Arctic Oil/Gas Aff Inherency
*Canada Relations Impacts
Download 2.43 Mb.
|
*Canada Relations ImpactsF-35’s ImpactUS-Canada relations are key to F-35s.Berthiaume 12 Lee, Writer for Embassy Magazine, Canada.com and the National Post, 6-22-12, “F-35s Delivery Won’t be Complete Before Current Fighter are Retired: Documents” http://www.canada.com/technology/delivery+complete+before+current+fighters+retired+Documents/6827273/story.html OTTAWA — Defence Department officials knew last year Canada would not have enough F-35 stealth fighters by the time the last of the country’s CF-18s were due to be retired in 2020, newly released documents show.¶ As a result, officials were preparing to ask the Conservative government for more money to again extend the lives of some of the CF-18s — which have already undergone a $1.8-billion overhaul — until the last of the F-35s could come online.¶ “The planned CF-18 estimated life expectancy is currently 2020,” reads one email dated Sept. 21, 2011, and obtained by Postmedia News through access to information laws.¶ “However, the current Next Generation Fighter Capability project scheduled is based on the last of Canada’s F-35s being delivered in 2022 or 2023. CF-18 estimated life expectancy requirements are currently being assessed and a request for an extension will be made once the required date is confirmed.”¶ The revelation flies in the face of constant assertions that a stopgap would not be required between the retirement of the CF-18s and final delivery of the F-35s.¶ “Right now, our transition plan allows for that transition between the operational (CF-18) fleet as it ages out and the new (F-35) fleet as it comes online,” Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told a parliamentary committee on Dec. 11.¶ “The intention is to overlap between the two.”¶ It also comes after the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the equivalent of Canada’s auditor general, warned on June 14 that allies are increasingly delaying their plans to purchase F-35s, and testing of the stealth fighter is behind schedule.¶ Both issues have consequences for Canada as the government’s plan to purchase 65 F-35s requires doing so when full production is already underway.¶ Defence Department officials did not respond to questions by press time Friday.¶ Canada’s fleet of CF-18s were initially set to be retired in 2002, but a decade-long, $1.8-billion upgrade extended the life of 80 of the aircraft to between 2017 and 2020. (Three of the aircraft have since been lost.)¶ Further life extensions have been regarded as prohibitively expensive.¶ “Canada is now spending considerably more money on the CF-18 when it is deployed than when it was new,” Major Ed Roberds, an air weapons control at 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters, wrote in the Canadian Military Journal in 2008.¶ “As the airframe gets older, more repairs are required, and our operational tempo requires a substantial increase in spare parts that must be transported to theatre when the aircraft are deployed.”¶ NDP military procurement critic Matthew Kellway said structural concerns also pose a potential threat to any pilot who must operate the CF-18s past even the outer edge of their lifespans.¶ “I wonder whether these guys are ready to play a very dangerous game to try to somehow extend the lives of the CF-18s,” he said of Defence Department officials.¶ Previous internal documents have shown the Conservative government was concerned last year about the rising costs of the F-35 program even as it was reassuring Canadians the program was on track and on schedule.¶ Kellway said the new email about the CF-18s again shows the government and Defence Department have not been playing straight with the public about the stealth fighter.¶ “The suggestion in the email that they may have to extend the life of the CF-18s clearly does suggest there are concerns the government has harboured about putting a fleet of F-35s in the air in time,” he said.¶ “Like so many of these issues, the government has put itself in a corner by not acknowledging the concerns publicly.”¶ Meanwhile, concerns are mounting about the government’s plan to pay an outside accounting firm up to $5 million to “assess the appropriateness” of the way in which the Defence Department has calculated how much the F-35s will cost.¶ Whatever firm wins the contract will not be allowed to question the figures presented, but rather will be called upon to judge whether the Defence Department followed correct procedures in determining how the cost estimates were arrived at.¶ The government says the external assessment will ensure proper procedures were followed, but Liberal defence critic John McKay alleged the government and National Defence are simply trying to set up a whitewash.¶ “These guys have suffered a huge blow to their credibility on the specific aspect on the F-35,” he said.¶ “They’re setting up a scenario where they can legitimately stand up in question period and say, ‘Well look, KPMG says we can do this all the time, so we didn’t mislead you in the first place.’” F-35 Key to Deter Chinese Attack on TaiwanAuslin 11 (Michael, resident fellow @ the American Enterprise Institute, pg. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461304576526424242918798.