211 CM Impacts

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

1/43

ImpactsDDI 2008 CMSkittles

Impact

Impact...................................................................................................................................................................1

Impact .....................................................................................................................................................................1Terrorism..............................................................................................................................................................2

Terrorism ................................................................................................................................................................2

Extensions to Terrorism........................................................................................................................................3

Extensions to Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................3

Economy.............................................................................................................................................................12

Economy ................................................................................................................................................................12

US economic collapse destroys global economy

Scott Champion, Share International, July 2003 .............................................................................................12Economy.............................................................................................................................................................14

Economy ................................................................................................................................................................14

Economy-Heg.....................................................................................................................................................15

Economy-Heg .......................................................................................................................................................15

Scott Champion, Share International, July 2003 .............................................................................................15No Nuclear War..................................................................................................................................................16

No Nuclear War ....................................................................................................................................................16

US-China WAR..................................................................................................................................................17

US-China WAR ....................................................................................................................................................17

Nanotechnology..................................................................................................................................................18

Nanotechnology ....................................................................................................................................................18

Self Determination..............................................................................................................................................19

Self Determination ...............................................................................................................................................19

Nuclear War Scenarios-Economy.......................................................................................................................20

Nuclear War Scenarios-Economy .......................................................................................................................20

Soft Power-Proliferation.....................................................................................................................................21

Soft Power-Proliferation ......................................................................................................................................21

Extensions...........................................................................................................................................................22

Extensions .............................................................................................................................................................22

Global Warming..................................................................................................................................................27

Global Warming ...................................................................................................................................................27

1

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

2/43


Biodiversity........................................................................................................................................................29

Biodiversity ...........................................................................................................................................................29

Extensions...........................................................................................................................................................31

Extensions .............................................................................................................................................................31

No War................................................................................................................................................................37

No War ..................................................................................................................................................................37

Extinction............................................................................................................................................................38

Extinction ..............................................................................................................................................................38

Impact Calculus-Extinction ...............................................................................................................................40

Impact Calculus-Extinction ...............................................................................................................................40

Genocide.............................................................................................................................................................42

Genocide ................................................................................................................................................................42

Terrorism

1. Terrorism risks extinction and third world war

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, 2004[Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm]What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would furtherexacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies

2

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

3/43


would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights,tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would alsospeed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative ifhumankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to athird world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when

one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infectsthe whole planet, we will all be losers.

2. Case outweighs

a. Terrorism exists in the status quo, you must look at the systemic impacts because unlike a highlyimprobable d/a, they are actually occurring in the status quo.

b. We have 100% probability our internal link to extinction is nuclear war resulting from a terrorist

attack whereas the negative team can not generate a single scenario in which their impact is at all

probably going to happen.

c. Extinction is the biggest impact in this round all humanity will cease to exist meaning that the disad

impact doesnt matter if we are all dead.

Extensions to Terrorism

Terrorism outweighs war-extinction

Sean Hannity, Fox News Political Analyst, 2004[Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism, pg. 6]But the terrorists are no mere political sideshow. Though it manifests itself differently, the threat theyrepresent is every bit as grave as the one we experienced during World War II or the Cold War. There is

3

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

4/43


no appeasing this enemy; they will stop at nothing in their quest to destroy the United States, and theywill lay waste to every human life they can in the process. As you read these words, the evildoers areplotting the disruption of our lives, the destruction of our property, the murder of our families. Today ortomorrow, fanatical extremists could come in possession of suitcase nuclear weapons or other weaponsof mass destruction, whether through rogue nations or via black-market thugs from the former Soviet

Union. We face the possibility of our civilization being destroyed, as surely as we did during the CubanMissile Crisis; indeed, with recent advances in technology and the ongoing instability in the Middle Eastand around the world, the danger may be worse than ever.

Terrorist Nuclear attack will kill millions and trigger another Dark Age

Ernesto Zedillo, Former President of Mexico Director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization,FORBES, January 9, 2006, p. 25Even if you agree with what's being done in the war on terror, you still could be upset about what's nothappening: doing the utmost to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack . We all should have a pretty clear ideaof what would follow a nuclear weapon's detonation in any of the world's major cities. Depending on thepotency of the device the loss of life could be in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions), the

destruction of property in the trillions of dollars, the escalation in conflicts and violence uncontrollable,the erosion of authority and government unstoppable and the disruption of global trade and financeunprecedented. In short, we could practically count on the beginning of another dark age.

Terrorism threats humans survival

Yonah Alexander, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director, 2003[The Washington Times, "Terrorism myths and realities," 8/28]

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramaticallythat the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications ofthe terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have fordecades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic

challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001,Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastatingblow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens,despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by thesecond intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time ofintensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-firearrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affectedby the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are manyreasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism'sexpansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, doublestandards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist

propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists haveintroduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. Theinternationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered anAge of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its seriousimplications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

Terrorism leads to Nuclear War

Joseph Caldwell, November 22, 2000[PHD in Biology and Political Science, Can America Survive?] (PDNSS6754)

4

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

5/43


From the points of view of the United States and Russia, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end ofthe Cold War have reduced the risk of a deliberate nuclear war, since much of the animosity is gone.Looking at the world as a whole, the situation is more dangerous than ever before. The number ofnations possessing nuclear weapons has increased by two, with the addition of Pakistan and India. Thelevel of control over the weapons of the former Soviet Union has been reduced. The level of control over

fissionable material from which nuclear bombs can be made has also been reduced. With each passing year,the amount of fissionable material in the world increases. With each passing year, the resentment of the worlds poor nationsand cultures for the rich nations increases, as they realize that they will never catch up. With each passing year, the anger of

Islamic nations and cultures against Western culture grows. Terrorism is increasing. Although the risk of a large-scale ballistic missile war may have decreased, the likelihood of a small nuclear war appears to haveincreased dramatically. Motive, means, and opportunity. All three prerequisites for action are set. Theatomic bomb was used as soon as it was available. In fact, it was used by the US at a point in World WarII when the war was clearly won.

