilateral Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), an independent international technical
body estab- lished by UNCLOS. Every Arctic coastal state except the United States has submitted
at least partial information for consideration of a claim to sovereign rights over
seabed riches of oil, gas and minerals. To the extent that overlapping maritime claims exist, the four other Arctic Ocean
coastal states, including Russia, are proceeding with deliberate professionalism in appropriate bilateral forums and with the CLCS to resolve them.13

n 2010, Russia and Norway, for example, signed a treaty to resolve their 40-year
disagreement over maritime resource boundaries in the Barents Sea . More recently, Denmark

and Canada established maritime delimitation in the Lincoln Sea, north- west of Greenland. Similarly, Canada and the United States are exploring a way
ahead to resolve a benign disagreement over a single boundary line in the Beaufort Sea.

LOST, icebreakers, and lack of infrastructure prevent Arctic

Heimbuch 13 (Hannah, The Arctic Sounder, A sustainable Arctic,, 8/31/13)
Throughout the conference, leaders from Washington, D.C., Alaska and abroad emphasized the need for a greater

The U.S.
continues to lag behind other Arctic nations, and some non-Arctic nations, in the
race to control northern resources, officials said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski pointed out that on either
presence politically, financially and otherwise from top U.S. leaders in Arctic matters.

side of Alaska, Russia and Canada are racing toward Arctic development. "It's frustrating to watch what's
happening in other areas of the globe," Murkowski said. "Alaska can't be forced to sit in the middle of this activity
bearing all of the same risk but potentially none of the reward. I want us as an Arctic nation to lead when it comes
to our resource development potential lead in such a way that there is a respect and a care for our environment
that puts us head-and-shoulders above anyone else, because this is our land. This is where we live." This

lagging behind is marked by the lack of U.S. icebreakers America has one to
Russia's 33, Canada's six and China's nine and hesitance to fund the major
infrastructure required to support a safe, efficient and lucrative Arctic market.
Leaders pointed to shipping regulations and ports, national security and an
efficient permitting system that allows for an attractive investment climate, to
name a few. A major decision facing U.S. policy makers is ratification of the Law of
the Sea Treaty, many leaders said, a United Nations convention that outlines the
responsibilities and rights of nations on the high seas. The treaty creates
guidelines for business and environmental concerns as well as marine resource
management; a convention that politicians, local leaders and investors present at the conference seemed to
agree unanimously on.

US wont ever focus on the Arctic

Smith 11 (Colonel Reginald R. Smith, USAF, is Professor of National Security
Affairs and Senior Developmental Education Student (Strategy and Policy) at the
Naval War College, A New Partnership Paradigm or the Next "Cold War"?, 3 rd
Global climate change is bringing about epochal transformation in the Arctic region, most notably through the
melting of the polar ice cap. The impact of these changes, and how the global community reacts, may very well be
the most important and far-reaching body of issues humanity has yet faced in this new century. A number of
nations bordering the Arctic have made broad strides toward exercising their perceived sovereign rights in the

all except the United States have acceded to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides an international legal
basis for these rights and claims. 1 Similarly, while most Arctic nations have been
planning, preparing, and programming resources for many years in anticipation of
the Arctic thaw, the United States has been slow to act on any of the substantive
steps necessary for the exercise of sovereign rights or the preservation of vital
national interests in the region. 2 The United States must move outside the construct of unilateral action in
region, and

order to preserve its sovereign rights in the Arctic, capitalize on the opportunities available, and safeguard vital

In todays budget-constrained environment and as a Nation

at war with higher resource priorities in Iraq and Afghanistan than in the Arctic, it
national interests in the region.

is unrealistic to believe that any significant allocation will be programmed for

addressing this issue. 3 Since the United States is too far behind in actions
necessary to preserve its critical interests as compared to the other Arctic countries, the Nation
must take the lead to cultivate a new multilateral partnership paradigm in the region.

Oceans resilient
Kennedy 2 (Victor, Environmental science prof, Maryland, Former Director,
Cooperative Oxford Laboratory, PhD, Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global
Climate Change,, 2002)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems are resilient to
environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that the biological
components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing
them to respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering
them ecologically adaptable. Some species also have wide genetic variability
throughout their range, which may allow for adaptation to climate change.

No impact to environment- Niche construction solves

Ridley 14, Matt, visiting professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New
York, He has been a scientist, a journalist, and a national newspaper columnist,
and is the chairman of the International Centre for Life, in Newcastle, England,
The World's Resources Aren't Running Out: Ecologists worry that the world's
resources come in fixed amounts that will run out, but we have broken through
such limits again and again, April 25th,
How many times have you heard that we humans are "using up" the world's
resources, "running out" of oil, "reaching the limits" of the atmosphere's capacity to cope with pollution or
"approaching the carrying capacity" of the land's ability to support a greater population? The assumption
behind all such statements is that there is a fixed amount of stuff metals, oil, clean air, landand
that we risk exhausting it through our consumption. "We are using 50% more resources than the Earth
can sustainably produce, and unless we change course, that number will grow fastby 2030, even two planets will
not be enough," says Jim Leape, director general of the World Wide Fund for Nature International (formerly the

here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through

such limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn't
end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this "niche construction"that people (and indeed some
other animals) can create new opportunities for themselves by making their habitats
more productive in some way. Agriculture is the classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying
World Wildlife Fund). But

on nature's bounty and substituted an artificial and much larger bounty. Economists call the same phenomenon
innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter's tendency to think in terms of static limits.
Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm
yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls. That frustration
is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think that economists espouse a sort of superstitious magic called "markets" or
"prices" to avoid confronting the reality of limits to growth. The easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of
ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists. I have lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of
ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist magazine for eight years. When
I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers
on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity viewpointthat there were limits to growth. I nowadays
lean to the view that

there are no limits because we can invent new ways of doing

more with less. This disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much
about why people disagree about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example, pessimists see a limit
to the atmosphere's capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming. So a continuing increase in
emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous rates. But optimists see
economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would
allow warming to level off long before it does much harm. It is striking, for example, that the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's recent forecast that temperatures would rise by 3.7 to 4.8 degrees Celsius compared
with preindustrial levels by 2100 was based on several assumptions: little technological change, an end to the 50year fall in population growth rates, a tripling (only) of per capita income and not much improvement in the
energy efficiency of the economy. Basically, that would mean a world much like today's but with lots more people
burning lots more coal and oil, leading to an increase in emissions. Most economists expect a five- or tenfold
increase in income, huge changes in technology and an end to population growth by 2100: not so many more
people needing much less carbon. In 1679, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the great Dutch microscopist, estimated
that the planet could hold 13.4 billion people, a number that most demographers think we may never reach. Since
then, estimates have bounced around between 1 billion and 100 billion, with no sign of converging on an agreed

we keep improving the productivity of each acre of land by

applying fertilizer, mechanization, pesticides and irrigation. Further innovation is
bound to shift the ceiling upward. Jesse Ausubel at Rockefeller University calculates that the
amount of land required to grow a given quantity of food has fallen by 65% over
the past 50 years, world-wide. Ecologists object that these innovations rely on
nonrenewable resources, such as oil and gas, or renewable ones that are being used up faster
figure. Economists point out that

than they are replenished, such as aquifers. So current yields cannot be maintained, let alone improved. In his
recent book "The View from Lazy Point," the ecologist Carl Safina estimates that if everybody had the living
standards of Americans, we would need 2.5 Earths because the world's agricultural land just couldn't grow
enough food for more than 2.5 billion people at that level of consumption. Harvard emeritus professor E.O. Wilson,
one of ecology's patriarchs, reckoned that only if we all turned vegetarian could the world's farms grow enough

since large parts of the world,

have yet to gain access to fertilizer and modern farming techniques,
there is no reason to think that the global land requirements for a given amount of
food will cease shrinking any time soon. Indeed, Mr. Ausubel, together with his colleagues Iddo
food to support 10 billion people. Economists respond by saying that
especially in Africa,

Wernick and Paul Waggoner, came to the startling conclusion that, even with generous assumptions about
population growth and growing affluence leading to greater demand for meat and other luxuries, and with

we will need less farmland in 2050

than we needed in 2000. (So long, that is, as we don't grow more biofuels on land that could be growing
ungenerous assumptions about future global yield improvements,

food.) But surely intensification of yields depends on inputs that may run out? Take water, a commodity that limits
the production of food in many places. Estimates made in the 1960s and 1970s of water demand by the year 2000
proved grossly overestimated: The world used half as much water as experts had projected 30 years before. The
reason was greater economy in the use of water by new irrigation techniques. Some countries, such as Israel and
Cyprus, have cut water use for irrigation through the use of drip irrigation. Combine these improvements with
solar-driven desalination of seawater world-wide, and it is highly unlikely that fresh water will limit human

The best-selling book "Limits to Growth," published in 1972 by the Club of Rome (an
argued that we would have bumped our heads against all
sorts of ceilings by now, running short of various metals, fuels, minerals and space. Why did it not
happen? In a word, technology: better mining techniques, more frugal use of
materials, and if scarcity causes price increases, substitution by cheaper material.
We use 100 times thinner gold plating on computer connectors than we did 40
years ago. The steel content of cars and buildings keeps on falling. Until about 10
years ago, it was reasonable to expect that natural gas might run out in a few short

influential global think tank),

decades and oil soon thereafter. If that were to happen, agricultural yields would plummet, and the world would

thanks to
fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been postponed. They will run out one
be faced with a stark dilemma: Plow up all the remaining rain forest to grow food, or starve. But

day, but only in the sense that you will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a

we may
well find cheap substitutes for fossil fuels long before they run out. The economist
harbor in Ireland. Just as you are likely to stop rowing long before you bump into Newfoundland, so

Worstall gives the example of tellurium, a key ingredient of some kinds of

solar panels. Tellurium is one of the rarest elements in the Earth 's crustone atom per billion.
Will it soon run out? Mr. Worstall estimates that there are 120 million tons of it, or a
million years' supply altogether. It is sufficiently concentrated in the residues from refining
copper ores, called copper slimes, to be worth extracting for a very long time to come. One
day, it will also be recycled as old solar panels get cannibalized to make new ones.
Or take phosphorus, an element vital to agricultural fertility. The richest phosphate mines, such
as on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific, are all but exhausted. Does that mean the world
is running out? No: There are extensive lower grade deposits, and if we get desperate, all
the phosphorus atoms put into the ground over past centuries still exist , especially in
and metals dealer Tim

the mud of estuaries. It's just a matter of concentrating them again. In 1972, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich of Stanford
University came up with a simple formula called IPAT, which stated that the impact of humankind was equal to
population multiplied by affluence multiplied again by technology. In other words, the damage done to Earth
increases the more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have. Many ecologists still
subscribe to this doctrine, which has attained the status of holy writ in ecology. But the past 40 years haven't been
kind to it. In many respects, greater affluence and new technology have led to less human impact on the planet,

Richer people with new technologies tend not to collect firewood and
bushmeat from natural forests; instead, they use electricity and farmed chickenboth of which need
much less land. In 2006, Mr. Ausubel calculated that no country with a GDP per head greater
than $4,600 has a falling stock of forest (in density as well as in acreage). Haiti is 98% deforested
not more.

and literally brown on satellite images, compared with its green, well-forested neighbor, the Dominican Republic.
The difference stems from Haiti's poverty, which causes it to rely on charcoal for domestic and industrial energy,
whereas the Dominican Republic is wealthy enough to use fossil fuels, subsidizing propane gas for cooking fuel
specifically so that people won't cut down forests. Part of the problem is that the word "consumption" means
different things to the two tribes. Ecologists use it to mean "the act of using up a resource"; economists mean "the
purchase of goods and services by the public" (both definitions taken from the Oxford dictionary). But in what
sense is water, tellurium or phosphorus "used up" when products made with them are bought by the public? They
still exist in the objects themselves or in the environment. Water returns to the environment through sewage and
can be reused. Phosphorus gets recycled through compost. Tellurium is in solar panels, which can be recycled. As
the economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his 1980 book "Knowledge and Decisions," "Although we speak loosely of

Given that innovationor

construction"causes ever more productivity, how do ecologists justify the
claim that we are already overdrawn at the planetary bank and would need at least another
'production,' man neither creates nor destroys matter, but only transforms it."

planet to sustain the lifestyles of 10 billion people at U.S. standards of living? Examine the calculations done by a
group called the Global Footprint Networka think tank founded by Mathis Wackernagel in Oakland, Calif., and
supported by more than 70 international environmental organizationsand it becomes clear. The group assumes
that the fossil fuels burned in the pursuit of higher yields must be offset in the future by tree planting on a scale
that could soak up the emitted carbon dioxide. A widely used measure of "ecological footprint" simply assumes
that 54% of the acreage we need should be devoted to "carbon uptake." But what if tree planting wasn't the only
way to soak up carbon dioxide? Or if trees grew faster when irrigated and fertilized so you needed fewer of them?
Or if we cut emissions, as the U.S. has recently done by substituting gas for coal in electricity generation? Or if we
tolerated some increase in emissions (which are measurably increasing crop yields, by the way)? Any of these
factors could wipe out a huge chunk of the deemed ecological overdraft and put us back in planetary credit.
Helmut Haberl of Klagenfurt University in Austria is a rare example of an ecologist who takes economics seriously.
He points out that his fellow ecologists have been using "human appropriation of net primary production"that is,
the percentage of the world's green vegetation eaten or prevented from growing by us and our domestic animals
as an indicator of ecological limits to growth. Some ecologists had begun to argue that we were using half or more
of all the greenery on the planet. This is wrong, says Dr. Haberl, for several reasons. First, the amount
appropriated is still fairly low: About 14.2% is eaten by us and our animals, and an additional 9.6% is prevented

most economic growth

happens without any greater use of biomass. Indeed, human appropriation usually
declines as a country industrializes and the harvest growsas a result of agricultural intensification
rather than through plowing more land. Finally, human activities actually increase the production
of green vegetation in natural ecosystems. Fertilizer taken up by crops is carried
into forests and rivers by wild birds and animals, where it boosts yields of wild
from growing by goats and buildings, according to his estimates. Second,

vegetation too (sometimes too much, causing algal blooms in water). In places like the Nile delta, wild
ecosystems are more productive than they would be without human intervention, despite the fact that much of the
land is used for growing human food.

