Election Disadvantage


Deterrence Good – Probability



Download 1.8 Mb.
Page56/61
Date19.10.2016
Size1.8 Mb.
#3943
1   ...   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61

Deterrence Good – Probability

Even a low probability of deterrence failure should be avoided, the costs are too high.


Payne, May 18-19, 2009 (Keith – president of the National Institute for Public Policy, Department Head at the Graduate Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, On Nuclear Deterrence and Assurances, Strategic Studies Quarterly in Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century Proceedings, AU Press, p. 89)

The material question is not whether commentators believe nuclear weapons “ought” to have value for deterrence in a normative sense; they have demonstrated that value. The question is whether we are willing to accept the risk of deterrence failure on those occasions in which the United States could not threaten nuclear escalation, possibly including threats to some adversaries’ highly valued/protected targets. The added risk of deterrence failure flowing from such an inability surely cannot be calculated a priori with precision. It may be nonexistent or high, depending on the specific circumstances of the contingency. Even if the risk of deterrence failure for this reason is low, however, the possibility would still deserve serious consideration because the consequences of a single failure to deter WMD attack could be measured in thousands to millions of US and allied casualties. And, of course, that risk may not be low.



Deterrence Good – AT: Conventional Solves

Conventional capabilities cannot be a substitute --- only nuclear deterrence prevents the escalation to nuclear war.


Lowther, 3/18/2009 (Adam – faculty researcher and defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute, Learning to Love the Bomb, Boston Globe, p. Lexis)

Third, conventional capabilities will never effectively substitute for nuclear weapons. Yes, they can destroy the same target. But, they lack the same capacity to generate fear in the heart of an adversary. Fear acts to deter, which is why we possess nuclear weapons. Fourth, if the United States moves toward disarmament, it will be the only nuclear power to do so. Every other nuclear power is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. Thus, the United States may soon reach a point where it can be held hostage by other states. Fifth, in the 65-year history of the bomb there has never been an accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to nuclear war, or large-scale nuclear proliferation. History suggests the opposite. Nuclear weapons make those that possess them risk averse, not risk acceptant. The truth is nuclear weapons remain a fundamental aspect of our national security. Without them, the American people will face greater, not less, danger and adversaries willing to exploit our perceived weakness. Arbitrarily shrinking the nuclear arsenal by an additional 50 percent may not be a wise idea. It certainly deserves careful thought.



Nuclear Cuts Bad – AT: Modeling

Other countries won’t copy nuclear cuts—empirics


Turner, ’10 (Michael R. Turner, senior Republican on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Apr 13, 2010, “Muddled Nuclear Posture,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2010-04-13-editorial13_ST1_U.htm)

Underpinning the president's drive for U.S. nuclear reductions appears to be an expectation that others will follow. There is no historical basis for this assumption. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has reduced its nuclear arsenal by nearly 80%, but such cuts have not curbed Iran or North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Nor have they led to reductions in Pakistan, India, or China's nuclear arms.

US/Israel Relations 2NC

Obama reelection makes current rocky US-Israel relations worse


Miller, ’11 (Aaron David Miller, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations, November 11, 2011, “What Obama really thinks of Netanyahu,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/10/opinion/miller-obama-netanyahu-open-mike/?hpt=wo_t2)