Terrorism leads to nuclear retaliation killing millions

Greg Easterbrook, senior editor with THE NEW REPUBLIC, November 2001, p.

www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html. (UNDRG/C324)

Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting tocultivate. But I think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terroristatomic weapons would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, topeople of the United States and Western Europe, because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington,say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred millionMuslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozenMuslim countries.

Terrorism causes extinctionJerome Corsi, PhD in Political Science from Harvard University, Expert in Antiwar Movements andPolitical Violence, 5

(Atomic Iran, p. 176-8)

5

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

6/43


The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that willsurge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by theattack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom.The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11,there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones

telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phonecalls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvisednuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility offinding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubbleStill, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemyIslamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medinacould possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Meccaand Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations would

feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would beupon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet UnionMany in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched fromthem by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of

American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock thatimmediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never abetter opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we couldretaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in afew major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if theUnited States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb theblow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon Americathe few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance theirposition. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Koreamight emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking oneanother. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly

inflicted upon America.

A nuclear terrorist attack would cause global economic depression

Richard Haas, President, Council on Foreign Relations, PREVENTING CATASTROPHIC

NUCLEAR TERRORISM, March 2006,

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NucTerrCSR.pdf

6
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NucTerrCSR.pdfhttp://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NucTerrCSR.pdf

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

7/43


A nuclear attack by terrorists against the United States has the potential to make the terrorist attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001, look like a historical footnote. In addition to the immediate horrific devastation, suchan attack could cost trillions of dollars in damages, potentially sparking a global economic depression.Although, during the 2004 presidential campaign, President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Senator John F. Kerryagreed that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons worried them more than any other national security threat, the U.S.

government has yet to elevate nuclear terrorism prevention to the highest priority. Despite several U.S. and internationalprograms to secure nuclear weapons and the materials to make them, major gaps in policy remain.

Nuclear Terrorism would destroy the United States

CHESNEY IN '97 [Robert, Law Clerk to the Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan , Harvard Law School, Los AngelesInternational and Comparative Law Journal, November]

The horrible truth is that the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, in light of the potential existence of a blackmarket in fissile material. Nuclear terrorists might issue demands, but then again, they might not. Theirtarget could be anything: a U.S. military base in a foreign land, a crowded U.S. city, or an empty stretch ofdesert highway. In one fell swoop, nuclear terrorists could decapitate the U.S. government or destroy its

financial system. The human suffering resulting from a detonation would be beyond calculation, and in theaftermath, the remains of the nation would demand both revenge and protection. Constitutional liberties andvalues might never recover. When terrorists strike against societies already separated by fundamental socialfault lines, such as in Northern Ireland or Israel, conventional weapons can exploit those fault lines toachieve significant gains. In societies that lack such pre-existing fundamental divisions, however,conventional weapon attacks do not pose a top priority threat to national security, even though the pain andsuffering inflicted can be substantial. The bedrock institutions of the United States will survive despite thedestruction of federal offices; the vast majority of people will continue to support the Constitution despitethe mass murder of innocent persons. The consequences of terrorists employing weapons of massdestruction, however, would be several orders of magnitude worse than a conventional weapons attack.Although this threat includes chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapon's devastating potential is

in a class by itself. Nuclear terrorism thus poses a unique danger to the United States: through its sheerpower to slay, destroy, and terrorize, a nuclear weapon would give terrorists the otherwise-unavailableability to bring the United States to its knees. Therefore, preventing terrorists from obtaining nuclearweapons should be considered an unparalleled national security priority dominating other policyconsiderations.

Terrorism results in Nuclear War

Corsi 05 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43817In the span of less than one hour, the nation's largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map.Removal of debris will take several years, and recovery may never fully happen. The damage to the nation'seconomy will be measured in the trillions of dollars, and the loss of the country's major financial andbusiness center may reduce America immediately to a second-class status. The resulting psychologicalimpact will bring paralysis throughout the land for an indefinite period of time. The president may not be

7

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

8/43


able to communicate with the nation for days, even weeks, as television and radio systems struggle to comeback on line. No natural or man-made disaster in history will compare with the magnitude of damage thathas been done to New York City in this one horrible day. The United States retaliates: 'End of the world'scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that thepresident retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the

president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have beenincinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no intervalduring the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they diedthat the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack willnot have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside thetruck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues,which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactiverubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect anotherattack by our known enemy Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike onMecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to makethe point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the

map, the Islamic world more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations would feelattacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypsewould be upon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the formerSoviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had beensnatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russianson a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be soin shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that therewas never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not careif we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population notconcentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the UnitedStates. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be

able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why notlaunch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos mightonly advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking oneanother, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus onattacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in powersuddenly inflicted upon America. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from thedisgrace of World War II, when in the last century the Americans a second time in just over two decades hadbeen forced to come to their rescue. If the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves, theymight be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. Or thepresident might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the mostrational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on

Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would stillsee the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that thedestruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran.But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by theloss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?"would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the presidentmight think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. Thepolitical party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a

8

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

9/43


nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the countrywas still capable of exacting revenge.

Biological Terrorism Risks Extinction

Richard Ochs, Chemical Weapons Working Group Member, 2002

[Biological Weapons must be Abolished Immediately, June 9,http://www.freefromterror.net/other_.../abolish.html]

Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many without aknown cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceivedmilitary value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials inlaboratories. While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could alsokill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are easier tocontrol. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthraxattacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amountscan be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the

Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause. Abolition ofchemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, theirpersistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence,chemical weapons would have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the naturalenvironment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear and biologicalweapons, the killing will probably never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers

virtually forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no known curecould wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent radiation. AIDS and ebolaviruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with no known cure or vaccine. Can weimagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW POSSIBLE.

