Japan Aff Michigan
Economic decline causes a nuclear war
Download 1.23 Mb.
|
Economic decline causes a nuclear warMead, ‘92( Walter Russell, NPQ’S Board of advisors, New perspectives quarterly, summer 1992, page 30 )Hundreds of millions - billions - of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles -- and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - These countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s. Scenario Two is Japan Prolif Regime stability key to Japan-China relations, which are key to prevent nuclear prolif Kapila, ’10 - an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst, and the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group (6/7/10, Subhash, South Asian Analysis, http://www.southasiaanalysis.org//papers39/paper3848.html) Simply put, to the Chinese obsessed with strategic assessments based on estimation of ‘Comprehensive National Power’, in Chinese perceptions, Japan's strategic power gets that much more devalued by Japan's political instability and the growing American ambiguities on Japan’s value to US strategic interests. Briefly, this could lead to China adopting more pressure tactics against Japan on contentious issues and China’s attempts to isolate Japan in North East Asia. More than a healthy and stable Japan-China relationship, there is a greater strategic imperative and a call on the United States that American approaches to China and over-bearing American approaches to contentious Japan-US security issues does not render Japan vulnerable to China’s strategic and political coercion. The strategic spin-off for China from such exploitation of Japan’s vulnerabilities could result in re-emergence of Japanese nationalism, a nuclear weapon and missiles arsenal and an independent military posture. That could impinge on the United States too. Japan prolif causes a chain reaction in Asia and collapses the NPT. Halloran, 2009 [Richard, Military correspondent for The New York Times for ten years, 5-24, “The Dangers of a Nuclear Japan,” Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/24/nuclear_japan_96638.html] That anxiety has reinvigorated a debate about whether Japan should acquire a nuclear deterrent of its own and reduce its reliance on the US. Japan has the technology, finances, industrial capacity, and skilled personnel to build a nuclear force, although it would be costly and take many years. The consequences of that decision would be earthshaking. It would likely cause opponents to riot in the streets and could bring down a government. South Korea, having sought at least once to acquire nuclear weapons, would almost certainly do so. Any hope of dissuading North Korea from building a nuclear force would disappear. China would redouble its nuclear programs. And for the only nation ever to experience atomic bombing to acquire nuclear arms would surely shatter the already fragile international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The main reason Japan has not acquired nuclear arms so far has been a lack of political will. After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the Japanese experienced a deep-seated nuclear allergy. That and the threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War kept Japan huddled under the US nuclear umbrella. Nuclear war Cimbala, 2008 [Stephen, Distinguished Prof. Pol. Sci. – Penn. State Brandywine, Comparative Strategy, “Anticipatory Attacks: Nuclear Crisis Stability in Future Asia”, 27, InformaWorld] If the possibility existed of a mistaken preemption during and immediately after the Cold War, between the experienced nuclear forces and command systems of America and Russia, then it may be a matter of even more concern with regard to states with newer and more opaque forces and command systems. In addition, the Americans and Soviets (and then Russians) had a great deal of experience getting to know one another’s military operational proclivities and doctrinal idiosyncrasies, including those that might influence the decision for or against war. Another consideration, relative to nuclear stability in the present century, is that the Americans and their NATO allies shared with the Soviets and Russians a commonality of culture and historical experience. Future threats to American or Russian security from weapons of mass destruction may be presented by states or nonstate actors motivated by cultural and social predispositions not easily understood by those in the West nor subject to favorable manipulation during a crisis. The spread of nuclear weapons in Asia presents a complicated mosaic of possibilities in this regard. States with nuclear forces of variable force structure, operational experience, and command-control systems will be thrown into a matrix of complex political, social, and cultural crosscurrents contributory to the possibility of war. In addition to the existing nuclear powers in Asia, others may seek nuclear weapons if they feel threatened by regional rivals or hostile alliances. Containment of nuclear proliferation in Asia is a desirable political objective for all of the obvious reasons. Nevertheless, the present century is unlikely to see the nuclear hesitancy or risk aversion that marked the Cold War, in part, because the military and political discipline imposed by the Cold War superpowers no longer exists, but also because states in Asia have new aspirations for regional or global respect.12 The spread of ballistic missiles and other nuclear-capable delivery systems in Asia, or in the Middle East with reach into Asia, is especially dangerous because plausible adversaries live close together and are already engaged in ongoing disputes about territory or other issues.13 The Cold War Americans and Soviets required missiles and airborne delivery systems of intercontinental range to strike at one another’s vitals. But short-range ballistic missiles or fighter-bombers suffice for India and Pakistan to launch attacks at one another with potentially “strategic” effects. China shares borders with Russia, North Korea, India, and Pakistan; Russia, with China and NorthKorea; India, with Pakistan and