2NC- Arctic Conflict Defense

(No Arctic war) cooperation high now
Aruliah 12-- Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada Post-Graduate research fellow
(Charles, "The Cold Truth: Why the Arctic isnt the same as Asias island disputes,"
iPolitics, 9-28-12,, accessed 10-7-12, mss)

if one looks past such public displays, it becomes increasingly clear that, unlike
territorial disputes in Asia, Arctic relations remains primarily characterized by cooperation
rather than conflict. And heres why: First and foremost, despite the fact that in August, the Arctic melted at an
unprecedented 91,700 km2 per day, it remains one of the harshest environments on the planet.

While its true that sailing through the Arctic could potentially cut the distance for international shipping in half, it can only be
achieved during the late summer melt less than one quarter of the entire year. Even then, ships must be wary of left-over multiyear ice, icebergs, and floating growlers, some of which can be as hard as concrete. Ships hoping to traverse the passage will still

This is why Arctic

states are closely cooperating in areas such as Search and Rescue. Contrast this with the significantly busier
require constant monitoring and icebreaker escorts, all of which incur significant additional costs.

Malacca Straits located near the South China Seas, which draws about 50 percent of the worlds oil tanker traffic, and saw some
70,000 transits in 2007 (compared with the Northwest Passages 26 in 2010). The East China Sea too, remains a busy waterway

the cost of controlling Arctic

shipping just isnt worth the risk of provoking conflict through the exercise of such dominance.
and central hub located between some of the worlds busiest ports. In general,

Secondly, unlike the Arctic, territorial disputes in East Asia remain intimately linked to historical grievances and nationalistic
passions from the regions conflict-ridden past. South Korea attributes Japanese claims to the Dokdo/Takeshima islands to its
imperial annexation of the Korean peninsula in 1905. China too has argued that the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were historically
administered by China, until the territories were unfairly redistributed to Japan by the post-war powers following Japans defeat
in the Second World War. Throw in other long-standing disputes like China-Taiwan relations and its no wonder why mobs of

In the Arctic, the

main sources of territorial aggravation exists between long-standing allies (United
States and Canada in the Beaufort Sea), and peace-minded Middle Powers (Canada and Denmark over Hans
Island) whose idea of conflict involves marking territory with a bottle of Schnapps or
Canadian Club. Even the Great Power of the region, Russia, has gone through great lengths with
Norway to settle a 40 year territorial dispute in the Barents Sea which has also laid the foundations for
future joint economic ventures in the area. On the contrary, nationalist rhetoric may actually be
driving Arctic cooperation. The encroachment of Arctic outsiders such as the EU, China,
Japan, South Korea and India, some of whom have argued that the Arctic be declared as a common
heritage of mankind has led Arctic states, who fear losing territorial integrity, to adopt an us vs.
them mindset. This has partly resulted in the denial of these countries applications for permanent observer status in the
exclusive Arctic council, the preeminent intergovernmental forum on the Arctic. Finally, the prominence of
scientific/environmental issues and community sustainability in Arctic discussions has mitigated potential
nationalistic posturing. The Arctic Council remains geared towards Arctic
preservation and studying the effects of environmental change issues where international scientific collaboration is the
zealous citizens have taken to the streets in anger over supposed incursions of national territory.

norm. Furthermore, the Arctic Councils endeavor to promote the well-being of indigenous communities, as evidenced by the
inclusion of six indigenous organizations as permanent participants in Council discussions, means that Arctic issues are dispersed
amongst a variety of actors, and are not the sole realm of national governments.

No arctic conflict
Dyer 12 (Gwynne Dyer, OC is a London-based independent Canadian journalist,
syndicated columnist and military historian., His articles are published in 45
countries, 8/4/2012, "Race for Arctic Mostly Rhetoric",
the race for Arctic
resources. The ice is melting fast, and it was all the usual stuff about how there will
be big strategic conflicts over the seabed resources -- especially oil and gas -- that
become accessible when it's gone. The media always love conflict, and now
that the Cold War is long gone, there's no other potential military
confrontation between the great powers to worry about . Governments around
the Arctic Ocean are beefing up their armed forces for the coming struggle , so
where are the flashpoints and what are the strategies ? It's great fun to speculate about
possible wars. In the end I didn't do the interview because the Skype didn't work, so I didn't get the
chance to rain on their parade. But here's what I would said to the Russians if my server hadn't gone
down at the wrong time. First, you should never ask the barber if you need a haircut. The armed forces
in every country are always looking for reasons to worry about impending
conflict, because that's the only reason their governments will spend money on
them. Sometimes they will be right to worry, and sometimes they will be wrong, but right or wrong, they will
predict conflict. Like the barbers, it's in their professional interest to say you need their services. So you'd be
better off to ask somebody who doesn't have a stake in the game . As I don't own a
single warship, I'm practically ideal for the job. And I don't think there will be
any significant role for the armed forces in the Arctic, although there is
certainly going to be a huge investment in exploiting the region's resources . There are
Russian television contacted me last night asking me to go on a program about

three separate "resources" in the Arctic. On the surface, there are the sea lanes that are opening up to
commercial traffic along the northern coasts of Russia and Canada. Under the seabed, there are potential oil and
gas deposits that can be drilled once the ice retreats. And in the water in between, there is the planet's last
unfished ocean. The sea lanes are mainly a Canadian obsession, because the government believes the Northwest
Passage that weaves between Canada's Arctic islands will become a major commercial artery when the ice is
gone. Practically every summer, Prime Minister Stephen Harper travels north to declare his determination to
defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty from -- well, it's not clear from exactly whom, but it's a great photo op.

Canada is getting new Arctic patrol vessels and building a deep-water naval port
and Arctic warfare training centre in the region, but it's all much ado about
nothing. The Arctic Ocean will increasingly be used as a shortcut between the
North Atlantic and the North Pacific, but the shipping will not go through Canadian
waters. Russia's "Northern Sea Route" will get the traffic, because it's already open and much safer to navigate.
Then there's the hydrocarbon deposits under the Arctic seabed , which the U.S.
Geological Survey has forecast may contain almost one-fourth of the world's remaining oil
and gas resources. But from a military point of view, there's only a problem if there
is some disagreement about the seabed boundaries. There are only four areas
where the boundaries are disputed. Two are between Canada and its eastern and western
neighbours in Alaska and Greenland, but there is zero likelihood of a war between
Canada and the United States or Denmark (which is responsible for Greenland's defence).
In the Bering Strait, there is a treaty defining the seabed boundary between the
United States and Russia, signed in the dying days of the Soviet Union, but the Russian Duma
has refused to ratify it. The legal uncertainty caused by the dispute, however, is more
likely to deter future investment in drilling there than lead to war. And then
there was the seabed-boundary dispute between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea,
which led Norway to double the size of its navy over the past decade . But last year,
the two countries signed an agreement dividing the disputed area right down the
middle and providing for joint exploitation of its resources. So no war between

NATO (of which Norway is a member) and the Russian Federation. Which leaves the fish,
and it's hard to have a war over fish. The danger is rather that the world's fishing fleets will crowd in
and clean the fish out, as they are currently doing in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. If the countries
with Arctic coastlines want to preserve this resource, they can only do so by creating an
international body to regulate the fishing. And they will have to let other countries fish there, too, with agreed

They will be driven to co-operate, in

their own interests. So no war over the Arctic. All we have to worry about now is the fact
catch limits, since they are mostly international waters.

the ice is melting, which will speed global warming (because open water absorbs far more heat from the sun than
highly reflective ice), and ultimately melt the Greenland icecap and raise sea levels worldwide by seven metres.
But that's a problem for another day.

97 percent of all resources are already claimed

Mahony 13 EU observer reporter, citing an Arctic expert and former Danish
admiral [Honor, "Fears of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'," EU Observer, 3-19-13,, accessed 3-28-13, mss]
This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that much of it is not economically viable to exploit - has

fears that the Arctic region is ripe for conflict. But this is nonsense, says Nil Wang, a
former Danish admiral and Arctic expert. Most resources have an owner "There is a general
public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict because it is an ungoverned
region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up by the one who gets there
first. That is completely false," he said. He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated
region," with international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles
led to

off their coast. On top of that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone "where you own every

to 97 percent of energy resources is actually

belonging to someone already," says Wang. He suggest the actors in the region all want to
create a business environment, which requires stable politics and security.
value in the water and under the seabed." "Up

Cooperation is increasing
Fries 12 (Tom Fries, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Arctic Institute,
Perspective Correction: How We Misinterpret Arctic Conflict,,
April 18, 2012)
War and conflict sell papers -- the prospect of war, current wars, remembrance
of wars past. Accordingly, a growing cottage industry devotes itself to writing
about the prospect of conflict among the Arctic nations and between those
nations and non-Arctic states, which is mostly code for China. As a follower of
Arctic news, I see this every day, all the time: eight articles last week, five more
already this week from the Moscow Times, Scientific American or what-haveyou. Sometimes this future conflict is portrayed as a political battle, sometimes
military, but the portrayals of the states involved are cartoonish, Cold-Warish...its all good guys and bad guys. Im convinced that this is nonsense, and I
feel vindicated when I see the extent to which these countries' militaries
collaborate in the high North. From last week's meeting of all eight Arctic
nations' military top brass (excepting only the US; we were represented by
General Charles Jacoby, head of NORAD and USNORTHCOM) to Russia-Norway
collaboration on search & rescue; from US-Canada joint military exercises to

US-Russia shared research in the matter where you look, the arc of
this relationship bends towards cooperation.

Polar Code solves

Young 11 (Professor Institutional and International Governance,
Environmental Institutions @ UCSB, Arctic expert, PhD Yale, 11 (Oran R, The
future of the Arctic: cauldron of conflict or zone of peace? International Affairs
87:1, p. 185-193)
Popular accounts of the Arctics jurisdictional issues are regularly couched in
terms of provocative phrases like the afore-mentioned who owns the Arctic or
use it or lose it. But these phrases turn out to be highly misleading in this
context. There are virtually no disputes in the Arctic regarding sovereignty
over northern lands; no one has expressed a desire to redraw the map of the Arctic
with regard to the terrestrial boundaries of the Arctic states. Most of the
disagreements are to do with jurisdiction over marine areas where the idea of
ownership in the ordinary sense is irrelevant. While some of these disagreements
are of long standing and feature relatively entrenched positions, they are not about
establishing ownership, and they do not indicate that some level of use is
required to avoid the erosion of sovereignty. There is little prospect that these
disputes will spawn armed clashes. As both Michael Byers and Shelagh Grant
make clear in their excellent analyses of Arctic sovereignty, recent efforts to
address matters involving sovereignty in the Arctic are marked by a spirit of rulebased problem-solving, rather than an escalating spiral of politically charged
claims and counterclaims. The process of delineating jurisdictional boundaries
regarding the seabed beyond the limits of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) is
taking place in conformity with the rules and procedures set forth in Article 76 of
UNCLOS. Norway and Russia have signed an international treaty resolving their
differences regarding jurisdictional boundaries in the Barents Sea. There are signs
that Canada and the United States are interested in a similar approach with regard
to the Beaufort Sea. The Russians, whose much ballyhooed 2007 initiative to plant
the Russian flag on the seabed at the North Pole is widely discussed in the books
under review, have acted in conformity with the relevant rules of international law
in addressing jurisdictional matters and repeatedly expressed their readiness to
move forward in a cooperative manner in this realm. There are, of course,
significant sensitivities regarding the legal status of the Northern Sea Route and
especially the Northwest Passage. But given that commercial traffic on these
routes is likely to be limited during the near future, and that the use of these
routes will require the active cooperation of the coastal states, regardless of their
formal legal status, opportunities arise for devising pragmatic arrangements
governing the use of these waterways. The progress now being made regarding
the development of a mandatory Polar Code covering Arctic shipping is good news.
The fact that hot spots in the search for oil and gas in the Arctic are located, for
the most part, in areas that are not subject to jurisdictional disputes is also helpful.
Overall, it seems fair to conclude that the Arctic states are living up to their
promises to deal with jurisdictional issues in the region in a peaceful manner.

