2015-2016 Impact Defense Updates - NDI

Alphabetized. Sections based on most likely impacts this coming year. No Hegemony impact defense will
be posted in this file (its already been posted.)
Blake, GGAL Lab, NDI 2015.
Cyber
 EMP Attack
An EMP attack poses no threat
Hype logistically impossible and wont take down the US
US wont retaliate with nukes because nobody will have died
Deterrence means its not an effective attack.
Alarmism - Their evidence is bloggers who construe data to tell an apocalyptic story

Farley 9 - Robert Farley, contributor to the Institute for Policy Studies, October 16, 2009 "The EMP Threat: Lots of Hype, Little
Traction" www.rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/the_emp_threat_lots_of_hype_little_traction

Uncertainty regarding the effect of EMP has fed alarmist predictions about overall impact. For example, although there is agreement that
high-altitude nuclear detonations can cause widespread damage to the electric grid and to electronic and digital equipment, there is little agreement on the size of the nuclear
weapon necessary to cause significant, long-lasting destruction. The test that damaged electronic equipment in Hawaii measured 1.4 megatons, roughly one hundred times
larger than the most powerful nuclear test attributed to North Korea. However, numerous EMP awareness advocates (and some members of the EMP Commission) have
argued that a much smaller warhead could destroy electronics from the East Coast to the Midwest. In the absence of conclusive research and testing, the exact size of the
explosion necessary to create a devastating EMP remains unknown. Many
weapons experts doubt that an EMP attack could cause lasting or
irreversible damage. Stephen Younger, former senior fellow at Los Alamos National Lab and director at the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, argues that while an EMP might create problems in the short term, it is unlikely to cause long-term
devastation. Similarly, observers have questioned the capacity of North Korea or Iran, much less a terrorist organization, to
develop a warhead sophisticated enough to cause widespread EMP damage. Nick Schwellenbach, a former researcher at Project on Government
Oversight, suggests that the idea of a small, EMP-optimized warhead is absurd: "You have a lot of points of failure in order to get to a warhead that is EMP optimized. [Y]ou
need specialized machine tools, you need capital, but to create a weapon that creates the secondary effect that you're talking about, that's something even we can't do right
now. [9] At this point, neither Iran nor North Korea possess a missile capable of delivering an EMP attack against the United
States. However, Graham, as well as Peter Pry, the president of EMPACT America and former senior staffer with the EMP Commission, have argued in Congressional
testimony that Iran could launch a medium-range ballistic missile from an offshore barge or freighter, thus giving the Islamic Republic first-strike capability. Moreover, EMP
awareness advocates have argued that if terrorists acquired a ballistic missile and a nuclear warhead, they could conduct the same kind of offshore attack. The
strategic
logic of an EMP attack on the United States remains unclear, and skeptics doubts mostly focus on the strategic implausibility of such attacks.
Under the most aggressive assumptions, a first-strike EMP attack might cause widespread economic damage. However, under no scenario would the
attack eliminate the ability of the U.S. military to respond . Al Mauroni of the defense contractor Science Applications International Corporation argues
that the national command authority would be able to identify where a missile came from, determine the effects of such an attack, and respond with nuclear weaponsnot
necessarily just for an EMP effectagainst the adversarial nation. [10] Former Rep. Curt Weldon, who gave the EMPACT conferences opening address, argued back in 1997
that it
would be politically difficult for the United States to respond to such an attack, as no cities will have been destroyed and
no lives lost (at least initially), a claim which other EMP awareness advocates have echoed. However, that the United States would not respond with
overwhelming military force to a successful EMP attack strains credulity. EMP awareness advocates have thus far failed to offer a convincing motive for why a
rogue state would use its scarce nuclear weapons in a first-strike that might not work, and that would in any case leave the attacker open to a devastating counterattack. EMP
as a second-strike deterrent fares no better; the strategic logic of deterrence demands that any retaliatory strike be as lethal and as secure
as possible, and it is highly unlikely that any state would rely on unproven weaponry of uncertain lethality to dissuade an attack. While terrorists may have different
incentives, the road to a functional EMP capability is much rockier for a terrorist group than a state. At a minimum, the terrorist group would need to acquire and master the
operation of a nuclear weapon and a ballistic missile, two steps further than any known group has gone.
 Grids
*Grid shut down is physically impossible for 3 reasons and their impact is media fable-telling
Malware means nothing they have no warrant as to why malware means they can shut down the grid

Media outlets misinterpreted what the NSA director said he said the can only take down very segmented parts of the grid

Its like trying to rob 100 banks at once each part of the infrastructure uses different hardware and software

Pollet 14 - JONATHAN POLLET, founder of Red Tiger Security, and a 17 year veteran of the US ciritcal infrastructure Nov. 23,
2014 "Here's What Chinese Hackers Can Actually Do To The US Power Grid Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-
hackers-can-do-to-our-power-grid-2014-11#ixzz3hTq8klee" www.businessinsider.com/what-hackers-can-do-to-our-power-
grid-2014-11 *Edited for ableist language*

Theres been a lot of discussion lately about the risks posed by hackers to Americas critical infrastructure systems, with terms
like cyber-Pearl Harbor and cyber-9/11 being bandied about by government officials and other prominent figures. Invariably, one of the worst
scenarios often depicted by these cyberwar predictions is an attack on the US power grid that would cause a widespread
blackout. In his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on November 20th, NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers went into some detail on those risks: House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers: It was determined that malware was on those (critical infrastructure) systems. Can you be
a little more definitive about what does that mean? If Im on that system and I want to do some harm, what does that do ?
Do the lights go out? Do we stop pumping water? What does that really mean? And the fact that it was there, does that mean
they already have the capability to flip the switch if they wanted to? Admiral Michael Rogers: Well let me address the last part first. There
shouldnt be any doubt in our minds that there are nation-states and groups out there that have the capability to do that. To
enter our systems, to enter those industrial control systems, and to shut down, forestall our ability to operate, our basic infrastructure. Whether its generating power across
this nation, whether its moving water and fuel Once youre into the system and youre able to do that, it enables you to do things like, if I want to tell power turbines to go
offline and stop generating power, you can do that. If I wanted to segment the transmission system so that you couldnt distribute the power that was coming out of the
power stations, this would enable you to do that. It enables you to shut down very segmented, very tailored parts of our infrastructure. A
number of media outlets
interpreted these comments as a claim by the NSA that a country like China could take down our nations power grid. But is
that what the NSA director really said? And is a widespread, national blackout caused by hackers a realistic scenario? While its
easy to draw that conclusion from the generalized nature of Adm. Rogers responses, its important to re-read the last line in that exchange: It enables you to shut down very
segmented, very tailored parts of our infrastructure. (Emphasis added.) This line is important because it clarifies the types of risks were actually talking about when it comes
to the electric grid. No, hackers cant take down the entire, or even a widespread portion of the US electric grid. From a logistical
standpoint, this would be far too difficult to realistically pull off - and its not what we should be devoting our attention to. What is more realistic is for a
cyber attack to cripple [devastate] an individual utility, causing a blackout or disruption of service at the local level. The power grid is vulnerable to attack theres no
question about that. In my own work, testing the security readiness of US and global energy companies and utilities, I regularly find serious vulnerabilities on these networks
and I am often called in to deal with compromises that have already taken place including cyber-espionage activities by state-sponsored groups. Adm. Rogers testimony is
extremely important as it provides a strong authoritative voice to what is an urgent problem facing this country right now: Americas critical infrastructure is vulnerable to
attack, its a complicated problem to fix it and an attack is eminent. But the notion that a hacker could basically turn off the countrys power with the flip of a switch, as Rep.
Rogers called it, is more science fiction than reality. Heres why: The
US energy grid is owned and operated by hundreds of various regional
utilities that all use different hardware and software. That means hackers would have to tunnel into hundreds of diverse
networks, which would take several years, and then write custom exploits which are unique for each specific environment
theyre targeting. For those who would argue that China or Russia have the money, time and capability to do that, try to understand that
developing a functional exploit, getting it placed on the exact part of the network that it needs to be on in order to have the
desired effect (i.e., specific programmable logic controllers that run the utilitys machinery), then keeping it hidden on that network over a period of
months or years while security teams try to hunt it down, and doing all of this at the same time on hundreds of networks is
extremely difficult. To put it in perspective, it would be like trying to rob a hundred different banks at the exact same time.
However, even if a hacker group was able to pull this off, there is a catch-all that would create yet another hurdle. There are

high-voltage DC interconnects at various points that were specifically designed to prevent widespread outages. By clarifying
what we mean when we warn about attacks on the electric grid and other critical infrastructure, Im not trying to downplay this risk at all. US critical infrastructure networks,
which include the electric grid, utilities, oil/gas refineries and pipelines, water treatment plants, transportation networks, etc., are all highly vulnerable to cyber attacks, and
this threat should be prioritized at the highest level by the federal government. In the meantime, the individual asset owners who are the ones technically responsible for
securing their networks and facilities need to start taking more aggressive steps immediately to guard against highly sophisticated cyber actors. But
the real risk when
it comes to the electric grid specifically is of localized disruptions in service not a widespread outage. It would be extremely
difficult for hackers, without an almost superhuman effort, to cause a power outage that stretched across the country.
Total shut-down would be next to impossible and the impact is overblown literally squirrels statistically
pose more of a threat
Chow 14 - Eugene K. Chow, journalist for the Week January 28, 2014 "Forget hackers: Squirrels are a bigger threat to
America's power grid" theweek.com/articles/452311/forget-hackers-squirrels-are-bigger-threat-americas-power-grid *Edited
for Ableist language*

While American lawmakers and security officials repeatedly warn of a catastrophic cyberattack that will cripple [devastate] the
nation's power grids, in reality, squirrels and tree branches are proving more troublesome than hackers when it comes to
actual power outages. According to numerous reports and headlines: America's power grid is "too vulnerable to cyberattack;" thousands will die if terrorists attack the grid; cyber attacks could keep America in the dark for nine to 18 months; and
electric companies face "daily" cyber attacks, which over a month can build to 10,000. With cyber security so abysmal, incentive so high, and attacks constant, why hasn't

there been a massive hacker-triggered power failure yet? Simply put, because it's not that easy. To be clear, attacks on the power grid would be disastrous and
there are significant gaps that must be addressed procedures improved, vulnerabilities patched, software updated but even with these glaring weaknesses, an ordinary hacker wouldn't be able to take down the

electrical grid. Turning America's lights off remotely is a complex operation that requires not only hacking expertise but an
array of intelligence and analysis something only the most sophisticated terrorist organizations or nation states can muster. Take one of the grid's greatest cyber
vulnerabilities, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) software. It allows utility companies to remotely monitor and control facilities, which has the unfortunate consequence of also giving hackers the ability to
sabotage the grid from afar. While terrifying in theory, cyber security expert Bruce Schneier explains that SCADA vulnerabilities are "overblown" and the reports are
"hype." Actually hacking into SCADA software and causing physical damage to a system is exceptionally difficult. In fact, the only known SCADA
attack to cause damage was the Stuxnet virus, which was created after years of intensive research and espionage by Israel and America's most advanced spies and engineers to damage a secret Iranian nuclear facility. Veteran intelligence officer Michael Tanji points out in Wired

just how complex such an attack would be. For starters SCADA systems are "rarely connected directly to the public internet," which makes "gaining access to
grid-controlling networks a challenge for all but the most dedicated, motivated and skilled nation-states, in other words." If
hackers were somehow able to enter the system, to actually cause physical damage Tanji explains, they would still need to
have advanced intelligence gathering abilities to learn which SCADA software utilities are running, how they are connected,
what the generator blueprints look like, which weaknesses exist in equipment, how to exploit those weaknesses, which
machines are linked, how to override safety mechanisms and keep engineers or automatic safeguards from stepping in, and
much more. In other words, "a purely online approach is simply not going to provide you with the type and volume of information you
are going to need to accomplish your mission," Tanji said. "You're going to have to deploy national-level resources." Meanwhile, as lawmakers worry over these highly sophisticated hypothetical attacks, the nation's aging
power grid is falling apart all by itself. In its annual report on US infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the electric grid, some of which dates back to the 1880s, a "D-plus" as the number of power failures continues to rise. According to a

study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, between 1965 and 1988, there were three major power failures.
From 2000 to 2005, there were 11 and from 2006 to 2009, there were 33. The primary cause of these failures was weather.
More troubling is the fact that the second largest blackout in history, the 2003 Northeast blackout that left more than 50 million without power for two days, was caused by power lines brushing
against tree branches in Ohio. Even squirrels are proving to be, well, a squirrelly problem. No one really knows how much
damage the rodents do, but it's certainly more than hackers manage . A cursory analysis in The New York Times found that over a four month span last year, squirrels caused
at least 50 power outages across the country and those were just the ones that made the news. And while no one knows how many people are affected by squirrel-related outages each year, in just two days last June, four squirrel-related
incidents left more than 18,000 homes in four different states in the dark. How do squirrels manage such mayhem? They simply chew through wires or scamper over fragile electrical

equipment. If squirrels weren't troublesome enough, on the more malicious end, there has been a sharp increase in the number of physical attacks on America's energy infrastructure
and authorities are struggling to find who's responsible. Last year, Arkansas suffered three separate attacks on the electrical grid that left thousands without power including a substation being lit on fire, the

chopping down of two key utility poles with a stolen tractor, and an attempt to use a train to pull down a 100-foot transmission tower. Meanwhile in California, an
individual entered a substation and cut several cables, knocking out 911 calls, landlines, and cell service in the area before
firing a high-powered rifle at transformers, which ultimately shut down the transformer bank. Military-grade hackers could certainly trigger a blackout for the ages,
but with saboteurs waltzing into power stations and causing mayhem with impunity, tree branches leaving millions in the dark, and squirrels wrecking havoc, there are more clear and present dangers to worry about.