"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said. Obama was heard to say, "You're tired of him -- what about me? I have to deal with him every day," according to a French website. I'm sure many people would have loved to have heard more of what Obama thinks. There's no doubt that Obama is frustrated and angry in the extreme with what he perceives to be Netanyahu's recalcitrance when it comes to Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Indeed if there was a cartoon bubble over the president's head, I guarantee you his sentiments would have matched or even exceeded, Sarkozy's. When it comes to "Bibi" Netanyahu, our somewhat detached and cool president is hot and very combustible. When Netanyahu was dismissively lecturing the president during their press conference last June in Washington, the look on Obama's face was somewhere between mortification and raw anger. If looks could kill, we would have had a new Israeli Prime Minister by now. U.S.-Israeli relations on any number of issues are extremely close, even intimate; and the Iran nuclear challenge will almost certainly make them even closer. But the Arab-Israeli peace issue seems to bring out the worst in both sides, and it has for years now. Kissinger and Rabin went at it in 1975 over a second Sinai disengagement agreement (Kissinger recalles d our Middle Eastern ambassadors as part of his so-called reassessment of the U.S.-Israeli relationship). President Jimmy Carter and Prime Minister Menachem Begin had a huge flap over settlements during the Camp David summit. President George H.W. Bush believed then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir misled him on settlements during their first meeting in 1989; and the relationship really never recovered. And Secretary of State James Baker wrestled with Shamir as well during the run-up to the Madrid peace conference in 1991. So Barack Obama is only the latest in a line of frustrated American presidents and secretaries of state. They have had to deal with a close ally who can also be withholding and maddening when it comes to protecting Israel's political and security interests in a conflict in which they have much more to lose than the American mediator if things don't turn out right. But President Obama's Bibi problem is different in several respects from his predecessors -- a fact that all but guarantees that tensions with the Israelis on this issue are not going to subside anytime soon. The 2012 election has kept them in a box. Indeed, the president's speech at the U.N. General Assembly last month notwithstanding -- more a campaign speech than one that addressed the Israeli-Palestinian issue -- if Obama is re-elected, buckle your seat belts. It's going to be a wild ride with the Israelis. First, the others -- Kissinger, Carter, Bush 41, and Baker, unlike Obama (so far) -- all succeeded. Their fights with their Israeli counterparts were productive; indeed they all had a strategy -- and sufficient will and commitment on the part of Israelis and Arabs to do serious diplomacy. At the end of the day, despite the tensions, everybody went home a winner. Even Bill Clinton managed to hammer out two agreements with Netanyahu, though neither was completely implemented. Second, part of the reason these three succeeded was that despite the toughness and the tension, there was a third "T" -- a modicum of trust that allowed each side to work with the other in something other than a zero-sum game environment. They built a mutual stake in the other's success. Former Secretary of State Baker will tell you that he had plenty of struggles with Shamir, but the two worked out a good personal relationship -- no leaks, respecting mutual red lines and so on. President Obama has yet to do that, and neither has Netanyahu. On the Arab-Israel issue, the president believes Bibi is a con man, and Netanyahu thinks the president wants somebody else as prime minister. The president is almost certainly persuaded that Netanyahu is buying time, playing American politics and hoping that the next president is a Republican who won't be so focused on pressing Israel on the peace process. If the administration could find a way to engineer regime change in Israel, it would. Indeed, the key folks that deal with the peace process at State and at the White House are veterans of dealing with Netanyahu (Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross). They have seen the movie before, and they had hoped not to be in the sequel. Finally, there's the president himself, who clearly believes he knows best how to run the peace process. Obama doesn't just have a Bibi problem, he's got an Israel problem. Obama is not anti-Israel, but unlike his two predecessors -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- he's not in love with the idea of Israel. He falls somewhere north of Jimmy Carter on the pro-Israel spectrum and south of George H.W. Bush. Here the president's coolness and detachment works against him. His early tough rhetoric against settlements and his commitment to fix the peace process whether or not Israel agreed created a pretty rocky foundation for gaining the trust and confidence so critical on the Israeli side, if a president wants them to do politically tough things later.

US/Israel Relations 2NC

Relations prevents WMD war in the Middle East and terrorism.


Kohr, 3/4/1999 (Howard A. – Executive Director of American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Before the House Appropriations Committee: Foreign Operations, export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee, Federal News Service, p. Lexis)

In an increasingly dangerous yet important part of the world, the United States and Israel have forged a unique and remarkable partnership. This relationship is based on a common set of values, a shared commitment to democracy and freedom, and comparable histories of providing safe haven to oppressed peoples. The U.S.-Israel partnership is also based on a staunch commitment to defend the mutual interests of both countries against ever-more ominous threats. Together, our two countries pursue a process of resolving conflicts within the Middle East through negotiations while at the same time maintaining the strongest military forces in the region to prevent aggression and instability. Today, after a half-century of cooperation, the mutual interests of our two countries are once again being challenged. Weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them are becoming both more sophisticated and more widespread in the Middle East. To destroy the U.S.-sponsored peace process, terrorists are turning to increasingly brazen acts of violence against both American and Israeli targets. Religious extremists aim not only to eliminate Israel but to purge the region of all non-Islamic influences and pro-Western governments. The prospect of these extremists obtaining and using nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons is one of the greatest threats faced by the United States, Israel, and the entire world. These shared threats have led the United States and Israel to unprecedented cooperation in deterring aggression, sharing intelligence and preparing joint defense systems and strategies: - Strategic cooperation--including frequent joint military exercises, ongoing military exchanges, the prepositioning of U.S. military equipment in Israel, and the joint development of some of the world's most advanced weapons systems--helps deter aggression in the Middle East. - In the fight against international terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), cooperation between the United States and Israel is perhaps without parallel. On a daily basis, the two allies exchange information on the whereabouts, organization, and plans of terrorist groups in the Middle East, as well as the political and military activities of the region's hostile states.- Israel serves as another set of"eyes and ears" for the United States. Israel provides vital intelligence on Iran's nuclear and missile programs, Iraq's concealment of vital documents, data, and facilities, and Iran's activities in support of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and other terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. - Israel is our most active partner in researching and developing missile defense systems to counter the ballistic missile threat from rogue countries such as Iran.



Download 1.8 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review