The Major powers want to cooperate

Byers 10 (Law and Politics Professor and senior expert on Arctic politics
University of British Columbia, 4/2/10 (Michael, Interview: Expert decodes Arctic
conflict, UPI,
Q. China is a country that has major interests in the Arctic. A. Yes, and these are all
about shipping. China has become the dominant export country in the world. We
are talking about significant shortcuts -- up to 6,000 miles -- from China to Europe,
so yes, they're looking at this with great interest. At the same time China does
not want a Wild West situation in the Arctic. It will worry about piracy, the
need for search and rescue, the need for ports of refuge that ships can sail to in
the case of emergencies. China will want the Arctic Ocean countries to provide a
basic support system for shipping, so it has every incentive to work with the Arctic
Ocean countries rather than against them. Q. What about the Arctic's vast oil and
gas resources? China has a growing hunger for these resources and would be
happy to tap into the Arctic fields. Is there potential for a conflict? A. I don't think
so. China is very much part of the international economy. They buy oil and gas on
the global market and also invest in oil- and gas-producing countries. You don't
need sovereignty in order to access oil and gas -- you need money for foreign
investment and money to purchase oil and gas on the market. We're not in a
19th-century situation anymore. Q. But military activities have increased in the
region. And there are observers who fear a potential military conflict over
resources in the Arctic. A. That's unrealistic. If you look at the statements by
government officials -- in most instances, the military buildup is directed at nonstate threats. When they talk about their Arctic rights they almost always talk
about rights that are already within their jurisdiction if they are an arctic ocean
country like Russia. Or in the case of China, they are talking about rights in the
internationalized areas that will remain in the central Arctic Ocean. I understand
that potential for conflict sells more newspapers but my sense is that
countries like Russia and China have enough problems elsewhere and
therefore don't want to create problems in the Arctic.

Arctic countries will mediate conflicts

Trenin 10 (director Carnegie Moscow Center, 10 (Dmitri, The Arctic: A View
From Moscow,
The Arctic countries have taken several practical steps over the past two years that
testify to their goodwill. The Arctic Council and other forums have hosted
multilateral talks. In 2008, the Arctic countries signed the Ilulissat Declaration on
the principles for cooperation in the region, and they are conducting intensive
bilateral negotiations among themselves. Russias relations with Denmark have
warmed considerably, as have its ties with Norway. It has also begun building
closer relations with Canada, and the reset of U.S.Russian relations announced
in 2009 has started to bear real fruit. Seen in this context, declarations from
Russia, Canada, and other countries in 20072008 concerning the need for an
increased military presence in the Arctic no longer seem relevant. The Arctic

countries agendas are now focused on issues like the cost of servicing ships along
the Northern Sea Route and payment for transit through territorial waters. As we
saw when the volcanic eruption in Iceland in April threw European air traffic into
chaos, the globes northern regions have become a new area requiring close
geopolitical cooperation, above all between countries such as Russia and Canada.
If we were to see the Arctic instead as an arena for global rivalries, all sides would

No escalation disagreements remain limited

Weitz 11 (Richard, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics
Review senior editor 9/27/2011, Global Insights: Putin not a Game-Changer for
U.S.-Russia Ties,
Fifth, there will inevitably be areas of conflict between Russia and the United States
regardless of who is in the Kremlin. Putin and his entourage can never be happy with having NATO be Europe's
most powerful security institution, since Moscow is not a member and cannot become one. Similarly ,


Russians will always object to NATO's missile defense efforts since they can neither match
them nor join them in any meaningful way. In the case of Iran, Russian officials genuinely perceive less of a threat
from Tehran than do most Americans, and Russia has more to lose from a cessation of economic ties with Iran -- as

these conflicts can be managed,

since they will likely remain limited and compartmentalized. Russia and the West
do not have fundamentally conflicting vital interests of the kind countries would go
to war over. And as the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons are a great pacifier under
such conditions. Another novel development is that Russia is much more integrated into the
international economy and global society than the Soviet Union was, and Putin's
popularity depends heavily on his economic track record . Beyond that, there are objective
criteria, such as the smaller size of the Russian population and economy as well as the
difficulty of controlling modern means of social communication, that will constrain
whoever is in charge of Russia.
well as from an Iranian-Western reconciliation. On the other hand,

2NC- Environment Defense

Ocean acidification alt cause
Payet et al. 10 (Janot Mendler de Suarez, Biliana Cicin-Sain, Kateryna Wowk,
Rolph Payet, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands
Global Oceans Conference 2010, Ensuring Survival: Oceans, Climate and Security
Prepared by Janot Mendler de Suarez is a founding member of the Pardee Center
Task Force, Games for a New Climate, serves on the Council of Advisors for the
Collaborative Institute on Oceans Climate and Security at the University of
Massachusetts-Boston, and chairs the Global Oceans Forum Working Group on
Oceans and Climate. Mendler de Suarez was instrumental in the design, testing
and development of the GEF International Waters Learning Exchange and
Resource Network, or GEF-IW:LEARN. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (born 26 September
1959, in Sydney, Australia), is the inaugural Director of the Global Change Institute
at the University of Queensland, and the holder of a Queensland Smart State
Premier fellowship (20082013). He is best known for his work on climate change
and coral reefs. His PhD topic focused upon the physiology of corals and their
zooxanthellae under thermal stress. Hoegh-Guldberg is a professor [4] at the
University of Queensland. He is a leading coral biologist whose study focuses on
the impact of global warming and climate change on coral reefs e.g. coral
bleaching.[5] As of 5 October 2009, he had published 236 journal articles, 18 book
chapters and been cited 3,373 times.[6] Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain (PhD in political
science, UCLA, postdoctoral training, Harvard University) is Director of the Gerard
J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy and Professor of Marine Policy at the
University of Delawares College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment. Rolph Payet
FRGS is an international policy expert, researcher and speaker on environment,
climate and island issues, and was the first President & Vice-Chancellor of the
University of Seychelles, He was educated at the University of East Anglia (BSc),
University of Surrey (MBA), University of Ulster (MSc), Imperial College London,
and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He received
his PhD from Linnaeus University in Environmental Science, where he undertook
multidisciplinary research in sustainable tourism, May 3-7, 2010)
The global oceans play a vital role in sustaining life on Earth by generating half of the worlds oxygen, as the
largest active carbon sink absorbing a significant portion of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), regulating
climate and temperature, and providing economic resources and environmental services to billions of people
around the globe. The oceans of our planet serve as an intricate and generous life-support system for the entire
biosphere. Ocean circulation, in constant interaction with the earths atmosphere, regulates global climate and
temperature and through multiple feedback loops related to ocean warming, is also a principal driver of climate
variability and long-term climate change. Climate change is already affecting the ability of coastal and marine
ecosystems to provide food security, sustainable livelihoods, protection from natural hazards, cultural identity, and
recreation to coastal populations, especially among the most vulnerable communities in tropical areas. There is
now global recognition of the importance of forests and terrestrial ecosystems in addressing climate change. An
emerging understanding, through ecosystem-based management, of the complex and intimate relationship
between climate change and the oceans offers new hope for mitigating the negative impacts of global warming,
and for building ecosystem and community resilience to the climate-related hazards that cannot be averted.
Ecosystem-based ocean and coastal management also generates co-benefits ranging from food security and health
to livelihoods and new technologies that contribute to progress in equitable and environmentally sustainable
development towards a low-carbon future. Recent observations indicate that impacts of our changing global
climate on oceans and coasts especially in the Arcticnow far exceed the findings of the 2007 report of the

Moreover, we know that increasingly

ocean acidification (a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2) is impacting on
coral reefs, marine invertebrates and as a consequence changing the structure and
nature of ocean ecosystems. The oceans offer an important key to averting some of
the potentially far-reaching, devastating and long-lasting humanitarian and environmental consequences of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

climate change. With good governance and ecosystem-based management, the worlds oceans and coastal regions
can play a vital role in transitioning to a low-carbon economy through improved food security, sustainable
livelihoods, as well as natural protection from threats to human health, hazards and extreme weather events. Out
of all the biological carbon captured in the world, over half is captured by marine living organisms, and hence the
term blue carbon. In a 2009 report produced by three United Nations agencies, leading scientists found that
carbon emissions equal to half the annual emissions of the global transport sector are being captured and stored
by marine ecosystems such as mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass meadows. A combination of reducing
deforestation on land, allied to restoring the coverage and health of these coastal ecosystems could deliver up to
25 percent of the emissions reductions needed to avoid dangerous climate change. But the report warns that
instead of maintaining and enhancing these natural carbon sinks, humanity is damaging and degrading them at an
accelerating rate. It estimates that up to seven percent of these blue carbon sinks are being lost annually or
seven times the rate of loss of 50 years ago (UNEP 2009). Oceans and coasts must be integrated into the
UNFCCC negotiating text in order to appropriately address both the critical role of oceans in the global climate
system, and the potential for adaptive management of coastal and marine ecosystems to make significant
contributions to both mitigation and adaptation. Ecosystem-based approaches generate multiple co-benefits, from
absorbing greenhouse gas emissions to building resilience to the significant and differential impacts that coastal
and island communities are facing due to global climate change. While the international community must redouble
its efforts to adopt major emissions reduction commitments, at the same time, there is a need to focus on the
scientifically supported facts about natural solutions through ecosystem-based approaches that contribute to
climate adaptation and mitigation, to human health and well-being, and to food security. This policy brief provides
an overview of the latest facts and concerns on the synergy between oceans and climate, highlights climate
change impacts on ocean ecosystems and coastal and island communities, and presents key recommendations for
a comprehensive framework to better integrate vital ocean and coastal concerns and contributions into climate
change policy and action. 1. The Oceans Have a Vital Role in Combating Climate Change The oceans are the blue
lungs of the planet breathing in CO2 and exhaling oxygen. The oceans have also absorbed over 80 percent of the
heat added to the climate system (IPCC 2007), and act as the largest active carbon sink on earth. Ocean
absorption of CO2 reduces the rate at which it accumulates in the atmosphere, and thus slows the rate of global
warming (Denman 2007). Over the last 250 years, oceans have been responsible for absorbing nearly half of the
increased CO2 emissions produced by burning fossil fuels (Laffoley 2010) as well as a significant portion of
increased greenhouse gas emissions due to landuse change (Sabine et al. 2004). A combination of cyclical
processes enables the ocean to absorb more carbon than it emits. Three of the oceans key functions drive this
absorption: first is the solubility pump, whereby CO2 dissolves in sea water in direct proportion to its
concentration in the atmosphere the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more will dissolve in the ocean; second is
water temperature CO2 dissolves more easily in colder water so greater absorption occurs in polar regions; third
is mixing of CO2 to deeper levels by ocean currents. Convergence of carbon-enriched currents at the poles feed
into the so called ocean conveyor belt, a global current which cycles carbon into ocean depths with a very slow
(about 1500 years) turnover back to the surface. The biological pump begins with carbon captured through
photosynthesis in surface water micro-organisms, which make up 80-90 percent of the biomass in the ocean.
These tiny plants and animals feed carbon into the food chain, where it is passed along to larger invertebrates,
fish, and mammals. When sea plants and animals die and part of their organic matter sinks to the ocean floor, it is
transformed into dissolved forms of carbon. The seabed is the largest reservoir of sequestered carbon on the
planet. However the efficiency of the oceans ability to capture carbon relies on the structure and health of the
upper layer marine ecosystem (Williams 2009). Increasing oceanic concentrations of CO2 influence the physiology,
development and survival of marine organisms, and the basic functioning and critical life support services that
ocean ecosystems provide will be different under future acidified ocean conditions (UNEP 2010). Increased
atmospheric CO2 has already increased the acidity of the ocean by 30 percent, making the ocean more acidic than
it has been in the last 650,000 years, and affecting marine life, such as corals, microscopic plants and animals.
Increased ocean acidity is likely to not only affect the biological pump and ocean food webs, but is also likely to
influence the global carbon cycle leading to an increase in global warming (Williams 2009). Ocean Acidification:

