Japan Aff Michigan
East Asian Presence Add-On
Download 1.23 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Terrorism Add-On
East Asian Presence Add-OnA. American military presence in East Asia leads to conflict Johnson ‘01 [Chalmers, Ph. D Political Science UC Berkley, Professor of Emeritus University of San Diego, Former CIA Consultant, “Time to Bring the Troops Home”, 5/14, http://www.thenation.com/article/time-bring-troops-home] Unless the Bush Administration really wants another war in Asia, it should convert its treaties there into equitable state-to-state alliances without any permanent American military presence. This should be done because forward-deployed US forces have themselves become militarily provocative and one of the main sources of instability in the area, and because the moral consequences of the American military enclaves are destroying any basis for future trust and cooperation among the peoples involved. If we recognize that the cold war is over in Europe, why not accept that it is also winding down in East Asia? Moreover, if we do not dismantle our satellites in East Asia in an orderly manner, they will surely rise up against us, as the former Soviet Union's satellites did in Eastern Europe. B. East Asian conflict escalates to global nuclear war – deadliest war scenario Cirincione ‘00 [Joseph, M.S. Science Georgetown School of Foreign Service, President of Ploughshares Fund, “The Asian Nuclear Reaction”, Spring 2000, questia] The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945. Terrorism Add-OnA. The only solution to terrorism is bringing our troops home Moore ’02 [Thomas Gale, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution U of Stanford, Ph. D. Economics University of Chicago, Fellow of California Institute of International Studies, “How To Reduce Terrorism: Bring Our Troops Home”, 6/11, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=112] Wherever we have bases, the local population resents those troops. In Okinawa, the locals strongly oppose the U.S. soldiers stationed on their island. Many of the South Korean population hate the American military in their midst. American troops abroad furnish both a motivation for terrorism and a target. If we brought our men and women home, would we be safer or less safe? The answer is clear: We would reduce the motivation to attack us. Americans would be seen more as we think we are, peaceful people who wish good things for the world. This goes against the grain; it could be seen as giving in to Osama bin Laden. But if our object is to reduce terrorism, it is the most practical and probably the only solution. America is vulnerable to terrorism because of its interventionist foreign policy Moore ‘02 [Thomas Gale, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution U of Stanford, Ph. D. Economics University of Chicago, Fellow of California Institute of International Studies, “How To Reduce Terrorism: Bring Our Troops Home”, 6/11, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=112] Both Vice President Dick Cheney and FBI Director Roert Mueller have asserted that another terrorist attack is “inevitable.” They are right. There are too many targets and too many ways that an individual bent on suicide can wreak havoc. Like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism cannot be won. In his September address to Congress, President Bush declared: Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Our desire for revenge is natural, but the president’s end cannot be achieved. We are the strongest power the world has ever seen, not only in absolute terms but also relative to the rest of the globe. Our overwhelming success in the Persian Gulf War, with only 148 American deaths, our victory in Kosovo without any fatalities, and our conquering of Afghanistan with only a handful of casualties have given the impression that our military is invincible. But our military, no matter how invincible, cannot eliminate the suicide bomber, the terrorist who will die for his cause. As long as people hate us, we will always be vulnerable. While we cannot eliminate terrorism, we can reduce its frequency and violence. We should consider its roots. If we understand why people hate us and are willing to die to attack us, it does not mean we are justifying their actions. If our policies are leading to more terrorism, however, we should understand that. Osama bin Laden has told us why he is attacking us: because we have troops in the “holy” territory of Saudi Arabia. In his first tape after Sept. 11 he promised: “I swear to God that America will not live in peace before all the army of infidels depart the land of the prophet Muhammad.” Not only does he feel this way, but so do many millions in the Islamic world. B. This will escalate to mass extinction Mohamed Sid-Ahmed 4, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, [Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm] What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and 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:
|