Solar flares wreak havoc on the grid historically more likely

Kramer 13 - Miriam Kramer, Executive publisher for space.com July 02, 2013 Scientists Work to Protect Earth's Power Grids
from Extreme Solar Storms http://www.space.com/21805-solar-storms-electrical-grids-research.html

There is always a small amount of natural electricity running through the ground. Under most circumstances, this electricity is
harmless; however, a solar storm can exacerbate the currents underfoot, possible wreaking havoc on electrically linked
systems around the world. When solar storms hit the Earth in a certain way, it can disrupt the Earth's magnetic field, allowing
strong electric currents in the upper atmosphere to induce currents on the ground, BGS officials said. "The size of the electrical
currents generated depends on a number of factors, such as the local bedrock type and the amount of water within the
ground," BGS officials said in a statement. "The ground currents can become large enough to potentially cause problems to
technology, such as high-voltage power grids, railway switches and long pipelines."
 War
Cyber war is a myth
Hallinan 12 - Conn M. Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus Jan. 10, 2012 "Cyber War: Hype or Reality?"
https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/cyber-war-hype-or-reality/ *Edited for ableist language*

During his confirmation hearings this past June, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned the Senate, The next Pearl
Harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack that cripples [devastates] our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our
governmental systems. It was powerful imagery: a mighty fleet reduced to smoking ruin, an expansionist Asian power at the nations doorstep. But is cyber war
really a threat? Can cyber war actually cripple [devastate] the U.S., and who might these computer terrorists be? Or is the language just sturm und
drang spun up by a coalition of major arms manufacturers, the Pentagon, and Internet security firms, allied with China bashers aimed at launching a new Cold War in Asia?
The language is sobering. Former White House Security Aide Richard Clarke, author of Cyberwar, conjures up an apocalyptic future of paralyzed U.S. cities, subways crashing,
planes literally falling out of the sky, and thousands dead. Retired Admiral and Bush administration National Intelligence Director, Mike McConnell grimly warns The United
States is fighting a cyber war today and we are losing. Much of this rhetoric is aimed at China. According to U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chair of the House
Intelligence Committee, the Chinese government has launched a predatory campaign of cyber theft that has reached an intolerable level. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-
CA) charges that a significant portion of cyber attacks on U.S. companies emanate from China. Former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden told
Congress, I stand back in awe of the breadth, depth, sophistication, and persistence of the Chinese espionage effort against the United States of America. China has been
accused of hacking into the Pentagon, the International Monetary Fund, the French government, the CIA, and stealing information from major U.S. arms maker Boeing, and
the Japanese firm Mitsubishi. The latter builds the American high performance fighter, the F-15. The Pentagon has even developed a policy strategy that considers major
cyber attacks to be acts of war, triggering what could be a military response. If you shut down our power grid, one Defense official told the Wall Street Journal, maybe we
will put a missile down one of your smokestacks. But consider the sources for all this scare talk: Clarke is the chair of a firm that consults on cyber security, and McConnell is
the executive vice-president of defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Both are currently doing business with the Pentagon. Arms
giants like Lockheed Martin,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and other munitions manufactures are moving heavily into the cyber security market. In 2010, Boeing
snapped up Argon ST and Narus, two cyber security firms with an estimated value of $2.4 billion. Raytheon bought Applied Signal
Technology, General Dynamics absorbed Network Connectivity Solutions, and Britains major arms firm, BAE, purchased Norkom and ETI. There is a feeding frenzy
right now to provide products and services to meet the demands of governments, law enforcement and the military, says Ron
Deibert, director of the Canada Center for Global Security Studies. There are big bucks at stake. Between the Defense Department and Homeland
Security, the U.S. will spend some $10.5 billion for cyber security by 2015. The Pentagons new Cyber Command is slated to have a staff of 10,000, and according to Northrop
executive Kent Schneider, the market for cyber arms and security in the U.S. is $100 billion. But
is cyber war everything it is cracked up to be, and is the
U.S. really way behind the curve in the scramble to develop cyber weapons? According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in his New
Yorker article The Online Threat, the potential for cyber mayhem has been exaggerated and the Defense Department and cyber security firms have blurred the line
between cyber espionage and cyber war. The former is the kind of thing that goes on, day in and day out, between governments and industry, except its medium is the
Internet. The latter is an attack on another countrys ability to wage war, defend itself, or run its basic infrastructure. Most experts say the end-of-the-world scenarios drawn
up by people like Clarke are largely fiction. How could an enemy shut down the U.S. national power grid when there is no such thing? A
cyber attack would have to
disrupt more than 100 separate power systems throughout the nation to crash the U.S. grid. Most financial institutions are
also protected. The one example of a successful cyber attack in that area was an apparent North Korean cyber assault this past
march on the South Korean bank Nonghyup that crashed the institutions computers. But an investigation found that the bank
had been extremely remiss in changing passwords or controlling access to its computers. According to Peter Sommer, author
of Reducing Systems Cybersecurity Risk, the cyber threat to banks is a bit of nonsense. However, given that many Americans rely on
computers, cell phones, I-Pads, smart phones and the like, any hint that an enemy could disrupt access to those devices is likely to get attention. Throw in some scary
scenarios and a cunning enemyChinaand its pretty easy to make people nervous. But contrary to McConnells statement, the U.S. is more advanced in computers than
other countries in the world, and the charge that the U.S. is behind the curve sounds suspiciously like the bomber gap with the Russians in the 50s and the missile gap in
the 1960s. Both were illusions that had more to do with U.S. presidential elections and arms industry lobbying than anything in the real world. The
focus on the
China threat certainly fits the Obama administrations recent strategic pivot toward Africa and Asia. China draws significant
resources from Africa, including oil, gas, copper, and iron ore, and Beijing is beginning to reassert itself in south and east Asia.
The U.S. now has a separate military command for AfricaAfricomand the White House recently excluded U.S. military
forces in the Asia theatre from any cutbacks. Washington is also deploying U.S. Marines in Australia. As U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton told the National Defense University this past August, We know we face some long-term challenges about how
we are going to cope with what the rise of China means. But James Lewis, an expert on Chinese cyber espionage, told Hersh that the Chinese have no
intention of attacking U.S. financial services since they own a considerable portion of them. According to Lewis, current Chinese officials told him a cyber-war attack would
do as much economic harm to us as to you. The U.S. is Chinas largest trading partner and Beijing holds over a trillion dollars in U.S. securities. There
is also a certain
irony to the accusations aimed at China. According to the New York Times, the U.S.and Israeldesigned the Stuxnet virus
that has infected some 30,000 computers in Iran and set back Teherans nuclear program. The virus has also turned up in
China, Pakistan, and Indonesia. In terms of cyber war, the U.S. is ahead of the curve, not behind. What all this scare talk has done is
allow the U.S. military to muscle its way into cyber security in a way that could potentially allow it to monitor virtually everything on the Internet, including personal
computers and email. In fact, the military has resisted a push to insure cyber security through the use of encryption because that would prevent the Pentagon from tapping
into Internet traffic. Does China really pose a threat to the U.S.? There is no question that China-based computers have hacked into
a variety of governmental agencies and private companies (as have Russians, Israelis, Americans, French, Taiwanese, South
Koreans, etc.in short everyone spies on everyone), but few observers think that China has any intention of going to war with
the much more powerful U.S. However, Beijing makes a handy bug-a-boo. One four-star admiral told Hersh that in arguing against budget cuts, the military needs
an enemy and its settled on China. It would not be the first time that ploy was used. If the Pentagons push is successful, it could result in an almost total loss of privacy for
most Americans, as well as the creation of a vast and expensive new security bureaucracy. Give a government the power to monitor the Internet, says Sommers, and it will do
it. In this electronic field of dreams, if we build it, they will use it.

Nobody dies its not a war

Freedberg 13 - SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. September 10, 2013 "Cyberwar Is Over Hyped: It Aint War Til Someone Dies"
breakingdefense.com/2013/09/cyberwar-is-over-hyped-it-aint-war-til-someone-dies/
So the military value of cyber attacks, at least for now, is to enable and supplement physical strikes, not to substitute for them. Youre unlikely to get a,
quote, war that happens between two states purely in cyberspace, said the fourth panelist, former British Ministry of Defense official Ian Wallace, when I
called him after the Brookings event. That doesnt mean we dont need to pay attention to cyber capabilities in relation to wars that are fought in
cyberspace as well as other domains, such as the land, air, sea, and space. Just because cyber capabilities may be best classified as sabotage, subversion,
espionage, that doesnt mean that those instruments arent going to be useful in fighting a war. Cyber needs to considered alongside traditional military
operations, Healey agreed, but Im doubtful it ever gets too fully integrated, he told me. It can be used more like special operations, for clandestine
strikes on specific, high-value targets, he said. With large-scale cyber attacks, however, the effects are far too uncertain. Its hard enough to ensure a
physical bomb lands in the right place, even with precision guidance ask the staff of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade if you doubt it and to determine
afterwards whether the explosion destroyed, damaged, or just shook up the actual target. But at least commanders, their legal counsels and their political
masters have decades of experience to draw on with physical attacks. Not so in cyberspace. Since cyber weapons attack networks, however, and networks
are by definition interconnected in complex ways, its hard to predict how attacking one element will affect the whole system especially if the weapon is a
computer virus that can self-replicate across the web. You cant be sure its going to cascade or not, Healey told me. Western militaries swore off
biological and chemical weapons not only for ethical reasons but because their military effects were so difficult to control. (In one case in the eighties, for
example, an Iraqi chemical attack on an Iranian position drifted back downhill onto the Iraqis). The same concerns may inhibit military use of cyber, at least
in the West: Non-western militaries Iranians, Russians, Chinese that dont necessarily care about that stuff that much, they might make different
decisions, Healey said. Healey doesnt think much of some of the ethical and strategic choices the US has made, either. Im so against things like Stuxnet
[and] how aggressive the NSA has been, he said at Brookings. Weve got glass infrastructure and we shouldnt be throwing stones. Indeed, Healey
argued that the military has grown too dominant in cybersecurity policy, which has been militarized in large part because of over-hyped fears of
cyberwar.
Disease
 *Generic Extinction
We arent in a unique globalized age disease travel is down and airplanes dont make it any easier to
spread
Philip Alcabes, writer for the Washington Post and professor of urban public health at Hunter College of the City University.
March 15, 2009 "5 Myths About Pandemic Panic" www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031203113.html

1. Infectious diseases are spreading faster than ever. The World Health Organization made this claim in a 2007 report. But
even before the advent of commercial air travel, diseases had no trouble moving from place to place. In the 1490s, syphilis
rode Spanish ships across the Atlantic (whether from the New World to the Old or vice versa is subject to debate) in a matter
of weeks, then made its way through Europe and Asia. In the 1820s, military and merchant ships carried cholera from India to
the Middle East, Africa and Europe. At the end of World War I, the "Spanish flu" virus crossed the ocean on troop ships,
ravaged the forces fighting in Europe and then spread around the world to produce the 1918 pandemic. The death toll topped
40 million. In 2003, SARS showed that although air travel can introduce a disease to a new location, it won't necessarily cause
the illness to spiral out of control. Because public officials quickly contained the few SARS outbreaks caused by infected
people on planes, the 774 deaths were concentrated in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada. Tuberculosis is
another airborne illness that can be controlled. Studies show that it's extremely unlikely for the disease to be transmitted in
airplane cabins. (Remember the passenger with drug-resistant TB who traveled from Atlanta to Paris in 2007? No one else
came down with it.) So germs do fly, but outbreaks don't go global that much more readily than they did before. And we can
handle most of them by monitoring infectious people and distributing medicine quickly -- precautions that have been in place
for years and even centuries.

No super virus - Strong diseases that kill to effectively the host will mutate to become more mild
Green, writer for world building, July 1 2015 "Is non-manmade pandemic a realistic threat to modern first world?"
worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/19945/is-non-manmade-pandemic-a-realistic-threat-to-modern-first-world

The problem with short gestation period diseases is if you, as the disease, kill your host too quickly then you don't get a chance
to spread yourself around as much. Diseases that kill quickly typically turn into diseases that don't kill too quickly because a
fast-killer doesn't "survive" long in the population while tamer mutations have more time to expose other hosts. A virus will
change over time in relation to the selection pressure of a host's immune system (herd immunity may play a factor too). The
longer a virus survives and the more hosts it infects, the greater the chance for mutation. There's this article from 1999 that
talks about mutation rates in RNA viruses. (I'm sure there are newer, better articles to be had.) The mutation rates are stupid
high on the order of around 75% per genome per replication. The mutation rate is much lower for DNA-based microbes
(including both viral and cellular organisms) at .34%. The authors of the paper state that these numbers are hard to gauge
because the mediocre quality of the data. If that's just one nucleotide involved in the mutation, at trillions or quadrillions of
replications across many different hosts, there will be mutation.

Risk is decreasing - cures

Ridley 8/17/12 [Matt Ridley, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity
Evolves, Apocalypse Not: Heres Why You Shouldnt Worry About End Times,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/]

The emergence of AIDS led to a theory that other viruses would spring from tropical rain forests to wreak revenge on
humankind for its ecological sins. That, at least, was the implication of Laurie Garretts 1994 book, The Coming Plague: Newly
Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance. The most prominent candidate was Ebola, the hemorrhagic fever that starred in
Richard Prestons The Hot Zone, published the same year. Writer Stephen King called the book one of the most horrifying
things Ive ever read. Right on cue, Ebola appeared again in the Congo in 1995, but it soon disappeared. Far from being a
harbinger, HIV was the only new tropical virus to go pandemic in 50 years. In the 1980s British cattle began dying from mad
cow disease, caused by an infectious agent in feed that was derived from the remains of other cows. When people, too, began
to catch this disease, predictions of the scale of the epidemic quickly turned terrifying: Up to 136,000 would die, according to
one study. A pathologist warned that the British have to prepare for perhaps thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of
thousands, of cases of vCJD [new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human manifestation of mad cow] coming down the
line. Yet the total number of deaths so far in the UK has been 176, with just five occurring in 2011 and none so far in 2012. In
2003 it was SARS, a virus from civet cats, that ineffectively but inconveniently led to quarantines in Beijing and Toronto amid
predictions of global Armageddon. SARS subsided within a year, after killing just 774 people. In 2005 it was bird flu, described
at the time by a United Nations official as being like a combination of global warming and HIV/AIDS 10 times faster than its
running at the moment. The World Health Organizations official forecast was 2 million to 7.4 million dead. In fact, by late
2007, when the disease petered out, the death toll was roughly 200. In 2009 it was Mexican swine flu. WHO director general
Margaret Chan said: It really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic. The outbreak proved to be a normal
flu episode.The truth is, a new global pandemic is growing less likely, not more. Mass migration to cities means the
opportunity for viruses to jump from wildlife to the human species has not risen and has possibly even declined, despite media
hype to the contrary. Water- and insect-borne infectionsgenerally the most lethalare declining as living standards slowly
improve. Its true that casual-contact infections such as colds are thrivingbut only by being mild enough that their victims can
soldier on with work and social engagements, thereby allowing the virus to spread. Even if a lethal virus does go global, the
ability of medical science to sequence its genome and devise a vaccine or cure is getting better all the time.