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) August 24 All this development may be emboldening China's Air Force. This June, two Su-27s chased a U.S. reconnaissance plane flying over the Taiwan Strait. According to press reports, one of the Chinese fighter planes crossed the median line of the Strait, which has served as a de facto border between Chinese and Taiwanese territory for decades. Earlier this year, Manila complained that Chinese jets flew into Philippine airspace during a dispute over maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea. Not forgotten in either Washington or Beijing is the March 2001 incident in which an aggressive Chinese pilot collided with a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance plane, killing himself and causing the Americans to crash-land on Hainan Island, where they were held for 11 days. In the face of this Chinese buildup, Washington needs to do more to maintain its air-power superiority. In any conflict with China, the U.S. would rely on U.S. air power from the outbreak of hostilities. However, its aging F-15s and F-16s increasingly will be unable to match more modern Chinese counterparts, and even the far superior skills of U.S. pilots can't make up for outdated aircraft. China's development of a carrier-killer missile means that U.S. naval air power may be pushed farther out into the Pacific. The rash decision to cancel the F-22 means the U.S. is dramatically limited in the numbers of the one aircraft that could assure command of the skies, while the F-35 is becoming increasingly expensive and is still behind development schedule. The Pentagon must resist any temptation to cut the number of F-35s, lest it become permanently outnumbered by Chinese fighters whose pilots will get better and more experienced over time.
US-China war goes nuclearJohnson 1 Chalmers, The Nation, May 14, Wilson OmniFile: Full Text Select China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
MPX: Air Power 1NC ModKey to Air PowerThompson 11 (Loren, PhD., States News Service, Lexis) August 26 Apparently the analytic case for keeping all three variants of the F-35 on track has registered with Secretary Panetta as a result of his numerous conversations with warfighters. His proposed deputy, current Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter, was right to express concern about rising program costs when he appeared before congressional authorizers recently, but the more Panetta learns about the program the more it will become clear that cost trends are driven in large part by the defense department's own actions. The F-35 can still be had by U.S. and allied warfighters alike at a reasonable price if the Pentagon will settle on a stable program schedule that includes economical production rates. If it can't do that, then the future of U.S. air power is very much in doubt. Air power projection prevents five scenarios for nuclear exchangeKhalilzad and Lesser 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers – Rand, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf) This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation MPX: Air Power 2NC—F-35 KeyF-35 Key to Air PowerShackelford 11 (Mark, Office of the Asst Sec-USAF, http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Testimony/2011/March%202011/031511shackelford.pdf) Fifth generation fighters like the F-22A and the F-35 are key elements of our Nation’s defense and ability for deterrent capability. Hostile nations recognize that U.S. airpower can strike their vital centers with impunity which enhances all other U.S. Government instruments of power. This is the timeless paradox of deterrence; the best way to avoid war is to demonstrate to your adversaries that you have the capability and will to defeat them. The F-22A and F-35 represent our latest generation of fighter aircraft. Both aircraft are necessary to maintain a margin of superiority that permits our air and ground forces freedom of maneuver and attack. The F-22A and F-35 each possess unique, complementary, and essential capabilities that provide the synergistic effects across the spectrum of conflict. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-led 2006 QDR Joint Air Dominance study underscored that our Nation has a critical requirement to recapitalize TACAIR forces. Legacy 4th generation aircraft simply cannot survive to operate and achieve the effects necessary to win in an integrated, anti-access environment. F-35’s are the key to US air powerAir Force Magazine 9 (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/July%202009/0709Fighter.aspx) In the once-crowded field of manned combat aircraft, the F-35 Lightning II fighter now has become the only game in town. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, with his April 6 budget cut recommendations, terminated further production of the USAF F-22 fighter, began winding down the Navy’s F/A-18 carrier-based fighter, and postponed the next generation bomber, which was supposed to enter service in 2018. That leaves only the F-35 as a full-fledged manned air program. Gates has heaped on the aircraft the burden of providing most of the capability and credibility of American airpower for decades to come.