Another terrorist attack will result in complete chaos (consider retagging)

Michael Ignatieff, Canadian scholar, Liberal Member of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons,"Lesser Evils," New York Times Magazine, May 2 2004

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped...ytm_050204.htmConsider the consequences of a second major attack on the mainland United States - the detonation of aradiological or dirty bomb, perhaps, or a low-yield nuclear device or a chemical strike in a subway. Any ofthese events could cause death, devastation and panic on a scale that would make 9/11 seem like a paleprelude. After such an attack, a pall of mourning, melancholy, anger and fear would hang over our publiclife for a generation. An attack of this sort is already in the realm of possibility. The recipes for makingultimate weapons are on the Internet, and the materiel required is available for the right price. Democracieslive by free markets, but a free market in everything enriched uranium, ricin, anthrax -- will mean thedeath of democracy. Armageddon is being privatized, and unless we shut down these markets, doomsday

9
http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html%5Dhttp://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html%5D

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

10/43


will be for sale. Sept. 11, for all its horror, was a conventional attack. We have the best of reasons to fear thefire next time. A democracy can allow its leaders one fatal mistake -- and that's what 9/11 looks like tomany observers -- but Americans will not forgive a second one. A succession of large - scale attacks wouldpull at the already-fragile tissue of trust that binds us to our leadership and destroy the trust we have in oneanother. Once the zones of devastation were cordoned off and the bodies buried, we might find ourselves, in

short order, living in a national-security state on continuous alert, with sealed borders, constant identitychecks and permanent detention camps for dissidents and aliens. Our constitutional rights might disappearfrom our courts, while torture might reappear in our interrogation cells. The worst of it is that governmentwould not have to impose tyranny on a cowed populace. We would demand it for our own protection. Andif the institutions of our democracy were unable to protect us from our enemies, we might go evenfurther, taking the law into our own hands. We have a history of lynching in this country, and by thetime fear and paranoia settled deep in our bones, we might repeat the worst episodes from our past, killingour former neighbors, our onetime fiends. That is what defeat in a war on terror looks like. We wouldsurvive, but we would no longer recognize ourselves. We would endure, but we would lose our identity asfree peoples.

Terrorism causes major declines in the economy

Stephen D. Biddle, Associate Professor of National Security Studies at the U.S. Army War CollegeStrategic Studies Institute. AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY AFTER 9/11: AN ASSESSMENT April2005

By contrast, some may argue that terrorism does so much damage to economies, and creates such

communities of interest among great powers, that these tensions are more apparent than real. After all, the9/11 attackers claim to have inflicted $1 trillion in economic damage on the United States;73 if so, a seriesof such attacks (or worse) could do greater damage to American economic growth than would the elevateddefense expenditures needed to prevent them. And terrorism threatens every great power; this commonthreat could in theory drive the great powers together in opposition to Islamist fundamentalism, rather thandriving them apart or spurring competition among them.

10

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

11/43


Terrorism can cause massive environmental destruction-Indian PointHarvey Wasserman 2002, Greenpeace, From the Earth Island Journal, www.earthisland.orgA terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burningthrough the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows ofhorribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Thousands of square miles would be saturated with the most

lethal clouds ever created; depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. Infants and smallchildren would quickly die en masse. Pregnant women would spontaneously abort or give birth to horriblydeformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Heartattacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea,inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence, asthma andblindness would afflict hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Then comes the wave of cancers, leukemias,lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented. Evacuation wouldbe impossible, but thousands would die trying. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. More than800,000 Soviet draftees forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up arestill dying from their exposure. At Indian Point, the molten cores would burn uncontrolled for days, weeksand years. Who would volunteer for such an American task force? The immediate damage from an Indian

Point attack (or a domestic accident) would render all five boroughs of New York City an apocalypticwasteland. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, naturalecosystems would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically, financially andecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11.Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potentialBombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since itsderegulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US couldcheaply replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress isfast-tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that protects reactoroperators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do we take this war seriously? Are wecommitted to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core

of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

Terrorism poses a major threat to all humanity

Jan C. Ting 2002 Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, August 12, 2002Unobjectionable but Insufficient-Federal Initiatives in Response to September 11 Terrorist Attacks,http://www.connecticutlawreview.org/...ummer/Ting.pdf

But, despite the appearance of normality, we remain fully engaged in alife-and-death struggle with international terrorism. No one can doubt afterthe September 11 attacks, the willingness of these terrorists to use nuclear,biological, and chemical weapons against us if, and as soon as, they can gettheir hands on them. And recent disclosures from Afghanistan make clearthe determination of terrorists to develop weapons of mass destruction.1Against a foe not just willing to die, but anxious to die a glorious death in aholy war, we must be victorious. For without victory against such a foe,there will be no survival.