Burnout - Diseases strong enough to cause quick deaths kill their hosts too fast to spread rapidly.
Lafee 9 (Viruses versus hosts: a battle as old as time, SCOTT MAY 3,
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/may/03/1n3virus01745-viruses-versus-hosts-battle-old-time/?uniontrib)

Generally speaking, it's not in a virus's best interest to kill its host. Deadly viruses such as Ebola and SARS are self-limiting
because they kill too effectively and quickly to spread widely. Flu viruses do kill, but they aren't considered especially deadly.
The fatality rate of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic was less than 2.5 percent, and most of those deaths are now attributed to
secondary bacterial infections. The historic fatality rate for influenza pandemics is less than 0.1 percent. Humans make
imperfect hosts for the nastiest flu viruses, Sette said. From the point of view of the virus, infecting humans can be a dead
end. We sicken and die too soon.
 Bioprinting
Status quo solves tens of millions have been poured into bioprinting cures
WFB Medical Center 13 - Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center 09/26/2013 "Wake Forest Baptist Leads $24 Million Project
to Develop 'Body on a Chip'" www.mdtmag.com/news/2013/09/wake-forest-baptist-leads-24-million-project-develop-body-
chip

Whether it's the Ebola virus or Sarin and Ricin, a key to responding to chemical or biological attacks is having effective
antidotes at the ready. To accelerate the development of new therapies, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center's Institute for
Regenerative Medicine is leading a unique $24 million federally funded project to develop a "body on a chip" that will be used
to develop these countermeasures. This contractual effort was awarded by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Pacific
(SSC Pacific), on behalf of Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). The goal is to build a miniaturized system of human organs
to model the body's response to harmful agents and develop potential therapies. This approach has the potential to reduce the
need for testing in animals, which is expensive, slow, and has results that aren't always applicable to people. Photos of the
Day: Building a 'Body' Watch the RadidFire video about this project. "Miniature lab-engineered, organ-like hearts, lungs, livers
and blood vessels linked together with a circulating blood substitute will be used both to predict the effects of chemical
and biologic agents and to test the effectiveness of potential treatments," said Anthony Atala, M.D., institute director and lead
investigator on the project. "We are fortunate to have experts from around the country join us on this effort." The "body on a
chip" concept is possible because of advances in micro-tissue engineering and micro-fluidics technologies. It is based on similar
accomplishments in the electronics industry. Rather than miniaturizing electronics on a chip, however, researchers are
miniaturizing human organs, monitoring devices and laboratory processes.

Bioprinting is only accessible to top universities and scientists and is mainly used to print vital organs. If
they could bioprint a disease, doctors could bioprint a cure for it
3DFileMarket - blog run by professional scientists at various universities, October 31, 2014 "Bioprinting and 3Dprinting a
potential lifesaving use of the technology." 3dfilemarket.com/bioprinting-3dprinting-potential-lifesaving-use-technology

There have been many innovative uses of 3dprinting that make the news almost every day. 3Dprinting cars and even houses
are just a few examples of how fast the technology is emerging. It is widely recognised that the medical industry stands to
make great strides from the use of 3dprinting through research and development and this was evidenced at the 3Dprintshow
in London. During the 3Dprintshow there was a stand in the 3dprinted hospital section that caught my eye over all other
exhibitors. There was no flashy corporate stand dominating the event hall, no pushy sales reps promoting their printers, just a
desk with a 3dprinter and an information board explaining the project, along with Alan J Faulhner-jones. Alan is a PHD student
from Heriot Watt University, who won the Inspirational individual award in the 3dprintshow annual awards ceremony. Alan
won the award for creating a bioprinter that is capable of 3dprinting human cells with the aim of using the printer to
hopefully one day help cure some of the worlds most common diseases. Alan explained that, New drug development can
take more than 10 years and only around 16% of drug candidates that begin pre-clinical testing are approved for human use.
Some of this low success rate is due to the different responses of humans and animal models used for testing. At Heriot-Watt
we are working towards creating micro versions of human organs from human cells, such as the liver. These so called micro-
tissues should produce the same responses that the entire organ would, but on a much smaller scale. The shear scale of this
is truly ground breaking, if we could 3dprint living organs to test out new drugs, this could throw the medical industry on its
head and really advance the fight against some of the most deadly diseases we so often encounter. Alans background is
Robotics & Cybertronics for which he gained a Masters degree at Heriot Watt University and he has since used this expertise to
create the Bioprinter that forms the core element of his PHD studies. Alan explained that, Its a continuous development cycle,
I started my PhD in 2010 and Im currently working on the 4th generation machine now. The biggest challenges lie with the
biology; sometimes cells dont do what you expected they would do. Also, in the first stages of application of the printer Alan
is aiming for liver micro-tissues for drug testing and in theory the technology could then be applied to generating tissues to
repair the body using patients own cells to avoid rejection. This really is ground breaking use of 3dprinting technology and in
terms of impact, it could have the biggest of them all. Alan really has a special project and I wish him all the best with this as I
really believe that this will help the masses. Many people ask me how would 3dprinting benefit them in their lives, well this
project right here could benefit us all in the future. Definitely one to watch.
 Bioterror/Bioprinting
Bioterror threat is hype, its been tried and doesnt work, and disease infrastructure solves.
Dina Fine Maron, associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. September 25, 20 14 "Weaponized Ebola: Is It Really a Bioterror Threat?"
www.scientificamerican.com/article/weaponized-ebola-is-it-really-a-bioterror-threat/

Ebola's exponential spread has rekindled fears that terrorists may seek to turn the virus into a powerful weapon of mass destruction. Such talk has occurred on Capitol Hill and in national security circles. But the financial and logistical challenges of transforming Ebola into a tool of

bioterror makes the concern seem overblownat least as far as widespread devastation is concerned. National security and infectious disease experts agree the
obstacles to a large-scale assault with Ebola are formidable. For starters, a bioterrorist would have to obtain the virus and be able to grow a massive supply in large vats, an extremely costly endeavor. While the virus is easily spread through personal
contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, it would be difficult to manipulate and control. Put simply, a large amount of Ebola in the hands of a rogue group would more likely end

up killing the plotters than making it to the endgame of a bioterrorism mission. To be successful, it would take a state-type [agent]" with more extensive resources, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
told a Congressional committee last week. Already there is historical precedent for states tryingand failingto tap the virus for bioterror. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was growing up large amounts of microbes for potential use in

bioterrorism. That was known through intelligence, Fauci told Scientific American. The Soviets attempted to cultivate smallpox, anthrax, tularemia, botulism and hemorrhagic fevers including Ebola, he says. Yet exactly how the country would

have deployed the microbes remains an area of speculation. The Soviets eventually dropped the project, but they were not the only ones interested in the microbes potential. The Japanese cult Aum

Shinrikyoinfamous for setting off sarin gas in a Tokyo subway in 1995also looked into Ebola as a potential biological weapon. In 1992, they sent a medical group of 40 people ostensibly to help provide aid during an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Their real purpose, however, was to collect some Ebola virus, as Amy Smithson, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, noted in her 2000 report Ataxia. The effort was a flagrant failure, she says. "They

did not get their hands on a culture. Even if Aum Shinrikyo had managed to gather samples of the Ebola virus, it would have been extremely difficult to kill large numbers of
people in countries with a strong health infrastructure such as Japan. Once the virus had been identified and patients isolated, the pathogen would have been

unlikely to spread widely. Still, any terrorist attempting to stoke fears rather than accrue a high body count could have some modicum of success with Ebola. When talking about bioterror, its more
about the terror than it is the bio, Fauci says.

Using diseases is against terrorism motives.

Ackerman and Moran 6 - Gary A. Ackerman and Kevin S. Moran, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) Independent international commission initiated by the
United Nations to present proposals aimed at the greatest possible reduction of the dangers of weapons of mass destruction, including both short-term and long-term approaches. 2006 Bioterrorism
and Threat Assessment http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/No22.pdf

Runs counter to group norms. Despite the conscious decision made by all terrorists to use violence as a tool to influence
others, few terrorist organizations advocate the level of mass, indiscriminate violence associated with WMD. Many terrorist
groups might be expected to reject bioterrorism simply because of its reputation for potentially causing catastrophic,
unmanageable consequences.

The worst case of bioterror scenario happened no extinction

Dove 12 - Alan Dove, PhD in Microbiology, science journalist and former Adjunct Professor at New York University, Whos Afraid of the Big, Bad Bioterrorist? Jan 24 2012,
http://alandove.com/content/2012/01/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-bioterrorist/

The second problem is much more serious. Eliminating the toxins, were left with a list of infectious bacteria and viruses . With a single exception, these organisms are probably near- useless as weapons , and history proves it.There have been at least three

well-documented military-style deployments of infectious agents from the list, plus one deployment of an agent thats not on the list. Im focusing entirely on the modern era, by the way. There are historical reports of armies catapulting plague-ridden corpses over city walls and conquistadors trying to inoculate blankets with Variola (smallpox), but
its not clear those attacks were effective. Those diseases tended to spread like, well, plagues, so theres no telling whether the targets really caught the diseases from the bodies and blankets, or simply picked them up through casual contact with their enemies. Of the four modern biowarfare incidents, two have been fatal. The first was the

1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax incident 100 people , which killed an estimated . In that case, a Soviet-built biological weapons lab accidentally released a large plume of weaponized Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) over a major city. Soviet authorities tried to blame the

second fatal incident

resulting fatalities on bad meat, but in the 1990s Western investigators were finally able to piece together the real story. The also involved anthrax from a government-run lab: the 2001 Amerithrax attacks. That time, a rogue employee (or perhaps employees) of the governments main

Five people died.That gives us 105 deaths, entirely from

bioweapons lab sent weaponized, powdered anthrax through the US postal service. a grand total of around agents that were grown and weaponized in officially-sanctioned and funded

bioweapons research labs. Remember that. the Rajneeshee bioterror attack inoculated
Terrorist groups have also deployed biological weapons twice, and these cases are very instructive. The first was 1984 , in which members of a cult in Oregon

restaurant salad bars with Salmonella nobody died authorities handled itbacteria (an agent thats not on the select list). 751 people got sick, but . Public health as a conventional foodborne Salmonella outbreak, identified

our existing public health infrastructure was entirely adequate

the sources and contained them. Nobody even would have known it was a deliberate attack if a member of the cult hadnt come forward afterward with a confession. Lesson: to

Aum Shinrikyo grew anthrax then sprayed it

respond to a major bioterrorist attack. Thesecond genuine bioterrorist attack took place in 1993. Members of the in cult successfully isolated and a large stock of bacteria, as an aerosol from the roof of a building downtown

Tokyo The cult was well-financed,and had many highly educated members, so this release over the worlds largest city really
.

represented a worst-case scenario Nobody got sick . or died. From the cults perspective, it was a complete and utter failure. Again, the only reason we even found out about it was a post-hoc confession. Aum members later demonstrated their lab skills

by producing Sarin nerve gas, with far deadlier results. Lesson: one of the top select agents is extremely hard to grow and deploy even for relatively skilled non-state groups. Its a really crappy bioterrorist weapon. Taken together, these events point to an uncomfortable but inevitable conclusion: our biodefense industry is a far greater threat to
us than any actual bioterrorists.
 Bird Flu/SARS
Bird Flu and SARS is hype and the death toll is in the hundreds
*Edited for rape comparisons*
Clive Bannister, chief writer for Cracked, August 16, 2007 "The 6 Most Over-Hyped Threats to America (And What Should
Scare You Instead)" www.cracked.com/article_14978_the-6-most-over-hyped-threats-to-america-and-what-should-scare-you-
instead.html

In 2004 and 2005, the government and the media made you believe that SARS was about to break into your house and rape
[infect] you. The St. Petersburg Times , for one, referred to SARS as a "mysterious fever [that] bolted out of south China and spread illness
and death across the globe," and the Rolling Stones headlined a SARS benefit show that drew a crowd of nearly a half a million (which is ironically also the combined age of the
Stones). More recently, Bird Flu has spurred fears across America, with one CNN reporter claiming that "No act of modern warfare, with

the possible exception of a nuclear exchange between major world powers, has the potential to threaten as many lives and
cause as much disruption to the global economy as [Bird Flu]." To be fair, this man slept through 9/11 and nobody remembered to tell him about it. Why You
Should Blow It Off The one major outbreak of SARS resulted in 774 deaths, while the Bird Flu has killed only 191 people worldwide

since 2003. The point is, every few years, a new pandemic du jour comes along to scare the ass off of the American public, and turns out to

be a flop. The only reason people pay so much attention is because Outbreak is replayed on cable all the time and looks scary as shit, however unlikely it may be. (Not the part where Dustin
Hoffman saves America by catching a monkey-that really happens.)
 Censorship
Disease censorship is used to stop biowarfare and doesnt decrease innovation
Kwok-Yung Yuen, Chair of Infectious Disease, Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong January 15 2012 "Kwok-
Yung Yuen: The Hong Kong perspective" www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/481257a.html

Biological warfare is familiar to people living in this part of the world. During the Sino-Japanese War in the 1930s and 1940s, scientists and physicians of the Japanese
army's Unit 731 infected civilians and prisoners of war in Manchuria, China, with Yersinia pestis, the bacterium behind the Black Death, which was first identified in plague
patients in Hong Kong in 1894. When the unit found that the bacteria caused severe organ damage when serially inoculated into prisoners of war, the unit began spreading plague-contaminated fleas
in China, causing outbreaks. Censoring
scientific data for publication will not stop rogue individuals or nations from developing a deadly
and highly transmissible form of H5N1, but it would at least buy some time to find and stockpile the appropriate antivirals,
immunomodulators and vaccines to protect against most variants of H5N1. Even if the publications omit the methods for making such a deadly virus, the
genomic signatures associated with airborne transmissibility should be known to the directors of all public-health laboratories in the WHO surveillance network, after they sign an agreement of
confidentiality. As a scientist working in Hong Kong the site of the first human epidemic of infection by the highly fatal H5N1 virus I appreciate the public-health significance of knowing which
mutations confer airborne transmissibility in an animal model. The
new, much-debated research provides this information. Finding similar genomic
signatures in animal or human viruses collected from the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance Network may alert public-health
workers to an impending epidemic of unthinkable magnitude or severity. But I also appreciate the possibility that such mutants could cause a global disaster if accidentally or deliberately
produced and released into animal and human populations. Consequently, I support the recommendation from the NSABB to remove key details from the papers describing this work.
 Ebola

Impact non unique - Vaccine just released that has had 100% clinical success
Bosely 7/31/15 - Sarah Boseley health editor of the Guardian. She has won a number of awards for her work on HIV/Aids in
Africa, including the One World Media award (twice) and the European section of the Lorenzo Natali prize, awarded by the
European commission. July 31 2015 "Ebola vaccine trial proves 100% successful in Guinea"
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/31/ebola-vaccine-trial-proves-100-successful-in-guinea

A vaccine against Ebola has been shown to be 100% successful in trials conducted during the outbreak in Guinea and is likely to
bring the west African epidemic to an end, experts say. The results of the trials involving 4,000 people are remarkable
because of the unprecedented speed with which the development of the vaccine and the testing were carried out. Scientists, doctors,
donors and drug companies collaborated to race the vaccine through a process that usually takes more than a decade in just 12 months. Having seen the devastating effects of Ebola on communities

and even whole countries with my own eyes, I am very encouraged by todays news, said Brge Brende, the foreign minister
of Norway, which helped fund the trial. This new vaccine, if the results hold up, may be the silver bullet against Ebola,
helping to bring the current outbreak to zero and to control future outbreaks of this kind. I would like to thank all partners who
have contributed to achieve this sensational result, due to an extraordinary and rapid collaborative effort, he said on Friday. There have been a total of
27,748 cases of Ebola in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone up to 26 July, with 11,279 reported deaths, although the outcome of many cases is unknown and the toll will be significantly higher. In the week ending 26 July, there were just four new cases in Guinea and three in Sierra
Leone. Because of the diminishing number of Ebola cases in west Africa and the shifting nature of the epidemic, with many sudden small outbreaks occurring across the region, researchers hit on a novel design for the trial. The gold standard approach would be to take a

the researchers used a ring design, similar to that which helped prove the
population at risk of Ebola and vaccinate half of them while giving the other half a placebo. Instead,

smallpox vaccine worked in the 1970s. When Ebola flared up in a village, researchers vaccinated all the contacts of the sick person who were willing the family, friends and neighbours and their immediate contacts. Children,
adolescents and pregnant women were excluded because of an absence of safety data for them. In practice about 50% of people in these clusters were vaccinated. To test how well the vaccine protected people, the

cluster outbreaks were randomly assigned either to receive the vaccine immediately or three weeks after Ebola was confirmed.
Among the 2,014 people vaccinated immediately, there were no cases of Ebola from 10 days after vaccination allowing time for immunity to develop according to the results
published online in the Lancet medical journal (pdf). In the clusters with delayed vaccination, there were 16 cases out of 2,380.