MPX: Air Power 2NC—Air Power K/T HegAir Power Key to HegeMelinger 3 (Phillip, US Air Force Col. (ret.), Ph.D in military history, “The air and space nation is in peril,” http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html) Just as the Royal Navy defended British economic strength over a century ago, so do our air forces protect our economic security. This is especially true because military strategy has evolved so dramatically over the past decade. The basic factors that shaped our geopolitical environment during the Cold War era have changed. The Soviet threat is gone, but other threats and other commitments remain. In fact, US military deployments have increased fourfold while the size of our military has shrunk by 40 percent. The character of these engagements has also altered. It is ever more essential that the United States maintain strong public support for its actions. This in turn means we must be extremely careful about both inflicting and sustaining casualties. Our military campaigns from the Persian Gulf War to Afghanistan have been marked by remarkably low losses, and the increasing use of precision weapons has limited civilian casualties and collateral damage, essential to maintaining worldwide public support. It is obvious, however, that if such sterilized warfare is our goal, then certain types of strategies, tactics, and weapons are more desirable than others. Precision or nonlethal weapons delivered by air platforms- ideally either unmanned, unseen, or flying beyond the range of enemy fire- are the instruments of choice. To be sure, the process of identifying, tracking, and destroying mobile targets- tanks, trucks, and terrorists- remains one of our most difficult challenges, but this problem is being addressed through the use of a combination of space-, air-, and land-based sensors tied to strike aircraft by satellite. It would be foolish for our leaders to think that air and space power could be effective in any crisis, but it has now become their weapon of first resort. The American people intuitively realize this: recent Gallup Polls reveal that 42 percent of those surveyed believe the Air Force is the most crucial arm of our national defense, and a like number believe it should be built up to a greater extent than the other services. Just as our commercial air fleet is the largest and most modern in the world, so too is our military airpower. Our superiority is even greater than a comparison of the number of US military aircraft to the totals of other leading countries would indicate (fig. 4). Although China has a large supply of aircraft, most are obsolescent, including over 4,500 Vietnam-era MiG-17s, -19s, and -21s. Certainly, quantity has its own quality, but most of the Chinese air force would stand little chance against a frontline adversary. Similarly, Russia’s air force has atrophied dramatically over the past decade. Once the pride of the Soviet state, much of this vaunted air force now sits unused. Examining the types of military aircraft comprising the world’s air forces is also revealing. The majority of combat aircraft worldwide consists of short-range fighter-bombers, such as the F-16, Mirage 2000, and MiG-21. The United States has nearly 4,000 such aircraft but has far more capability than that. Our airlift and aerial-tanker fleets allow us to project power anywhere in the world on short notice. The United States possesses the vast majority of the world’s large military cargo aircraft, such as the C-17 and C-5, while also having four times more tankers than the rest of the world combined. Tankers turn our tactical fighters into strategic bombers. No other nation has such an impressive capability to project power and influence. China, for example, has fewer than 50 modern cargo aircraft and virtually no aerial-refueling capability. Our dominance in space is equally compelling. At present, approximately 550 operational satellites are in orbit. Nearly half of those were launched by the United States, and approximately 100 of them have military missions. In addition, the Global Positioning System’s constellation of 28 satellites provides precise geographical data to users all over the world. In contrast, Russia now has only 90 operational spacecraft, and much of its space infrastructure- its missile-launch detection system, for example- is moribund. Although China can be expected to become a space competitor- it is currently working on an antisatellite system- it has launched an average of fewer than four satellites per year over the past decade. Within the US military services, one finds an increasing reliance and emphasis on air and space power. According to an old saying, if you want to know what’s important, follow the money. In the American military, that trail is clear. The backbone of the Navy is the aircraft carrier, which costs over $5 billion each (without its aircraft and support ships), and the Navy spends nearly as much on aircraft each year as does the Air Force. The top funding priority of the Marine Corps is the tilt-rotor V-22 cargo plane, which will cost $85 million apiece. The Army has major production and modernization programs for Comanche, Apache, and Black Hawk helicopters that will total $70 billion. Indeed, over the past decade, the Army has spent more on aircraft and missiles than it has on tracked combat vehicles. In sum, over 60 percent of the US defense budget is devoted to air and space forces. In fact, a comparison of our four air arms with those of the rest of the world shows that each individually is greater than the military air assets of most major countries (fig. 5). The qualitative superiority of American aircraft makes our air and space dominance even more profound. The reason for this emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their realization that military operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the American way of war. Indeed, the major disagreements that occur among the services today generally concern the control and purpose of air and space assets. All of them covet those assets, but their differing views on the nature of war shape how they should be employed. Thus, we have debates regarding