China; Pakistan, with India and China; and so on. The short flight times of ballistic missiles between the cities or military forces of contiguous states means that very little time will be available for warning and attack assessment by the defender. Conventionally armed missiles could easily be mistaken for a tactical nuclear first use. Fighter-bombers appearing over the horizon could just as easily be carrying nuclear weapons as conventional ordnance. In addition to the challenges posed by shorter flight times and uncertain weapons loads, potential victims of nuclear attack in Asia may also have first strike–vulnerable forces and command-control systems that increase decision pressures for rapid, and possibly mistaken, retaliation. This potpourri of possibilities challenges conventional wisdom about nuclear deterrence and proliferation on the part of policymakers and academic theorists. For policymakers in the United States and NATO, spreading nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in Asia could profoundly shift the geopolitics of mass destruction from a European center of gravity (in the twentieth century) to an Asian and/or Middle Eastern center of gravity (in the present century).14 This would profoundly shake up prognostications to the effect that wars of mass destruction are now passe, on account of the emergence of the “Revolution in Military Affairs” and its encouragement of information-based warfare.15 Together with this, there has emerged the argument that large-scale war between states or coalitions of states, as opposed to varieties of unconventional warfare and failed states, are exceptional and potentially obsolete.16 The spread of WMD and ballistic missiles in Asia could overturn these expectations for the obsolescence or marginalization of major interstate warfare. And, now is key - the status quo kills relations and regime popularity The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo), 6/20 (6/20/10, The Daily Yomiuri (Tokyo), “Talks Needed to Boost Japan-US Alliance”, http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9604571746&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9604571749&cisb=22_T9604571748&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=145202&docNo=1) South Korea and Southeast Asian nations were now seriously concerned about the deterioration in the Japan-U.S. relationship caused by former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's poor diplomacy--evidence that other Asian nations also perceive the Japan-U.S. alliance as a public asset. Ironically, Hatoyama's words and deeds, which could have been interpreted as distancing Japan from the United States gave many people a good opportunity to reconsider the Japan-U.S. relationship. It is vital for us to think about how to deepen and develop the Japan-U.S. alliance based on history and past developments in the relationship between the two countries. The issue of relocating functions of the U.S. Marine Corp's Futenma Air Station is the first thing that needs to be worked on. In doing so, the administration of Prime Minister Naoto Kan needs to realize not only that the relocation plan returned to the original plan--building alternative facilities near the Henoko district of Nago, Okinawa Prefecture--but also that the situation has become much worse, as many Okinawans have turned against the plan. First of all, the government should properly implement the Japan-U.S. agreement reached late last month, which says the location of the alternative facilities and the method for building runways will be decided by the end of August. It also is important to patch up strained relationships with Okinawa Prefecture and the Nago city government, and make tenacious efforts to seek acceptance of the plan Contention 4 is Ecology The United States’ new military base will further deplete Okinawa’s coral reefs ecosystem as well as its fresh water supplies, creating irreversible ecological damage to the ecosystem Center for Biological Diversity, n.d.- specialist center that works to create protection of species (n.d., Center for Biological Diversity, “Help Save Okinawa Dugong and Coral Reef Ecosystem,” http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/p/dia/action/public/index.sjs?action_KEY=1798 ) Okinawa is home to ecologically significant coral reefs that support more than 1,000 species of reef fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles. Creatures like the highly imperiled dugong, a critically endangered and culturally treasured animal, rely on these reefs for their survival. But the U.S. government is planning to build a new American military base atop a healthy coral reef that will likely destroy the diverse array of animal life the reef supports, including at least nine species threatened with extinction. Okinawa's coral reefs are already threatened by global warming and pollution: More than half have disappeared over the past decade. We must protect the reef and its inhabitants. American, Japanese, and international organizations have spoken out for this critical area and against the potential harm that the new military base would cause. Back in 1997, Japan's Mammalogical Society placed the mighty dugong, a distant relative of the manatee, on its "Red List of Mammals," estimating the population in Okinawa to be critically endangered. Our own Endangered Species Act lists the dugong and three sea turtles affected by the project as endangered. The U.S. government's Marine Mammals Commission is weighing in with fears that the project would be a serious threat to the dugong and other animals' survival, and the World Conservation Union's dugong specialists have expressed similar concerns. Construction of the offshore facility will devastate the marine environment and have dramatic consequences for oceangoing birds and coastal species as well. In addition to destruction of the coral reef off the coast of Henoko village, the planned base will deplete essential freshwater supplies, increase the human population in sensitive areas, and encourage more environmentally harmful development -- causing irreversible ecological