Reps toolbox – 7wk seniors ahfm
Download 0.86 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Nuke War Reps Good – AT: Root Cause
Nuclear War Reps GoodRepresentations of nuclear war are key to understand and prevent nuclear war Martin 2 (Brian, Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia, “Activism after nuclear war?,” 9/3/02, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/02tff.html)//PC In the event of nuclear war, as well as death and destruction there will be serious political consequences. Social activists should be prepared. The confrontation between Indian and Pakistani governments earlier this year showed that military use of nuclear weapons is quite possible. There are other plausible scenarios. A US military attack against Iraq could lead Saddam Hussein to release chemical or biological weapons, providing a trigger for a US nuclear strike. Israeli nuclear weapons might also be unleashed. Another possibility is accidental nuclear war. Paul Rogers in his book Losing Control says that the risk of nuclear war has increased due to proliferation, increased emphasis on nuclear war-fighting, reduced commitment to arms control (especially by the US government) and Russian reliance on nuclear arms as its conventional forces disintegrate. A major nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions of people. But less catastrophic outcomes are possible. A limited exchange might kill "only" tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Use of nuclear "bunker-busters" might lead to an immediate death toll in the thousands or less. Nuclear war would also lead to increased political repression. Martial law might be declared. Activists would be targeted for surveillance or arrest. Dissent would become even riskier. War always brings restraints on civil liberties. The political aftermath of September 11 - increased powers for police forces and spy agencies, increased intolerance of and controls over political dissent - is just a taste of what would be in store in the aftermath of nuclear war. Being prepared for nuclear war is not defeatism but realism. Indeed, being prepared may make nuclear war less likely, as I argued 20 years ago in an article titled "How the peace movement should be preparing for nuclear war". Many of the points I made then are just as relevant today. Groups should have contingency plans in case of emergency. It is worth asking, for example, "What should we do if key members are arrested?" Planning for such possibilities can be useful even if there is no nuclear crisis, since the group could come under attack for other reasons. Various scenarios should be considered, such as intensive surveillance, disruption, infiltration and public discrediting. Brian Glick's book War at Home is a valuable manual on this topic. Resources could come under attack: offices destroyed, computers stolen, websites removed. This points to the value of having back-up copies of key information. The same applies to skills: if a knowledgeable person, such as a web designer, is not around, can someone else do the job? Communiation networks are absolutely essential in a crisis. Being able to obtain reliable information and consult with others is vital for taking action. Activists should have plans for maintaining communication links in the face of interruption and disruption. If the phones are taken out, for example, what other system can be used? Schweik Action Wollongong developed some exercises for strengthening communication in groups. In a crisis, individuals and groups may need to act on their own. This could be due to arrest of movement leaders or to interruption of communication. When local groups have autonomy and many people have leadership skills, then it is easier to act effectively in a crisis. Generally speaking, decentralisation and self-reliance are an advantage. If worst comes to worst and nuclear weapons cause physical effects close to home, then survival becomes a priority. It makes sense to know the basics about the effects of nuclear war - blast, heat, radiation - and how to protect. Knowing basic first aid is important too. There is plenty of information on what to do in the event of nuclear war, but most social activists have avoided even thinking about it on the grounds that preparation makes nuclear war more likely. I disagree. If activists are seen to be ready, this makes nuclear war less likely. Nuclear weapons are severely stigmatised largely due to the efforts of peace activists. Governments have been reluctant to use nuclear weapons because they realise there will be an enormous political backlash. From the 1940s on, US leaders have considered using nuclear weapons on quite a number of occasions - such as during the Vietnam war - but always refrained, largely due to the fear of a backlash. If, despite this, nuclear weapons are used, it is vital that social activists capitalise on the widespread revulsion that will occur. To do this, activists need to be prepared. Otherwise, the next nuclear war will be only the beginning of a series of nuclear wars. A further implication is that activists need to be psychologically prepared for nuclear war. For decades, many people have thought of nuclear war as "the end": as extinction or the end of civilisation. But limited nuclear war has always been possible and even a major nuclear war could leave billions of people alive. Therefore it makes sense to think through the implications and make suitable preparations. Nuclear war is almost bound to be a disaster, not only in human and environmental terms but as well in terms of political prospects for achieving a better world. Activists are doing what they can to prevent nuclear war, but they are not the ones who design and produce the weapons and prepare to use them. Given that nuclear weapons may be used despite the best efforts of peace activists, it makes sense to be prepared for the aftermath. That means preparing organisationally and psychologically. The alternative fails – it can’t create real institutional change or solve nuclear war Martin 82 (Brian, Professor of Social Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia, “How the Peace Movement Should be Preparing for Nuclear War,” Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 1982, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 149-159. http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/peace.html)//PC The risk of nuclear war Unless nuclear weapons are totally eliminated, it is a virtual certainty that nuclear war will