Ocean acidification is happening nowat a rate and to a level

not experienced by marine organisms for about 20 million years (Turley et al.
2006; Blackford and Gilbert 2007, Pelejero et al. 2010). Mass extinctions have been linked to
previous ocean acidification events and such events require tens of thousands of years for the
Facts, Impacts and Action

ocean to recover. Levels of CO2 produced by humans have decreased the pH (i.e. increased the acidity) of the
surface ocean by 0.1 units lower than pre-industrial levels, and are predicted to further decrease surface ocean
pH by roughly 0.4 units by 2100 (IPCC 2001). Decreases in calcification and biological function due to ocean

acidification are capable of reducing the fitness of commercially valuable sea life by directly damaging their shells
or by compromising early development and survival (Kurihara et al. 2007, Kurihara et al. 2009, Gazeau et al.
2007). Many ecosystems such as coral reefs are now well outside the conditions under which they have operated
for millions of years (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007, Pelejero et al. 2010). Even if atmospheric CO2 is stabilized at
450 parts per million (ppm), it is estimated that only about eight percent of existing tropical and subtropical coral
reefs will be surrounded by waters favorable to shell construction. At 550 ppm, coral reefs may dissolve globally
(IAP 2009). Climate change is adversely impacting marine and coastal ecosystems and biodiversity. Further,
acidification of the oceans can impact food security both directly and indirectly through impacts on marine
ecosystems and food webs, and also threatens the oceans ability to continue providing important ecosystem
services to billions of people around the world (Worm et al. 2006). The bottom line is that no effective means of
reversing ocean acidification currently exists at a scale sufficient to protect marine biodiversity and food webs.

perturbations to ocean
ecosystems can only be avoided by urgent and rapid reductions in global
greenhouse gas emissions and the recognition and integration of this critical issue into the global
There are no short-term solutions to ocean acidification. Substantial

climate change debate (UNEP 2010).

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,]

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

the right answer might well be the

environment. As Figure 1 displays, the reduction in air pollution is comparable in magnitude to the
accomplishments have received wide media attention. Yet

reduction in the welfare rolls, and greater than the reduction in the crime rateboth celebrated as major publicpolicy 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

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
the actual improvement in ambient air quality in the areas with the worst levels of air pollution.)

regulation has played a vital role, to be sure, but in 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

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,
Crime Reports, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, EPA 4 Almanac of Environmental Trends

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

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
damage far earlier than iscommonly perceived. In addition,

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

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
animals, plants, and people are distressingly fragile.

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

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.
and lengthening of the seasons caused by shifts in the planetary axis; collisions of

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. 231-261, January 2010)

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

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
conservation Of mass),16

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

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
generates tragedy. As a rational being,

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

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
an invaluable aquatic ecosystem by floodwaters laden with toxic contaminants.23

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.

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
Experimental research shows that

found when one found it, especially when there was no assurance that more would be found tomorrow.

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

No extinction tech has decoupled humanity for the

Science Daily 10 (Science Daily, reprinted from materials provided by
American Institute of Biological Sciences, "Human Well-Being Is Improving Even as

Ecosystem Services Decline: Why?",, September 1,

Global degradation of ecosystems is widely believed to threaten human welfare,

yet accepted measures of well-being show that it is on average improving globally,
both in poor countries and rich ones. A team of authors writing in the September
issue of BioScience dissects explanations for this "environmentalist's paradox."
Noting that understanding the paradox is "critical to guiding future management
of ecosystem services," Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne and her colleagues confirm that
improvements in aggregate well-being are real, despite convincing evidence of
ecosystem decline. Three likely reasons they identify -- past increases in food
production, technological innovations that decouple people from ecosystems, and
time lags before well-being is affected -- provide few grounds for complacency,
however. Raudsepp-Hearne and her coauthors accept the findings of the influential
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment that the capacity of ecosystems to produce
many services for humans is now low. Yet they uncover no fault with the composite
Human Development Index, a widely used metric that incorporates measures of
literacy, life expectancy, and income, and has improved markedly since the mid1970s. Although some measures of personal security buck the upward trend, the
overall improvement in well-being seems robust. The researchers resolve the
paradox partly by pointing to evidence that food production (which has increased
globally over past decades) is more important for human well-being than are other
ecosystem services. They also establish support for two other explanations: that
technology and innovation have decoupled human well-being from ecosystem
degradation, and that there is a time lag after ecosystem service degradation
before human well-being will be affected.

Their impact evidence is alarmist and false

Kaleita 7 (Amy, PhD, Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Biosystems
Engineering @ IA State, Hysterias History: Environmental Alarmism in Context,, 2007)

Apocalyptic stories about the irreparable, catastrophic damage that humans are
doing to the natural environment have been around for a long time. These
hysterics often have some basis in reality, but are blown up to illogical and
ridiculous proportions. Part of the reason theyre so appealing is that they have the
ring of plausibility along with the intrigue of a horror flick. In many cases, the
alarmists identify a legitimate issue, take the possible consequences to an extreme,
and advocate action on the basis of these extreme projections. In 1972, the editor
of the journal Nature pointed out the problem with the typical alarmist approach:
[Alarmists] most common error is to suppose that the worst will always
happen.82 But of course, if the worst always happened, the human race would
have died out long ago. When alarmism has a basis in reality, the challenge

becomes to take appropriate action based on that reality, not on the hysteria. The
aftermath of Silent Spring offers examples of both sorts of policy reactions: a
reasoned response to a legitimate problem and a knee-jerk response to the
hysteria. On the positive side, Silent Springbrought an end to the general belief
that all synthetic chemicals in use for purposes ranging from insect control to
household cleaning were uniformly wonderful, and it ushered in an age of
increased caution on their appropriate use. In the second chapter of her famous
book, Carson wrote, It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never
be used. I do contend that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little
or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man
himself. Indeed, Carson seemed to advocate reasoned response to rigorous
scientific investigation, and in fact this did become the modern approach to
environmental chemical licensure and monitoring. An hour-long CBS documentary
on pesticides was aired during the height of the furor over Silent Spring. In the
documentary, Dr. Page Nicholson, a water-pollution expert with the Public Health
Service, wasnt able to answer how long pesticides persist in water once they enter
it, or the extent to which pesticides contaminate groundwater supplies. Today, this
sort of information is gathered through routine testing of chemicals for use in the
environment. 20 V: Lessons from the Apocalypse Ironically, rigorous investigation
was not used in the decision to ban DDT, primarily due to the hysteria Silent
Spring generated. In this example, the hysteria took on a life of its own, even
trumping the authors original intent. There was, as we have seen, a more sinister
and tragic response to the hysteria generated by Silent Spring. Certain developing
countries, under significant pressure from the United States, abandoned the use of
DDT. This decision resulted in millions of deaths from malaria and other insectborne diseases. In the absence of pressure to abandon the use of DDT, these lives
would have been spared. It would certainly have been possible to design policies
requiring caution and safe practices in the use of supplemental chemicals in the
environment, without pronouncing a death sentence on millions of people. A major
challenge in developing appropriate responses to legitimate problems is that
alarmism catches peoples attention and draws them in. Alarmism is given more
weight than it deserves, as policy makers attempt to appease their constituency
and the media. It polarizes the debaters into groups of believers and skeptics,
so that reasoned, fact-based compromise is difficult to achieve. Neither of these
aspects of alarmism is healthy for the development of appropriate
policy. Further, alarmist responses to valid problems risk foreclosing potentially
useful responses based on ingenuity and progress. There are many examples from
the energy sector where, in the presence of economic, efficiency, or societal
demands, the marketplace has responded by developing better alternatives. That is
not to say that we should blissfully squander our energy resources; on the contrary,
we should be careful to utilize them wisely. But energy-resource hysteria should
not lead us to circumvent scientific advancement by cherry-picking and favoring
one particular replacement technology at the expense of other promising
technologies. Environmental alarmism should be taken for what it isa natural
tendency of some portion of the public to latch onto the worst, and most unlikely,
potential outcome. Alarmism should not be used as the basis for policy. Where a
real problem exists, solutions should be based on reality, not hysteria.

Tons of alt causes that its too late to solve

Myers 97 (Norman, Visiting Fellow of Green College Oxford University and
Senior Fellow World Wildlife Fund, Biodiversity II, Ed. Reaka-Kudla and Wilson,
p. 135-136, 1997)

While formulating our responses to the mass extinction crisis, we need to bear in
mind the length of time still available to us. The critical criterion for our efforts is
not whether we are doing far more than before, but whether it will be enoughand
that in turn raises the question of enough by when? How soon might we cross a
threshold after which our best efforts could prove to be of little avail? Of course,
not all habitats are going to be destroyed outright within the immediate future. But
that is hardly the point. What looks set to eliminate many if not most species in the
long run will be the fragmentation effect, i.e., the break up of extensive habitats
into small isolated patches that are too small to maintain their stocks of species
into the indefinite future. This phenomenon has been widely analyzed through the
theory of island biogeography, and appears to be strongly supported through
abundant empirical evidence, albeit with a good number of variations on the
general theme. True, the process of ecological equilibriation, with its delayed fallout effects, will take an extended period to exert its full depletive impact; in some
instances, it will be decades and even centuries before species eventually
disappear. But the ultimate upshot, which is what we should be primarily
concerned with, will be the same. Consider the environmental degradation that
already has occurred. Through dynamic inertia, it will continue to exert an
increasingly adverse effect for a good way into the future, no matter how
vigorously we try to resist the process: much potential damage is already in the
pipeline. An obvious example is acid rain, which will keep on inflicting injury on
biotas by reason of pollutants already deposited though not yet causing apparent
harm. Similarly, tropical forests will suffer desiccation through climatic changes
induced by deforestation that already has taken place. Desertification will keep on
expanding its impact through built-in momentum. Ozone-destroying CFCs now in
the atmosphere will continue their work for a whole century even if we were to
cease releasing them forthwith. There is enough global warming in store through
past emissions of greenhouse gases to cause significant climatic change no matter
how much we seek to slow it, let alone halt it. In light of this on-going degradation
of the biosphere, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that in the year 2000
the whole of humankind were to be removed from the face of the Earth in one fell
swoop. Because of the many environmental perturbations already imposed, with
their impacts persisting for many subsequent decades, gross biospheric
impoverishment would continue and thus serve to eliminate further large numbers
of species in the long term (Myers, 1990b).