Status quo solves cases are declining, treatment is working, and deaths are in the thousands
Edith M. Lederer, AP Jan 16, 2015 "Haven't heard much about Ebola lately? Good news"
axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_69046.shtml

Ebola hotspots remain in the three hardest-hit West African countries but new cases are declining and the deadly disease will be defeated, the U.N.'s Ebola chief
At least 50

said Thursday. The latest report from the W orld H ealth O rganization showing reductions in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone "is very
good news," Dr. David Nabarro said in an interview with The Associated Press. In the week ending Jan. 11, WHO said Guinea reported its lowest weekly total of new
Ebola cases since mid-August. Liberia had its lowest total since the first week of June and no confirmed new cases for the final two days of the week.
And new cases in Sierra Leone declined for a second week to the lowest level since the end of August. But Nabarro cautioned that "there are still numbers of new cases that are alarming, and
there are hotspots that are emerging in new places that make me believe there is still quite a lot of the disease that we're not seeing." There are "at least 50 micro-outbreaks" underway, and the chains of transmission of the virus

there have been more than 21,000 cases and 8,300

"have still got to be understood," he said. The Ebola outbreak has been the worst in world history. According to the latest WHO report released Wednesday,

deaths. The death toll in Liberia as of Sunday was 3,538, followed by Sierra Leone with 3,062 deaths and Guinea with 1,814. The key, Nabarro said, is getting local communities to change
their traditional healing rituals and funeral and burial practices which involve a lot of contact with body fluids that spread Ebola. In some cases,
evidence suggests that as many as 50 people have become infected at a single funeral, he said. Nabarro said the national and international

campaign for safe healing and burial practices, isolation of suspected cases, and quick treatment for Ebola victims is working .
But he appealed for greater global support including "virus detectives" who can identify where there are cases, "anthropologists who can tell us how the communities are reacting," and managers to make sure treatment centers are

adequately equipped. "We saw a big shift in behaviors in Liberia in November and December," he said. " We're now seeing a big shift of behaviors in much of Sierra Leone, though there are still one
or two communities that are reluctant to change behavior. And we're beginning to see a big shift in behaviors in Guinea as well." However, the goal of isolating and treating 100 percent of patients and conducting 100 percent of
burials safely by Jan. 1 was missed. That's "a sign of the task still to be done," Nabarro said. "Of course, 100 percent of safe burials and 100 percent of everybody quickly under treatment are still the directions that we're aiming at,"

in much of the region, we will be there in a very short distance in the future, and that's why the
Nabarro said. "And I do really anticipate that

number of cases is coming down and will continue to come down, and we will before long see an end to this outbreak." Sierra Leone's President Ernest Bai Koroma predicted this
week that his country would be Ebola-free by WHO standards by May, which means zero new cases for a period of time. Nabarro said Koroma's judgment "is based on the way the local communities are embracing the response." "I
personally would respect his judgment and his prediction," said Nabarro, who just returned from a 10-day visit to West Africa including all three hard-hit countries. "I'm very wary myself to make predictions because I just don't have
the information."
Ebola is all hype its a media scare and masks the real killers
Farhi 14 Paul Farhi, political journalist, The Washington Post 14, 11-2-2014, "Media's hype about Ebola outweighs the actual
risk," Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram, http://www.pressherald.com/2014/10/07/medias-hype-about-ebola-
outweighs-the-actual-risk/

WASHINGTON Theres
a potentially deadly disease afoot in America, with no known cure and terrifying consequences for those
infected. Ebola? Well, yes, but another bug has had far more wide-ranging consequences. Since an outbreak began in late summer, the enterovirus
has sent thousands of people, primarily children, to hospitals in 43 states and the District of Columbia. One strain, enterovirus D68, has apparently caused polio-like symptoms in some patients, leaving
them unable to move their limbs. Four people who recently died tested positive for the disease, although the link between the virus and the deaths is unclear, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. You might not know all that from the news medias reporting over the past few weeks. The enterovirus certainly hasnt been ignored, but its a mere footnote compared with
the oceanic volumes devoted to Ebola, a disease that has devastated parts of West Africa but has only one confirmed case diagnosed in the United States. But even when the reporting is accurate, the
sheer tonnage of it raises a question about proportion and relative risk: Why is Ebola a media superstar when other diseases say, enterovirus or the common flu have more far-reaching and even
deadlier consequences in this country? The
question is a familiar one to people involved in spreading the word about public-health threats.
News reporting, they say, typically underplays some risks and overplays others. Mundane behaviors smoking, overeating
dont rate sustained media coverage yet are linked to preventable diseases that kill tens of thousands annually. Ordinary
viruses, such as the flu, take a huge toll as well but dont rate screaming headlines. If any or all of these issues received the levels of media coverage
and public concern that Ebola was receiving, thousands of annual deaths could be prevented, said Jay Bernhardt, the founding director of the Center for Health Communication at the University of
Texas. The volume of Ebola coverage, he said, reminds me a lot of the over-the-top coverage of serial killers or celebrity scandals in that they are far out of proportion with the risk or relevance to the
general population. Ebolas pre-eminence in the news media probably has much to do with the primal fear it inspires and the popular-culture context from which it comes. While Ebola isnt
widespread or common, those who get it are at grave risk; the mortality rate is upward of 70 percent (the far-less covered Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, clocks in with a death rate of
about 40 percent). Salon.com columnist Andrew OHehir likens Ebola to a great white shark: Your chances of encountering one are abysmally low, but so are your chances of surviving such a meeting.
Despite the low odds of an Ebola pandemic in the United States, Peter Sandman, an expert in risk communication, says the
story nevertheless warrants the attention its getting. The public has always been interested in risks in proportion to how
much fear or outrage they arouse, not in proportion to how much hazard they present, he said via email. Ebola has all the
hallmarks of a scary disease. It is novel, dramatic, horrifying, potentially catastrophic. Its perfect for horror movies; why
wouldnt it be perfect for news stories?

Cant spread internationally not airborne

Butler 14 - Declan Butler, degree in biology from Queen's University, Belfast, and a PhD from the University of Leeds. 30 July
2014 "Largest ever Ebola outbreak is not a global threat" www.nature.com/news/largest-ever-ebola-outbreak-is-not-a-global-
threat-1.15640

Though the strain of Ebola in the current outbreak appears to kill 56% of the people it infects, to become infected in the first
place, a person's mucous membranes, or an area of broken skin, must come into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected
person, such as blood, urine, saliva, semen or stools, or materials contaminated with these fluids such as soiled clothing or bed
linen. By contrast, respiratory pathogens such as those that cause the common cold or flu are coughed and sneezed into the air
and can be contracted just by breathing or touching contaminated surfaces, such as door knobs. A pandemic flu virus can
spread around the world in days or weeks and may be unstoppable whereas Ebola only causes sporadic localised outbreaks
that can usually be stamped out.
Environment
 Climate Change
Ecocide is hype either we can adapt or humanity can successfully mitigate the effects through tech
Ridley 8/17/12 [Matt Ridley, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity
Evolves, Apocalypse Not: Heres Why You Shouldnt Worry About End Times,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/]

Over the past half century, none of our threatened eco-pocalypses have played out as predicted. Some came partly true; some
were averted by action; some were wholly chimerical. This raises a question that many find discomforting: With a track record
like this, why should people accept the cataclysmic claims now being made about climate change? After all, 2012 marks the
apocalyptic deadline of not just the Mayans but also a prominent figure in our own time: Rajendra Pachauri, head of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who said in 2007 that if theres no action before 2012, thats too late This is
the defining moment. So, should we worry or not about the warming climate? It is far too binary a question. The lesson of
failed past predictions of ecological apocalypse is not that nothing was happening but that the middle-ground possibilities
were too frequently excluded from consideration. In the climate debate, we hear a lot from those who think disaster is
inexorable if not inevitable, and a lot from those who think it is all a hoax. We hardly ever allow the moderate lukewarmers a
voice: those who suspect that the net positive feedbacks from water vapor in the atmosphere are low, so that we face only 1
to 2 degrees Celsius of warming this century; that the Greenland ice sheet may melt but no faster than its current rate of less
than 1 percent per century; that net increases in rainfall (and carbon dioxide concentration) may improve agricultural
productivity; that ecosystems have survived sudden temperature lurches before; and that adaptation to gradual change may
be both cheaper and less ecologically damaging than a rapid and brutal decision to give up fossil fuels cold turkey. Weve
already seen some evidence that humans can forestall warming-related catastrophes. A good example is malaria, which was
once widely predicted to get worse as a result of climate change. Yet in the 20th century, malaria retreated from large parts of
the world, including North America and Russia, even as the world warmed. Malaria-specific mortality plummeted in the first
decade of the current century by an astonishing 25 percent. The weather may well have grown more hospitable to mosquitoes
during that time. But any effects of warming were more than counteracted by pesticides, new antimalarial drugs, better
drainage, and economic development. Experts such as Peter Gething at Oxford argue that these trends will continue, whatever
the weather. Just as policy can make the climate crisis worsemandating biofuels has not only encouraged rain forest
destruction, releasing carbon, but driven millions into poverty and hungertechnology can make it better. If plant breeders
boost rice yields, then people may get richer and afford better protection against extreme weather. If nuclear engineers make
fusion (or thorium fission) cost-effective, then carbon emissions may suddenly fall. If gas replaces coal because of horizontal
drilling, then carbon emissions may rise more slowly. Humanity is a fast-moving target. We will combat our ecological threats
in the future by innovating to meet them as they arise, not through the mass fear stoked by worst-case scenarios.

No impact to warming their alarmist evidence is based on bunk alarmist science multiple warrants
*Its hype, models are unreliable, the IPCCs bunk, the world isnt warming, and theres no extinction. Scientists are afraid to
speak up and alarmism provides economic gains. Only their evidence is bias our evidence is signed by 16 nobel prize winning
scientists. Also, theres only a risk CO2 can help.

Wall Street Journal January 27, 2012 "No Need to Panic About Global Warming"
www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366

Editor's Note:The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article: A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy
may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists
demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of
distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a
supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live

with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are
taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely
to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of
the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In
spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon
dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the
number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now . This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009
"Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes

computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of
warming for more than a decadeindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections

suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this
embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything
unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and
odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so
much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to
get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are
today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the
number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts
about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promotedor worse . They have good reason to worry. In 2003,
Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The

This is not the way

international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

science is supposed to work, but we have seen it beforefor example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were
a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that

the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good

place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great
benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.
Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable
foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we
have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified

nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows
economically. A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that

50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the
same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will
be an overall benefit to the planet. If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land,

much of the huge private and

and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However,

government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review. Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to
back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the
Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and
National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of
atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo
17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

The factoid that 97% of scientists believe in anthropocentric warming is based on an online 2 question
survey that cherry-picked the respondents actual scientists mock the survey
Myth Debunker February 27, 2014 "NO, 97% OF SCIENTISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING"
justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of-scientists-agree-with-global-warming-bunk/

Propaganda: Over 97% of scientists surveyed believe Global Warming is happening and is man-made! 97%! The science is
settled! FACTS: This piece of propaganda comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey. Its also referred to
as the Doran Survey or Zimmerman Thesis. Heres what you need to know: The survey was a two-minute, two-question,
online questionnaire sent to 10,257 scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Only 3,146 earth scientists
responded. Of the 3,146 who responded, 2,833 were from the US (90%) and 313 were from 22 other countries (10%). Of the
313 (10%) from other countries, 62% were from Canada. 9% of of the 3,146 who responded were from California. Heres
where it gets fun: The researchers then cherry-picked 77 of the 3,146 who responded and labeled them experts. Of those
77 experts, 75 ( 97.4%) agreed with man-made Global Warming. Surprise! Here is a graph from the actual survey: The
AGU survey has been widely mocked and criticized by the scientific community, most notably by the respondents to the
original survey. In fact, the survey has an appendix of feedback from the respondents. Here are some of the more amusing
ones: ..Im not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this
survey! Im sorry I even started it!.. ..The hockey stick graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been
debunked as junk science. ..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a
good predictor of where the truth actually resides.. ..Science is not based on votes or consensus. Irrelevant question. Besides,
which scientists do you regard as relevant?.. ..Science is based on scepticism and experimental proof. Whereas human GHG
emissions certainly have a warming effect, the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming is
poorly constrained.