damage to one of the most diverse ecosystems on earth. The U.S. government must abandon this plan. Okinawa’s coral reef and island ecosystems are key to sustaining Pacific biodiversity. Davies et al, 7- Gump South Pacific Research Station, UC-Berkeley (Richard B., July 2007, Makoto Tsuchiya, faculty of science, University of the Rukyus, Rene Galzin, Center of Insular Research and Observations of the Environment, “Biodiversity Research on Coral Reef and Island Ecosystem: Scientific Cooperation in the Pacific Region,” http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2984/1534-6188%282008%2962%5B299%3ABROCRA%5D2.0.CO%3B2 ) Another worldwide trend that has particularly important impacts on island ecosystems is the rapid increase in trade and travel (globalization), which spreads species to new geographic locations. Islands, which by definition evolved in relative isolation, are particularly threatened by invasive species. The most dramatic and tragic effects of biological invasions are already well documented for terrestrial island ecosystems; however, what makes some species more damaging and some systems more resistant or resilient to invasions is unclear. Islands represent a unique opportunity (a natural laboratory) to address this issue; they are also the places where its resolution is of far more than academic interest. In addition to the impacts of globalization and climate change, there are more direct threats associated with increasing human population pressure on natural resources. Over the last 100 years, the human population has doubled worldwide and tripled in Japan. This explosive rate of growth far exceeds that of the past 10-15 centuries and has severely taxed global resources. For example, to meet food demands, the fishing industry has harvested larger catches, ignoring the rules and balances of nature, and resulting in overfishing and great disturbance to fishery grounds. Human activities on land have degraded terrestrial ecosystems through habitat destruction. Consequences include not only the irreversible loss of endemic species from "biodiversity hotspots" but also the erosion of human cultural diversity (which is often tightly linked to its unique natural heritage). Unsustainable terrestrial development also threatens marine systems through large inflows of exogenous materials and fine particles to coastal zones and the eutrophication of some reefs. Such conditions have allowed increased population growth of algal species, which has also tipped coral reef systems toward a new ecological equilibrium that does not favor human well-being. Most seriously and devastatingly, some coral reefs have become the targets of "reclamation" projects and have disappeared completely. Sustainable use for coral reef and island ecosystems must be the most important and urgent challenge facing the tropical and subtropical Pacific regions. It is obvious that solutions must involve a much greater understanding of biodiversity and its relationship to human society; more cooperative research in the Pacific region is an urgent priority. The destruction of biodiversity leads to extinction- furthering the depletion of human resources, especially marine life, will destroy ecosystems. CIEL, n.d.- Non-profit organization that provides environmental legal services in international and comparative environmental law (n.d., Center for International Environmental Law, “What is Biodiversity and Why is it Important?” http://www.ciel.org/Biodiversity/WhatIsBiodiversity.html ) Biodiversity is the variability of all living organisms -- including animal and plant species -- of the genes of all these organisms, and of the terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems of which they are part. Biodiversity makes up the structure of the ecosystems and habitats that support essential living resources, including wildlife, fisheries and forests. It helps provide for basic human needs such as food, shelter, and medicine. It composes ecosystems that maintain oxygen in the air, enrich the soil, purify the water, protect against flood and storm damage and regulate climate. Biodiversity also has recreational, cultural, spiritual and aesthetic values. Society's growing consumption of resources and increasing populations have led to a rapid loss of biodiversity, eroding the capacity of earth's natural systems to provide essential goods and services on which human communities depend. Human activities have raised the rate of extinction to 1,000 times its usual rate. If this continues, Earth will experience the sixth great wave of extinctions in billions of years of history. Already, an estimated two of every three bird species are in decline worldwide, one in every eight plant species is endangered or threatened, and one-quarter of mammals, one-quarter of amphibians and one-fifth of reptiles are endangered or vulnerable. Also in crisis are forests and fisheries, which are essential biological resources and integral parts of the earth's living ecosystems. The World Resources Institute estimates that only one-fifth of the earth’s original forest cover survives unfragmented, yet deforestation continues, with 180 million hectares in developing countries deforested between 1980 and 1995. Forests are home to 50-90% of terrestrial species, provide ecosystem services such as carbon storage and flood prevention, and are critical resources for many linguistically and culturally diverse societies and millions of indigenous people. Overfishing, destructive fishing techniques and other human activities have also severely jeopardized the health of many of the world’s fish stocks along with associated marine species and ecosystems. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates that nearly two-thirds of ocean fisheries are exploited at our beyond capacity. Over one billion people, mostly in developing countries, depend on fish as their primary source of animal protein. Extinction Diner ‘94—Major David, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161
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 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|