Environment is the best in hundreds of years- tech adaption

Berg 8 (Chris, Columnist The Age, Isn't All This Talk of an Apocalypse Getting
a Bit Boring?, The Age, 57736917.html, January 27, 2008)

But there are substantial grounds for optimism on almost every measure,
the state of the world is improving. Pollution is no longer the threat it was seen to
be in the 1970s, at least in the developed world. Changes in technology, combined
with our greater demand for a clean environment, have virtually eliminated
concerns about pungent waterways and dirty forests. Legislation played some role
in this, but as Indur Goklany points out in his recent study, The Improving State of
the World, the environment started getting better long before such laws were
passed. Goklany reveals that strong economies, not environment ministers, are the
most effective enforcers of cleanliness in our air and water. Indeed, the world's 10
most polluted places are in countries where strong economic growth has
historically been absent Russia, China, India and Kyrgyzstan have not really
been known for their thriving consumer capitalism. Other indices, too, show that
humanity's future is likely to be bright . Infant mortality has dramatically declined,
as has malnutrition, illiteracy, and even global poverty. And there are good grounds
for hope that we can adapt to changing climates as well. History has shown just
how capable we are of inventing and adapting our way out of any sticky situation
and how we can do it without crippling our economies or imposing brutal social
controls. Environmental alarmists have become more and more like those
apocalyptic preachers common in the 19th century always expecting the
Rapture on this date and, when it doesn't come, quickly revising their calculations.
Optimism is in too short supply in discussions about the environment. But four
decades after The Population Bomb, if we remember just how wrong visions of the
apocalypse have been in the past, perhaps we will look to the future more

Latin American Advantage

1NC- Latin America

Turn DTO Turn
Armed drones in Latin America key to end DTOs- countries are
already collaborating
Mora and Fonseca 15 (Frank Mora and Brian Fonseca, Americas Quarterly,
Latin America's High-Tech Warriors, Spring 2015, Volume 9, Number 2)
Defense budgets get a boost from science. Latin American militaries allocate an average 68% of their total annual
budgets to personnel. Brazil, Chile and Colombia accounted for nearly 75% of Latin Americas military spending in

Interstate conflict is rare in Latin America . Yet some nations in the region are
From drones to complex border surveillance
systems, their research and development (R&D) laboratories have come up with sophisticated
tools to counter this centurys unconventional threats to national security. Thats

emerging as world leaders in advanced military technology.

reflected in part by a 15 percent increase in military spending in the region between 2010 and 2013a sharp
contrast with the global decrease in military budgets. Total defense spending for Latin America and the Caribbean
increased to $74 billion in 2013. Latin American militaries allocate an average 68 percent of their total annual
budgets to personnel, and there have been additional purchases of big-ticket items like combat aircraft (most
recently, by Brazil and Chile). But the figures also show an increased focus on science and technology (S&T)
developmentand with it the strengthening of domestic defense industry establishments that has begun to drive

The regions biggest perceived threats can be gleaned from the headlines:

transnational crime, narcotics trafficking and domestic insurgencies . These same threat
perceptions are reflected in the areas defense strategies. For example, the military budgets in Guatemala,
Honduras and Nicaragua, where gangs and drug cartels have accounted for a rise in violence, grew an average of
17 percent between 2012 and 2013. Just a few years ago Mexicos Navy, the Secretara de Marina (SEMAR),
switched from the planned purchase of 12 fighter jets to 15 turbo-prop maritime surveillance aircraft, a reflection
of the increased attention paid to illicit drug traffickers who are operating in coastal areas. This also tracks with
Washingtons own threat perceptions in the region. According to Ricardo Arias, program manager at the United
States Southern Commands Science, Technology and Experimentation Division, U.S. S&T efforts in the region
have similarly been oriented toward improving Latin Americas capacity to counter illicit trafficking and criminal
networks and monitor land, air and maritime spaces threatened by non-state actors .

U.S. agencies have

invested millions of dollars in research efforts that support the regions capacity to
combat these asymmetrical threats. The U.S. Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security,
Transportation, and Treasury have all supported S&T in the region. Not all Latin American militaries have
abandoned the pursuit of conventional military hardware, however. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and
Venezuela continue to develop and procure technologies seemingly designed for more conventional interstate
conflicts, such as fighter jets, attack helicopters, submarines, and artillery rocket systems. Nonetheless, even
these nations are increasingly concentrating resources on developing dual-use technologies, such as offshore

dronesand military transports that

enable militaries to combat both conventional and nonconventional
threats. Countries capacity for R&D varies greatly across the region. Most militaries in Latin America depend
patrol vessels (OPVs), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)commonly called

on foreign procurement, with supply sources ranging from the U.S. and Israel to Europe and Russia. Much of the
military technology in place in Central America and the Caribbean to combat transnational organized crime is

an emerging group of Latin American militaries are working with

academic institutions, the private sector and government organizations to develop
a domestic R&D base and indigenous defense industries that focus on cutting-edge
technology. Brazil, Chile and Colombia, which together accounted for nearly 75 percent of Latin
Americas total 2013 military spending, are paving the way in military S&T. They are the only
imported. However,

countries in the region that have well-funded R&D operations with strong intellectual capital to support
innovation. Close behind in S&T development are Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. Brazil is the
regional leader in military science and technology. The countrys total R&D budget exceeds 1.25 percent of GDP,
making it the biggest regional spender. The Brazilian military has developed its own software-defined radios,

cybersecurity technologies, UAVs, satellites, submarines, aircraft, as well as modern infantry weapons. The
Brazilian defense and aerospace industry is the most robust in Latin America, consisting of more than 90
companies. At the top of the list is Embraer, whose technologies, including attack aircraft, military transport
aircraft and surveillance aircraft, are exported all over Latin America, as well as to other global markets.
Colombia is another success story in military S&T. The military has designed and developed a wide range of
technologies, from personal ballistic protection equipment, military robots and radar, to OPVs. Colombia is quickly
becoming known for its advanced riverine boats made for inland waterways. The principal players are for-profit
companies that are wholly owned by the Colombian Ministry of Defense. Two examples are the Corporacin de
Alta Tecnologa (High-Tech CorporationCODALTEC) and the Corporacin de Ciencia y Tecnologa para el
Desarrollo de la Industria Naval, Martima y Fluvial (Science and Technology Corporation for the Development of
Naval, Maritime and Riverine IndustryCOTECMAR). CODALTEC is developing land radar technologies to
combat domestic insurgencies and illicit traffickers, and COTECMAR is known for designing and producing OPVs.
These companies are increasing Colombias capacity to export military technologyits military OPVs and ballistic

Latin American military technologies being

developed to combat illicit non-state actors largely center on intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance; as well as transport and interdiction on land, air
and sea. The region is experiencing a marked increase in the development and
procurement of UAVs. Most militaries in South and Central America use UAVs, and
many of the militaries are pursuing their own UAV systems: Argentina has created
the Lipn M3; Brazil, the VT-15s; Colombia, the Navigator X2 and Iris; Ecuador, the
Fnix; and Mexico, the S4. Many of these UAVs have image and facial recognition
protection products are now exported worldwide.

Alt cause- Israeli drone exports

Sanchez 14 (W. Alejandro Sanchez is a Senior Research Fellow at the Council
on Hemispheric Affairs, The Cutting Edge News, The Use of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles Drones on in Latin America,, January 22, 2014)
Over the past several years, drone usage has become increasingly widespread, not solely among global military powers but also
among rising mid-level military powerhouses and even among less-economically developed nations. The combination of
increasingly inexpensive drones and the intention by countries that manufacture them to sell this technology to friendly

the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs has issued a number of reports about drone usage in Latin
America. This analysis aims to highlight the main aspects of this intriguing piece of military technology. 1. The U.S.
is not the major provider Even though the U.S. continues to be the largest supplier of conventional weapons to
Latin American states, it is Israel, more so than Washington, which has become the
foremost provider of drone technology. In US News Jason Koebler explains: So far, the market for
governments are two critical factors that are fomenting drone usage across the globe. In recent years,

drones in Central and South America has been completely dominated by Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems which has sold
its Hermes drones to Colombia and Israel Aerospace Industries [IAI] which has sold drones to Ecuador and Brazil. Israel
sold some $500 million worth of drone technology to Latin American clients between 2005 and 2012. While this may not sound like
a huge stream of sales as compared to other weapons deals (a December 2013 deal between Brazil and the Swedish company Saab
for 36 Gripen warplanes is estimated at $4.5 billion), such transactions are bound to increase in volume in the near future so long
as Latin American states continue to enjoy a strong economy and regional armed forces see drones as an advantageous weapon.

For the immediate future, it is likely that Israel will continue to be the prime beneficiary of a
steady flow of drone sales to Latin America. Apart from, consummated sales of UAV (unmanned aerial
vehicle) technology to Brazil and Mexico, other nations are considering purchasing Israeli drones. For example, Guatemalan
President Otto Perez has expressed his interest in IAI drones to combat drug trafficking across the border between Guatemala and
Mexico. Likewise, there have been reports that the Chilean Navy may have switched its interest in purchasing Boeings Scaneagle
drones to Elbits Hermes 900.

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

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,
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

2NC- Latin American Instability Defense

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., 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?

Instabilitys inevitabledrug trafficking- war on drugs massive

alt cause
Grudgings 9 (Stuart, Reuters, Latin America ex-leaders urge reform of US
drug war,, 2009)
The war against drugs is failing and the U.S. government
policies that have achieved little more than cram its prisons and
stoke violence, three former Latin American presidents said on Wednesday. The
respected former presidents urged the United States and Latin American
governments to move away from jailing drug users to debate the legalization of
marijuana and place more emphasis on the treatment of addicts . Former Colombian
RIO DE JANEIRO, Feb 11 (Reuters) should break with "prohibition"

President Cesar Gaviria said there was no meaningful debate over drugs policy in the United States, despite a
broad consensus that current policies had failed. "The problem today in the U.S. is that narco-trafficking is a
crime and so any politician is fearful of talking about narco-trafficking or talking about policies because they will
be called soft," he said. Gaviria has joined with former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and
former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo to try to change the debate on drugs in Latin America, where

trafficking gangs have killed tens of thousands of people and weakened

democracies through corruption. From Mexico's gang wars to the drug-funded
FARC guerrilla group in Colombia and daily shoot-outs between gangs and police
in Rio de Janeiro's shantytowns, much of the region is scarred by drug violence
and many believe U.S. policies have failed. A United Nations meeting in Vienna next month will
frame international drugs policy for the next 10 years, and the three former presidents, whose group is called the
Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, said it is time for change. They pointed to falling street
prices for cocaine and still high levels of consumption in the United States despite decades of policies focused on
punishing users and cutting supplies from Latin American countries such as Colombia. 'PREJUDICES, FEARS'
The presidents' commission released a report calling on governments to refocus policies toward treating users,
move toward decriminalizing marijuana, and invest more in education campaigns. It said current policies were
rooted in "prejudices, fears and ideological visions" that inhibited debate. Even as the group met in Rio on
Wednesday, police arrested 51 people in a major operation in the city and other states against a suspected drug

Organized crime
has flourished around drugs and is now threatening the stability of Mexico, where
a spiraling war between rival gangs killed more than 5,700 people last year . Cardoso,
smuggling ring that sent cocaine to Europe and brought back synthetic drugs like Ecstasy.

one of Latin America's most respected figures, said U.S. leadership was essential to break the cycle of drugrelated crime and violence. "It

will be almost impossible to solve Mexico's problems and

other countries' problems without a more ample, comprehensive set of policies
from the U.S. government," he said. Despite winning power on broad promises of change, drugs policy
featured little in U.S. President Barack Obama's election campaign and there are few indications that he will
embark on a major overhaul. Gaviria said Washington appeared increasingly isolated in its repressive approach as
Latin America and Europe move toward treating drug abuse as a health problem rather than a crime. (Editing by
Raymond Colitt and Kieran Murray)

2NC LA Instability Inevitable

Instability in Latin America Inevitable
A - organized crime
Felbab-Brown, 11 Brookings Senior Fellow (Vanda, 3-31, A Shared
Responsibility: Counternarcotics and Citizens' Security in the Americas
I. Overview of Organized Crime and Street Crime and Human Security in Latin America

Citizens insecurity

has greatly intensified over the past two decades in many parts of the Western Hemisphere. To an
unprecedented degree, ordinary people in the region complain about living in fear of crime. With the exception of

the rates of violent crime

are six times higher in Latin America than in the rest of the world.[1] Since the
1980s, homicide rates in Latin America as a whole have doubled and are among the highest in
Colombia, criminal activity throughout the region has exploded. Overall,

the world. The available data show El Salvador with a murder rate of 57.3 per 100,000 in 2007; Colombia with
42.8 per 100,000 in 2006, Venezuela with 36.4 per 100,000 in 2007, and Brazil with 20.5 in 2008.[2] The U.S.
homicide rate for 2009, the most recent data available, was 5 per 100,000.[3] The United Nations considers a

Mexico far exceeds the

epidemic threshold, reporting over 6,000 deaths in 2008, over 6,500 in 2009, and over
11,200 in 2010 (more than a 75% increase over 2009), and with drug-related violence surpassing conflictmurder rate of more than 10 per 100,000 an epidemic rate of homicides.

caused deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq.[4] Although it has received less media attention, Guatemalas
homicide rate is four times that of Mexicos. Kidnapping is also frequent in the region. Well above 50 percent of
the approximately 7,500 worldwide kidnappings in 2007 took place in Latin America.[5]

Organized crime is

one of the principal sources of threats to human security but so is flourishing street crime, which
frequently receives far less attention from governments in Latin America and the Caribbean. Indeed, law
enforcement in Latin America is clearly struggling to cope with both organized and street
crime, and two decades of efforts to improve and reform law-enforcement institutions have little to
show in improvements in public safety and accountability of law enforcement . Many
Latin Americans are deeply distrustful of and dissatisfied with their local law-enforcement institutions.[6] Indeed,
the provision of security in Latin America has been increasingly privatized, with large segments of the population
relying on private security companies or even criminal organization for protection and basic order on the streets.
Thus in Guatemala and Honduras private security personnel outnumber police by five to ten times.[7]