Its too late weve passed the brink, and the timeframe is 100 years
Jonathan O'Callaghan, writer for Daily Mail. 19 June 2015 "Will YOUR child witness the end of humanity? Mankind will be
extinct in 100 years because of climate change, warns expert" www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3131160/Will-child-
witness-end-humanity-Mankind-extinct-100-years-climate-change-warns-expert.html

Humans will be extinct in 100 years due to overcrowding, declining resources and climate change, according to a prominent scientist. The comments were
first made by Australian microbiologist Dr Frank Fenner in 2010, but engineer and science writer David Auerbach has reiterated the doom-
laden warning in his latest article. He criticises the recent G7 summit for failing to deal with the problems facing the survival of humanity, such as
global warming and exhausting Earth's resources. Mr Auerbach goes on to say that experts have predicted that 21st century civilisation faces a similar fate
to the inhabitants of Easter Island, who went extinct when they overexploited their natural habitat. A lot of other animals
will, too. It's an irreversible situation. 'I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off. At
the G7 talks in Bonn in Germany earlier this month, governments failed to come up with a clear plan to cut emissions in the coming years. It emerged that countries' current
pledges for greenhouse gas cuts will fail to achieve a peak in energy-related emissions by 2030. This will likely result in a temperature rise of
2.6C by the end of the century, the International Energy Agency said. When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon
emissions to zero in the next 85 years, the scientific reaction was unanimous: Thats far too late , Mr Auerbach wrote. At this point,
lowering emissions is just half the story - the easy half. The harder half will be an aggressive effort to find the technologies needed to reverse the climate apocalypse that has
already begun. He noted that dangerous climate change was already here, but the question now was whether catastrophic climate change could be avoided. The
widely agreed goal is that global temperatures must be kept below a rice of 2C by the end of the century. A 5C increase, as
predicted to occur by 2100 at the moment, would cause widespread flooding, famine, drought and mass extinction. Even the 2C
figure predicts more than a metres rise in sea levels by 2100, enough to displace millions, Mr Auerbach noted in his Reuters article. But he said that current targets
are simply not enough to keep under this 2C target. The US has suggested cutting emissions by up to 28 per cent by 2025 from 2005 levels, the EU 40 per
cent from 1990 to 2030, and China an unspecified amount. Ultimately, we need a Cold War-level of investment in research into new technologies to mitigate the coming
effects of global warming, he concluded. Without it, the UNs work is a nice gesture, but hardly a meaningful one.

Warming is inevitable means adaptation is the only way to solve.

Trisolini 14 Katherine Trisolini, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. J.D. Stanford Law School; M.A.
Political Science, University of California at Berkeley; B.A. Oberlin College, (HOLISTIC CLIMATE CHANGE GOVERNANCE:
TOWARDS MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION SYNTHESIS, University of Colorado Law Review, July 18, 2014, Available at:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?, Accessed on: 7/18/2014)

Unfortunately, the need for climate change adaptation can no longer be ignored. While scientists admonish us that GHG [*618] production trajectories
must be cut deeply and quickly to avoid the worst impacts, n2 past emissions already have committed the planet to at least some further warming. n3
Consequently, even under the best emissions scenarios, this century will see more frequent and severe storms, flooding, heat waves, droughts, and fires. n4 Sea level is anticipated to rise, possibly
abruptly, although projections vary dramatically. n5 Researchers expect that these changes will exacerbate security risks, alter food production, shift disease vectors, and prompt human migrations,
among other phenomena. n6
In light of these impending changes, this Article argues that effective
climate change governance requires fundamentally
rethinking physical and regulatory infrastructure that was designed for historically more stable climatic conditions. The legal
system should direct investment toward adaptive and adaptable infrastructure that reduces human risks, decreases reliance on complex
networks, and curbs (or at least does not exacerbate) the degree of scientific uncertainty that legislators and administrative agencies will face while regulating in an unfamiliar and evolving physical
environment. Part of this rethinking process asks whether legal mechanisms designed to mitigate climate change by incentivizing GHG emissions reductions will aid or hinder adaptation. The most
effective policy will synthesize both efforts, favoring coordinated over unilateral approaches to either issue. Initially ,
legal scholarship on climate change focused heavily
on mitigation. n7 Although not a subject of analysis until [*619] recently, and by some accounts a formerly "taboo" topic, scholars have begun turning attention to
strategies for adapting to a changed climate. While mitigation aims to limit the extent of global warming (for example, by reducing fossil fuel
combustion or sequestering carbon dioxide), adaptation reduces harm to humans, animals, and ecosystems from the warming that does occur.

Adaptation measures could include, for example, shifting populations away from coastal areas that are vulnerable to rising seas. The increasing attention to adaptation likely

stems from recognition that some degree of warming and ecosystem change is now inevitable ; hence mitigation can limit,
but not eliminate, adverse impacts. Analyses of mitigation and adaptation in the United States have largely occurred on parallel tracks. n10 Scholars have extensively debated the
n11
best design of mitigation regimes - focusing predominantly on proposals to incentivize GHG emissions reductions through market mechanisms such as cap-and-trade. With the recent entry of
adaptation into legal scholarship,
academics have asked how to promote ecosystem resilience and reduce harm to human
populations. n12They have also evaluated how environmental and natural resources law should change to give agencies new
decision-making tools and increased flexibility. However, with few exceptions, scholars have not yet considered the intersection of these two issues. Up to now, federal policymakers have
similarly analyzed [*620] mitigation and adaptation separately. Given that changing
 Deforestation
Mitigation solves - 9 independent organizations solve globally in the long term, and reforestation solves
Ronca 8 Debra Ronca, New Jersey Uni, writer for science.com 10 June 2008 "Ways to Reduce Deforestation and Repair the
Damage" science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/deforestation3.htm

In December 2007, the United Nations Climate Change Conference took place in Bali, Indonesia. After 10 days of intense discussion,
more than 180 countries agreed to the Bali Roadmap. The Bali Roadmap will guide participating countries in emissions reduction and intends to lead to a
binding agreement at the 2009 United Nations summit in Denmark [source: Harris]. The United States and China initially did not agree to mandatory reductions, wanting
countries to set their own goals, but they eventually conceded [source: USA Today]. The roadmap includes specific measures to reduce deforestation
-- for tropical rainforests in particular. Many developing countries' economies rely on their forests, and they argue they should be able to use their land as they please. In
response, the roadmap will investigate policies to financially reward countries who reduce their emissions by a certain percentage (the percentage has not yet been
determined). Even this proposal faces controversy, however. Because those countries with the highest baseline rate of deforestation will receive the most reward credits,
critics fear that many countries will rush to cut down trees in order to raise their own baseline [source: Tickell]. Besides the U.N., there also are dozens of
nonprofits working to combat deforestation. A few well-known organizations include:

Conservation International -- teaches local farmers how to maximize their existing land, rather than clear new areas

The World Wildlife Fund -- works to shape policies and teams with communities to preserve forests

Rainforest Action Network -- uses in-your-face advertising campaigns to call attention to the rainforests

The Environmental Defense Fund -- champions government bills that provide financial incentive to private landowners (such as farmers) who practice land
conservation

The Sierra Club -- works to protect and restore U.S. forests

Amazon Watch -- defends the rights of indigenous people and communities faced with industrial development

The Nature Conservancy -- has developed several initiatives to advance conservation

Can we really save the forests? Once the trees are gone, is it possible to restore the land? Most deforested areas, if left alone, will eventually regenerate to fertile landscape.
We can certainly plant more trees -- a process called reforestation. In fact, many nonprofit organizations have popped up to support
reforestation. For example, Carbonfund.org currently works on reforesting areas like Nicaragua and the state of Louisiana [source: Carbonfund.org]. In the
meantime, new movements in forest protection have sprung up over the years. They include:

Eco-forestry -- where only carefully selected trees are cut down and are transported with minimal damage to the area; the forest ecosystem is preserved while
commercial timber extraction is still permitted

Green business -- focuses on recycled paper and wood products, wood alternatives and environmentally responsible consumerism

Land use planning -- advocates environmentally friendly development techniques, such as reduction of urban and suburban sprawl

Community forestry -- where concerned citizens come together to manage and participate in keeping their local forests viable and sustainable

The internal link is inevitable. 3 Reasons:

a. Happening too fast for them to solve
Scienceheathen, December 13, 2012 "Deforestation Effects, Causes, And Examples: Top 10 List"
scienceheathen.com/2012/12/13/deforestation-effects-causes-and-examples-top-10-list/

Deforestation occurs primarily as a result of: agriculture, fuel use and production (firewood, charcoal, etc), timber harvesting, pasture-
clearing for livestock animals, and expanding human settlements. And also, to a degree, due to large scale war throughout history
fire has often been used as a way to deprive enemy populations of necessary resources. These deforested areas almost
inevitably end up as wastelands via the processes of soil erosion and desertification, if they arent reforested. Many of the areas of the world
that were deforested thousands of years ago remain as severely degraded wastelands or deserts today. Currently the worlds annual rate of deforestation
is estimated to be about 13.7 million hectares a year roughly equivalent to the total land-area of Greece. Roughly half of the
areas deforested gets reforested to some degree, but these new-growth forests dont function in the same ways, support the
same biodiversity, nor do they provide the many benefits that old-growth forests do. In addition to these official numbers, forests have also
been, in recent years, becoming more and more affected by the changing climate with increasing levels of drought, growing numbers of forest fires,
increasingly common powerful storms and extreme weather, an explosion in insect numbers, and the spread of disease, all taking a toll.

b. Agriculture inevitably tears down forest, the world is hungry.

Scienceheathen, December 13, 2012 "Deforestation Effects, Causes, And Examples: Top 10 List"
scienceheathen.com/2012/12/13/deforestation-effects-causes-and-examples-top-10-list/

Agriculture is one of the primary drivers of deforestation both in modern times and in ancient times. The vast old-growth forests that once
covered much of the world have largely been cut and burned down because of agriculture. Even when such agricultural-land is
reclaimed by nature it generally lacks the great biodiversity that was found there previously, being replaced largely by fast-
growing plants and weeds that favor the depleted soil. Subsistence-farming accounts for 48% of deforestation, and
commercial agriculture for a further 32% of deforestation, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Even the most
efficient agricultural systems and practices inevitably lead to nutrient loss unless supplemented with fertilizer brought in from elsewhere this
nutrient-loss is especially pronounced with GMO (genetically modified food) agriculture. And this, along with the soil erosion that
accompanies the loss of large vegetation, further contributes to the soil erosion and desertification that seems to almost
inevitably follow deforestation in the long term.

c. Population growth historically true

Scienceheathen, December 13, 2012 "Deforestation Effects, Causes, And Examples: Top 10 List"
scienceheathen.com/2012/12/13/deforestation-effects-causes-and-examples-top-10-list/

While agriculture is often the direct cause of deforestation, growing and expanding populations are often the driver. The
worlds population has exploded from an estimated max of 15 million people in prehistory, to the 7 billion humans of today. Such large population
numbers and densities make people very dependent upon agriculture for survival, and also, importantly, dependant upon expansion. With increased
population numbers also comes increased urbanization which brings with it further impetus for deforestation, and also a number of
other negative influences on the surrounding areas via various forms of pollution. As large populations often quickly use up all of the resources located near them,

they almost always become dependent upon expansion in order to continue fueling their infrastructure this continues until the reliance on distant,
far-off resources becomes too burdensome and inefficient, and the civilization collapses or retracts. As an example: Western Europe experienced significant
deforestation from around 1100 to 1500 as a result of the then rapidly expanding human population. The large industries of the day the
building of wooden sailing ships by European naval powers, colonization and resource-plunder dependent on ships, slave-trade and other sea-based trade largely consumed and used up the forest
resources of Europe. This forced governments to seek out these resources further and further from their own seat of power, becoming dependent on these new regions or these resources, before
eventually losing (at least some) of their power to these resource producing regions, and collapsing/retracting. The newly empowered resource producing regions often then follows the same
trajectory.
 Natural Disasters

USNC solves
NAP 91 - The National Academies Press, 1991, Accessed July 31 2015 "A Safer Future: Reducing the Impacts of Natural
Disasters" www.nap.edu/catalog/1840/a-safer-future-reducing-the-impacts-of-natural-disasters

The U.S. National Committee believes that the trend of increasing losses to natural disasters can be reversed. This change can
be achieved by integrating hazard reduction policy and practice into the mainstream of community activities throughout the
nation and the world. The Decade presents an opportunity to reassess the approach to natural hazards and to develop
strategies for reducing losses by stressing prevention and preparedness while sustaining and enhancing essential disaster
response, relief, and recovery capabilities.

The Committee proposes a multidisciplinary program that integrates the following elements: hazard and risk assessments;
awareness and education; mitigation; preparedness for emergency response, recovery, and reconstruction; prediction and
warning; strategies for learning from disasters; and international cooperation. These seven elements must be developed in
unison so that, collectively, they can provide a framework for hazard reduction over the next 10 years and beyond. This report
sets forth recommendations for each element.

PADF solves
When natural disasters and humanitarian crises strike, communities are often devastated and left vulnerable, having little
access to some of life's essentials, such as food, clean water, shelter, and basic services. While they must deal with the tragic
loss of human life and property, they also have to face the uncertainty of seeing their livelihoods destroyed or severely
affected. The increasing number and severity of natural disasters and humanitarian crisis in the Americas, combined at times
with growing civil instability, demonstrate that the need for disaster interventions will continue to grow. As part of the Inter-
American Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction, PADF is charged with mobilizing corporate and private contributions, and
public sector grants, to support disaster preparedness and mitigation, emergency responses and , and to implement disaster
rehabilitation and reconstruction programs. PADF works in alliance with the Association of American Chambers of Commerce
in Latin America (AACCLA) and its member national AmChams and their corporate members to respond to national disasters in
individual Latin American and Caribbean countries to build local capacity for preparedness, mitigation and emergency relief.
The Foundation also partners with Hispanic and Caribbean hometown associations, civic groups such as Rotary Clubs,
foundations and individual donors to rapidly channel resources to where they are needed most. Each time, PADF works
through local non-governmental organizations and communities and in close coordination with national disaster authorities in
LAC countries and their Permanent Mission to the Organization of American States. PADF strives to lessen the impact of
disasters and crises by: Preparing for Disasters Providing Emergency Relief Assisting Disaster Recovery, Reconstruction, and
Mitigation Strengthening Community Responses to Natural Disasters Supporting the Inter-American Committee for Disaster
Reduction Aiding victims of humanitarian crises Preparing for Disasters PADF continues to promote the principles and good
practices associated with disaster preparedness, mitigation and risk reduction in all its work, especially through its Disaster
Management Alliance (DMA). This unique regional platform, established in 2004, continues to serve as a vehicle to associate
and focus the public and private sectors on disaster management issues, while promoting best practices throughout the
region. Providing Emergency Relief PADFs network of partners, including 23 American Chambers of Commerce and
Organization of American States offices throughout the Americas, provides hemispheric-wide coverage during disasters.
Working with the private sector, non-profit organizations and other entities, PADF distributes, monitors and ensures that relief
supplies reach beneficiaries in an effective and timely manner. With the support of these partners, and through agreements
with transportation companies, PADF moves emergency shelter packages and other supplies with very short notice. These
efforts are enhanced by PADFs close relationship with the OAS, which provides greater access to government authorities,
translating into quicker and greater support and better on-the-ground responses. Assisting Disaster Recovery, Reconstruction,
and Mitigation After immediate relief efforts are mobilized and implemented, countries often need support in reconstructing
municipal buildings, schools and other infrastructure. PADF works closely with municipal leaders, community organizations,
the private sector and civil defense agencies to identify the highest priorities and deliver resources with the greatest positive
impact. Strengthening Community Responses to Natural Disasters PADF believes in the full participation of local communities
and affected populations in relief programs, such as community-based early flood alert systems and other local preparedness
planning and exercises. This approach complements the impact of a response, as it helps countries build public-private
partnerships that enhance speedy responses and reconstruction and ensure greater coordination of assistance at the
community level. Supporting the Inter-American Committee for Natural Disaster Reduction PADF actively supports the Inter-
American Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction (IACNDR), a forum established by the OAS General Assembly. IACNDR
comprises many leading hemispheric organizations. Its primary purpose is to analyze issues related to natural and other
disasters, including the prevention and mitigation of their effect, in coordination with OAS member states; competent national,
regional and international organizations and non-governmental organizations. IACNDR also seeks to strengthen hemispheric
actions to achieve maximum international cooperation in support of national and or regional efforts for timely prevention,
preparedness, early warning, response, vulnerability reduction, emergency care, mitigation, rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Aiding victims of humanitarian crises For decades, PADF has responded to most of the hemispheres major natural disasters
and humanitarian crises. In its role as the OAS developmental and relief arm, PADF is also called upon at times to respond to
other humanitarian crises such as assisting displaced persons in Colombia, demobilized ex-combatants in Central America,
refugees fleeing civil unrest, victims of human trafficking and abuse, disabled citizens and excluded minorities such as Afro-
descendent and indigenous communities and others.

