Afghanistan Aff
Download 0.73 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2AC – AT: Nuke DAs
2AC – AT: DAs – CuomoFocus on war as an event marginalizes the ongoing wars on the individual level and perpetuates violence Cuomo 96 (Chris J, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, “War is not just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence” Jstor) Philosophical attention to war has typically appeared in the form of justifi cations for entering into war, and over appropriate activities within war. The spatial metaphors used to refer to war as a separate, bounded sphere indicate assumptions that war is a realm of human activity vastly removed from normal life, or a sort of happening that is appropriately conceived apart from everyday events in peaceful times. Not surprisingly, most discussions of the political and ethical dimensions of war discuss war solely as an event-an occurrence, or collection of occurrences, having clear beginnings and endings that are typi cally marked by formal, institutional declarations. As happenings, wars and military activities can be seen as motivated by identifiable, if complex, inten tions, and directly enacted by individual and collective decision-makers and agents of states. But many of the questions about war that are of interest to feminists—including how large-scale, state-sponsored violence affects women and members of other oppressed groups; how military violence shapes gen dered, raced, and nationalistic political realities and moral imaginations; what such violence consists of and why it persists; how it is related to other oppressive and violent institutions and hegemonies—cannot be adequately pursued by focusing on events. These issues are not merely a matter of good or bad intentions and identifiable decisions. This marginalization of individual wars makes peace impossible and war inevitable Cuomo 96 (Chris J, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, “War is not just an Event: Reflections on the Significance of Everyday Violence” Jstor) Peach states that one of the problems with nonfeminist critiques of war is their failure to address the fact that "women remain largely absent from ethical and policy debates regarding when to go to war, how to fight a war, and whether resorting to war is morally justifiable" (Peach 1994, 152). But a just-war approach cannot successfully theorize women's roles in these events because formal, declared wars depend upon underlying militaristic assumptions and constructions of gender that make women's participation as leaders nearly impossible. The limitations of Peach's analysis make clear some aspects of the relationships between peacetime militarism and armed conflicts that cannot be addressed by even feminist just-war principles. Her five criticisms of just-war theory, discussed below, are intended to both echo and revise appraisals made by other feminists. But each fails to successfully address the complexity of feminist concerns. Peach finds just-war theory's reliance on realism, the notion that human nature makes war inevitable and unavoidable, to be problematic. She believes just-war theory should not be premised on realist assumptions, and that it should also avoid "unduly unrealistic appraisals" of human and female nature, as found in Ruddick's work. Peach rightly identifies the pessimism, sexism, essentialism, and universalism at work in just-war theorists' conceptions of human nature. Nonetheless, she fails to see that just-war theorists employ ossified concepts of both "human nature" and "war." Any interrogation of the relationships between war and "human nature," or more benignly, understandings and enactments of what it means to be diverse human agents in various contexts, will be terribly limited insofar as they consider wars to be isolated events. Questions concerning the relationships between war and "human nature" become far more complex if we reject a conception of war that focuses only on events, and abandon any pretense of arriving at universalist conceptions of human or female "nature." Feminist ethical questions about war are not reducible to wondering how to avoid large-scale military conflict despite human tendencies toward violence. Instead, the central questions concern the omnipresence of militarism, the possibilities of making its presence visible, and the potential for resistance to its physical and hegeinonic force. Like "solutions" to the preponderance of violence perpetrated by men against women that fail to analyze and articulate relationships between everyday violence and institutionalized or invisible systems of patriarchal, racist, and economic oppression, analyses that characterize eruptions of military violence as isolated, persistent events, are practically and theoretically insufficient. 2AC – AT: Nuke DAsRepresentations of catastrophic nuclear war marginalize the reality of nuclear wars that are waged on Indigenous peoples and the Fourth World Kato 93 (Masahide, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, “Nuclear Globalism: Traversing Rockets, Satellites, and Nuclear War via the Strategic Gaze” p.347-348) Let us recall our earlier discussion about the critical historical conjuncture where the notion of "strategy" changed its nature and became deregulated/dispersed beyond the boundaries set by the interimperial rivalry. Herein, the perception of the ultimate means of destruction can be historically contextualized. The only instances of real nuclear catastrophe perceived and thus given due recognition by the First World community are the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which occurred at this conjuncture. Beyond this historical threshold, whose meaning is relevant only to the interimperial rivalry, the nuclear catastrophe is confined to the realm of fantasy, for instance, apocalyptic imagery. And yet how can one deny the crude fact that nuclear war has been taking place on this earth in the name of "nuclear testing" since the first nuclear explosion at Alamogordo in 1945? As of 1991, 1,924 nuclear explosions have occurred on earth.28 The major perpetrators of nuclear warfare are the United States (936 times), the former Soviet Union (715 times), France (192 times), the United Kingdom (44 times), and China (36 times)." The primary targets of warfare ("test site" to use Nuke Speak terminology) have been invariably the sovereign nations of Fourth World and Indigenous Peoples. Thus history has already witnessed the nuclear wars against the Marshall Islands (66 times), French Polynesia (175 times), Australian Aborigines (9 times), Newe Sogobia (the Western Shoshone Nation) (814 times), the Christmas Islands (24 times), Hawaii (Kalama Island, also known as Johnston Island) (12 times), the Republic of Kazakhstan (467 times), and Uighur (Xinjian Province, China) (36 times)." Moreover, although I focus primarily on "nuclear tests" in this article, if we are to expand the notion of nuclear warfare to include any kind of violence accrued from the nuclear fuel cycle (particularly uranium mining and disposition of nuclear wastes), we must enlist Japan and the European nations as perpetrators and add the Navaho, Havasupai and other Indigenous Nations to the list of targets. Viewed as a whole, nuclear war, albeit undeclared, has been waged against the Fourth World, and Indigenous Nations. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.73 Mb. Share with your friends:
|