the authority of the joint force air component commander, the role of the corps commander in the deep battle, the question of which service should command space, and the question of whether the air or ground commander should control attack helicopters. All the services trumpet the importance of joint operations, and air and space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon. Air and space dominance also provides our civilian leadership with flexibility. Although intelligence is never perfect, our leaders now have unprecedented information regarding what military actions can or cannot accomplish and how much risk is involved in a given action. For example, our leaders understood far better than ever before how many aircraft and weapons would be needed over Serbia and Afghanistan to produce a specified military effect, weapon accuracy, collateral damage that might occur, and risk to our aircrews. This allowed our leaders to fine-tune the air campaign, providing more rapid and effective control than previously. Air power key to US military powerKhalilzad and Shapiro 2 (Zalmay, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jeremy, RAND, Ph.D. candidate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.A., Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, “United State Air and Space Power in the 21st Century,”) Aerospace power has become the archetypal expression of the U.S. ability to project force in the modern world. Throughout the world, U.S. aerospace power—and thus, the U.S. Air Force (USAF)—plays a critical, and often primary, role in securing U.S. interests, in promoting American values, and in protecting human rights. While the USAF has had significant success in employing aerospace power in the recent past, emerging trends in international relations, in technology, and in our own domestic society will create a wide variety of new challenges and new opportunities for U.S. aerospace power. Meeting these challenges and exploiting these opportunities will require careful planning, wise investments, and thoughtful training, as well as difficult cultural adaptations within the USAF. This book identifies many of these challenges and opportunities in a wide variety of issue areas and assesses the degree to which the USAF is prepared to meet them. MPX: Air Power 2NC—Air Power K/T Asia/MEAir power is critical to deter conflicts in asia and the mideastKhalilzad and Lesser 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Analysts At RAND, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf) REGIONAL CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf.In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that air and space power will function as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air power will of necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response. MPX: Air Power 2NC—AT UnrivaledWe’re Still the Leaders but Cuts Could Cause Other Countries to Overtake UsPinckney 11 (Brig. Gen. Thomas, pg. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/26/high-cost-of-scrimping-on-fighter-aircraft/) For decades, America’s superior fighter jets have owned the skies in unchallenged fashion and enabled the United States to bomb enemy targets, shuttle supplies and move troops without fear of attack from enemy aircraft. But now our adversaries are nipping at our heels. Today, countries including Iran, North Korea and Pakistan have fighter jets that match the capabilities of the workhorses of the U.S. fighter fleet, which were designed during the 1970s. The Indian air force surprised many by defeating American fighters during recent war games. Russia and China are developing fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft that will rival our most advanced fighter jets. Even small countries can create a formidable air force on the cheap by buying Soviet-made MiG-21s on the global weapons market for the low cost of $100,000 each, upgrading the engines and avionics and outfitting them with self-guided missiles. Coupled with ever-more sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries, determined despots the world over could soon be capable of shooting down any American fighter jet that dares enter their airspace.
New Cuts Threaten Our LeadLoh 11 (John, pg. http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/08/16/3294724/loh-the-future-of-the-american.html) August 16 However, the current clamor for cuts in defense as part of deficit reduction threatens our fighter supremacy. Critics claim current U.S. fighters are so much better than any possible opponent that we can reduce the planned number of these fighters and forget about beginning new ones. But, they are wrong. The F-22 and F-35 are dominant today, but the nation has a high standard of warfare to uphold in the future. Our forces proved in the Gulf War of 1991, Desert Storm, that they could win quickly, decisively and with few casualties. Now, they are expected to win the same way in any future war regardless of the size or capabilities of our adversaries. The American public expects our forces to dominate adversaries quickly. Air warfare is not a sporting event. It is not acceptable to win by small or even large margins. The U.S. must win 99-0, not 99-98 in double overtime. The new standard demands this level of dominance.
MPX: Air Power 2NC—AT “T/O with Long Range Strike Weapons”F-35 Won’t Trade Off with Long Range Strike WeaponsReed 10 (John, September 13, pg. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4775563) Wald, however, said he's not worried the massive JSF buy will hurt the Air Force's ability to purchase long-range strike weapons. He pointed out that in addition to the fact that JSF is one of only two high-profile airplane programs the service is currently carrying out - the other is the KC-X refueling tanker - the predicted drawdown in Iraq and Afghan-istan will free up large amounts of cash to put into JSF or, eventually, long-range strike. "I think the next program within 10 years or so … will be a bomber, and I don't see China as being" a big enough threat to the U.S. to warrant the need to build a penetrating bomber "in our lifetime," said Wald, a former four-star general.
