Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Deterrence Solves Middle East War

Nuclear deterrence checks threats of Middle East escalation - Tehran proves

Cooper and Brackman 9 [Rabbi Abraham is associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Harold, a historian, is a consultant to the Wiesenthal Center, US News, May 27, http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/05/27/iran-missile-test-shows-israels-nuclear-deterrent-is-essential_print.html]

Policy makers who want a successful two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should think twice before they revise U.S. nonproliferation policy of calculated silence about Israel's undeclared nuclear deterrent. Against the backdrop of Tehran's genocidal threats to Israel, its lengthening missile reach, and its destabilizing campaign against Egypt, the U.S. and its European allies should be counting on Israel's nuclear deterrence, not seeking ways to degrade it. Far from stabilizing the region, any change in U.S. policy could unleash the nuclear dominos in the world's most dangerous neighborhood. Tehran's missile launch sent an unmistakable challenge to Mr. Obama. The president's response should leave no ambiguities about Israel's continued right to maintain her nuclear deterrence.

Deterrence Solves Terrorism

Deterrence solves terrorism- coalitions

Biden 4/17 [Joe, Vice President of the United States, Los Angeles Times, Lexis]

When I joined the Senate in 1973, crafting nuclear policy meant mastering arcane issues like nuclear stability and deterrence theory. With the end of the Cold War and a new relationship between our country and Russia, thankfully these subjects no longer dominate public discourse. Today, the danger of deliberate, global nuclear war has all but disappeared, but the nuclear threats we face from terrorists and non-nuclear states seeking to acquire such weapons are graver than ever. On Tuesday, President Obama took an important step toward addressing these threats by releasing a plan that will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy while ensuring that our nuclear arsenal remains safe, secure and effective for as long as it is needed. The Nuclear Posture Review outlines a strategy, supported unanimously by the national security cabinet, for greater security from nuclear dangers and implements the agenda that President Obama first outlined in Prague just over a year ago to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them. This new strategy, a sharp departure from previous Nuclear Posture Reviews released in 2001 and 1994, leaves Cold War thinking behind. It recognizes that the greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by extremists and the spread of nuclear weapons to an increasing number of states. From now on, decisions about the number of weapons we have and how they are deployed will take nonproliferation and counter-terrorism into account, rather than being solely based on the objective of stable deterrence.

***WAR***

War Turns Oil Dependence

War increases our dependence of Fossil Fuels

Herizons 8 [January 1, Herizon’s Newspaper, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33712860_ITM]

The U.S. women's anti-war group CODEPINK has spun off a green campaign that makes a link between the Iraq war and global warming. Its slogan: No War. No Warming. According to CODEPINK's website: "The war is a direct result of our addiction to oil, and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq is further perpetuating our need for it." The U.S. military is the single largest single consumer of petroleum in the world. "As our military grows, so does our dependence on oil. While chaos and death tolls in Iraq heighten, temperatures continue to rise," the group notes. The U.S. military uses 100 million barrels of oil a year for its aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities. One hundred million barrels of petroleum is enough fuel 7.6 million cars to drive 15,000 miles each year. Jet fuel constitutes nearly 70 percent of the military's petroleum use. "It is necessary that we end our addiction to oil and stop the war, as it would enable us to better use our resources to develop a green economy," concludes CODEPINK.

War Turns Rights/Liberties

War restricts freedoms, paving the way for authortarianism
Hoeffler 3 [Anke, Centre for the Study of African Economies and St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, Marta Reynal-Querol, The World Bank, March, http://www.patrir.ro/london/september/Costs%20of%20Conflict%20Mapping/2003_Hoeffler_Reynal.pdf, accessed 7/18]

For civil war to have some redeeming features, the most hopeful areas would be policies, political institutions, and human rights. The impact of civil war on each of these can, to an extent, be measured. With respect to policy we use a measure adopted by the World Bank – the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA). The CPIA is an assessment on a five-point scale of economic policy in four areas – macro, structural, social, and public sector management. While what constitutes ‘good’ policies can be controversial; there is a wider consensus on the recognition of bad policies, and unfortunately, civil war countries tend to be at this end of the spectrum. Those low- income countries that are neither at war nor in the first decade of post-war peace have on average a CPIA score of 2.75. Post-conflict countries, averaged over the first decade of peace, have a CPIA score of only 2.52. Although the numbers are close together, they actually reflect quite a substantial difference in policies. All four policy areas are worse in post-conflict societies – the macro-economy is less stable, structural policies such as trade and infrastructure are less conducive to growth, social policies are less inclusive, and the public sector is less well-managed. Civil war is thus not normally a catalyst for policy improvement but rather for policy deterioration. With respect the extent to which political institutions are democratic, we use the standard political science index – ‘Polity IV’9. This is a ten-point scale; as with the CPIA the bottom end of the range is probably more clear-cut than the top. The typical low-income country that is neither at war nor in post-war peace has a score of 2.11. Countries in the first decade of post-war peace average a score of only 1.49. Hence, again on average civil war leads to a deterioration rather than an improvement in political institutions. A related measure is an index of political freedoms compiled by Freedom House10. This is a seven-point scale in which, unlike the other indices, a low score is better than a high score. The comparable numbers are 4.79 and 5.66. Hence, again civil war leaves a legacy of reduced freedom rather than increased freedom.