11

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

12/43


Economy

US economic collapse destroys global economyScott Champion, Share International, July 2003

In the past 24 months, the US dollar has lost 25 per cent of its value relative to a basket of key

currencies, including the Japanese yen, euro, Swiss franc, Canadian dollar, Swedish krona and

British pound. A drop of this magnitude is not unusual in the cyclic swings of currency markets;

however, what has changed is that the Bush administration appears to be actively seeking an even

lower dollar. If so, this would be a sharp reversal of the Clinton administrations strong dollar policy.The US would like a lower dollar for several reasons. First, a cheaper dollar makes US goods morecompetitive in foreign markets, thus benefiting US-based multinational corporations. It also makes importsmore expensive relative to goods produced in the US. In both cases, American companies would enjoy adistinct advantage.Secondly, the imperialistic policies of the Bush administration are expensive and must be financed, which means borrowing ininternational capital markets. The US is currently running a $600 billion current-account deficit (trade deficit adjusted byunilateral transfers such as interest earned abroad). This means the US must borrow more than $1.5 billion per day on a net basisfrom international lenders. For borrowers such as the US, it is generally easier to pay back loans in a depreciating currency rather

12

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

13/43


than an appreciating one. Due to the large sums involved and a weak domestic economy, a strong dollar wouldmake it more difficult for the US to finance its self-appointed role as the worlds policeman.The USs increasingly desperate financial condition is not good news for the world. With short-term interestrates near zero, there is little additional economic benefit to be gained from lowering them further. This leaves acheaper dollar as one of the last levers to stimulate the US economy. As long as lenders are willing to invest in dollar

assets, the US can continue to borrow to maintain its current lifestyle. However, if foreign lenders begin to shunUS markets because of a falling dollar, it could cause serious problems for the US Government, economyand people.For many years the US has been the economic engine for the world, standing in as purchaser of last resort for the worlds supply

of goods in times of global economic distress. Now the US itself is in trouble. If the US attempts to fight the rapidlygaining forces of deflation by encouraging a depreciating dollar, it will export deflation to the rest of theworldbecause foreign currencies will rise relative to the dollar. This will damage foreign economies and inhibit their ability tobuy goods and services, including those from the US. Since the short-term benefit of a weak dollar to US corporations earningswill show up quickly, while the long-term damage to the global economy will become apparent only with the passage of time, itis a fair assumption that the US will take the easy route and worry about the global fallout later.

The problem with this approach for the Bush administration is that there are great risks to a weak dollar policy. Theworld economy is awash in dollars, and when there is too much of something the price or value usually

drops, sometimes precipitously. If confidence in the dollar or dollar assets, such as Treasury bonds,declines, the world may, at some point, reconsider its involvement with US assets. The results of such areappraisal could be anything from mildly damaging to catastrophic. Seventy-five per cent of the worldscentral-bank assets are held in US dollars (as Treasury bonds). These bankers do not want their primaryasset to suffer a significant decline.Many nations, like Japan, recycle their trade surpluses into US dollars by purchasing and holding USTreasury bonds. They do this out of self-interest. In the case of Japan, it helps to weaken the yen relative tothe dollar. It is hard to imagine the Japanese reversing this policy, as it would harm their own corporations.However Japan, together with the rest of the world, holds nearly a third of total US Treasury debt. If thesecountries were to stop buying Treasuries, let alone start selling the ones they already own, the US would be in serious trouble.What should concern the US authorities about a weak dollar policy is that the decline could spin out of control.

13

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

14/43


Economy

The US isnt key to the Global Economy

The Economist, February 4, 2006 (PDNSS4071)Testing all engines, p. Lexis LARRY SUMMERS,A Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, once said that the world economy is flying on one engine todescribe its excessive reliance on American demand. Now growth seems to be becoming more even atlast: Europe and Japan are revving up, as are most emerging economies. As a result, if (or when) theAmerican engine stalls, the global aeroplane will not necessarily crash.

US isnt key to the Global Economy

Martin Wolf, associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times,September/October 2000 Foreign Policy, After the Crash, p. ebscohost (PDNSS4074)The notion that the strong U.S. economy saved the rest of the world during the global financial turmoilof the late 1990s has become increasingly fashionable. Even U.S. Treasury Secretary LawrenceSummers recently referred to the United States as the main engine of global growth. However, thisproposition is not strictly true. Since the United States accounts for slightly more than a quarter of globaleconomic activity, it certainly exerts a powerful influence. But positive correlations between U.S.business cycles and those of other countries have not, historically, been that high. Among leadingindustrial countries, only the United Kingdom and Canada have displayed business cycles that movetogether with those of the United States. Indeed, if the U.S. economy helped prevent a global recessionfollowing the financial crises of 1997 and 1998, it was precisely because its business cycle was not

14

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

15/43


closely synchronized with many other economies. Otherwise the United States would have fallen into arecession along with the crisis-ridden regions.

Market Collapse Results in Global Instability

Leslie H. Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, 2001

[Rober M. Kubarych, Stress Testing the System: Simulating the Global Consequences of the Next Financial Crisis, New York:Council on Foreign Relations Press, 2001, p. xiii]

The major conclusion that flows from the work of Roger and his colleagues is this: the most dangerousnear-term threat to U.S. world leadership and thus to U.S. security, as well, would be a sharp decline in theU.S. securities markets. Such a decline would likely stun the U.S. economy at a time when the strength ofour economy is critical to global prosperity, to the financial health and political stability of most nations,and ultimately to international security itself.

Economy-Heg

Economy Collapse Destroy Hegemony

Scott Champion, Share International, July 2003When the global stock-market crash predicted in this magazine occurs, international support for the dollar will likely evaporate ascountries sell dollar assets to shore up their own ailing economies. If this happens, the US will have great difficulty funding itshistorically large budget and trade deficits. At a most inopportune time, the US may be forced to raise interest rates sharply to

attract the capital to meet its obligations. This would be a further blow to an ailing economy. A collapsing US stock marketwould almost certainly usher in a period of deflation for the American economy. Recent statements by FederalReserve chairman Alan Greenspan and New York Fed governor Bernacke make clear that the Fed is concerned about deflationand stands ready to print an unlimited supply of dollars to fight this eventuality. These statements are unprecedented in the 90-year history of the US Federal Reserve Bank and are tantamount to a declaration that they stand willing to destroy the value ofthe dollar in the event of a serious crisis.Today, many forces are coming together that could lead to a collapse of the US dollar. Among these are its oversupply, lowinterest rates, the need to fight deflation, continuing stock-market declines, and a potential derivatives meltdown [see ShareInternational May 1990] It is highly likely that in the not-too-distant future all of these factors will come into play

simultaneously. In addition, many of the worlds financiers, central bankers, and government officials cannot be pleased with theeconomic and foreign policies of the Bush administration. They well know that the continued recycling of capital intoUS assets serves, at least in part, to allow the US to dominate the world. If the people who control theworlds capital were to decide, for whatever reason, to cease buying Treasury securities and to liquidatethose they own, the dollar would collapse and the US would experience an unprecedented economic shock.Were this to happen, the world would witness the end of American hegemony.