MPX: Air Power 2NC—AT “X Fills In for F-35”F-35 is the Only Advanced Fighter in the HopperTiron 11 (Roxana, pg. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/where-the-pentagon-may-cutor-spend-09012011.html) September 1 Lockheed Martin’s (LMT) $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the only advanced jet in development. Congressional scrutiny may trigger cuts in the proposed purchase of 2,443 F-35 planes for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. If the already delayed vertical-take-off-and-landing version of the F-35 were dropped, Lockheed could lose as much as $33.2 billion in revenue, according to a Bloomberg Government study. F-35 is the Only Hope for Global Air DominanceThompson 11 (Loren B., PhD, August 5, pg. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/the-next-generation-of-combat-systems-is-slipping-away) And then there is the Air Force, which may be in the worst shape of all. It has seen production of its top-of-the-line F-22 fighter prematurely terminated with barely half of the official warfighting requirement met, both potential successors to its aged radar planes killed, its next-generation search-and-rescue helicopter scaled back, and its planned constellation of secure communications satellites -- which would have delivered global connectivity to the entire joint force -- canceled after spending billions of dollars. Now critics are complaining about the replacement for its 50-year-old aerial refueling tankers, and assailing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program that is the only hope the service has for preserving global air dominance. MPX: Japan 1NC ModF-35 Key to US-Japan RelationsAzuma 11 (Andrew, August 2, pg. http://blog.american.com/2011/08/bolstering-japans-defenses-with-f-35s/) This December, the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) plans to announce which of the three competing aircraft will replace its antiquated F-4s, aircraft that were first purchased back in the late 1960s. In the running for the 45 or so fighters to be acquired are Boeing’s F/A 18, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Lockheed Martin’s F-35—the stealthy “Joint Strike Fighter” currently in the final stages of development. Although either the F-18 or the Typhoon would be a substantial and needed upgrade for the Japanese air fleet, the acquisition of the F-35 would present an opportunity for Japan to acquire a transformational military capability, begin to address the growing imbalance in air power in the region as a result of China’s own military modernization program, and to reaffirm alliance ties with the United States. However, the current slash and burn budget environment in Washington has placed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program squarely in the sights of those willing to balance the nation’s books on the backs of the U.S. military. Senator John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently referred to the program as a “train wreck” and urged the Defense Department to consider other options if Lockheed Martin cannot control rising costs. Left unsaid was what other options exist, with the administration and Congress already having agreed to end procurement of the other, stealthy, fifth-generation fighter, the F-22, several hundred planes short of what the Air Force believed was necessary. Of course, the good news is that, should Japan elect to acquire the F-35s, it would apply downward pressure on the cost per unit for both the U.S. military and the allied countries, such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, who are participating in the program. Also of importance would be the interoperability of the JASDF with U.S. Air Forces based in Japan and the Pacific; the purchase of F-35s would lead to even closer strategic and tactical cooperation.
A strong US-Japanese alliance prevents multiple nuclear warsArmitage 00 Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, 10-11-00, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/press/Spelreprts/SRJAPAN.HTM “The United States and Japan: Advancing Toward a Mature Partnership”, ACC: 9.11.04, p. online. Major war in Europe is inconceivable for at least a generation, but the prospects for conflict in Asia are far from remote. The region features some of the world's largest and most modern armies, nuclear-armed major powers, and several nuclear-capable states. Hostilities that could directly involve the United States in a major conflict could occur at a moment's notice on the Korean peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait. The Indian subcontinent is a major flashpoint. In each area, war has the potential of nuclear escalation. In addition, lingering turmoil in Indonesia, the world's fourth-largest nation, threatens stability in Southeast Asia. The United States is tied to the region by a series of bilateral security alliances that remain the region's de facto security architecture. In this promising but also potentially dangerous setting, the U.S. -Japan bilateral relationship is more important than ever. With the world's second-largest economy and a well-equipped and competent military, and as our democratic ally, Japan remains the keystone of the U.S. involvement in Asia. The U.S.-Japan alliance is central to America's global security strategy.
