Gonzaga Debate Institute 13 Hegemony Core Brovero/Verney/Hurwitz
Download 1.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Can’t Solve War
- Risk of War Low
- Even with budget cuts the military still remains high and war is unlikely
- Risk of Missile Attack Low
WarEscalation LikelyInterdependence makes risk of escalation highMandelbaum, Johns Hopkins American Foreign Policy Program director and professor, 5 [Michael, The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century, p. 224] At best, an American withdrawal would bring with it some of the political anxiety typical during the Cold War and a measure of the economic uncertainty that characterized the years before World War II. At worst, the retreat of American power could lead to a repetition of the great global economic failure and the bloody international conflicts the world experienced in the 1930s and 194os. Indeed, the potential for economic calamity and wartime destruction is greater at the outset of the new century than it was in the first half of the preceding one because of the greater extent of international economic interdependence and the higher levels of prosperity—there is more to lose now than there was then—and because of the presence, in large numbers, of nuclear weapons. Can’t Solve WarIt’s impossible to plan for every worst case scenarioGreenblatt, NPR, 2-15-12 (Alan, NPR, “As Wars Wind Down, What Are U.S. Security Needs?”, http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146892853/as-wars-wind-down-what-are-u-s-security-needs, accessed 6-29,12, FFF) It's impossible to plan for every scenario. There's no amount of military spending that would keep the nation completely safe. "We could spend the entire federal budget on the military and we wouldn't be able to eliminate every risk to U.S. national security," Bensahel says. That leaves open the question of how much risk policymakers are willing to tolerate. That's inevitably a political question, Feaver says, and one that never gets fully resolved. After the Cold War, Washington was too complacent about U.S. security, he says. After Sept. 11, many politicians exaggerated the threat that terrorism posed, he adds. "The al-Qaida threat was and to a certain extent is very, very serious, but it was not the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles on hair-trigger alert," Feaver says. "So it's a categorically different threat." Risk of War LowThreat of war and terrorism exaggeratedGreenblatt, NPR writer, 2-15-12 (Alan, NPR, “As Wars Wind Down, What Are U.S. Security Needs?”, http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146892853/as-wars-wind-down-what-are-u-s-security-needs, accessed 6-29-12, FFF) Wars are less frequent — and far less deadly — than they were even a few decades ago. The U.S. has built up a military apparatus that dwarfs any potential rivals — spending nine times as much as China on defense, for instance. Even terrorist attacks pose little threat to most Americans, Zenko and Cohen argue. They are fellows, respectively, at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Century Foundation. They note that in 2010, 13,186 people were killed in terrorist attacks worldwide, but only 15 of them were Americans. In other words, Americans face greater risk from drowning in a bathtub. "The world that the United States inhabits today is a remarkably safe and secure place," Zenko and Cohen write. "It is a world with fewer violent conflicts and greater political freedom than at virtually any other point in human history." Even with budget cuts the military still remains high and war is unlikelyGreenblatt, NPR, 2-15-12 (Alan, NPR, “As Wars Wind Down, What Are U.S. Security Needs?”, http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146892853/as-wars-wind-down-what-are-u-s-security-needs, accessed 6-29,12, FFF) Even Obama's budget, despite its significant cuts, assumes U.S. troop levels will remain higher than they were before 2001. Figuring out just how much military force and spending is enough is going to remain a primary argument in Washington. It's "preposterous" to worry that the U.S. can't afford to cut defense spending because of threats that might arise years down the road, says Jack Snyder, an international relations professor at Columbia University. On the other hand, Snyder says, a good deal of the security the U.S. enjoys today is the byproduct of its military resolve. U.S. strategy hasn't always been flawless, he says, but the country has made it clear it won't tolerate aggression across internationally recognized borders — and has had the wherewithal to back that policy up. "War is less likely and the U.S. is certainly more secure now than it has been in a long, long time," Snyder says. "But some of the reasons for the decline of war have to do with the power of the United States and the other liberal advanced democracies." Risk of Missile Attack LowMissile attacks pose no threat, interceptors and relations checkPak, Medill National Security zone writer, 6-9-12 (Susanna, Medill National Security zone, “U.S. more secure today despite growing ballistic missile threat”, 6-9-12, http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/u-s-more-secure-today-despite-growing-ballistic-missile-threat/, accessed 6-28-12, FFF) “The situation today is radically different,” said Stephen Rademaker, a former Bush administration arms control and nonproliferation official, in a phone interview. “Ten years ago, America was completely defenseless against the threat of missile attack.” Rademaker says the U.S. now has about 45 interceptors in Alaska and California, which is “more than enough” to defend against accidental launches from Russia, as well as attacks from Iran and North Korea. He adds that tensions between the U.S. and Russia have relaxed since the Cold War, so that intentional launches are unlikely and accidental launches pose the greatest threat. The improved relationship with Russia and the technological advances allowing the U.S. to build a stronger defense system come years after the U.S. walked away from an agreement to stop building missile defenses. Download 1.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|