Election Disadvantage
Download 1.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Multilateral disarm prevents inevitable nuclear war.
Global Zero 2NCObama reelection is key to continue the Global Zero agenda --- promotes multilateral nuclear talks.Wagner and Blachford, 7/12/2012 (Daniel – CEO of Country Risks and Director of Global Strategy with the PRS Group, and Kevin – research analyst with CRS, based in London, How to Enhance Obama’s Limited Progress on Arms Control, International Policy Digest, p. http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/07/12/how-to-enhance-obamas-limited-progress-on-arms-control/) The Obama Administration realizes that in order to hope to achieve more progress on the path to a Global Zero world, it must conduct talks with other nuclear powers, and will be holding a nuclear security summit later this year. The objective will be to discuss nuclear safety and the prevention of terrorist acquisition or theft of nuclear materials. There is no reason why multilateral talks should not be extended to include security issues beyond just terrorism and nuclear safety. If Obama is serious about achieving his objective, he should encourage more talks with a greater range of nuclear-armed powers. This could perhaps be done by reviewing the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and agreeing to engage in a regularized formal dialogue aimed at the reduction of nuclear weapons with all nuclear states. Doing so would likely encourage countries like China to act as a respected and responsible partner at the nuclear table. China has so far been reluctant to embrace its position as a leading emerging military power – preferring instead to be thought of as ‘developing’ – and has also dismissed talk of any cooperation along the lines of a G2 with America. But nuclear security ought to be an issue that China sees as a field for collaboration with other global powers – if for no other reason than to try to exert more influence on North Korea. Also, the last thing China should want is to discourage arms control, as doing so may encourage some other of its neighbors to want to develop their own nuclear weapons programs in an effort to counter China’s inevitable rise. If Obama is serious in achieving Global Zero in the nuclear arena, a serious multilateral approach is the key. The US needs to focus further on global co-operation concerning not just nuclear warheads, but the delivery systems attached to these weapons, tactical weapons, and the prevention of a terrorist acquisition of nuclear materials. Since 2009 there have only been incremental steps towards nuclear disarmament. Given the imminent prospect of greater nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, Mr. Obama needs to place more focus on this important objective he set for his Administration at the outset. If he is re-elected, it is our hope that this subject will receive the attention it deserves. If Mr. Romney is elected, that is unlikely to happen. Multilateral disarm prevents inevitable nuclear war.Hari, 10/20/2004 (Johann – regular writer for the Times Literary Supplement, Will we wake up from our nuclear coma? – There is a strong chance of a nuclear bomb being used now, The Independent, p. Lexis) But there is no such thing as a regional nuclear war. An exchange between India and Pakistan, or between Israel and Iran, would - quite apart from killing millions of people - risk irreparable ecological damage to the planet. Today, along with man-made climate change, nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to human life as we know it. So why is hardly anybody talking about it? Partly, it's because nobody seems to have any good answers. We all know that during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were regulated by a simple doctrine: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). If you used a nuke, you were guaranteed to be nuked in return. What doctrine now regulates the use of these weapons? Some people believe that MAD is still a working principle. The conservative commentator Matthew Parris, for example, speaks for many on the right when he says that India and Pakistan are more stable because of nuclear weapons. "If India and Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons, they would have gone to war in 2002 ... the threat alone defused the situation. No lives were lost. This was the classic case for nuclear weapons, and it was demonstrated there ." So MAD got us through the Cold War; it will get smaller powers through their own conflicts with less bloodshed. Proliferation is a good thing. This argument is flawed for several reasons. Even when MAD was practised by two relatively stable super- power blocs for just 40 years, it nearly broke down and led to "rational suicide" on several occasions. Does anybody really think that if this is replicated across the world - in the most tense, dangerous and often fanatical regions - it will not break down sooner or later? Just one lapse, just one crazy leader testing the doctrine, condemns tens of millions of people to death. It requires delirious, wild optimism to believe MADness on every continent will keep us safe indefinitely. But more importantly, all over the world, even the strained logic of MAD is evaporating. The US government believes it will, within a generation, be safe from retaliation because of its missile shield, so MAD will no longer apply to them. Many ultra -nationalists in the Indian government in 2002 seemed to have a worrying lack of knowledge about the effects of a nuclear war, claiming that it would have "a limited effect" and "we could take it". MAD doesn't work if people don't understand the consequences. And Islamic fundamentalists who believe that death can be more glorious than life, who welcome "martyrdom", are obviously not going to be put off by retaliation. So, against our biggest security threat - al-Qa'ida - MAD is useless. I can only think of one long-term answer to the danger: phased, tightly monitored multilateral disarmament, reducing all the world's nuclear arsenals one step at a time. Right now, this is so far off the p olitical map it sounds crazy. But what is the alternative? There is Parris-style faith in MAD. Or there is the neoconservative solution, which is to keep thousands of nukes ourselves but deny them t o everybody else through raw force. This is not a tenable long-term solution. Perhaps an Israeli bombing raid on Iran's reactors will work this year - but can proliferation be dealt with that way indefinitely? How can we sustain such hypocrisy without making more countries eager to get nukes to spite us? Multilateral disarmament is deeply flawed, but the alternatives - endless proliferation or a neoconservative resort to force against any potential nuclear powers - are more dangerous still. Even if slow, careful nuclear disarmament didn't seem the best option to you at the height of the Cold War, it should now. Yet the people who should be making this case - groups like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - have gone off on a Trotskyite tangent, campaigning on causes that have nothing to do with nukes. (Their current crusade is to put Tony Blair on trial.) Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|