MPX: Japan 2NC—F-35 K/T RelationsF-35 Key to US-Japan RelationsGoure 11 (Daniel, PhD, February 18, pg. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/us-fighter-sales-to-asia-will-reinforce-alliances-deter-troublemakers) Japan is looking for a replacement for its aging fleet of U.S.-made F-4 Phantom jets. The mostly likely choice is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. With China’s unveiling of its new advanced J-20 attack aircraft, Japan’s requirement for improved air defenses is obvious. The F-35 is currently the centerpiece of an international partner program involving eight close allies that includes collaborative development, production and testing of the aircraft. Adding Japan to the F-35 “team” makes sense from the perspective of strengthening Japan’s security, alliance relationships and regional stability. Cancelling F-35 Yanks the Rug Out From JapanDonnelly 11 (Thomas, July 18, pg. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/extremely-immodest-proposal_576967.html) No doubt the legal and monetary obligations would be great, but the strategic, operational, and defense industrial consequences of terminating the F-35 program would be catastrophic. To begin with, the F-35 is a multinational program. To kill it would not only yank the rug out from under America’s closest friends and allies – long-time partners like Great Britain, Australia, and Canada, for example – but destroy the prospects for closer partnerships in the Middle East and, particularly, the Asia-Pacific, where Japan, Korea and Singapore are likely F-35 customers. And it would forestall the opportunity to share a common fifth-generation aircraft with others like India, which could only turn to Russia or try to develop such an aircraft on its own. Terminating the F-35 would be the clearest signal one can imagine, even beyond retreat from Iraq or Afghanistan, that the United States no longer will assume the burdens of international security.
MPX: Japan 2NC Mod—Asia ModUS-Japan relations solve Chinese belligerence and major regional warTkacik 10 John, retired officer in the U.S. Foreign Service who served in Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Taipei, October 5, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/5/china-tests-us-japan-alliance/?page=2 The islands have strategic significance to Japan, not just for the putative seabed oil and gas resources but also because, under international law, the Senkakus qualify as "islands" capable of "sustaining human habitation." This is important because under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea - to which both China and Japan are parties -an "island" brings to its owner a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone and sovereign claim to the aquatic resources and seabed minerals therein. Without them, Chinese territorial waters would be about 200 miles closer to Japan than they are now. With China's navy getting more pushy than ever before, Japan has reason to keep its maritime frontiers as far removed from its major islands as possible. The Obama administration also sees China's territorial appetites elsewhere as a strategic risk for the rest of Asia. This summer, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reasserted America's demand thatChina's claims against Southeast Asian neighbors on the South China Sea littoral be resolved peacefully and in an international context. Beijing's claims to the entire Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh - an area of India bigger than Taiwan that no Chinese ever have inhabited - raise the specter of armed clashes between the two Asian giants that also disturb Mrs. Clinton's sleep. America's new firmness in support of its partners across democratic Asia will oblige China to reassess its aggressiveness. Beijing certainly will regroup to test Washington again, and soon. Let's hope President Obama is up to the task of organizing our democratic partners in the region to balance China's rising power.
Asia War Leads to ExtinctionMead, senior fellow @ the Council on Foreign Relations, 10 (Walter, American Interest, “Obama in Asia”, November 9, pg. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/) The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation. East and South Asia are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped; economic growth, environmental progress, the destiny of democracy and success against terror are all at stake here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free. Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asia’s; Asian success will make America stronger, richer and more secure. Asia’s failures will reverberate over here, threatening our prosperity, our security and perhaps even our survival. The world’s two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes, North Korea and aspiring rogue nuclear power Iran, are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in Asia as well. This is where the world’s fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst environmental problems exist. It is the home of the world’s largest democracy, the world’s most populous Islamic country (Indonesia — which is also among the most democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the world’s most rapidly rising non-democratic power as well. Asia holds more oil resources than any other continent; the world’s most important and most threatened trade routes lie off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the theaters in the world today that most directly engage America’s vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved. The world’s most explosive territorial disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources) bitterly disputed between countries like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the world’s most intractable political problems are found on the Asian landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of geopolitical security, environmental sustainability, economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the center of your concerns. That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today, and that reality is what President Obama’s trip is intended to address. MPX: Japan 2NC Mod—ChinaUS-Japan relations are a pre-requisite for US-China relationsNikkei 10 Japan Needed For Better U.S.-China Ties: Biden, 9/21, http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20100921D21EE831.htm U.S. Vice President Joe Biden called Japan an indispensable partner in efforts to maintain the U.S.-China relationship and resolve the North Korean nuclear deadlock, at a conference in Washington on Monday. Biden made the remarks at the first meeting of the U.S.-Japan Council since U.S. President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. In his keynote speech, Biden said U.S. discussions on foreign policy tend to center on the country's ties with China, without understanding the importance of Japan.
