Compiled Aff Answers


No Link – Afghanistan Opium



Download 1.62 Mb.
Page105/148
Date19.10.2016
Size1.62 Mb.
#5065
1   ...   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   ...   148

No Link – Afghanistan Opium


The government doesn’t spend a lot on opium interdiction
Mercille 10 (Julien, writer for Counterpunch a prominent political newsletter, 6/30, http://counterpunch.org/mercile06302010.html)

All this said, there is one way in which Afghanistan does have a drug problem, namely, its increasing number of addicts. A recent UNODC report estimated that drug use had increased dramatically over the last few years and that around one million Afghans now suffer from drug addiction, or 8% of the population—twice the global average. Since 2005, the number of regular opium users in Afghanistan has grown from 150,000 to 230,000 (a 53% increase) and for heroin, from 50,000 to 120,000 (a 140% increase). This spreads HIV/AIDS because most injecting drug users share needles. But treatment resources are very deficient. Only about 10% of addicts have ever received treatment, meaning that about 700,000 are left without it, which prompted UNODC chief Antonio Maria Costa to call for much greater resources for drug prevention and treatment in the country. But the problem is that the Obama and Bush administrations could not care less: since 2005, they have allocated less than $18 million to “demand reduction” activities in Afghanistan—an amount less than 1% of the $2 billion they spent on eradication and interdiction. [10] Clearly, US priorities have nothing to do with fighting a war on drugs.



No I/L – Space Militarization


U.S. avoiding space militarization now – doesn’t have the budget and no programs developed yet.
Hitchens, Hyman & Lewis 6 (Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 13, No 1, March 2006, Theresa Hitchens, Michael Katz-Hyman and Jeffrey Lewis, Hitchens- Center for Defense Information Vice President, Hyman - holds a BS in Physics with a Minor in Technology and Policy from Carnegie Mellon University., Lewis - Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/131hitchens.pdf) NAR

From analyzing current Pentagon budget documentation, we conclude that, for the moment, support for ‘‘space superiority’’ and ‘‘space control’’ systems remains largely rhetorical*with little actual budgetary support. The Bush administration has expressed interest in these new military missions in outer space. That interest has been reflected in statements by Pentagon officials about space dominance, as well as official military documents, especially those emanating from the Air Force. However, this interest has not yet been reflected in budget requests. Unclassified technology development programs included in the six-year Future Years Defense Plan are a decade or more away from deployment. Programs related to offensive counterspace, space-based missile defense interceptors, and space-based strike total slightly less than $300 million in FY 2006 funding. Based on current levels of technological development and anticipated levels of budgetary support, we conclude significantly higher expenditures in research and development would be required to develop and deploy killer microsatellites, space-based missile defense interceptors, and military space planes. The Pentagon is not*at least in the unclassified budget*actively developing capabilities, such as new ground- or airlaunched ASATs, that might be seen in a relatively short time.
U.S. won’t be developing space weapons, at a minimum, until 2015.
Space Review 5 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/394/1, June 20th 2005) NAR

Since then, there has been almost no work done on space-based missile defense systems and, according to recent reports, the MDA does not plan to ask for any money before 2008. Under current plans, the Pentagon will not even think about deploying any sort of “son of Brilliant Pebbles” until around 2015. Instead, they are working on a ground-based system, called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI): a missile that would only be launched after an enemy missile has left its silo or launch pad, and would then chase until hopefully hitting and destroying it; that is, being “down” and shooting “up.” Not only that, but the KEI’s would have to be based in nations near the sites from which enemy missiles might be launched. This gives those nations where these interceptors would be based an effective veto over whether the US could or could not defend itself.


Impact Turn – Space Good: Deters Arms Race


US space dominance checks arms races – stops anyone from escalating conflicts and capabilities.
Dolman 6 (Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 Winter-Spring p171, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2311/)KM

Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote.


US militarization now prevents arms races in the future – entry costs into space are too much and conventional balancing would be minimal.
Dolman 5 (Everett C. Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, 14 September, “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”, http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdf)KM

Indeed, it is concern for the unanticipated arrival of technology X that initially motivates my own preference for a policy advocating immediate deployment of space weapons. So long as America is the state most likely to acquire a breakthrough technology in this area, my concern is limited to the problem of letting technology take us where it will. But what if an enemy of democratic liberalism should suddenly acquire the means to place quickly and cheaply multiple weapons into orbit? The advantages gained from controlling the high ground of space would accrue to it as surely as to any liberal state, and the concomitant loss of military power from the denial of space to our already-dependent military force could cause the immediate demise of the extant international system. The longer the US dithers on its responsibilities, the more likely a potential opponent could seize low-earth orbit before America could respond. And America would respond … finally. But would another state? If America were to weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the infrastructure necessary is too high; hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment it would take to achieve a minimal counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide more than ample time for the US to entrench itself in space, and readily counter preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would opt not to counter US deployments in kind. They might oppose US interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race in space should the US deploy weapons there—at least for the next few years—is extremely remote.




Download 1.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   ...   148




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page