15

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

16/43


No Nuclear War

Economy Collapse will not lead to nuclear war with China

Walter Russell Mead, Senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, March2004, Foreign Policy, p. 32 (HARV1750)

16

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

17/43


Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States--government and private bonds,direct and portfolio private investments--more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-

led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperityof the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall intodepressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States

collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear tobreak with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, alarge national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify othercountries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the

Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world.That is sticky power with a vengeance. THE SUM OF ALL POWERS? The United States' global economicmight is therefore not simply, to use Nye's formulations, hard power that compels others or soft power thatattracts the rest of the world. Certainly, the U.S. economic system provides the United States with theprosperity needed to underwrite its security strategy, but it also encourages other countries to accept U.S.leadership. U.S. economic might is sticky power. How will sticky power help the United States addresstoday's challenges? One pressing need is to ensure that Iraq's economic reconstruction integrates the nation more firmly in theglobal economy. Countries with open economies develop powerful trade-oriented businesses; the leaders of these businesses can

promote economic policies that respect property rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Such leaders also lobby governments toavoid the isolation that characterized Iraq and Libya under economic sanctions. And looking beyond Iraq, the allure of access toWestern capital and global markets is one of the few forces protecting the rule of law from even further erosion in Russia. China's

rise to global prominence will offer a key test case for sticky power. As China develops economically, it should gainwealth that could support a military rivaling that of the United States; China is also gaining politicalinfluence in the world. Some analysts in both China and the United States believe that the laws of history mean that Chinesepower will someday clash with the reigning U.S. power. Sticky power offers a way out. China benefits from participating in theU.S. economic system and integrating itself into the global economy. Between 1970 and 2003, China's gross domestic productgrew from an estimated $106 billion to more than $1.3 trillion. By 2003, an estimated $450 billion of foreign money had flowed

into the Chinese economy. Moreover, China is becoming increasingly dependent on both imports and exports tokeep its economy (and its military machine) going. Hostilities between the United States and China would cripple China'sindustry, and cut off supplies of oil and other key commodities. Sticky power works both ways, though. If China cannot

afford war with the United States, the United States will have an increasingly hard time breaking offcommercial relations with China. In an era of weapons of mass destruction , this mutual dependence isprobably good for both sides. Sticky power did not prevent World War I, but economic interdependenceruns deeper now; as a result, the "inevitable" U.S.-Chinese conflict is less likely to occur.

US-China WAR

US/CHINA WAR ENSURES EXTINCTIONStraits Times, June 25, 2000 (HARV1751)THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the USand China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale warbecomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise thepossibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases andlogistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means SouthKorea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the

17

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

18/43


conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the USdistracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly

upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nucleararsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war?According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean

War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from militarydefeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implicationson future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or abroadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclearweaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winninga war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possessesabout 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for thenuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its"non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-fundedInstitute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that

although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He saidmilitary leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as aresult of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see thedestruction of civilisation.

Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology risks extinction

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/articles/treder20060218/Enslavement: The triumph of superior but despotic machines

18

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

19/43


One of the worst fears of science fiction writers and movie makers could become a reality. If intelligentmachines are designed without a built-in failsafe "conscience" mechanism (something like Isaac AsimovsThree Laws of Robotics, only more sophisticated), it is conceivable that a dominant machinesuperintelligence or a powerful network of non-human intelligences could decide that it is in their own bestinterests to enslave humanity. We then have become nothing more than beasts of burden, forced to comply

with every command of our masters. At various times and places, some of us secretly plot revolt, and one ofour tries might succeed. Probably not, however, because the machines have all the advantages and continueto increase their power and intelligence exponentially. Suicides are common, and great masses of humanityare systematically purged by the godlike beings that rule over us. People are bred like dogs to meet specificneeds. Someday there might come a time when the machines reach a point that they are no longer interestedin remaining on the Earth. In that case, they might go away and leave us in peace. Or, more likely, they willexterminate us to prevent future reprisals.

Self Determination

Self Determination Conflicts Escalate to Regional War

Kamal Shehadi, Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, December, ETHNICSELF DETERMINATION AND THE BREAK UP OF STATES, 1983, p. 81This paper has argued that self-determination conflicts have direct adverse consequences on internationalsecurity. As they begin to tear nuclear states apart, the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the handsof individuals or groups willing to use them, or to trade them to others, will reach frightening levels. This

19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Roboticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

20/43

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

21/43


nations economic and political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrialcivilization. These wars will so damage the complex, economic and trading networks and squandermaterial, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability tosupport the earths 6 to 8 billion people . This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of globalcivilization.

Regional Conflicts can go Nuclear

News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) January 12, 2003 (PDNSS6757)

JAMES W. WHITE: I think it's higher, although it's a different kind. During the Cold War, the dangerwas World War III, and the danger of World War III is gone. There's not going to be an all-out nuclearexchange between two superpowers, but the possibility of regional wars, nuclear and non-nuclear, hasgone way up because during the Cold War, the United States and Russia tended to act as policemen [sic]toward their own clients and kept them from getting out of line. Now, the United States doesn't worry asmuch about what little countries do, and so they can go farther before we get involved. So you get, for

example, all the horrible things that happened in Africa and the Balkans after the Cold War ended, India-Pakistan and now North Korea.