US-China relations solve a laundry list of global problemsXinhua News 9 3/19/9. l/n. As the most important bilateral relationship in the world, a U.S.-China partnership is "indispensable" for addressing the main challenges of the century, a leading U.S. think tank said in a new report. "U.S.-China ties could have a greater impact on international affairs than any other relationship," the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said in the report titled "Smart Power in U.S.- China relations." "Solving the world's most serious issues -- including global financial instability, proliferation and terrorism, climate change, and energy insecurity -- is difficult to envision without joint action by Beijing and Washington," said the 41-page report. MPX: Japan 2NC Mod—DemocracyKey to Asian democracyRapp 4 Rapp, Lieutenant Col. With a PH.D in IR from Stanford, William E., “Paths Diverging? Accessed online at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB367.pdf Finally, the alliance can provide the continuity of peace and trust necessary for the growth of liberalism throughout the region. Success for the United States and Japan will increasingly be measured in terms of an increased community of vibrant, pacific, free-market democracies in Asia. Making the two publics aware of the idealistic benefits of the alliance will make more headway toward acceptance of a deepening partnership than simply focusing on the alliance’s role in power politics in the region. Creating the conditions for that liberal development and tamping down the anticipated frictions that will arise along the way can best be accomplished in tandem. In the long run, this liberalism backed by the concerted power of the United States and Japan will bring lasting stability to the region.
That’s key to global democracyFriedman, professor of political science @ Wisconsin, 9 Edward, Dissent, Volume 56, No. 1, Winter, Muse Democracy-promoter Larry Diamond concludes in his recent book The Spirit of Democracy that democracy is in trouble across the world because of the rise of China, an authoritarian superpower that has the economic clout to back and bail out authoritarian regimes around the globe. "Singapore . . . could foreshadow a resilient form of capitalist-authoritarianism by China, Vietnam, and elsewhere in Asia," which delivers "booming development, political stability, low levels of corruption, affordable housing, and a secure pension system." Joined by ever richer and more influential petro powers leveraging the enormous wealth of Sovereign Investment Funds, "Asia will determine the fate of democracy," at least in the foreseeable future. Authoritarian China, joined by its authoritarian friends, is well on the way to defeating the global forces of democracy.
Democracy solves several scenarios for war and extinctionDiamond 95 Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
MPX: Japan 2NC Mod—EconUS-Japan relations are key to the global economyTyson 2k Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Former Economic Advisor to the Clinton Administration, 2000 Council on Foreign Relations Future Directions for U.S. Economic Policy Toward Japan The ongoing changes within Japan's economy provide both American policymakers and businesses with opportunities to craft a new economic relationship between Japan and the United States. Task Force members agree that this relationship must rest on the premise that a healthy Japanese economy serves America's economic and geopolitical interests. Despite its decade-long stagnation, Japan remains the largest economy in Asia, America's third-largest trading partner, and its major ally in the Asia-Pacific region. Economic collapse causes extinctionKerpen 8 Phil, National Review Online, October 29, , Don't Turn Panic Into Depression, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/opinion/main4555821.shtml It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors - not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale. To be sure, Washington already has stoked the flames of the financial panic. The president and the Treasury secretary did the policy equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater when they insisted that Congress immediately pass a bad bailout bill or face financial Armageddon. Members of Congress splintered and voted against the bill before voting for it several days later, showing a lack of conviction that did nothing to reassure markets. Even Alan Greenspan is questioning free markets today, placing our policy fundamentals in even greater jeopardy. But after the elections, all eyes will turn to the new president and Congress in search of reassurance that the fundamentals of our free economy will be supported. That will require the shelving of any talk of trade protectionism, higher taxes, and more restrictive labor markets. The stakes couldn’t be any higher. MPX: Japan 2NC Mod—HegeUS-Japan relations key to hegemonyChaffin 10 Greg, An Increasingly Muscular Japan Re-Evaluates its Strategic Relationship with U.S., October 9, http://www.alternet.org/world/148448/an_increasingly_muscular_japan_re-evaluates_its_strategic_relationship_with_u.s. Over the last six decades, Japan has succeeded in rebuilding a shattered nation thanks in no small part to the security guarantee and preferential trade policies offered by the United States. In return, the Japanese have given up sovereignty over U.S. military installations on Japan, while paying to maintain them. The United States has benefited from this arrangement as the bases on Japan have helped project American power into the Western Pacific. In addition to gaining ‘an unsinkable aircraft carrier’ in the Pacific, the United States has been able to maintain a forward military presence that is significantly cheaper because of Japanese contributions to base maintenance. Originally intended to help stem the spread of communism, and protect a strategic economic ally, the U.S. military presence in the Western Pacific has become an integral factor in sustaining U.S. global hegemony, particularly as a result of the increasing importance of East Asia to the global economy.