Alt cause poverty. The lower a countries GDP, the more its effected by disasters
Recent large scale natural disasters have brought natural disaster mitigation back to the forefront of policy debates in many
countries throughout the world. Many policy analysts appear to have been swayed by the monotonic negative relationship
between development and the risk of death from natural disasters that the current academic literature on the topic reports. In
this paper we explore this relationship more closely using cross-country panel data, motivated by a conceptual analysis of
possible behavioral reactions to disaster risk that argue for a more complicated nonlinear relationship. We find evidence that
for the types of disasters whose exposure risk is more related to behavioral choices (i.e. floods, landslides, and windstorms
rather than extreme temperatures), there is indeed a non-linear relationship where disaster deaths increase with rising income
before they decrease. In particular, we find that while countries have a GDP per capita level below roughly $4500$5500,
disaster deaths increase in income, but start decreasing once those countries continue to get richer beyond that turning point.

The main policy implication of this research is that the achievement of the simultaneous goals of natural disaster risk reduction
and poverty elimination cannot be assumed to be complementary for all disaster types. This paper highlights the fact that it is
quite possible that risk averse individuals will make different riskreturn trade-off choices at different income levels. For the
poorest nations in the world, the marginal benefit of cutting down a forest to make way for a new hotel, shrimp farm, or
agricultural land can outweigh the marginal cost associated with an uncertain disaster event such as a flood or landslide that is
possibly linked to that economic activity. Similarly, a poor household may find it in their interest to re-locate to a dense urban
area in search of better employment opportunities even if it means increasing its exposure to disasters while a richer
household may not find it in their interest to do so. Without adequate disaster planning, development policy aimed simply at
poverty elimination through economic development could increase the risks associated with natural disasters in the least
developed countries of the world.

While we find ample evidence in this paper for a non-linear relationship between economic development and natural disaster
deaths, empirically we have only shown the reduced form non-linear relationship between economic development and
disaster risk in the aggregate data. Future work that can isolate micro level mechanisms by directly examining individual or
household choices should be a fruitful area of research to deepen our understanding of the relationship between development
and natural disasters.
 Overpopulation
Overpopulation is Hollywood hype, either its too late or theres no impact because efficient agriculture
solves.
Ridley 8/17/12 [Matt Ridley, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity
Evolves, Apocalypse Not: Heres Why You Shouldnt Worry About End Times,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/]

Of all the cataclysmic threats to human civilization envisaged in the past 50 years, none has drawn such hyperbolic language as
people themselves. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, says Agent Smith in the film The Matrix. Such
rhetoric echoes real-life activists like Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society: We need to radically and
intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing
the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach. On a stinking hot evening in a taxi in Delhi in 1966, as Paul Ehrlich wrote in his best
seller, The Population Bomb, the streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting
their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. Ehrlichs
conclusion was bleak: The train of events leading to the dissolution of India as a viable nation was already in progress. And other experts agreed. It is already
too late to avoid mass starvation, said Denis Hayes, organizer of the first Earth Day in 1970. Sending food to India was a mistake and only postponed
the inevitable, William and Paul Paddock wrote in their best seller, Famine1975! What actually happened was quite different. The
death rate fell. Famine became rarer. The population growth rate was cut in half , thanks chiefly to the fact that as babies stop dying,
people stop having so many of them . Over the past 50 years, worldwide food production per capita has risen, even as the global population has doubled.
Indeed, so successful have farmers been at increasing production that food prices fell to record lows in the early 2000s and large parts
of western Europe and North America have been reclaimed by forest. (A policy of turning some of the worlds grain into motor fuel has reversed
some of that decline and driven prices back up.) Meanwhile, family size continues to shrink on every continent. The world population will

probably never double again , whereas it quadrupled in the 20th century. With improvements in seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, transport, and irrigation still
spreading across Africa, the world may well feed 9 billion inhabitants in 2050and from fewer acres than it now uses to feed 7
billion.

No extinction there are effective methods of solvency that can be implemented

Kukreja 13 - Rinkesh Kukreja, writer for Conserve Energy Future. No date given, but first crawled by archive.org/web on July
9 2013. www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-overpopulation.php

Better Education: One of the first measures is to implement policies reflecting social change. Educating the masses helps them
understand the need to have one or two children at the most. Families that are facing a hard life and choose to have four or
five children should be discouraged. Family planning and efficient birth control can help in women making their own
reproductive choices. Open dialogue on abortion and voluntary sterilization should be seen when talking about
overpopulation.

Making People Aware of Family Planning: As population of this world is growing at a rapid pace, raising awareness among
people regarding family planning and letting them know about serious after effects of overpopulation can help curb population
growth. One of the best way is to let them know about various safe sex techniques and contraceptives methods available to
avoid any unwanted pregnancy.

Tax Benefits or Concessions: Government of various countries might have to come with various policies related to tax
exemptions to curb overpopulation. One of them might be to waive of certain part of income tax or lowering rates of income
tax for those married couples who have single or two children. As we humans are more inclined towards money, this may
produce some positive results.

Knowledge of Sex Education: Imparting sex education to young kids at elementary level should be must. Most parents feel shy
in discussing such things with their kids which result in their children going out and look out for such information on internet or
discuss it with their peers. Mostly, the information is incomplete which results in sexually active teenagers unaware of
contraceptives and embarrassed to seek information about same. It is therefore important for parents and teachers to shed
their old inhibitions and make their kids or students aware of solid sex education.
 Solar Flares
Efforts effectively thwart the impact
Wendel 15 - JoAnna Wendel, writer for Earth and Space Science News, 13 May 2015 "Protecting Earth from Solar Storms"
https://eos.org/articles/protecting-earth-from-solar-storms

In 2008, the National Academy of Sciences released a report detailing how a geomagnetic storm would affect Earthbut there
was no recommended strategy for how the nation could respond or mitigate damage, Berger said. This new national strategy
does just that. The strategy focuses on three key areas: enhancing operational forecasting, improving research to better
understand space weather events, and developing plans to mitigate damage during and following such an event. Among its
many proposals, the strategy calls for enhancing recovery capabilities by establishing power grid recovery plans, improving
communications systems between forecasters and emergency managers, and developing protocols to provide guidance and
support before, during, and after an extreme space weather event. Another major section of the new strategy calls for better
observational and forecasting capabilities, which comes down to a better understanding of space weather and the Sun itself
something that requires more basic research and observational instruments, Berger said.

No satellite or grid shut down - scientists can predict and effectively protect tech days in advance
Byrd 12 - Deborah Byrd, Editor-in-Chief of EarthSky, science communicator and editor Dec 09, 2012 "Are solar storms
dangerous to us?" earthsky.org/space/are-solar-storms-dangerous-to-us
Throughout 2012, the sun has been in an active part of its 11-year cycle of activity. Those using telescopes equipped with special solar filters to peer at the sun or photograph it have seen dark sunspots dotting the suns surface. Space observatories have been detecting short-lived but brilliant and powerful solar flares intense bursts of radiation
and our solar systems largest explosive events lasting minutes to hours on the suns surface. Occasional, powerful coronal mass ejections, or CMEs giant bubbles of gas and magnetic fields from the sun, containing up to a billion tons of charged particles that can travel u p to several million miles per hour have been released into the

Solar storms are not dangerous to humans on Earths surface

interplanetary medium. This solar material has streamed out through space, and sometimes has struck Earth. Is this dangerous? Should we be worried? . These storms are

were protected by Earths blanket of atmosphere storms on the

awesome to contemplate, but they cannot harm our human bodies as long as we remain on the surface of Earth, where . Remember, theres every reason to believe that

sun have been happening for billions of years , since the sun and Earth came to be. If thats so, then all life on Earth evolved under their influence. What is the danger of a solar storm in space? Very high-energy particles, such as those carried by CMEs, can cause

Earths atmosphere protect

radiation poisoning to humans and other mammals. They would be dangerous to unshielded astronauts, say, astronauts traveling to the moon. Large doses could be fatal. Still, solar storms and their effects are no problem for us on Earths surface. and magnetosphere

our human bodies from the effects of solar flares. On the other hand solar storms can be dangerous to our technologies. When a coronal mass ejection, or CME, strikes Earths atmosphere, it causes a temporary disturbance of the Earths magnetic field. The storm on the sun causes a type of storm on the Earth,

known as a geomagnetic storm. The most powerful solar storms send coronal mass ejections (CMEs), containing charged particles, into space. If Earth happens to be in the path of a CME, the charged particles can slam into our atmosphere, disrupt satellites in orbit and even cause them to fail, and bathe high-flying airplanes with radiation. They
can disrupt telecommunications and navigation systems. They have the potential to affect power grids, and have been known to black out entire cities, even entire regions. People talking about power failures from solar storms always point back to March 13, 1989 23 years ago. A CME caused a power failure in Qubec, as well as across parts of

the northeastern U.S. In this event, the electrical supply was cut off to over 6 million people for 9 hours. But its possible for solar storms to be even more powerful than the one that caused the 1989 Qubec and U.S. northeast black out. The largest known solar flare took place on August 28, 1859. It was observed and recorded by Richard C.
Carrington, and so its sometimes called the Carrington Event, or sometimes the 1859 Solar Superstorm. The accompanying coronal mass ejection (CME) traveled to Earth in only 17 hours, rather than the usual three or four days. The largest recorded geomagnetic storm occurred. Aurorae, or northern lights, were seen in many parts of the world.
Telegraph systems throughout Europe and North America failed. What would happen if such a powerful solar storm occurred today? And is such a powerful solar storm likely to occur again in our lifetimes? No one knows the answers to these questions with certainty. But scientists have become increasingly aware of the possibility, especially since
2008, when Sten Odenwald and James Green published an article in the magazine Scientific American about the Carrington Event and possible consequences if such a powerful storm on the sun occurred today. Scientists are asking more questions are solar storms and their consequences. For example, in 2012, scientists publishing in the journal
Space Weather suggested that a 2001 power failure in New Zealand was caused by a solar storm. That result, if true, is particularly important because New Zealand is not at a high latitude (as Qubec is, for example). Its at a middle latitude, the same latitude as much of the United States. This 2012 study suggests that solar storm effects can reach

Scientists
into the more populous middle latitudes. continually monitor the sun
for example at the Space Weather Prediction Center , both from space and from Earths surface. When a solar storm with potential the

takes place, they see it

to affect Earth it is
. After all, in order to affect us on Earth, the solar storm would have to happen on the side of the sun facing Earth. After such an event, it usually takes several days for the coronal mass ejection, or CME, to reach Earth. When a big CME is on its way,

possible for satellites to shut their systems off briefly, and thereby remain safe power grids can be
. Likewise, with advance warning, Earth-based

reconfigured to provide extra grounding . And so on. Are we in danger from a particularly huge solar power, perhaps on a scale of the Carrington Event? Some believe we may be. That is why governments and scientists are beginning to pay more attention to this issue, with an

eye to creating systems and procedures to help withstand such powerful effects from the sun. By the way, the current solar cycle called Sunspot Cycle 24 by space physicists is expected to peak in early or mid 2013, according to NASA. The number of storms on the sun was relatively high in late 2011 and has been relatively high throughout

2012. Yet this current sunspot cycle has not been a strong one. According to current predictions, it might be the weakest peak in solar activity in over 80 years. Bottom line: Storms on the sun are a natural occurrence. They have been happening for billions of years. They are not dangerous to our human bodies on Earths surface. But they can

affect some earthly technologies, such as power grids and satellites in orbit around Earth. If the effects of a particularly large solar storm were headed toward Earth, we would know several days in advance and have time to
prepare . Scientists are beginning to become more aware of this issue, with an eye to preparing for such an event.