Soft Power-Proliferation

A. Soft Power Key to Prevent ProliferationNye, Professor of International Relations, Harvard, 04[Joseph S., Soft Power and American Foreign Policy, Summer,Political Science Quarterly, Volume. 119, Issue 2; page 255]

According to the National Security Strategy, the greatest threats the American people face are transnationalterrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and particularly their combination. Yet, meeting the challengeposed by transnational military organizations that could acquire weapons of mass destruction requires thecooperation of other countries -and cooperation is strengthened by soft power. Similarly, efforts to promotedemocracy in Iraq and elsewhere will require the help of others. Reconstruction in Iraq and peacekeeping in

21

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

22/43


failed states are far more likely to succeed and to be less costly if shared with others rather than appearingas American imperial occupation. The fact that the United States squandered its soft power in the way that itwent to war meant that the aftermath turned out to be much more costly than it need have been.

B. Proliferation leads to nuclear crises, war, and the end of civilization

Tayor 02[Stuart, Senior Writer at The National Journal, and Editor at Newsweek, Legal Times, September 16, lexis]

The truth is, no matter what we do about Iraq, if we don't stop proliferation, another five or 10 potentiallyunstable nations may go nuclear before long, making it ever more likely that one or more bombs will be setoff anonymously on our soil by terrorists or a terrorist government. Even an airtight missile defense wouldbe useless against a nuke hidden in a truck, a shipping container, or a boat. [Continues] Unless we getserious about stopping proliferation, we are headed for "a world filled with nuclear weapons states, whereevery crisis threatens to go nuclear," where "the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day,"and where "it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the handsof terrorists, religious cults, and criminal organizations." So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderateRepublican who served as a career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to

extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The only way to avoid such a grim future, he suggests in his memoir,Disarmament Sketches, is for the United States to lead an international coalition against proliferation byshowing an unprecedented willingness to give up the vast majority of our own nuclear weapons, exceptingonly those necessary to deter nuclear attack by others.

Extensions

Soft power key to Heg

Nye, Professor of International Relations, Harvard, 04[Joseph S., Soft Power and American Foreign Policy, Summer 2004,Political Science Quarterly, Volume 119, Issue 2; page255, proquest, download date: 9-21-07]

In the global information age, the attractiveness of the United States will be crucial to our ability to achievethe outcomes we want. Rather than having to put together pick-up coalitions of the willing for each new game, we willbenefit if we are able to attract others into institutional alliances and eschew weakening those we have already created. NATO,

for example, not only aggregates the capabilities of advanced nations, but its interminable committees, procedures, and exercisesalso allow these nations to train together and quickly become interoperable when a crisis occurs. As for alliances, if theUnited States is an attractive source of security and reassurance, other countries will set their expectationsin directions that are conducive to our interests. Initially, for example, the U.S.-Japan security treaty was not verypopular in Japan, but polls show that over the decades, it became more attractive to the Japanese public. Once that happened,

Japanese politicians began to build it into their approaches to foreign policy. The United States benefits when it isregarded as a constant and trusted source of attraction so that other countries are not obliged continually tore-examine their options in an atmosphere of uncertain coalitions. In the Japan case, broad acceptance of the UnitedStates by the Japanese public "contributed to the maintenance of US hegemony" and "served as political constraints compelling

22

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

23/43


the ruling elites to continue cooperation with the United States."18 Popularity can contribute to stability. Finally, as the RANDCorporation's John Arquila and David Ronfeldt argue, power in an information age will come not only from strong defenses but

also from strong sharing. A traditional realpolitik mindset makes it difficult to share with others. But in an information age,such sharing not only enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also increases their inclinationto do so. As we share intelligence and capabilities with others, we develop common outlooks and

approaches that improve our ability to deal with the new challenges. Power flows from that attraction.Dismissing the importance of attraction as merely ephemeral popularity ignores key insights from newtheories of leadership as well as the new realities of the information age. We cannot afford that.

Soft Power Key to Hegemony

Nye, Professor of International Relations, Harvard, 04[Joseph S., Soft Power and American Foreign Policy, Summer 2004,Political Science Quarterly, Volume 119,Issue 2; page 255, proquest, download date: 9-21-07]

Skeptics about soft power say not to worry. Popularity is ephemeral and should not be a guide for foreignpolicy in any case. The United States can act without the world's applause. We are so strong we can do aswe wish. We are the world's only superpower, and that fact is bound to engender envy and resentment.Fouad Ajami has stated recently, "The United States need not worry about hearts and minds in foreignlands."IJ Columnist CaI Thomas refers to "the fiction that our enemies can be made less threatening bywhat America says and does."10 Moreover, the United States has been unpopular in the past, yet managedto recover. We do not need permanent allies and institutions. We can always pick up a coalition of the

willing when we need to. Donald Rumsfeld is wont to say that the issues should determine the coalitions,not vice-versa. But it would be a mistake to dismiss the recent decline in our attractiveness so lightly. It istrue that the United Stateshas recovered from unpopular policies in the past, but that was against the backdrop of the Cold War, inwhich other countries still feared the Soviet Union as the greater evil. Moreover, while America's size andassociation with disruptive modernity are real and unavoidable, wise policies can soften the sharp edges ofthat reality and reduce the resentments that they engender. That is what the United States did after World War II. Weused our soft power resources and co-opted others into a set of alliances and institutions that lasted for sixty years. We won the

Cold War against the Soviet Union with a strategy of containment that used our soft power as well as our hard power. It is true

23

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

24/43


that the new threat of transnational terrorism increased American vulnerability, and some of ourunilateralism after September 11 was driven by fear. But the United States cannot meet the new threatidentified in the national security strategy without the cooperation of other countries. They will cooperate,up to a point, out of mere self-interest, but their degree of cooperation is also affected by the attractivenessof the United States. Take Pakistan for example. President Pervez Musharraf faces a complex game of cooperating with the

United States on terrorism while managing a large anti-American constituency at home. He winds up balancing concessions andretractions. If the United States were more attractive to the Pakistani populace, we would see moreconcessions in the mix.