Hegemony solves nuclear warKhalilzad 95 Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, LN Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
MPX: Japan 2NC Mod—ProlifAlliance helps solve stability, proliferation and the Middle EastMalik 5 Malik, professor, July 2 2005 p. l/n (Ahmid, The Nation) After the end of the Cold War, the vital significance of the US-Japan security treaty as a deterrent did not diminish. Although the treaty operated during the Cold War, it largely fulfilled Japan's defence requirements.Thus the usefulness of the treaty was continuously realised and, therefore, both countries signed a security declaration on 17 April 1996 that witnessed the significant contribution made by both countries to maintain peace in the Far East, and Asia-Pacific.It is anticipated that this mutual security cooperation would continue during the 21st Century to ward off any uncertainty being generated through unresolved territorial disputes or the fear of nuclear threat in the region. Uncertainty still prevails in Northeast Asia.The situation on the Korean Peninsula remained unchanged for the last several decades in spite of the end of the Cold War.With North Korean desire to possess nuclear arms and to upgrade its missile programme, the situation seems quite away from diffusion.The concern of Japan and its vital importance as close security ally of the United States has tremendously increased.Moreover, the 9/11 incidents further strengthened the US-Japan alliance and extended cooperation not only within the Far East and Asia-Pacific region but also beyond this region such as to respond to crises in Afghanistan and Iraq.The US-Japan alliance has been rather expanded to cope with new challenges that include terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and ballistic missiles and various overtures that could affect peace and stability in the world.Therefore, Japan's future defence vision revolves around two basic principles i.e., to repeal any attack that comes to its soil in accordance to its Constitution and to help improve global environment through peaceful means. Prolif causes nuclear warUtgoff 2 Victor A. Utgoff, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions” 2002 p. 87-90 2002 In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
MPX: Japan 2NC Mod—RussiaStrengthening the US-Japan alliance is critical to loosen Sino-Russian tiesBrookes 5 Brookes, Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 8-15, Peter, “An Alarming Alliance: Sino Russian ties tightening” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed081505a.cfm First, the Pentagon must make sure the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review balances U.S. forces to address both the unconventional terrorist threat and the big-power challenge represented by a Russia-China strategic partnership. Second, the United States must continue to strengthen its relationship with its ally Japan to ensure a balance of power in Northeast Asia — and also encourage Tokyo to improve relations with Moscow in an effort to loosen Sino-Russian ties.
Sino-Russian relations trigger renewed Russian aggressionMenges 5 Menges, Sr. Fellow at the Hudson Institute, 2K5 (Constantine, “China: The Gathering Threat” pg. 426) Of equal concern is the possible reemergence of an authoritarian dictatorship in Russia under President Putin or a successor, whether ultranationalist or Communist. Our in-depth analysis of President Putin has included insights into his personal development, his work in the Soviet foreign intelligence service (KGB), and his actions since assuming the presidency of Russia on January 1, 2000. Putin is an intelligent, disciplined, and systematic leader, determined to assure that Russia is, in his words, a "strong state," under a "dictatorship of law" and that Russia has a major role in the world.' Putin declares his support for political democracy and movement toward a market-oriented economy, but the evidence to date suggests that Russia is gradually moving toward a more autocratic path. As Russia moved toward dictatorship, Putin would attempt to maintain a Potemkin democracy for the purpose of deceiving the major democracies, so that they would continue providing needed economic support for Russia. The ever-closer relationship between Russia and China strengthens the author itarian tendencies within Russia, thereby increasing the risk that it will become more aggressive internationally. As the Chinese government develops relations with the Putin government, the Chinese Communist Party has revived direct relations with the Communist Party in Russia and also ties between the Chinese and Russian parliaments. These multiple relationships, all coordinated from the Chinese side through its Communist Party, provide many opportunities to cultivate allies in Russia and to fan suspicion of the U.S. and of democracy. This is especially true of China's ever-expanding and mutually profitable relationships with the Russian military and its military production and research entities. Nuclear conflictCohen 96 Cohen, Fellow @ Heritage, 1996 (Ariel, “The New Great Game” accessed 8-24-2K5, online: http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1065.cfm) Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21st century. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable, or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modern market economies and free societies. Moreover, if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed, tens of thousands of U.S. and Western jobs would be created. The U.S. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|