occur eventually. The likelihood of war in any given year may be small, but the cumulative effect of small probabilities can approach certainty. The likelihood is definitely not zero. For example, it is known that US policy-makers have seriously considered using nuclear weapons unilaterally on a number of occasions. Two developments have increased the risk of nuclear war in recent years. First is the deployment of highly accurate strategic missile systems in the US and the Soviet Union, plus developments in anti-submarine warfare and communications and control systems. This is increasing the chance that one of the superpowers will launch a 'first strike' in an attempt to destroy the opponent's nuclear inventory. Second is the spread of the capability to make nuclear weapons to more and more countries, fostered by the expansion of the nuclear power industry. It seems likely that this nuclear proliferation will be aided at some stage by laser enrichment of uranium, a technique which will dramatically reduce the obstacles to obtaining nuclear weapons. The question in such circumstances is not if nuclear war will occur, but when, what kind, and on what scale. The risk of nuclear war could be removed if all nuclear weapons were eliminated- total nuclear disarmament. How could this happen? I have argued elsewhere that convincing decision-makers or mobilising public opinion to influence decision-makers is insufficient, and that what is required is grassroots initiatives mobilising large numbers of people in activities that challenge or transform warlinked institutions and which create new institutions.[1] The chance that the people struggling for fundamental institutional change will succeed worldwide in 20, 50 or 100 years is much less than certainty. Indeed, any realistic assessment of the strength of the present peace movement, in terms of its ability to fundamentally affect arms races and their institutional bases, would have to admit its extreme weakness. The peace movement seems highly unlikely to bring about nuclear disarmament within the next few years, and hence it should be prepared for the possibility of nuclear war. Whether a nuclear war is limited or global, available evidence suggests that a large fraction of the world's population may be unaffected physically.[2] A long term strategy for peace must provide the basis for transforming the war system both before and after nuclear war or nuclear wars, and at the same time minimise the chance of nuclear war occurring in the first place. In addition to the important physical effects of nuclear war there would be important indirect political effects. It seems very likely that there would be strong moves to maintain or establish authoritarian rule as a response to crises preceding or following nuclear war. Ever since Hiroshima, the threat of nuclear destruction has been used to prop up repressive institutions, under the pretext of defending against the 'enemy'.[3] The actuality of nuclear war could easily result in the culmination of this trend. Large segments of the population could be manipulated to support a repressive regime under the necessity to defend against further threats or to obtain revenge. A limited nuclear war might kill some hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of people, surely a major tragedy. But another tragedy could also result: the establishment, possibly for decades, of repressive civilian or military rule in countries such as Italy, Australia and the US, even if they were not directly involved in the war. The possibility of grassroots mobilisation for disarmament and peace would be greatly reduced even from its present levels. For such developments the people and the peace movements of the world are largely unprepared. Nuke War Reps Good – AT: Root CauseNuclear discourse is not the root cause of our impacts – prefer specific scenarios Kinsella 5 (William J., Associate Professor at North Carolina State University, bachelor's degree in physics from Manhattan College, graduate studies in astronomy and physics from New Mexico State University, master's and doctoral degrees in Communication at Rutgers University, Director of the University of North Carolina States interdisciplinary program in Science, Technology & Society and as a faculty member in the interdisciplinary programs in Communication, Rhetoric & Digital Media and Environmental Sciences, “One Hundred Years of Nuclear Discourse: Four Master Themes and Their Implications for Environmental Communication,” 2005, The Environmental Communication Yearbook, Volume 2, Chapter 3)//PC Together, these four themes provide useful tools for explicating the nuclear dis- cursive formation and its relationship to environmental communication. How- ever, in using them for these purposes, I agree with Ruthven (1993), who stressed the need for "more than a thematics of nuclearism" (p. 17). Ruthven argued that although many critics have discussed the influences of nuclear discourse on soci- ety, politics, and culture (e.g., Chaloupka, 1992; Gerry, 1987; Norris, 1992,1994), they have been less successful in examining how nuclear discourse is, simulta- neously, a product of those same systems. This observation provides an important reminder that nuclear discourse is not necessarily the root cause ofthe many prob- lems associated with it; instead, it might be understood more usefully as a product of underlying systems of meaning, and a vehicle for flows of power/knowledge as- sociated with those meaning systems. Thus, in the discussion that follows, I wish to emphasize that nuclear discourse and environmental communication have a relationship of mutual infiuence. For example, nuclear discourse influences environmental communication when commitments to weapons production pro- duce environmental consequences that become topics for public deliberation (Dalton, Garb, Lovrich, Pierce, & Whiteiey, 1999; Dycus, 1996; Makhijani, Hu, & Yih, 1995), or when the claimed successes of nuclear science and technology ap- pear to legitimate the modernist project ofthe mastery of nature (Kinsella, 2004a). However, influences flow in the opposite direction as well, when discourses por- traying the American desert as an unproductive wasteland foster its colonization by nuclear enterprises (Kuletz, 1998; Limerick, 1998) or, more broadly, whenever "our perceived relationship with nature influences nuclear decision making" (Taylor & Davis, 2001, p. 288). 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 0.86 Mb. Share with your friends:
|