Election Disadvantage


AT: Cuts Bad – No Impact to Deterrence



Download 1.8 Mb.
Page31/61
Date19.10.2016
Size1.8 Mb.
#3943
1   ...   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   ...   61

AT: Cuts Bad – No Impact to Deterrence

Nukes unnecessary for modern deterrence


AP, 2012 (Associated Press, 7/4/12, “Obama plans cutbacks in U.S. nuclear weapons,” Herald Net, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120704/NEWS02/707049866)

James Cartwright, the retired Marine Corps general who commanded U.S. nuclear forces from 2004-07, thinks the U.S. should acknowledge that a large nuclear force is of limited value in deterring today's major threats. "No sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face," including threats posed by rogue states, terrorism, cyber warfare or climate change, Cartwright and his colleagues at Global Zero wrote in a report in May. Global Zero is an organization that advocates a step-by-step process to achieve the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. The group argues that the U.S. could safely reduce its arsenal over the coming 10 years to 900 total nuclear weapons -- 450 deployed at any given time and a like number held in reserve. That compares with the current U.S. arsenal of about 5,000 weapons, of which 1,737 are deployed. Advocates of cutting below 1,550 argue that nuclear weapons serve an increasingly narrow purpose, and that their large numbers undercut the credibility of demands that Iran and other nations forgo acquiring their own. Opponents argue that the U.S. should not risk losing its predominant position in the nuclear arena while North Korea, Iran and other are pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. Obama himself has made clear in recent statements that he thinks the time is right to break with the past. "The massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited to today's threats, including nuclear terrorism," he said March 26 in Seoul. He noted that last summer he ordered his national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of nuclear forces and policies, which was completed early this year. "We can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need," Obama said.


Nuclear deterrence has no meaning/use


Drell and Goodby, ’12 (Sidney D. Drell, physics professor emeritus at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, James E. Goodby, a former U.S. negotiator on arms control, nonproliferation, and transparency issues, and a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy, June 2012, “Nuclear Deterrence In a Changed World,” Arms Control Today, http://search.proquest.com/docview/1021381150)

Unfortunately, many policymakers and planners in the United States, Russia, and elsewhere are still caught in a nuclear deterrence trap, believing, wrongly, that security can be maintained by fielding large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in western Europe and Russia's much larger holdings of tactical warheads are good examples. Policymakers need to rethink their assumptions about the kinds of threats nuclear weapons actually can help deter and how many of those weapons are needed to do that. A close examination of today's global security threats, whether in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or Northeast Asia, reveals that they cannot be effectively addressed with the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The weapons have little or no effect in coercing states, insurgent groups, or terrorists to abstain from actions that threaten international peace and security. The range of actions that nuclear weapons might deter never was very great. During the Cold War, one declared purpose for U.S. nuclear weapons was to prevent a Soviet land invasion of NATO Europe and the use of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union against U.S allies. Yet, nuclear deterrence did not prevent the Soviets from taking aggressive actions on their side of the Iron Curtain. Two major wars involving the United States broke out in Asia despite nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence did not affect the decisions of a number of governments to acquire or attempt to acquire nuclear weapons despite the intense desire of successive U.S. administrations to prevent that from happening. Today, it is difficult to come up with realistic scenarios that would justify the use of nuclear weapons by the United States, but nuclear deterrence still elicits a mystical faith. Speak of a world without nuclear weapons, and the reaction of some is akin to removing a magical spell that prevents the United States from being victimized by its enemies, real or imagined. "Containment," "nuclear deterrence," and "strategic stability" all were useful guides to U.S. policy during the Cold War. They contributed to the notion that nuclear weapons should be held in reserve for use in worst-case contingences. These concepts, however, did not translate well into guides for common international action. The ideas never were fully or comfortably shared in actual practice between the United States and the Soviet Union, and they are even less likely to become guides to joint action in the current multipolar world, marked as it is by regional rivalries, asymmetric warfare, and threats posed by organizations outside the control of states. It is obvious to nearly everyone that containment and nuclear deterrence have lost the meaning they had during the Cold War. Strategic stability also has a broader meaning, beyond the imperative of avoiding incentives for a first strike.




Iran Strikes 2NC

Romney election results in Iran strikes --- Obama reelection defuses the situation with diplomacy


Daily Kos, 4/16/2012 (President Obama versus Romney on Iran, p. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/16/1083726/-President-Obama-versus-Romney-on-Iran)

3. Approach to foreign policy: Romney says he will “not apologize” for America and advocates a return to the Bush cowboy “my way or the highway” approach to dealing with other nations. When John Bolton is an endorser, that scares me. To me, however the biggest contrast is their approach to Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu by all accounts is a hawk who is pushing the United States to bomb Iran and has been doing so for a long time. He appears to see no need for negotiation. Granted, he has a right to protect his nation if he believes that its under threat. However, we all know how flawed the “intelligence” was for the Iraq war. And its important to let negotiations play out as far as possible before rushing to war, which would have many unintended consequences for years to come. (See the Iraq war). Here’s the big difference. Here’s Netanyahu’s recent response to the ongoing P5+1 talks: http://news.yahoo.com/... Netanyahu -- whose government has not ruled out a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities -- earlier said however that Tehran had simply bought itself some extra time to comply. "My initial impression is that Iran has been given a 'freebie'," Netanyahu said during talks with visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman, the premier's office reported. "It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition. I think Iran should take immediate steps to stop all enrichment, take out all enrichment material and dismantle the nuclear facility in Qom," he said. "I believe that the world's greatest practitioner of terrorism must not have the opportunity to develop atomic bombs," he said. Here’s President Obama’s response yesterday to Netanyahu (in a response to a journalist's question) at the press conference in Cartagena: But Obama refuted that statement, saying "The notion that we've given something away or a freebie would indicate that Iran has gotten something." "In fact, they got the toughest sanctions that they're going to be facing coming up in a few months if they don't take advantage of those talks. I hope they do," Obama said. "The clock is ticking and I've been very clear to Iran and our negotiating partners that we're not going to have these talks just drag out in a stalling process," Obama told reporters after an Americas summit in Colombia."But so far at least we haven't given away anything -- other than the opportunity for us to negotiate," he said. Obama in conjunction with world powers is negotiating with Iran, trying to prevent a needless war. You can be sure that Mitt Romney would bow to his buddy Netanyahu and attack Iran. He has previously said “We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and Israel”. As he also said in a debate, before making any decision regarding Israel, he will call his friend Bibi. Bottom line, if somehow the American people elect Mitt Romney, expect more of the bombastic, Bush cowboy approach to foreign policy with a more than likely bombardment of Iran. If the American people are not fooled by this charlatan and they reelect Barack Obama, he will continue in his measured way to deal with the threats around the world, quietly, through the use of negotiation, and force if absolutely necessary, but only as a last resort, without bragging, and scaring the American people with needless terrorism alerts.

Iran strikes escalates to a nuclear world war.


Chossudovsky, 12/26/2011 (Michel, Preparing to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Global Research, p. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28355)

An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario. The Obama Administration constitutes a nuclear threat. NATO constitutes a nuclear threat Five European "non-nuclear states" (Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey) with tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command, to be used against Iran constitute a nuclear threat. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only constitutes a nuclear threat, but also a threat to the security of people of Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli attack on Iran. The complacency of Western public opinion --including segments of the US anti-war movement-- is disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israel attack on Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Such an action would result in "the unthinkable": a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East.



Download 1.8 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   ...   61



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