US HEGEMONY KEY TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTHBradley A. Thayer, Professor Defense & Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, 2006, The NationalInterest, November/December, p. LexisTHROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was adominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognizedthe irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when weconsider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for humanrights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to thinkthat the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that theyare dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons : Appalling thingshappen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order

established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As countryand western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note

what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, Americanprimacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. Thefirst has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among manystates that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep anumber of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India andPakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur whereWashington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood,

particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to

24

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

25/43


spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for thecountries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberaldemocracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreadingdemocracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type ofconflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it isbecause they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S.

leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United

States. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growthof the global economy. With its allies , the United States has labored to create an economically liberalworldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, andmobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economicorder is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third WorldThe United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-beingof America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies andgrowth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burdenmanageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure militaryprowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a

former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confidentin the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal nowrecognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through theadoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through Americanprimacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academicproponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the UnitedStates, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promotethe welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positiveexternalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of theCold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is theearth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire

department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon ortsunami, the United States assists the countries in need.

Proliferation is the greatest threat to extinction

James D. Miller,professor of economics, Smith College, NATIONAL REVIEW, January 23, 2002, p.http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-miller012302.shtmlThe U.S. should use whatever means necessary to stop our enemies from gaining the ability to kill millionsof us . We should demand that countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea make no attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Weshould further insist on the right to make surprise inspections of these countries to insure that they are complying with our proliferation policy.

What if these nations refuse our demands? If they refuse we should destroy their industrial capacity and capture their leaders . True, the world's

cultural elites would be shocked and appalled if we took preventive military action against countries that are currently doing us no harm. Whatis truly shocking, however, is that America is doing almost nothing while countries that have expressed hatred for us are building weapons of

mass destruction. France and Britain allowed Nazi Germany's military power to grow until Hitler was strong enough to take Paris . Americaseems to be doing little while many of our foes acquire the strength to destroy U.S. cities. We can't relyupon deterrence to prevent an atomic powered dictator from striking at us. Remember, the Nazi's killed millions ofJews even though the Holocaust took resources away from their war effort. As September 11th also shows, there exist evil men in the world

who would gladly sacrifice all other goals for the opportunity to commit mass murder. The U.S. should take not even the slightestunnecessary chance that some dictator,perhaps a dying Saddam Hussein, would be willing to give up his life for theopportunity to hit America with nuclear missiles . Once a dictator has the ability to hit a U.S ., or perhaps

25

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

26/43


even a European city, with atomic weapons it will be too late for America to pressure him to give up hisweapons . His ability to hurt us will effectively put him beyond our military reach. Our conventional forces might even be madeimpotent by a nuclear-armed foe. Had Iraq possessed atomic weapons, for example, we would probably have been unwilling toexpel them from Kuwait. What about the rights of those countries I have proposed threatening? America should not even pretendto care about the rights of dictators. In the 21st century the only leaders whom we should recognize as legitimate are those whowere democratically elected. The U.S. should reinterpret international law to give no rights to tyrants, not even the right to exist.We should have an ethically based foreign policy towards democratic countries. With dictatorships, however, we should beentirely Machiavellian; we should deal with them based upon what is in our own best interests. It's obviously in our self-interestto prevent as many dictators as possible from acquiring the means to destroy us. We shouldn't demand that China abandon hernuclear weapons. This is not because China has proved herself worthy to have the means of mass annihilation, but rather becauseher existing stockpile of atomic missiles would make it too costly for us to threaten China. It's too late to stop the Chinese fromgaining the ability to decimate us, but for the next ten years or so it is not too late to stop some of our other rivals.If it's politicallyimpossible for America to use military force against currently non-hostile dictators then we should use trade sanctions to punish nations whodon't agree to our proliferation policy. Normal trade sanctions, however, do not provide the punishing power necessary to induce dictators toabandon their arms. If we simply don't trade with a nation other countries will sell them the goods that we used to provide. To make trade

sanctions an effective weapon the U.S. needs to deploy secondary boycotts . America should create a treaty, the signatories of which wouldagree to: only trade with countries which have signed the treaty, and not trade with any country which violates our policy on weapons

proliferation. believe that if only the U.S. and, say, Germany initially signed this treaty then nearly every other country would be forced to doso. For example, if France did not sign, they would be unable to trade with the U.S. or Germany. This would obviously be intolerable to France.Once the U.S., Germany and France adopted the treaty every European nation would have to sign or face a total economic collapse. The morecountries which sign the treaty, the greater the pressure on other countries to sign. Once most every country has signed, any country which

violated America's policy on weapons proliferation would face almost a complete economic boycott . Under this approach, the U.S. andGermany alone could use our economic power to dictate the enforcement mechanism of a treaty designed to protect against Armageddon .Even the short-term survival of humanity is in doubt. The greatest threat of extinction surely comes fromthe proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. America should refocus her foreign policy to prioritizeprotecting us all from atomic, biological, and chemical weapons.