B - Multifaceted-institutional weakness
Felbab-Brown, 11 Brookings Senior Fellow (Vanda, 3-31, A Shared
Responsibility: Counternarcotics and Citizens' Security in the Americas
Multifaceted institutional weaknesses are at the core of why the complex
relationships between illegality, crime, and human security are so
inadequately dealt with. By sponsoring illicit economies in areas of state
weakness where legal economic opportunities and public goods are seriously
lacking, criminal groups frequently enhance some elements of human security
even while compromising others. At the same time, simplistic law enforcement
measures can and frequently do further degrade citizens security. These
pernicious dynamics become especially severe in the context of violent

C- Alt cause to stability wildlife

Darby 14, M Brooke, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, The Escalating International Wildlife
Trafficking Crisis: Ecological, Economic, and National Security Issues, May 21st,
Let me provide some insights into the breadth and scale of the challenge posed by the global illicit trade in

Increasing demand for illegally traded wildlife products in the last several years has
fueled a massive uptick in poaching, particularly in Africa, and growing engagement by
sophisticated transnational organized criminal networks, drawn to profits that
can rival or in some cases even exceed those derived from drug trafficking. Conservative

estimates of $8-10 billion in illicit revenues per year place wildlife trafficking among the top five most lucrative

exploit environments with low risks of detection and meaningful punishment
and they find that in the illicit wildlife trade where they are able to exploit porous borders,
corrupt officials, insufficient enforcement and investigative capacities and
forms of transnational organized crime. In addition to searching out opportunities for high rewards,

penalties, weak legal regimes, and lax financial system oversight. All of us need to be concerned about the wideranging impact of the illegal wildlife trade, and organized criminal organizations involvement in it. Id like to talk

The high tech

weaponry and violent, aggressive tactics now employed by poachers threaten the
safety and security of civilian populations, particularly in supply (also known as range) states. Park
rangers are at special risk and many have been killed trying to protect wildlife. The corruption that both
fuels, and is fueled by, the illegal wildlife trade undermines good governance and
the rule of law, and erodes citizens confidence in their government institutions .
about the serious impact this crime has on humans and our security from INLs perspective:

Wildlife trafficking crimes create and exacerbate border insecurity, creating new vulnerabilities that other

The depletion of natural resources, and related

corruption, weakens financial stability and economic growth, particularly in
countries for which tourism is a major revenue source. Furthermore, illicit trade in
illegally harvested marine species threatens food security, potentially
undermining political stability in many developing nations. Terrorists and
militia groups may seize the opportunity to benefit from the wildlife trade. We have some evidence
criminals, terrorists, and militias can exploit.

that the Lords Resistance Army and the Janjaweed have done so, for example, trading wildlife products for
weapons or safe haven.


2NC- Bees
No impact to bee collapse- hype
CEI 13 (Competitive Enterprise Institute, Economic Think-tank, honeybee
losses are manageable,, 2013)
A 2013 Huffington Post headline exclaimed: "Honey Bees Are Dying Putting America at Risk of a Food Disaster."
And the Natural Resources Defense Council claims: "Honey bees are disappearing across the country,
putting $15 billion worth of fruits, nuts and vegetables at risk" Another article maintains that 70 percent of our

These claims are all flat wrong. While they make great
they create a misleading impression that periodic honeybee losses
seriously threatens our food supply. It is true that hive health issues are of
concern because farmers rely on honeybees for the production of many fruits, nuts,
and vegetables. About one third of food production in the United States benefits from honey bee pollination,
food supply is pollinated by honeybees.

according to USDA California almond growers depend on honey bees exclusively to pollinate crops, requiring 60
percent of the commercial honey bee hives in the country to produce 80 percent of the world's supply of almonds.
Almonds constitute California's highest-valued agricultural export, according to agricultural economist Hoy
Carman of the University of California-Davis. While poor hive health is unlikely to completely undermine
production of these foods, it could make them more expensive. In fact, according Carman, fees for pollinating
almonds have increased substantially. [] High annual losses represent an expensive challenge for beekeepers

we should not expect a catastrophe. Professor Jamie

Ellis of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida
notes: Yet. no one believes that honey bees will disappear altogether, even with
and potentially consumers, but even then,

the concerns over CCD. Instead, the average American may experience increased food prices and decreased food

all food depends on honeybees, and essential grains, particularly corn, rice
and wheat, constitute the largest part of our diets and these are pollinated
by the wind. Researchers from the University of Minnesota and U.S Geological
Survey, writing in Environmental Science and Technology , point out: "Thus the prospect of
human starvation in the absence of bees IS remote, but crop declines in the most
availability if honey bees continue to die at the current rate. The almond industry illustrates this point well.

nutritiousand arguably, most interestingparts of our diet like fruit, vegetables, and alfalfa hay for meat and
dairy production, are possible" Other researchers have raised concerns that the amount of honey bee-dependent
crops has increased globally and exceeds the number of honeybees produced for pollination. They concluded that

Either the current number of hives is sufficient

tor pollination or wild pollinators are providing an important contribution.
one of two things must be happening:

In the latter case, they suggest that policymakers consider the impact of land use policies to ensure that wild
pollinators continue to have sufficient nutrition and nesting habitat. Intensification of "monoculture" may reduce
the habitat diversity these wild pollinators require. For example, government subsidies and policies that promote
planting of corn for ethanol trigger land use changes that reduce diversity of crops around the nation.

2NC- Japan-Sino War

No China-Japan war- economic interdependence and US
Katz 13 (Richard Katz, Foreign Affairs, Editor of the semiweekly The Oriental
Economist Alert and the monthly The Oriental Economist Report, both reports on
Japan, Mutual Assured Production Why Trade Will Limit Conflict Between China
and Japan, July/August 2013)
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union carefully avoided
triggering a nuclear war because of the assumption of mutual assured
destruction: each knew that any such conflict would mean the obliteration of both
countries. Today, even though tensions between China and Japan are rising, an
economic version of mutual deterrence is preserving the uneasy status quo
between the two sides. Last fall, as the countries escalated their quarrel over an
island chain that Japan has controlled for more than a century, many Chinese
citizens boycotted Japanese products and took to the streets in anti-Japanese riots.
This commotion, at times encouraged by the Chinese government, led the Japanese
government to fear that Beijing might exploit Japans reliance on China as an
export market to squeeze Tokyo into making territorial concessions. Throughout
the crisis, Japan has doubted that China would ever try to forcibly seize the islands
barren rocks known in Chinese as the Diaoyu Islands and in Japanese as the
Senkaku Islands -- if only because the United States has made it clear that it would
come to Japans defense. Japanese security experts, however, have suggested that
China might try other methods of intimidation, including a prolonged economic
boycott. But these fears have not materialized, for one simple reason: China needs
to buy Japanese products as much as Japan needs to sell them. Many of the hightech products assembled in and exported from China, often on behalf of American
and European firms, use advanced Japanese-made parts. China could not boycott
Japan, let alone precipitate an actual conflict, without stymieing the export-fueled
economic miracle that underpins Communist Party rule. For the moment, the
combination of economic interdependence and Washingtons commitment to
Japans defense will likely keep the peace. Still, an accidental clash of armed ships
around the islands could lead to an unintended conflict. That is why defense
officials from both countries have met with an eye to reducing that particular risk.
With no resolution in sight, those who fear an escalation can nonetheless take
solace in the fact that China and Japan stand to gain far more from trading than
from fighting.

Interdependence and deterrence check

Dibb 3/15/14 Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the
Australian National University in Canberra, The Spectator, March 15, 2014, "2014
wont be like 1914",
strategists are coming out of the woodwork to predict that Asia in 2014
will be a repeat of Europe in 1914. In other words, that there will be an outbreak of war between the
The Jeremiah

major powers in our region, just like in Europe 100 years ago. This line of reasoning predicts that a rising China
will inevitably go to war with the United States, either directly or through conflict with Japan. Some commentators
are even suggesting that the Sarajevo incident that provoked the first world war will be replicated between China
and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. Kevin Rudd has likened this situation to what he
calls a 21st-century maritime redux of the Balkans a century ago a tinderbox on water. My colleague Hugh
White has proclaimed that the risk of war between China and Japan is now very real. There is undoubtedly a
significant risk that Chinas increasing aggressiveness in the East China Sea and the South China Sea over its

a warship
being sunk or military aircraft colliding is a long way from all-out war.
These sorts of incidents have occurred in the past and have not escalated
for example, the North Korean sinking in 2010 of the South Korean warship and
the Chinese collision in 2001 by one of its fighters with a US reconnaissance
aircraft. Unfortunately, however, a military incident between China and Japan might be more serious than this.
territorial claims will result in a military confrontation, either by miscalculation or design. But

The commander of US air forces in the Pacific has said in an interview on 9 February that the recent comments by
the leaders of Japan and the Philippines drawing parallels between Chinas assertiveness in the region and events
in prewar Europe are not helpful. But he did caution that any move by China to extend unilaterally an air defence
identification zone over the South China Sea would be very provocative. It is true that whereas a war in Europe
these days has become inconceivable that is not the case in Asia. In our region there is a potentially potent

unlike in Europe 100 years ago,

there is no sense of the inevitability of war and, unlike in the Kaisers Germany in 1914,
there is no fear in Beijing that time is not on its side . The distinguished British historian Max
Hastings points out in his book, Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War 1914, that there was nothing
accidental about the first world war. Germany was bent on launching a European
war because of its fears of a rising Russia in the east , a strong France and Britain on its west
and unrest at home. From Beijings perspective today, the strategic correlation of forces in
Marxist-Leninist terms is much more favourable than this. Moreover, China continues
to need to give priority to economic development if it is to avoid domestic
upheaval. The current German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has recently highlighted the
combination of rising military capabilities and ugly nationalisms. But,

diplomatic failures that led to the outbreak of the first world war when there were rash predictions of a swift,
successful military campaign that in the event lasted for four years and resulted in 17 million dead. This was a
failure of political and military elites, but also of diplomacy. And this is where there is a concern about Asia. The
fact is that the multilateral organisations in our region are immature when it comes to developing arms control
and disarmament agreements and concrete approaches to conflict avoidance. There is a lot of talk and plenty of
meetings and that in itself is a good thing. But we desperately need such confidence-building measures as an
avoidance of naval incidents at sea agreement along the lines of the one that was agreed between the US and

key underpinnings for my confidence about a major

power war in Asia being unlikely are twofold. First, there is the iron discipline of
nuclear deterrence. For almost 70 years now the fear of nuclear war, even at the most
dangerous heights of the Cold War, has prevented a major war. An all-out nuclear war between the US
the Soviet Union in 1972. Even so, the

and China would involve the deaths of hundreds of millions of people on both sides in a matter of hours. For all
intents and purposes, they would cease to exist as modern functioning societies. This is an existential threat

Once nuclear weapons are used it would be

practically impossible to avoid full-blown escalation. The second factor is the
unprecedented economic and technological interdependence that now
intertwines all our economies with each other in a way that has never existed before. It is
simply untrue to assert that globalisation was even deeper in 1914 than it is today.
Global supply chains for almost every product we consume make every country in
our region crucially vulnerable to the outbreak of war. And that includes China as
much as any other country or even more so. China is now crucially dependent on
imports for its economic security (for example, it accounts for 60 per cent of global seaborne iron ore trade
unlike any faced by humankind previously.

and by 2030 it will have to import 80 per cent of its oil). So, as the doyen of US international relations studies
Joseph Nye argues,

we should be wary of analysts wielding historical analogies ,

particularly if they have a whiff of inevitability. War, he observes, is never inevitable, though the belief that it is
can become one of its causes.

