Oil 1 Peak Oil 21
Neg answers- Proliferation good
Download 9.54 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Neg Answers- Proliferation Inevitable
- Terror – Advantage
Neg answers- Proliferation goodNuclear proliferation neutralizes the possibility of war by giving nations the control of nuclear energies they seek out, ending all inclinations towards violent use of these weapons. (Jean Baudrillard, philosopher, political commentator, and cultural theorist, 1981, “Simulacra and Simulation” p. 39-40) This is why nuclear proliferation does not increase the risk of either an atomic clash or an accident-save in the interval when the “young” powers could be tempted to make a nondeterrent, “real” use of it (as the Americans did in Hiroshima-but precisely only they had a right to this “use value” of the bomb, all of those who have acquired t since will be deterred from using it by the very fact of possessing it). Entry into the atomic club, so prettily named, very quickly effaces (as unionization does in the working world) any inclination toward violent intervention. Responsibility; control, censure, self-deterrence always grow more rapidly than the forces of the weapons at our disposal: this is the secret of the social order. This the very possibility of paralyzing a whole country by flicking a switch makes it so that electrical engineers will never use this weapon: the whole myth of the total and revolutionary strike crumbles at the very moment when the means are available-but alas precisely because those means are available. Therein lies the whole process of deterrence. It is thus perfectly probable that one day we will see nuclear powers export atomic reactors, weapons, and bombs to every latitude. Control by threat will be replaced by the more effective strategy of pacification through the bomb and through the possession of the bomb. The “little” powers, believing that they are buying their independent strike force, will buy the virus of deterrence, of their own deterrence. The same goes for the atomic reactors that we have already sent them: so many neutron bombs knocking out all historical virulence, all risk of explosion. In this sense, the nuclear everywhere inaugurates an accelerated process of implosion, it freezes everything around it, it absorbs all living energy. The nuclear is at once the culminating point of available energy and the maximization of energy control systems. Lockdown and control increase in direct proportion to (and undoubtedly even faster than) liberating potentialities. This was already the aporia of the modern revolution. It is still the absolute paradox of the nuclear. Energies freeze in their own fire, they deter themselves. One can no longer imagine what project, what power what strategy what subject could exist behind this enclosure, this vast saturation of a system by its own forces, now neutralized, unusable, unintelligible, nonexplosive- except for the possibility of an explosion at the center; of an implosion where all these energies would be abolished in a catastrophic process (in the literal sense, that is to say in the sense of the reversion of the whole cycle toward a minimal point, of a reversion of energies toward a minimal threshold). Neg Answers- Proliferation InevitableProliferations inevitable- collapse of the NPT conference and the hard line US hypocrisy. (Lawrence S. Wittner, history prof. at University of NY Albany, 5/30/05, History News Network, Has the Bush Administration made nuclear proliferation inevitable?”, http://hnn.us/articles/12185.html) Criticism of the U.S. role at the conference was particularly sharp among peace and disarmament groups. “The United States has had four weeks to demonstrate international leadership on nuclear proliferation,” remarked Susi Snyder, secretary general of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. “Clearly, the U.S. delegation never wanted to strengthen the treaty. Instead, they have spent four weeks . . . refusing to recognize agreements they made 5 and 10 years ago.” According to Alyn Ware of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, it was “impossible to prevent” nuclear proliferation “while the nuclear weapons states insist on maintaining large stockpiles of weapons themselves.” It was “like a parent telling a child not to smoke while smoking a pack of cigarettes.” Given the obviously self-defeating nature of U.S. nuclear policy, why does the Bush administration cling to it so stubbornly? Why has it spurned the efforts not only of the world community, but of the U.S. government’s closest allies to strengthen the NPT and continue progress toward a nuclear-free world? One possible explanation is that the Bush administration believes that it has the military capability to deter current nuclear nations and to destroy hostile nations that reach the brink of becoming nuclear powers. For example, if Iran continues to produce fissionable material, Washington will simply launch an all-out military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Therefore, the Bush administration sees no need to maintain the bargain between non-nuclear and nuclear powers that was struck decades ago through the NPT. As Bush administration officials frequently say, conditions in the