Efforts now solve, happens once a hundred years, and the most it did was enflame telegraphs
Kramer 13 - Miriam Kramer, Executive publisher for space.com July 02, 2013 Scientists Work to Protect Earth's Power Grids
from Extreme Solar Storms http://www.space.com/21805-solar-storms-electrical-grids-research.html

Tools on the ground are helping scientists learn more about the threat solar eruptions on the sun pose to life as we know it on Earth. Experts with the
British Geological Survey (BGS) have started collecting data from three research sites in the U.K. to determine the effects of massive solar storms on the Earth's
electric power grids. Although coronal mass ejections giant sun eruptions of super-hot plasma that hurl charged particles across the solar
system are notoriously difficult to predict, scientists are trying to understand the best way to protect the power grid from an
overload caused by extreme solar weather. [The Worst Solar Storms in History] "Society depends on an intricate set of electrical and electronic systems, many of
which are vulnerable to adverse space weather," BGS scientist Gemma Kelly said in a statement. "By measuring exactly what happens during
a major storm event, we can work on better protection for our infrastructure and reduce the damage to the technology we
rely on." Kelly presented her work at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting 2013 this week in the
U.K. There is always a small amount of natural electricity running through the ground. Under most circumstances, this electricity is harmless; however, a solar storm can
exacerbate the currents underfoot, possible wreaking havoc on electrically linked systems around the world. When solar storms hit the Earth in a certain way, it can disrupt
the Earth's magnetic field, allowing strong electric currents in the upper atmosphere to induce currents on the ground, BGS officials said. "The size of the electrical currents
generated depends on a number of factors, such as the local bedrock type and the amount of water within the ground," BGS officials said in a statement. "The ground currents
can become large enough to potentially cause problems to technology, such as high-voltage power grids, railway switches and long pipelines." The
three research
sites set up at Shetland, the Scottish Borders and Devon in the U.K. will give Kelly and other researchers the first long-term
continuous measurements of the ground current in the country, according to BGS officials. "The electric field measurement system consists
of sites of two pairs of electrodes, perpendicular to each other and spaced 100 meters apart," Kelly said in a statement. "Each electrode is buried one meter below the surface
and the voltage is measured across each pair." Kelly
and her team will use the data collected during their survey to create better models
that could help them better understand and predict the effects of solar weather. Scientists estimate that an extreme solar
storm only hits the Earth once every 100 years or so. The last documented severe solar storm that impacted the planet
happened in 1859 and is known as the Carrington Event. Particles from a coronal mass ejection caused paper telegraphs to catch fire as the charged
particles overloaded the wires. A more minor solar event caused a large-scale blackout in Quebec, Canada in 1989. Six million people lost electricity for about 12 hours when
a transformer was damaged because solar storm-bolstered ground currents overloaded the system, BGS officials said.

Tech solves, major storms dont happen, and its just minor magnetic vibrations
Borenstein 12 [Seth- Writer for NBC News. Earth easily weathers solar storm that turned out to be so-so. NBC News. 3/8/12.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46668792/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/earth-weathers-solar-storm-turned-out-be-so-so/#.U8lthPldWSo ] Dressler

Our high-tech world seems to have easily weathered a solar storm that didn't quite live up to its advance billing. "It looks to me
like it's over," NASA solar physicist David Hathaway said late Thursday afternoon, after noticing a drop in a key magnetic reading. But
when the storm finally arrived around 6 a.m. ET Thursday, after traveling at 2.7 million mph, it was more a magnetic breeze than a
gale. The power stayed on. So did GPS and satellites. Astronomers say the sun has been relatively quiet for some time. And this
storm, forecast to be strong and ending up minor, still may seem fiercer because Earth has been lulled by several years of weak solar activity.
Influence
 Aerospace

Alt cause rare earth metal industry is set to change its market to c
Campbell 15 - Keith Campbell, Media Senior Deputy Editor for Engineering News and Mining Weekly. He holds a master's
degree in international relations from the University of the Witwatersrand. April 2015 "Strategic minerals and the aerospace
and defence industries" www.miningweekly.com/article/strategic-minerals-and-the-aerospace-and-defence-industries-2015-
04-30

MILITANT METALS Attempting an examination of all minerals and metals that are, in one way or the other, strategic is simply
not possible in a single magazine article. Thus, this story will focus on minerals regarded as being strategic from the point of
view of the aerospace, defence and electronics industries. What are these minerals? The US Strategic and Critical Minerals
2013 Report lists aluminium (used in aircraft, missiles, spacecraft, small warships) and, consequently, also bauxite, antimony
(ammunition), beryllium (electronics, information technology, nuclear), bismuth (ammunition, optics, including lenses),
cadmium (batteries, radio communications, aircraft), cerium (semi- conductors, electron tubes which include magnetrons,
klystrons, cathode-ray tubes and photoelectric cells and batteries), chromium (aircraft, missiles, spacecraft, aero engines and
parts; also essential for the production of stainless steel), cobalt (aero engines and parts, semiconductors, electron tubes,
search and detection and navigation instruments), columbium (aircraft, missiles, spacecraft, aero engines and parts), copper
(munitions, including shaped charge liners used in antitank missiles and rockets and in high-explosive antitank shells brass
shell casings), dysprosium (nuclear control rods, magnets, ceramics for electronics), erbium (communications systems,
semiconductors and electron tubes). Also on the list is europium, used in nuclear control rods and lasers; gadolinium, used in
computer storage devices, semiconductors and electron tubes, magnetic and optical recording devices; galium
(semiconductors and electron tubes); germanium (fibre optics, infrared optics, electronics); hafnium (electric light bulbs,
semiconductors and electron tubes); holmium (electronic components, semiconductors and electron tubes); indium
(semiconductors and electron tubes); iridium (electronic components, aero engines and parts); lanthanum (batteries); lead
(batteries, ammunition, radio equipment); lithium (batteries and also used in an alloy with aluminium in aircraft manufacture);
lutetium (communications, semiconductors and electron tubes); magnesium (radio communications equipment); manganese
(batteries, aero engines and parts, aircraft, shipbuilding and repair, radio equipment); mercury (search, detection and
navigation equipment); molybdenum (aircraft, missiles, spacecraft, aero engines and parts); neodymium (magnets, lasers,
capacitors); nickel (aircraft, missiles, spacecraft); palladium (semiconductors and electron tubes, other electronic components);
platinum (semiconductors and electron tubes); praseodymium (fibre optics); quartz crystal (electricity and signal testing and
other electronic components); rhenium (jet engines, radio equipment); rhodium (aircraft, electrical machinery, nuclear
reactors); ruthenium (semiconductors and electron tubes, wiring); samarium (neutron absorbers for nuclear reactors,
capacitors, lasers, magnets); scandium (electric light bulbs and parts, semiconductors and electron tubes, other aircraft
components); selenium (semiconductors and electron tubes); and silicon carbide (radio equipment). The list further includes
silver (search, detection and navigation systems, radio equipment), tantalum (electronic components, aero engines and parts),
terbium (lasers, magnets), thulium (semiconductors and electron tubes, other electronic components, wiring devices), tin
(electronic components), titanium (aircraft, missiles and spacecraft, aero engines and parts), tungsten (search, detection and
navigation equipment, aircraft, radio equipment), vanadium (aircraft, shipbuilding and repair), ytterbium (semiconductors and
electron tubes, communications systems, power wires and cables), yttrium (displays and lighting), zinc (shipbuilding and repair)
and zirconium (missiles and spacecraft, aero engines and parts, turbine and turbine generator set units and nuclear fuel
assemblies). It should be noted that many of these minerals have important uses outside of the aerospace, defence and
electronics industries. The list in the report also includes a number of products for example, rubber and strontium that are
not directly connected with aerospace, defence and electronics, but are indirectly linked to these sectors. The House of
Commons Science and Technology Committee list is very similar, although it is composed only of metals. The British list does
not distinguish those metals that are strategic specifically for the aerospace, defence and electronics industries. The British list
also differs in that it adds gold and niobium and includes all the platinum-group metals and all the rare-earth elements and not
just some of them. Frances Committee for Strategic Metals, set up by the Ministry of Industry, likewise does not distinguish
between metals that are strategic in defence or in economic terms. Again, its list overlaps with the other two, but is shorter:
cobalt, gallium, germanium, indium, lithium, niobium, rare-earth elements, rhenium, selenium and tanatalum. (Note again,
uranium is not on the list; France obtains most of its supply from West African countries with which Paris maintains very close
relations.) MINING MATTERS While all these metals and minerals may be essential for the defence and related industries, this
does not necessarily mean that the defence sector is a good customer for the mining industry. There are a number of reasons
for this. Mines, of course, are long-term projects, lasting 20, 30 and even more years. For example, in its IV 2008: Fourth
Sustainable Mining Report***, the International Aluminium Institute reported that, in 2006, the average age of the worlds
bauxite mines was 35 years, with an average future life expectancy of another 37 years. But defence budgets are very volatile,
capable of dramatically moving up (or, more often) down, in response to sudden, unforeseen (and often unforeseeable)
changes in regional and global politics and security environments. Further, although the broad defence sector does take
significant quantities of some of these metals for example, aircraft-grade aluminium in many cases, it uses only small
quantities of these materials. It is not that big a market for miners. On top of that, there is the tremendous dynamism of
aerospace, defence and electronics technology development, which can render some materials less important and others
more important over quite short periods. In aerospace, for example, 30 years ago (1985) 95% of the structural weight of an
Airbus A310-300 wide-body airliner was made up of metals, mainly aluminium and aluminium alloys, with 5% being
composites. Today, in the companys latest design, the wide-body A350 XWB, metals account for only 47% of the structural
weight, with composites accounting for 53%. Many other examples can be given. Fortunately, for miners, either there are
much larger civilian markets for these metals and minerals for example, the automotive sector for platinum and palladium,
consumer electronics for beryllium making their mining profitable and sustainable, or they are produced as by-products of
other metals that have large civilian markets. For example, most of the worlds cobalt is produced as a by-product of copper
mining (there are only a handful of dedicated cobalt mines in the world). One set of strategic metals that have attracted
considerable attention in recent years are the rare- earth elements. These are cerium, dysprosium, erbium, europium,
gadolinium, holmium, lanthanum, lutetium, neodymium, praseodymium, promethium, samarium, terbium, thulium and
ytterbium, as well as yttrium. (The Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry adds scandium to the category.) Some of these are
listed individually in the US Strategic and Critical Minerals 2013 Report. They are not actually rare: they are, however, only
rarely found in concentrations great enough to be economi- cally mined. Attention was focused on them when, in 2010, China
placed significant restrictions on the export of rare-earth metals. At that time, the country accounted for about 95% of global
production of these elements, although the US Geological Survey estimates that it has only 50% of the global reserves. China is
also the biggest consumer of rare-earth elements. The World Trade Organisation subsequently ruled against Chinas
restrictions and the country announced it would abide by the ruling. All the export quotas for rare earths have since been
abolished. However, Chinas action resulted in both governments and companies seeking alternative sources for these metals.
It is now Japanese government policy that the country will source more than 60% of its rare earths requirements from outside
of China by 2018. This is being done by major Japanese corporations developing mining projects in cooperation with local
entities in Australia, India and Kazakhstan. Apart from mining projects being restarted, expanded or developed from scratch in
these countries, the Mountain Pass mine, in the US, has also been reopened. And rare earths projects are being examined or
developed in Brazil, Canada, Finland, Greenland (part of Denmark), Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, South
Africa (the worlds leading producer in the 1950s), Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey and Vietnam. But consuming companies are also
reducing their use of rare earths and switching to alternative technologies. However. [m]ost strategic metal reserves are
unlikely to run out over the coming decades, notes the UKs Strategically Important Metals report. In practice, improved
technology, the use of alternative materials and the discovery of new reserves are likely to ensure that strategic metals are
accessible.

Alt cause
Commission on the USAI 2 - Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, in association with Dr.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, November 2002 "FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY" trade.gov/static/aero_rpt_aero_commission.pdf

Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends on satellites. Assured reliable access to space is a critical
enabler of this capability. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term space access was the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV), a development project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew primarily on commercial
demand to close the business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government essentially buying launches at the margin.
In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle development and
infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government investment. Today, however, worldwide demand for commercial
satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothingand is not expected to rise for a decade or morewhile the number of
available launch platforms worldwide has proliferated. Today, therefore, the business case for EELV simply does not close, and
reliance on the economics of a commercially-driven market is unsustainable. A new strategy for assured access to space must
be found.

Working satellites are key to US aerospace

Commission on the USAI 2 - Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, in association with Dr.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, November 2002 "FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY" trade.gov/static/aero_rpt_aero_commission.pdf

The U.S. needs unrestricted access to space for civil, commercial, and military applications. Our satellite systems will become
increasingly important to military operations as todays information revolution, the so-called revolution in military affairs,
continues, while at the same time satellites will become increasingly vulnerable to attack as the century proceeds. To preserve
critical satellite networks, the nation will almost certainly need the capability to launch replacement satellites quickly after an
attack. One of the key enablers for launch on demand is reusable space launch, and yet within the last year all work has been
stopped on the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch programs
 STEM leadership
Alt causes Patriot act, border security act, homeland security act, visa reform act, and SEVIS, all greatly
disincentivize foreign students from STEM
Trilokekar 15, Roopa Desai Trilokekar, has worked in the U.S., India and Canada in various capacities facilitating international academic exchanges, FROM SOFT
POWER TO ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY? A Comparison Of The Changing Rationales And Roles Of The U. S. And Canadian Federal Governments In International Education, CSHE,
2/9/15, http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/publications/docs/ROPS.CSHE_.2.15.DesaiTrilokekar.SoftPowerEconDeplomacy.2.9.2015.pdf

The passage of the US Patriot Act, the Enhance Border Security Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the Visa Entry Reform Act
facilitated the federal governments restrictive immigration policies and the implementation in 2003 of the controversial Student
and Exchange Visitors Information System (SEVIS), administered by the new Department of Homeland Security (operations were still DS responsibility).83 As Witt
states, the entire landscape of international education in the US shifted dramatically from a posture of recruitment to one of
determent, from receptive to suspicious, from hospitable to hostile.84 The global war on terrorism replaced the cold war as
the national security meta narrative.85 This was a time of crisis in IE with the U.S. experiencing its first substantial drop in
foreign students for the first time in over 30 years. Such a drop was not experienced even during the cold war. This drop
severely impacted U.S. universities who were both dependent on foreign graduate students for advanced research in the STEM
fields as well as on revenues from international student fees.
Middle East
 Middle East War (Generic)

Water conflicts is an alt cause and overwhelms drags in every Middle East state
John Vidal is the Guardian's environment editor 2 July 2014 "Water supply key to outcome of conflicts in Iraq and Syria,
experts warn" www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/02/water-key-conflict-iraq-syria-isis