2NC- Korea
No korea war
Lee 14 (Christopher, active duty Major in the U.S. Army. A graduate of West
Point, he has served for eight years as an intelligence officer. He is currently a
Foreign Area Officer for the Northeast Asia region and a graduate student at
Columbia University. North Korea's Dangerous Invasion Bluff: Why Kim Jong-Un
Won't Start a Second Korean War, 8/14,
sion_bluff_107370.html, 2014)
From weapons proliferation, to human rights matters, and to global security North Korea is present. It is
extremely difficult to find a major international issue in which North Korea is not playing a substantial role.
Despite the small size of its population and breadth of its territory, North Korea has played a disproportionately
important role in the last 30 years of world history, particularly due to its arsenal of advanced weapons systems
and the consternation its warheads create both near and far. Currently, North Koreas supreme leader Kim JongUns nuclear and missile programs are so unpredictable and cloaked in such secrecy that the threat this isolated
communist state poses must never be underestimated. U.S. policymakers and military experts continually
reinforce to South Korean President Park Gyen-Hye that recent developments in North Korea, such as substantial
increased activity at Punggye-ri nuclear test site, underscores the need for renewed efforts at denuclearization.
While Pyongyangs nuclear capabilities still remain unknown, one thing is clear Kim Jong-Un is remarkably adept

Following the death of North Koreas Dear Leader, Kim

Jong-Il, in 2011 and the successful power transition to his third son, Great Successor, Kim JongUn, pundits like Dr. Charles Armstrong, renowned Korea expert and professor of history at Columbia
University projected that North Korea would endure and not collapse . Armstrong and others
at manipulating global public opinion.

like Dr. Sue Mi Terry, a former CIA analyst and a research scholar at Columbia University also surmised that

North Korea would continue its provocative rhetoric by conducting further nuclear tests or a
limited but deadly attack against South Korean interests either on the peninsula or in another country. Likewise,

most experts in East Asian studies and international security formed a consensus
that North Korea would never use its nuclear weapons
because both Kim Jong-Un and the elites around him recognize that a
nuclear war would represent the annihilation of the regime. For an
untested, tyrannical megalomaniac, potential regime collapse must be
avoided at all cost. Kim has the means necessary to launch provocative strikes against his southern
neighbor. But underneath the threats and rhetoric, he grasps that such actions
could jeopardize the longevity of his reign. As suspected, Kim Jong-Un emerged as a
totalitarian leader like his father and the Great Successor continues to publicly announce
Pyongyangs string of nuclear threats to both South Korea and the United States.
However, in reality, Kim knows his bankrupt economy cannot afford an all-out war
with South Korea. Moreover, South Koreans show no signs of panic after these nuclear
launches and sea of fire threats. Why are the South Koreans so calm? According to many, the South Koreans
know that North Korea will only be able to conduct limited strikes similar to the
November 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong-Do because Kim Jong-Un is not likely to start a frontal war. Kim is not

North Korea may have the fourth largest standing

military in the world at approximately 1.3 million soldiers, its equipment is seriously outdated.
likely launch war with his neighbor because while

Kims military equipment (tanks, armored fighting vehicles, and MiG-19s) goes all the way back to Pyongyangs
alliance with Moscow during the Cold War. South Korea, on the other hand, continues to purchase billions of
dollars worth of the most advanced U.S. weapons systems. Seoul is scheduled to purchase the Lockheed Martin F35 Joint Strike Fighter for their next main fighter aircraft while North Korea struggles to keep their dilapidated
MiG-19s intact without multiple training accidents. South Koreas, substantially aided by the U.S., has become
one of the worlds most capable conventional forces and present a formidable forward defense against any

possible attack by North Korea. In the remote chance of an all-out war , even with its obsolete and
nearly unusable equipment, pundits extrapolate that Kim Jong-Uns military could cause substantial damage in the

any conceivable attack would eventually be repulsed by

South Koreas 600,000 South Korean soldiers armed with advanced military technology and supported by
28,500 U.S. troops. A new factor is complicating Kims potential plans to attack South
Korea. His self-proclaimed superior field artillery may soon be up against the Israeli-made
Iron Dome system, which intercepts and kills short range rockets and missiles . In the
aftermath of the most recent war in Gaza, Seoul has expressed serious interest in purchasing
the anti-missile system. Though Kim Jong-Un has said his rockets were ready to settle accounts with the
U.S., military experts question the authenticity of the threats . Most of Kims antics are
for a domestic audience rather than to truly repel the West . Kim pretends this
bellicose rhetoric is a prelude for invasion against his southern neighbor. But in actuality, it
is to generate extreme anti-Western sentiment. According to Jennifer Lind, professor of
early stages of the war. However,

government at Dartmouth College, North Korea is a military that if you ran them against the Iraqi military in

A military defeat against South Korea and/or the United States would
represent the extinction of the regime. Its difficult to imagine Kim possibly liking
these odds. The unavoidable outcome contradicts Kims goal to continue the Kim family regime and maintain
1991, [they] would lose.

the supremacy as long as possible. Kim Jong-Uns real persona may just be exactly like that of his late father: a
juvenile psychopath parodied from the film, Team America: World Police. Nonetheless, the Kim family regime has
always been more pragmatic than the world portrays it. Indeed, Kim Jong-Un does not preach rewards of the
afterlife nor is there a martyr in the Juche philosophya self-reliance ideology developed by his grandfather Kim
Il-Sung. Westernized and supposedly more modern, Kims love of basketball and other lavish spending subjugate
the temptation of an invasion. Surely, Kim will not jeopardize his dictatorship or status by launching a frontal war
against South Korea. In short, Kim is bluffing in a very dangerous game of international poker. Perhaps Kim
would turn to China in a time of crisis to support a war against the south. Would Chinabased on mutual ideology
and alliancebe obliged to aid the North and fight against joint forces of South Korea and the U.S.? What would Xi
gain from a possible second Korean War? Beijing has every reason to deny supporting a war because the
consequences would be disastrous. China is worried about instability and war along the border of northeastern
China as it does not want an influx of North Korean refugees across their shared 800 mile border. A nuclear
bombardment could also contaminate China, thus the possible effects on Chinas economy would be catastrophic.
And with its own difficult internal political problems, Beijing could hardly be enthusiastic about assuming
responsibility for the mess left behind in North Korea by the Kim regime. Recently, despite its resilient impetus to
keep Pyongyang as an ally, Beijing has been showing signs of frustration and skepticism. Kims uncooperative and
erratic behavior such as the public pillory of his uncle, Jang Song-Thaek, who served as a main conduit between
North Korea and China and a third nuclear underground test have forced Xi to snub North Korea. Indeed, for the
first time in history, a Chinese leader officially visited South Korea before North Korea, a little brother with

starting a
Second Korean War would not serve any of Pyongyangs interests. But threatening
one does. Kim Jong-Uns behavior may seem irrational, but he is not ready to sacrifice his power . A
threatening posture still matters to North Korea as leverage to win fuel oil
deliveries, food aid, nuclear reactor construction, hard cash-earning tourist
enclaves and investment zones. North Korea will continue to utilize the same ploy ,
whom China once shared pain and sacrificed lives during the Korean War. All things considered,

and the international community seems likely to grant occasional concessions now and in the years to come.

US First Strike solves

SEHB 9 (Socio-Economic History Blog, Quoting Pentagon Report,, Pentagon: Preemptive Nuclear First Strike on
North Korea Likely? May 29, 2009)
Obama gave
permission for the US Military to airlift Patriot Missile Air Defense systems to
South Korea and additional units to bolster 16 systems already in Japan. Those systems were
Pentagon: Nuclear first strike Likely Early in the evening on Tuesday, President Barack

airborne hours later and arrived in South Korea and Japan today. The model of Patriot Missile systems sent is
PAC-3 and they were accompanied by M-901 control stations and AN/MPQ-53 phased array radar. Sources with
acute knowledge of the plans for North Korea have confirmed to TRN that a US nuclear first strike is going to be

first strike will be carried out through submarine-launched, BGM-109

Tomahawk cruise missiles, model TLAM/A whose explosive payload can be dialed to be anywhere from
100 kilotons to one point five megatons nuclear yield per missile. There will be no warning. North
Korea will not be able to track the incoming cruise missiles via radar. The only way they will
know the attack is taking place is when they see a blinding white flash as the temperature rises to
ten thousand degrees and the wind gusts to 650 miles per hour. North Korean troops along the
Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) will be hit first to prevent them from invading south Korea. Multiple cruise missiles
using Time of Arrival (TOA) control will detonate simultaneously along the DMZ, wiping out over one million
North Korean troops in seconds. Minutes later, after the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) confirms
launched. The

that the North Korean leadership has been told by their own command structure that their troops at the DMZ
have all been killed, Kim Jung Il will be contacted and asked if he is willing to surrender. It is expected he will not.

B-2 Stealth Bomber will be sent in to deliver the final blow. Pyongyang will be
hit with a surface detonation of a massive nuclear bomb, wiping out the entire city and the
entire government of North Korea. As soon as that surface detonation takes place, several hundred additional
cruise missiles carrying conventional payloads and launched from land, air and sea sites, will hit every
North Korean military facility in the entire country, instantly crippling their entire
command and control system. Carrier based Aircraft will then fly in to clean up whatever
resistance remains. It is expected the war will be over within one or two days. Korea will
At that point, a

be reunited. Its Capitol will be Seoul and its government will be democratically elected. One strike, two

This difficult decision to make a nuclear first strike was arrived at because the
threat of North Korea invading South Korea once hostilities resume was too great a
danger to world stability. The world does not need or want another large, lengthy war.

The decision to use a nuclear first strike serves another purpose as well: sending a clear message to countries like

thinking in Washington, Beijing and Moscow is that the world needs to send this
message and there will not be a better reason or better time to send it than now.
Pakistan, India and Iran about what they can expect if they continue traveling down the nuclear road.

2NC- Asia Stability

No Asian war- China creates stability
Carlson 13 (Allen Carlson is an Associate Professor in Cornell Universitys
Government Department. He was granted his PhD from Yale Universitys Political
Science Department. His undergraduate degree is from Colby College. In 2005 his
Unifying China, Integrating with the World: Securing Chinese Sovereignty in the
Reform Era was published by Stanford University Press. He has also written
articles that appeared in the Journal of Contemporary China, Pacific Affairs, Asia
Policy, and Nations and Nationalism. In addition, he has published monographs for
the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the East-West Center
Washington. Carlson was a Fulbright-Hays scholar at Peking University during the
2004-2005 academic year. In 2005 he was chosen to participate in the National
Committees Public Intellectuals Program, and he currently serves as an adviser to
Cornells China Asia Pacific Studies program and its East Asia Program. Carlson is
currently working on a project exploring the issue of nontraditional security in
Chinas emerging relationship with the rest of the international system. His most
recent publications are the co-edited Contemporary Chinese Politics: New Sources,
Methods and Field Strategies (Cambridge University Press, 2010) and New
Frontiers in Chinas Foreign Relations (Lexington, 2011). China Keeps the Peace at
Sea China Keeps the Peace at Sea Why the Dragon Doesn't Want War Allen Carlson
February 21, 2013)
China and Japan have appeared almost ready to do battle over
the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands --which are administered by Tokyo but claimed by both
countries -- and to ignite a war that could be bigger than any since World War II.
Although Tokyo and Beijing have been shadowboxing over the territory for years,
the standoff reached a new low in the fall, when the Japanese government
nationalized some of the islands by purchasing them from a private owner. The
decision set off a wave of violent anti-Japanese demonstrations across China. In the
wake of these events, the conflict quickly reached what political scientists call a
state of equivalent retaliation -- a situation in which both countries believe that it is
imperative to respond in kind to any and all perceived slights. As a result, it may
have seemed that armed engagement was imminent. Yet, months later, nothing has
happened. And despite their aggressive posturing in the disputed territory, both sides now
show glimmers of willingness to dial down hostilities and to reestablish stability. Some
At times in the past few months,

analysts have cited North Korea's recent nuclear test as a factor in the countries' reluctance to engage in military
conflict. They argue that the detonation, and Kim Jong Un's belligerence, brought China and Japan together,
unsettling them and placing their differences in a scarier context. Rory Medcalf, a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, explained that "the nuclear test gives the leadership in both Beijing and Tokyo a chance to focus on a
foreign and security policy challenge where their interests are not diametrically at odds." The nuclear test,

In truth, the roots of the

conflict -- and the reasons it has not yet exploded -- are much deeper. Put simply,
China cannot afford military conflict with any of its Asian neighbors. It is not that China
though, is a red herring in terms of the conflict over the disputed islands.