world have changed, and U.S. policy will change with them. A second possible explanation, which does not exclude the first, is that the Bush administration is getting ready to use nuclear weapons in future wars. Despite the massive advantage the U.S. government enjoys over other nations in conventional military forces, these U.S. forces are now overstretched in fighting an insurgency in a small country like Iraq. Furthermore, dispatching substantial numbers of U.S. combat troops overseas is quite expensive, and their death in large numbers undermines political support for a war—as it is now doing. In this context, the development and use of nuclear weapons to maintain what the Bush administration defines as U.S. “national interests” seem quite logical to U.S. national security managers. Ominously, the new nuclear weapons for which the Bush administration has requested funding from Congress are considered “usable” nuclear weapons: so-called “bunker busters” and “mini-nukes.” As a result, the collapse of the NPT review conference of 2005 and the hard-line nuclear policies of the Bush administration that have contributed to it have seriously undermined the willingness of nations to dispense with nuclear weapons. Indeed, these factors seem to place the nations of the world back in the nuclear arms race and, perhaps, on the road to nuclear war. Of course, popular protest and wise statesmanship have turned around situations like this in the past, and they might well do so again. But, in the meantime, we should recognize that evading disarmament commitments and plunging forward with nuclear weapons development and use is a surefire recipe for disaster. Terror – AdvantageA. Increased oil profits mean increased funding for terrorism Gal Luft, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INSTITUTE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL SECURITY, 10-20-05 http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2005/LuftTestimony051020.pdf, Testimony before SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS, America’s oil dependence and its implications for U.S. Middle East policy These projections require that we take a sober long term look at the impact of our growing dependence on our strategic posture in the Middle East. Oil prices are not going down any time soon. The rise in oil prices will yield large financial surpluses to the Middle Eastern oil producers. This petrodollar windfall will strengthen the jihadists while undermining the strategic relationship the region’s oil producers have with the U.S. As President Bush said last April, U.S. dependence on overseas oil is a "foreign tax on the American people." Indeed, oil imports constitute a quarter of the U.S. trade deficit and are a major contributor to the loss of jobs and investment opportunities. According to a study on the hidden cost of oil by the National Defense Council Foundation, the periodic oil shocks the U.S. has experienced since the 1973 Arab oil embargo cost the economy almost $2.5 trillion. More importantly, while the U.S. economy is bleeding, oil-producing nations increase their oil revenues dramatically to the detriment of our national security. The numbers speak for themselves: In November 2001, a barrel of oil was selling for $18. In less than four years the price jumped to $70. This means that Saudi Arabia, which exports about 10 mbd, receives an extra half billion dollars every day from consuming nations and Iran, which exports 2.5 mbd, an extra $125 million. This windfall benefits the non-democratic governments of the Middle East and other producers and finds its way to the jihadists committed to America’s destruction as petrodollars trickle their way through charities and government handouts to madrassas and mosques, as well as outright support of terrorist groups. It is widely accepted that Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth has directly enabled the spread of Wahhabism around the world. The Saudis use oil funds to control most of the Arabic language media and are now moving to gain growing control over Western media. Only last month Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the world’s fifth richest man, purchased 5.46 percent of Fox News corporation. Petrodollars garnered from the U.S. and other countries are also being used by Saudi Arabia systematically to provide social services, build “Islamic centers” and schools, pay preachers’ salaries and, in some cases, fund terror organizations. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq.” The U.S. in an odd situation in which it is funding both sides in the war on terrorism. We finance the defense of the Free World against its sworn enemies through our tax dollars. And at the same time we support hostile regimes through the transfer of petrodollars. If we don’t change course we will bleed more dollars each year as our enemies gather strength. Steady increase in world demand for oil means further enrichment of the corrupt and dictatorial regimes in the Persian Gulf and continued access of terrorist groups to a viable financial network which allows them to remain a lethal threat to the U.S. and its allies. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 9.54 Mb. Share with your friends:
|