**Uniqueness 2 Generic Links 16
Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia - Kyoto
Download 0.75 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia- Arms Buildup
Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia - KyotoAnd a nuclear reactor collapse causes apocalyptic extinction Wasserman 2 (Harvey, Senior Editor – Free Press, Earth Island Journal, Spring 2002, http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/nuclear_power_and_terrorism/ ) ET The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest anywhere on the planet. Because Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive burden far exceeds that of Chernobyl. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the work force. A terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Thousands of square miles would be saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. Infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Pregnant women would spontaneously abort or give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Heart attacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence, asthma and blindness would afflict hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Then comes the wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up are still dying from their exposure. At Indian Point, the molten cores would burn uncontrolled for days, weeks and years. Who would volunteer for such an American task force? The immediate damage from an Indian Point attack (or a domestic accident) would render all five boroughs of New York City an apocalyptic wasteland. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, natural ecosystems would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically, financially and ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since its deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia- Arms BuildupWhen Russia experiences economic growth they buy more arms to increase their military influence Saradzhyan 8 (Simon, research fellow @ Harvard, Warfare.RU, http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2279&catid=239 ) ET There are cardinal changes in what is going on in the world and the armed forces need to be prepared for […] wars of the future," according to the minister, who also holds the rank of deputy prime minister and is one of the possible contesters in the 2008 presidential race. In line with the Defense Ministry's 2007-2015 armament program, the Russian military will spend a total of 300 billion rubles on procurement this year alone, according to Ivanov. Russia's defense budget has been growing steadily thanks to economic growth fuelled by high oil prices and a consumer boom. As a result of the surge in federal budget revenues, the Defense Ministry quadrupled its budget from 214 billion rubles in 2001 to 821 billion this year. Experts say the Defense Ministry's shopping spree reflects the Kremlin's desire to transform the continuing economic resurgence into geopolitical dividends by beefing up conventional forces while maintaining the strategic nuclear forces' so-called assured destruction capability of in order to flex muscles in the adjacent neighborhoods in the short-to-medium term and across the globe in the longer term. "The procurement plan demonstrates that Russia at least wants to acquire capability to project military-political influence at least on the regional level [..]," Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) and member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council, told ISN Security Watch in a Saturday phone interview. Ivan Safranchuk, director of the Moscow office of the Washington, DC-based World Security Institute, concurred. "This is a sign that Russia wants to expand projection of its influence in the world, " Safranchuk told ISN Security Watch in a Wednesday phone interview. The experts specifically pointed out that talk of procuring new aircraft carriers was one sign that Russia was seeking to expand its zone of influence. The decision to procure more could be made in 2009, the statement quoted Ivanov as saying. The Russian navy currently has one Soviet-era aircraft carrier and would have to build new ones from scratch since the sole maker of this ship in Soviet times is located in now-independent Ukraine. As part of the shopping spree, the military will procure a total of 31 ships for the navy in 2007-2015, according to Ivanov. The ministry will also procure new arms for 40 tanks, 97 infantry and 50 airborne battalions in line with the 2007-2017 programs, he said. And increased arms in Russia would embolden other enemies to attack the us- causes global war and crashes US heg Simes, 7 (Dimitri, Pres of Nixon center, pub of Nat’l Interest, Foreign Affairs, nov/dec 7) ET But if the current U.S.-Russian relationship deteriorates further, it will not bode well for the United States and would be even worse for Russia. The Russian general staª is lobbying to add a military dimension to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and some top officials are beginning to champion the idea of a foreign policy realignment directed against the West. There are also quite a few countries, such as Iran and Venezuela, urging Russia to work with China to play a leading role in balancing the United States economically, politically, and militarily. And post-Soviet states such as Georgia, which are adept at playing the United States and Russia officials against each other, could act in ways that escalate tensions. Putin’s stage management of Moscow’s succession in order to maintain a dominant role for himself makes a major foreign policy shift in Russia unlikely. But new Russian leaders could have their own ideas—and their own ambitions—and political uncertainty or economic problems could tempt them to exploit nationalist sentiments to build legitimacy. If relations worsen, the un Security Council may no longer be available—due to a Russian veto—even occasionally, to provide legitimacy for U.S. military actions or to impose meaningful sanctions on rogue states. Enemies of the United States could be emboldened by new sources of military hardware in Russia, and political and security protection from Moscow. International terrorists could find new sanctuaries in Russia or the states it protects.And the collapse of U.S.- Russian relations could give China much greater flexibility in dealing with the United States. It would not be a new Cold War, because Russia will not be a global rival and is unlikely to be the prime mover in confronting the United States. But it would provide incentives and cover for others to confront Washington, with potentially catastrophic results. It would be reckless and shortsighted to push Russia in that direction by repeating the errors of the past, rather than working to avoid the dangerous consequences of a renewed U.S.-Russian confrontation. But ultimately,Moscow will have to make its own decisions.Given the Kremlin’s history of poor policy choices, a clash may come whether Washington likes it or not.And should that happen, the United States must approach this rivalry with greater realism and determination than it has displayed in its halfhearted attempts at partnership. Download 0.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|