believes it would lose such a spat; the country increasingly enjoys strategic superiority over the entire region, and

over the islands, in the

South China Sea or in the disputed regions along the Sino-Indian border.
However, Chinese officials see that even the most pronounced victory would
it is difficult to imagine that its forces would be beaten in a direct engagement

be outweighed by the collateral damage that such a use of force would cause to Beijing's
two most fundamental national interests -- economic growth and preventing the
escalation of radical nationalist sentiment at home. These constraints, rather than
any external deterrent, will keep Xi Jinping, China's new leader, from authorizing the use
of deadly force in the Diaoyu Islands theater. For over three decades, Beijing has promoted
peace and stability in Asia to facilitate conditions amenable to China's economic
development. The origins of the policy can be traced back to the late 1970s, when
Deng Xiaoping repeatedly contended that to move beyond the economically
debilitating Maoist period, China would have to seek a common ground with its
neighbors. Promoting cooperation in the region would allow China to spend less on
military preparedness, focus on making the country a more welcoming destination
for foreign investment, and foster better trade relations. All of this would
strengthen the Chinese economy. Deng was right. Today, China's economy is
second only to that of the United States. The fundamentals of Deng's grand
economic strategy are still revered in Beijing. But any war in the region would
erode the hard-won, and precariously held, political capital that China has gained
in the last several decades. It would also disrupt trade relations, complicate efforts
to promote the yuan as an international currency, and send shock waves through
the country's economic system at a time when it can ill afford them. There is thus
little reason to think that China is readying for war with Japan. At the same time,
the specter of rising Chinese nationalism, although often seen as a promoter of
conflict, further limits the prospects for armed engagement . This is because
Beijing will try to discourage nationalism if it fears it may lose control or be forced
by popular sentiment to take an action it deems unwise. Ever since the Tiananmen
Square massacre put questions about the Chinese Communist Party's right to govern before the population,
successive generations of Chinese leaders have carefully negotiated a balance
between promoting nationalist sentiment and preventing it from boiling over. In
the process, they cemented the legitimacy of their rule. A war with Japan could
easily upset that balance by inflaming nationalism that could blow back against
China's leaders. Consider a hypothetical scenario in which a uniformed Chinese
military member is killed during a firefight with Japanese soldiers. Regardless of
the specific circumstances, the casualty would create a new martyr in China and, almost as quickly,
catalyze popular protests against Japan. Demonstrators would call for blood, and if the government (fearing
economic instability) did not extract enough, citizens would agitate against Beijing itself. Those in Zhongnanhai,
the Chinese leadership compound in Beijing, would find themselves between a rock and a hard place. It is possible
that Xi lost track of these basic facts during the fanfare of his rise to power and in the face of renewed Japanese
assertiveness. It is also possible that the Chinese state is more rotten at the core than is understood. That is, party
elites believe that a diversionary war is the only way to hold on to power -- damn the economic and social
consequences. But Xi does not seem blind to the principles that have served Beijing so well over the last few
decades. Indeed, although he recently warned unnamed others about infringing upon China's "national core
interests" during a foreign policy speech to members of the Politburo, he also underscored China's commitment to
"never pursue development at the cost of sacrificing other country's interests" and to never "benefit ourselves at
others' expense or do harm to any neighbor." Of course, wars do happen -- and still could in the East China Sea.
Should either side draw first blood through accident or an unexpected move, Sino-Japanese relations would be

into terrain that has not been charted since the middle of the last century.
However, understanding that war would be a no-win situation, China has avoided
rushing over the brink. This relative restraint seems to have surprised everyone.
But it shouldn't. Beijing will continue to disagree with Tokyo over the sovereign
status of the islands, and will not budge in its negotiating position over disputed
territory. However, it cannot take the risk of going to war over a few rocks in

the sea. On the contrary,

in the coming months it will quietly seek a way to shelve the dispute
in return for securing regional stability, facilitating economic development, and keeping
a lid on the Pandora's box of rising nationalist sentiment. The ensuing peace,
while unlikely to be deep, or especially conducive to improving Sino-Japanese
relations, will be enduring.

No escalation diplomacy solves

Kaplan 3/17/14 Robert D. Kaplan, Chief Geopolitical Analyst for Stratfor, a
private intelligence firm. He is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for a New
American Security, Foreign Policy, March 17, 2014, " The Guns of August in the
East China Sea",
before one buys the 1914 analogy, there are other matters to consider . While
1914 Europe was a landscape, with large armies facing one another inside a
claustrophobic terrain with few natural barriers, East Asia is a seascape, with
vast maritime distances separating national capitals. The sea impedes
aggression to a degree that land does not. Naval forces can cross water and
storm beachheads, though with great difficulty, but moving inland and occupying hostile
populations is nearly impossible. The Taiwan Strait is roughly four times the width
of the English Channel, a geography that continues to help preserve Taiwan's de
facto independence from China. Even the fastest warships travel slowly, giving
diplomats time to do their work. Incidents in the air are more likely, although Asian
countries have erected strict protocols and prefer to posture verbally so as to
avoid actual combat. (That said, the new Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone is a particularly
provocative protocol.) Since any such incidents would likely occur over open water there will
be few casualties, reducing the prospect that a single incident will lead to war.
And because of the speed, accuracy, and destructiveness of postmodern weaponry ,
any war that does break out will probably be short -- albeit with serious economic

consequences. Something equivalent to four years of trench warfare is almost impossible to imagine. And
remember that it was World War I's very grinding length that made it a history-transforming and culturetransforming event: it caused 17 million military and civilian casualties; the disputes in the Pacific Basin are

World War I also featured different and unwieldy alliance

systems. Asia is simpler: almost everyone fears China and depends -- militarily at
least -- on the United States. This is not the Cold War where few Americans could be found in the East Bloc, a
region with which we did almost no trade. Millions of Americans and Chinese have visited
each other's countries, tens of thousands of American businessmen have passed
through Chinese cities, and Chinese party elites send their children to U.S.
universities. U.S. officials know they must steer between the two extremes of allowing China's Finlandization
certainly not going to lead to that.

of its Asian neighbors and allowing nationalistic governments in Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan to lure the
United States into a conflict with China. Nationalistic as these democracies may be, the best way to curb their
excesses and make them less nervous is to give them the assurance of a U.S. security umbrella, born of credible
air and sea power. A strong U.S.-China relationship can keep the peace in Asia. (South Korea also fears Japan, but

Unlike empires mired in decrepitude that

characterized 1914 Europe, East Asia features robust democracies in South
Korea and Japan, and strengthening democracies in Malaysia and the Philippines .
An informal alliance of democracies -- that should also include a reformist, de facto ally like Vietnam
-- is the best and most stable counter to Chinese militarism . Some of these democracies are
the United States is successfully managing that tension.)

this is not a world coming

apart. Limited eruptions do not equal a global cataclysm. Yet the most
profound difference between August 1914 and now is historical self-awareness. As
fraught, and fascist-cum-communist North Korea could implode, but

Modris Eksteins meticulously documents in his 1989 book Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the

European capitals greeted the war with outbursts of euphoria and a

feeling of liberation. Because 19th century Europe had been relatively peaceful since the Napoleonic Wars
ended in 1815, people had lost the sense of the tragic that enables them to avoid
tragedy in the first place. Aging, one-child societies like those of China, Japan, and
South Korea, with memories of war, revolution, and famine, are less likely to greet
violent struggle with joy and equanimity. And the United States, the paramount military
player in Asia, by its very conscious fear of a World War I scenario, will take every measure to
avoid it. A profusion of warships in the Pacific certainly suggests a more anxious, complicated world. But U.S.
Modern Age,

generals and diplomats need not give in to fate, especially given the differences with a century ago. The United
States entered World War I too late. Projecting a strong military footprint in Asia while ceaselessly engaging the
Chinese is the way that conflict can be avoided this time around. [END OF ARTICLE]

2NC- Bioweapons
Worst case has already happened- no impact
Dove 12 [Alan Dove, PhD in Microbiology, science journalist and former Adjunct
Professor at New York University, Whos Afraid of the Big, Bad Bioterrorist? Jan
24 2012,]
The second problem is much more serious. Eliminating the toxins, were left with a
list of infectious bacteria and viruses. With a single exception, these organisms are
probably near-useless as weapons, and history proves it. There have been at least
three well-documented military-style deployments of infectious agents from the
list, plus one deployment of an agent thats not on the list. Im focusing entirely on
the modern era, by the way. There are historical reports of armies catapulting
plague-ridden corpses over city walls and conquistadors trying to inoculate
blankets with Variola (smallpox), but its not clear those attacks were effective.
Those diseases tended to spread like, well, plagues, so theres no telling whether
the targets really caught the diseases from the bodies and blankets, or simply
picked them up through casual contact with their enemies. Of the four modern
biowarfare incidents, two have been fatal. The first was the 1979 Sverdlovsk
anthrax incident, which killed an estimated 100 people. In that case, a Soviet-built
biological weapons lab accidentally released a large plume of weaponized Bacillus
anthracis (anthrax) over a major city. Soviet authorities tried to blame the resulting
fatalities on bad meat, but in the 1990s Western investigators were finally able to
piece together the real story. The second fatal incident also involved anthrax from
a government-run lab: the 2001 Amerithrax attacks. That time, a rogue employee
(or perhaps employees) of the governments main bioweapons lab sent
weaponized, powdered anthrax through the US postal service. Five people died.
That gives us a grand total of around 105 deaths, entirely from agents that were
grown and weaponized in officially-sanctioned and funded bioweapons research
labs. Remember that. Terrorist groups have also deployed biological weapons
twice, and these cases are very instructive. The first was the 1984 Rajneeshee
bioterror attack, in which members of a cult in Oregon inoculated restaurant salad
bars with Salmonella bacteria (an agent thats not on the select list). 751 people
got sick, but nobody died. Public health authorities handled it as a conventional
foodborne Salmonella outbreak, identified the sources and contained them.
Nobody even would have known it was a deliberate attack if a member of the cult
hadnt come forward afterward with a confession. Lesson: our existing public
health infrastructure was entirely adequate to respond to a major bioterrorist
attack. The second genuine bioterrorist attack took place in 1993. Members of
the Aum Shinrikyo cult successfully isolated and grew a large stock of anthrax
bacteria, then sprayed it as an aerosol from the roof of a building in downtown
Tokyo. The cult was well-financed, and had many highly educated members, so
this release over the worlds largest city really represented a worst-case
scenario . Nobody got sick or died. From the cults perspective, it was a
complete and utter failure. Again, the only reason we even found out about it was a

post-hoc confession. Aum members later demonstrated their lab skills by

producing Sarin nerve gas, with far deadlier results. Lesson: one of the top select
agents is extremely hard to grow and deploy even for relatively skilled non-state
groups. Its a really crappy bioterrorist weapon. Taken together, these events
point to an uncomfortable but inevitable conclusion: our biodefense industry is a
far greater threat to us than any actual bioterrorists.

Easterbrook 3 (Gregg Easterbrook, senior fellow at The New Republic, Wired,
Were All Gonna Die!
pg=2&topic=&topic_set=, July 2003)

3. Germ warfare!Like chemical agents,

billing in popular culture.

biological weapons have never lived up to their

Consider the 1995 medical thriller Outbreak, in which a highly contagious

virus takes out entire towns. The reality is quite different .

Weaponized smallpox escaped from a

three people died, no epidemic followed. In

Soviet laboratory in Aralsk, Kazakhstan, in 1971;

1979, weapons-grade anthrax got out of a Soviet facility in Sverdlovsk (now called Ekaterinburg);
68 died, no epidemic. The loss of life was tragic, but no greater than could have been caused
by a single conventional bomb. In 1989, workers at a US government facility near
Washington were accidentally exposed to Ebola virus. They walked around the community and
hung out with family and friends for several days before the mistake was discovered. No one
died. The fact is, evolution has spent millions of years conditioning mammals to resist
germs. Consider the Black Plague. It was the worst known pathogen in history, loose
in a Middle Ages society of poor public health, awful sanitation, and no antibiotics. Yet it didnt kill off
humanity. Most people who were caught in the epidemic survived. Any superbug
introduced into todays Western world would encounter top-notch public
health, excellent sanitation, and an array of medicines specifically
engineered to kill bioagents. Perhaps one day some aspiring Dr. Evil will invent a bug that bypasses
the immune system. Because it is possible some novel superdisease could be invented, or that existing pathogens
like smallpox could be genetically altered to make them more virulent (two-thirds of those who contract natural
smallpox survive), biological agents are a legitimate concern. They may turn increasingly troublesome as time
passes and knowledge of biotechnology becomes harder to control, allowing individuals or small groups to cook

no superplague has ever come close to

wiping out humanity before, and it seems unlikely to happen in the future.
up nasty germs as readily as they can buy guns today. But

2NC- Terror
No risk of terrorism
Mearsheimer 14 (John J. Mearsheimer, Does he need quals?, America
Unhinged,, JanuaryFebruary 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 nucleararmed 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 difficult 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

direct transfer scenario is difficult 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
from senior officials, seizure or theft without collusion, and political instability or state failure/collapse.

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 weaponsusable 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 significant 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

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 significant quantities of fissile
material, either HEU or plutonium.12 Two types of INDs are considered to be theoretically possible for a
diverted or stolen. However,

terrorist organisation to constructthe gun-type weapon and the implosiontype weapon.13The former consists of
a gun barrel in which a projectile of subcritical HEU is fired 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 confidence 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 fissions in a gun-type weapon, a significant
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

production of plutonium, however, is made greatly more difficult

by the intense radiation emanating from the commingled fission 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 fissile material remains the major
case of uranium enrichment. The

obstacle to terrorists fabricating a nuclear device. Acquisition of fissile material could be achieved in two ways:
through terrorists undertaking the process of enrichment or through purchase or theft of weapons grade HEU or

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 sufficient 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