26

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

27/43


Global Warming

Nuclear War causes Global Warming

Carl Sagan, B.A., B.S., and PhD University of Chicago, former professor of biology and genetics at Stanford and professor ofastronomy and astro-physics at Harvard, former Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell, two-time winner of

27

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

28/43


the NASA medal for scientific achievement, Peabody award recipient, and Pulitzer prize winning author, 1984(Foreign Affairs,Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe p. Lexis) (PDNSS2199)

Recent estimates of the immediate deaths from blast, prompt radiation, and fires in a major exchange inwhich cities were targeted range from several hundred million to 1.1 billion people -- the latter estimate isin a World Health Organization study in whch targets were assumed not to be restricted entirely to NATO and Warsaw

Pact countries. n7 Serious injuries requiring immediate medical attention (which would be largely unavailable) would be sufferedby a comparably large number of people, perhaps an additional 1.1 billion. n8 Thus it is possible that somethingapproaching half the human population on the planet would be killed or seriously injured by the directeffects of the nuclear war. Social disruption; the unavailability of electricity, fuel, transportation, food deliveries,communication and other civil services; the absence of medical care; the decline in sanitation measures; rampant disease andsevere psychiatric disorders would doubtless collectively claim a significant number of further victims. But a range of additionaleffects -- some unexpected, some inadequately treated in earlier studies, some uncovered only recently -- now make the picturemuch more somber still. Because of current limitations on missile accuracy, the destruction of missile silos, command and controfacilities, and other hardened sites requires nuclear weapons of fairly high yield exploded as groundbursts or as low airbursts.High-yield groundbursts will vaporize, melt and pulverize the surface at the target area and propel large quantities of condensatesand fine dust into the upper troposphere and stratosphere.The particles are chiefly entrained in the rising fireball; some ride up thestem of the mushroom cloud. Most military targets, however, are not very hard. The destruction of cities can be accomplished, asdemonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by lower-yield explosions less than a kilometer above the surface. Low-yield airbursts

over cities or near forests will tend to produce massive fires, some of them over areas of 100,000 square kilometers or more. Cityfires generate enormous quantities of black oily smoke which rise at least into the upper part of the lower atmosphere, ortroposhere. If firestorms occur, the smoke column rises vigorously, like the draft in a fireplace, and may carry some of the sootinto the lower part of the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere. The smoke from forest and grassland fires would initially berestricted to the lower troposphere. The fission of the (generally plutonium) trigger in every thermonuclear weapon and thereactions in the (generally uranium-238) casing added as a fission yield "booster" produce a witch's brew of radioactive products,which are also entrained in the cloud. Each such product, or radioisotope, has a characteristic "half-life" (defined as the time todecay to half its original level of radioactivity). Most of the radioisotopes have very short half-lives and decay in hours to days.Particles injected into the stratosphere, mainly by high-yield explosions, fall out very slowly -- characteristically in about a year,by which time most of the fission products, even when concentrated, will have decayed to much safer levels. Particles injectedinto the troposphere by low-yield explosions and fires fall out more rapidly -- by gravitational settling, rainout, convention, andother processes -- before the radioactivity has decayed to moderately safe levels. Thus rapid fallout of tropospheric radioactivedebris tends to produce larger doses of ionizing radiation than does the slower fallout of radioactive particles from the

stratosphere. Nuclear explosions of more than one-megaton yield generate a radiant fireball that rises through the troposphereinto the stratosphere. The fireballs from weapons with yields between 100 kilotons and one megaton will partially extend into thestratosphere. The high temperatures in the fireball chemically ignite some of the nitrogen in the air, producing oxides of nitrogen,which in turn chemically attack and destroy the gas ozone in the middle stratosphere. But ozone absorbs tlhe biologically

dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Thus the partial depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, or"ozonosphere," by high-yield nuclear explosions will increase the flux of solar ultraviolet radiation at thesurface of the Earth (after the soot and dust have settled out).After a nuclear war in which thousands ofhigh-yield weapons are detonated, the increase in biologically dangerous ultraviolet light might be severalhundred percent. In the more dangerous shorter wavelengths, larger increases would occur. Nucleic acidsand proteins, the fundamental molecules for life on Earth, are especially sensitive to ultraviolet radiation.Thus, an increase of the solar ultraviolet flux at the surface of the Earth is potentially dangerous for life.These four effects -- obscuring smoke in the troposphere, obscuring dust in the stratophere, the fallout of

radioactive debris, and the partial destruction of the ozone layer -- constitute the four known principaladverse environmental consequences that occur after a nuclear war is "over." There may be others aboutwhich we are still ignorant. The dust and, especially, the dark soot absorb ordinary visible light from theSun, heating the atmosphere and cooling the Earth's surface.

Rapid Global Warming results in Extinction

Dr. Brandenberg, Physicist (Ph.D.) and Paxson a science writer99 John and Monica, Dead Mars DyingEarth p. 232-3 (PDNSS2201)

28

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

29/43

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

30/43


Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book,EXTINCTION, Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goeson, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if wepop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur . So it is with humans and the other species with whom weshare the planet . No single species is essential to our well being, yet it is certain that we need biological

diversity in order to survive . Therefore each time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible steptoward the brink of a dark abyss. In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator.

Loss of each species risks ecological collapse and human extinction.

(Diner, David N. B.S. Recipient. Ohio State University. J.D. Recipient. College of Law. Ohio State University. LL.M. TheJudge Advocate Generals School. United States Army. Judge Advocates Generals Corps. United States Army. The Army and

the Endangered Species Act: Whos Endangering Whom? Military Law Review. 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994. Lexis-Nexis.)No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most ofhistory, mankind pursued this domination with a single minded determination to master the world, tame the

wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinctionepisodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, andnew species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world'ssurvival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species coulddecline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knowshow many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct-- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. EcologicalValue. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control areprime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control,n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the

use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72Without plants and animals, a large portion ofbasic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants

and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperatelyneed the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern

shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a directutilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect

a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, theloss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreoveras the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increasesdramatically. n76 4. BiologicalDiversity. -- The mainpremise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, theworld's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, andwithin species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverseecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystemsinherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist astress. . . .[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than asimple, un branched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions,humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. Thespreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of

what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all itsdimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each

30

8/14/2019 211 CM Impacts

31/43


new extinction increases the risk of disaster.Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from anaircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Extensions

Loss of Biodiversity results in Extinction

Genesis of Eden Diversity En

Documents

211 CM Impacts