AT: Pakistan Stability Adv.
--Read answers from Starter Pack…. AND
Many factors preclude war in Southeast Asia
-- Nuclear Deterrence -- Indian NFU
-- Regional CBMs -- Control of Nukes
Malik ’03 [Mohan, The Stability Of Nuclear Deterrence In South Asia, Asian Affairs, Fall]
The presence of nuclear weapons certainly makes states exceedingly cautious; notable examples are China and Pakistan's postnuclear behavior. The consequences of a nuclear war are too horrendous to contemplate. Policymakers in New Delhi and Islamabad have a sound understanding of each other's capabilities, intentions, policies, and, more important, red lines, which they are careful not to cross. This repeatedly has been demonstrated since the late 1980s. Despite the 1999 Kargil War and the post-September 11 brinkmanship that illustrate the "stability-instability" paradox that nuclear weapons have introduced to the equation in South Asia,23 proponents of nuclear deterrence in Islamabad and New Delhi believe that nuclear deterrence is working to prevent war in the region. They point to the fact that neither the 1999 Kargil conflict nor the post-September 11 military standoff escalated beyond a limited conventional engagement due to the threat of nuclear war. So the stability argument is based on the reasonable conclusion that nuclear weapons have served an Important purpose in the sense that India and Pakistan have not gone to an all-out war since 1971.24 Just as nuclear deterrence maintained stability between the United States and the USSR during the cold war, so it can induce similar stabilizing effects in South Asia. Regarding the technical requirements of stable deterrence, questions about command, control, and safety procedures continue to be raised. Both Pakistan and India claim to have maintained tighter controls over their arsenal-it is not in their own interests to see antistate actors gaining control of nuclear technology. Both India and Pakistan publicly have declared moratoriums on further nuclear tests, and India's adherence to no-first-use (NFU) posture and confidence-building measures-such as prenotification of missile tests and an agreement not to attack each other's nuclear installations-promotes crisis stability. Devin Hegarty argues that this is responsible behavior in stark contrast to U.S.-Soviet nuclear options, including "deployment of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, bombers flying on 24-hour alert status, and the nuclear safety lapses that characterized the superpower arms race."25 Post-September 11 measures to promote greater security and control over nuclear weapons and materials have been accorded the topmost priority. India's nuclear arsenal is firmly under the control of civilian leadership, and the Pakistani army always has retained the real authority over its country's nuclear weapons, regardless of who is head of state. Pakistan's military chain of command appears intact despite internal turmoil and reshuffling at the top of the government.26 The United States reportedly is considering offering assistance to ensure the physical protection of sensitive nuclear assets with vaults, sensors, alarms, tamperproof seals and labels, and other means of protection, ensuring personnel reliability and secure transport of sensitive items.27
INDIA-PAKISTAN WAR DOESN’T ESCALATE
Hamilton Spectator, 5/24/2002
For those who do not live in the subcontinent, the most important fact is that the damage would be largely confined to the region. The Cold War is over, the strategic understandings that once tied India and Pakistan to the rival alliance systems have all been cancelled, and no outside powers would be drawn into the fighting. The detonation of a hundred or so relatively small nuclear weapons over India and Pakistan would not cause grave harm to the wider world from fallout. People over 40 have already lived through a period when the great powers conducted hundreds of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and they are mostly still here.
AT: Air Force Readiness Adv.
Military has blocked pilot shifting
Drew, 9 [Christopher Drew, March 17, 2009 " Drones Are Weapons of Choice in Fighting Qaeda" March 17, 200, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/17-4]
Another problem has been that few pilots wanted to give up flying fighter jets to operate drones. Given the shortages, the Air Force has temporarily blocked transfers out of the program. It also has begun training officers as drone pilots who have had little or no experience flying conventional planes. Colonel Mathewson, director of the Air Force's task force on unmanned aerial systems, said that while upgrades have been made to control stations, the service plans to eventually shift to simpler and more intuitive ground systems that could allow one remote pilot to control several drones. Now, pilots say, it takes up to 17 steps - including entering data into pull-down windows - to fire a missile.
Politics Links (Congress)—Drone Withdrawal Unpopular –
Even the most severe drone missions enjoy bipartisan support
Shane, 9 [SCOTT SHANE, " C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan " December 3, 2009, NYTimes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/world/asia/04drones.html]
Yet with few other tools to use against Al Qaeda, the drone program has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and was escalated by the Obama administration in January. More C.I.A. drone attacks have been conducted under President Obama than under President George W. Bush. The political consensus in support of the drone program, its antiseptic, high-tech appeal and its secrecy have obscured just how radical it is. For the first time in history, a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out a military mission, selecting people for killing in a country where the United States is not officially at war.
More evidence – drones praised by both parties
Shane and Schmitt, 10 [SCOTT SHANE and ERIC SCHMITT, " C.I.A. Deaths Prompt Surge in U.S. Drone Strikes " January 22, 2010, NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23drone.html?scp=7&sq=afghanistan%20drone&st=cse]
The strikes, carried out from a secret base in Pakistan and controlled by satellite link from C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia, have been expanded by President Obama and praised by both parties in Congress as a potent weapon against terrorism that puts no American lives at risk. That calculation must be revised in light of the Khost bombing, which revealed the critical presence of C.I.A. officers in dangerous territory to direct the strikes.
Share with your friends: |