The outcome of the Iraq and Syrian conflicts may rest on who controls the regions dwindling water supplies, say security analysts in
London and Baghdad. Rivers, canals, dams, sewage and desalination plants are now all military targets in the semi-arid region that regularly
experiences extreme water shortages, says Michael Stephen, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute think tank in Qatar, speaking from Baghdad. Control
of water supplies gives strategic control over both cities and countryside. We are seeing a battle for control of water. Water is
now the major strategic objective of all groups in Iraq. Its life or death. If you control water in Iraq you have a grip on Baghdad,
and you can cause major problems. Water is essential in this conflict, he said. Isis Islamic rebels now control most of the key
upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates, the two great rivers that flow from Turkey in the north to the Gulf in the south and on which all Iraq and much of
Syria depends for food, water and industry. Rebel forces are targeting water installations to cut off supplies to the largely Shia south of Iraq, says Matthew Machowski, a
Middle East security researcher at the UK houses of parliament and Queen Mary University of London. It is already being used as an instrument of war by
all sides. One could claim that controlling water resources in Iraq is even more important than controlling the oil refineries, especially in summer. Control of the water
supply is fundamentally important. Cut it off and you create great sanitation and health crises, he said Isis now controls the Samarra barrage west of Baghdad on the River
Tigris and areas around the giant Mosul Dam, higher up on the same river. Because much of Kurdistan depends on the dam, it is strongly defended by Kurdish
peshmerga forces and is unlikely to fall without a fierce fight, says Machowski. Last week Iraqi troops were rushed to defend the massive 8km-long
Haditha Dam and its hydroelectrical works on the Euphrates to stop it falling into the hands of Isis forces. Were the dam to fall, say analysts, Isis would control much of
Iraqs electricity and the rebels might fatally tighten their grip on Baghdad. Securing the Haditha Dam was one of the first objectives of the American special forces invading
Iraq in 2003. The fear was that Saddam Husseins forces could turn the structure that supplies 30% of all Iraqs electricity into a weapon of mass destruction by opening the
lock gates that control the flow of the river. Billions of gallons of water could have been released, power to Baghdad would have been cut off, towns and villages over
hundreds of square miles flooded and the country would have been paralysed. In April, Isis fighters in Fallujah captured the smaller Nuaimiyah Dam on the Euphrates and
deliberately diverted its water to drown government forces in the surrounding area. Millions of people in the cities of Karbala, Najaf, Babylon and Nasiriyah had their water
cut off but the town of Abu Ghraib was catastrophically flooded along with farms and villages over 200 square miles. According to the UN, around 12,000 families lost their
homes. Earlier this year Kurdish forces reportedly diverted water supplies from the Mosul Dam. Equally, Turkey has been accused of
reducing flows to the giant Lake Assad, Syrias largest body of fresh water, to cut off supplies to Aleppo, and Isis forces have reportedly targeted water supplies in the refugee
camps set up for internally displaced people. Iraqis fled from Mosul after Isis cut off power and water and only returned when they were
restored, says Machowski. When they restored water supplies to Mosul, the Sunnis saw it as liberation. Control of water resources in the Mosul area is one reason why
people returned, said Machowski. Increasing temperatures, one of the longest and most severe droughts in 50 years and the steady
drying up of farmland as rainfall diminishes have been identified as factors in the political destabilisation of Syria. Both Isis
forces and President Assads army are said to have used water tactics to control the city of Aleppo. The Tishrin Dam on the Euphrates, 60
miles east of the city, was captured by Isis in November 2012. The use of water as a tactical weapon has been used widely by both Isis and the
Syrian government, says Nouar Shamout, a researcher with Chatham House. Syrias essential services are on the brink of collapse under the burden of continuous
assault on critical water infrastructure. The stranglehold of Isis, neglect by the regime, and an eighth summer of drought may combine to create a water and food crisis which
would escalate fatalities and migration rates in the countrys ongoing three-year conflict, he said. The deliberate targeting of water supply networks ...
is now a daily occurrence in the conflict. The water pumping station in Al-Khafsah, Aleppo, stopped working on 10 May, cutting off water supply to half of the
city. It is unclear who was responsible; both the regime and opposition forces blame each other, but unsurprisingly in a city home to almost three million people the incident
caused panic and chaos. Some people even resorted to drinking from puddles in the streets, he said . Water will now be the key to who controls Iraq in
future, said former US intelligence officer Jennifer Dyer on US television last week. If Isis has any hope of establishing itself on territory, it has to control some water. In arid
Iraq, water and lines of strategic approach are the same thing.

Yemen geographic conflict is an alt cause

Faisal Al Yafai Jounalist stationed in the Middle East for The National January 6, 2014"Five things that wont happen in the
Middle East this year" www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/five-things-that-wont-happen-in-the-middle-
east-this-year#full

Yemens southern question will not be solved... Which brings us to Yemen, the surprising bright spot of the Arab Spring,
where at the end of December, the National Dialogue in the country agreed to a federal state, a solution that could resolve
both the current impasse and the long-held grievances of southerners. Yet the agreement, though widely welcomed, is short
on details. And thats the reason why the southern question wont be resolved this year. Chief among the details is how many
regions there will be. The main southern bloc wants two, north and south. The north wants several. Already there is
disagreement, not merely among the political parties, but among the people of the two regions. In the south, the feeling for
separation has exploded in the last seven years and will not be easy to contain. Many of the problems of the south are related
to a chronic lack of investment in the region since unificiation, but they have been expressed by southerners as a desire for
separation. The agreement may, as the UNs envoy to Yemen said, signal the end of the national dialogue, but it is merely the
start of a long negotiation that will have to encompass political representation, control over parts of the military, reparations,
the removal of some political appointees and many other difficult questions between the north and the south, any one of
which could scupper the agreement. Expect progress over the southern question in 2014, but no resolution.

Middle East experts dont listen to the past war wont escalate
*Edited for gendered language*

Luttwak 7 (Edward, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Prospect, May http://www.prospect-
magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9302)

Why are middle east experts so unfailingly wrong? The lesson of history is that men [people] never learn from history, but
middle east experts, like the rest of us, should at least learn from their past mistakes. Instead, they just keep repeating them.
The first mistake is "five minutes to midnight" catastrophism. The late King Hussein of Jordan was the undisputed master of
this genre. Wearing his gravest aspect, he would warn us that with patience finally exhausted the Arab-Israeli conflict was
about to explode, that all past conflicts would be dwarfed by what was about to happen unless, unless And then came the
remedyusually something rather tame when compared with the immense catastrophe predicted, such as resuming this or
that stalled negotiation, or getting an American envoy to the scene to make the usual promises to the Palestinians and apply
the usual pressures on Israel. We read versions of the standard King Hussein speech in countless newspaper columns, hear
identical invocations in the grindingly repetitive radio and television appearances of the usual middle east experts, and are
now faced with Hussein's son Abdullah periodically repeating his father's speech almost verbatim. What actually happens at
each of these "moments of truth"and we may be approaching another oneis nothing much; only the same old cyclical
conflict which always restarts when peace is about to break out, and always dampens down when the violence becomes
intense enough. The ease of filming and reporting out of safe and comfortable Israeli hotels inflates the media coverage of
every minor affray. But humanitarians should note that the dead from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer
than 100,000about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.

Regional cooperation solves---US not key

Hadar, foreign policy studies Cato, 7/1/11 (Leon, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13259)
To some extent, the recognition that the United States has lost some of its ability to determine strategic outcomes in the Middle East has already encouraged regional powers
to reassess the wisdom of free riding on American power. Saudi Arabia, together with its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), has deployed troops to
Bahrain to provide support to the regime and is heading the efforts to stabilize Yemen. Meanwhile, France, a major Mediterranean power, and
Britain have played a leading role in the military operation in Libya to protect their interests in the region. Turkey has been asserting more
forcefully its role as a regional power in multiple ways. Indeed, contrary to the warning proponents of U.S. military intervention typically express, the
withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan would not necessarily lead to more chaos and bloodshed in those countries. Russia, India and
Iran which supported the Northern Alliance that helped Washintgon topple the Taliban and Pakistan (which once backed the Taliban) all have close ties to
various ethnic and tribal groups in that country and now have a common interest in stabilizing Afghanistan and containing the rivalries. A
similar arrangement could be applied to Iraq where Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran share an interest in assisting their local allies and in restraining
potential rivals Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Turkmen by preventing the sectarian tensions in Iraq from spilling into the rest of the region. Hence,
Turkey has already been quite successful in stabilizing and developing economic ties with the autonomous Kurdish area of Iraq while containing
irredentist Kurdish pressures in northern Iraq and southern Turkey and protecting the Turkmen minority. And Turkey, together with Saudi Arabia and Iran, has played a critical
role toward forming a government in Baghdad that recognizes the interests of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The United States should take part in any negotiations leading to
regional agreements on Afghanistan and Iraq, a process that could also become an opportunity to improve the relationship with Iran. Such an approach has the potential to
demonstrate that regionalism , as opposed to American hegemonism, could be more beneficial to U.S. interests as well as to the governments and
people of the Middle East and Central Asia.
 Nuclear Terror
No impact - The concept of the imminent threat of Muslim extremist terror is an orientalist fabrication
not based on empirics or truth be skeptical of their evidence.
Yellow and blue=long. Blue=Short

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya award-winning author and geopolitical analyst and sociologist at @CRG. 6 April 2015 "Imagery
and Empire: Understanding the Western Fear of Arab and Muslim Terrorists" www.globalresearch.ca/imagery-and-empire-
understanding-the-western-fear-of-arab-and-muslim-terrorists/5440478

It has been claimed that most terrorists are Arabs or Muslims

if all terrorists are not Arabs or Muslims, that The . Is this true or another myth? An empirical look at data compiled in the US and Europe will help answer this question.

notion that the majority of terrorist attacks are committed by Arabs or Muslims not only lacks a historical perspective, but is an
unempirical argument that is tied to modern Orientalism that is alive and kicking Orientalism, itself is heavily tied to US views .

of exceptionalism where racist views coincide profoundly

. It is an area of thinking exceptionalist and . In fact, there is a thin line between all three. In an outdated linear and geo-ethnocentric way of thinking, whatever societies are located east, as well
as south, of the US, Canada, and Western Europe particularly France, Britain, and the Germanic-speaking countries are viewed as deficient and inferior. In Europe, this means everyone east of Germany is either tacitly or overtly portrayed as culturally backward. This means the Balkans, Slavic peoples, Albanians, Greeks, Turks, Romanians,

Like exceptionalist attitudes, Orientalist views

Orthodox Christianity, and the ex-Soviet republics. Under Orientalist thinking in the US, even lower on the totem pole are non-Europeans. This means the peoples of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

are important for supporting Washingtons foreign policy and wars as a noble enterprise. US Orientalist attitudes see the rest of the world, from Mexico to Iraq and Russia, as needing US tutelage

Arabs
and stewardship. This is a reconstruction of what was called the white mans burden that was used to justify the colonization of people that were perceived as non-whites. The Relationship between Terrorism and Arabs and Muslims Arabs and Muslims are major quarries of US Orientalism. Either tacitly or openly, both

and Muslims are portrayed as uncivilized subjects Terrorism is deeply tied to images of Arabs and Muslims in the minds of .

many US citizens and this is why it is falsely believed that most terrorists are Arabs or Muslims. when To varying degrees ever individuals that are Muslims or ethnically

Arabs commit crimes assessments have passed judgment on all Muslims or Arabs collectively
in so-called Western societies, such as Canada or the US, the made either tacitly or openly . The

The crimes of Arab or Muslim individuals are presented

Arab and Muslim backgrounds of these individuals is used to explain their crimes. as a collective crime not exclusively as the crimes of individuals, but .

These notions ignore the facts that Muslims are the biggest victims of terrorism. Seven out of the top ten countries afflicted
by terrorist attacks are predominately Muslim , according to the Australia-headquartered Institute for Economics and Peaces Global Terrorism Index for 2014, which is based on the University of Marylands meta-analytic Global Terrorism Database. Using a maximum
value of ten and a minimum value of zero, the entire international community is systematically ranked. Although the definition of terrorist incidents in the University of Marylands Global Terrorism Database can definitely be debated over, important inferences can be made from its data sets and the Institute for Economics and Peaces Global
Terrorism Index. Several key features can be noticed, if readers look at the nature and identities of the perpetrators of what is classified as acts of terrorism among the top thirty countries in the Global Terrorism Index for 2014. The first feature is that the violence generated from the ascribed terrorist groups falls within the framework of
insurrections and civil wars that are generally equated as acts of terrorism. For example, this is the case for countries like Somalia, the Philippines, Thailand, Colombia, Turkey, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Nepal, which are respectively ranked seventh, ninth, tenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, twenty-second, and twenty-fourth place.
Under closer examination several of these insurgencies can be tied to international rivalries and power plays by the US and its allies. This becomes obvious when more observations are made. The second feature is that the majority of the cases of terrorism in the indexed countries, especially the higher ranked they are on the list, are connected to
Washingtons direct or indirect interference in their affairs. For example, this is the case for Iraq, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Russia, Lebanon, Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, China, and Iran, which are respectively ranked first, second, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, eleventh,
fourteenth, fifteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-eighth. US-led wars, Pentagon interventions, US-backed coups, or US government support for so-called opposition groups or proxy regimes have all been a basis for the affliction of terrorism in these countries. Out of the above countries, according to the Global

It has been claimed that if

Terrorism Index, 82% of global deaths that are assigned to acts of terrorism happen in NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Nigeria. The ties to US foreign policy should be clear. Not all Arabs/Muslims are Terrorists, But Most Terrorists are Arabs/Muslims?

all terrorists are not Arabs or Muslims, that most terrorists are Arabs or Muslims In
. Is this true or another myth? An empirical look at data compiled in the US and Europe will help answer this question.

the US the majority of terrorists are not Muslims

, which is ranked thirtieth in the Global Terrorism Index for 2014, Inside the US 6% of terror
and are non-Muslims according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). , ist

were committed by Muslim terrorists The other 94%

cases from 1980 to 2005 . [1] of terrorism cases and terrorists in other words, the vast majority were not related to Arabs, Muslims, or Islam. [2] While the FBIs
methodology on what is a terrorist attack and what is not a terrorist attack is questionable, it will be accepted herein for arguments sake. According to the same FBI report, there were actually more terrorist attacks launched by Jews from 1980 to 2005 on US soil. The same FBI data was compiled by the Princeton University-linked webpage

loonwatch.com in a chart that describes the breakdown of cases of terrorist attacks on US soil from 1980 to 2005 as follows: 42% Hispanic terrorism ; 24% extreme left-wing group terrorism; 16% other types of terrorists that do not fit into the other main categories; 7% Jewish terrorists; 6% Muslim terrorists;

There, however, is no fear

and 5% communist terrorists. [3] While Muslim terrorists comprised 6% of the attacks on US soil from 1980 to 2005, Jewish terrorists and Hispanic terrorists respectively comprised 7% and 42% of the terrorist attacks in the US during the same period.

mongering about Jews or Hispanic people. The same media and government focus is not given to them as is given to ethnic
Arabs and Muslims. The same pattern repeats itself in the European Union. Loonwatch.com also compiles data on terrorism in the European Union from the reports of the European Unions European Police Office (Europol) from 2007, 2008, and 2009 in its annual EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports. [4] The

data further distances Muslims from terrorist acts. 99.6% of the terrorist attacks in the European Union were committed by non-Muslims. [5] The number of failed, foiled, or successful terrorist attacks by Muslims in the EU from 2007 to 2009 was simply five attacks whereas the number of terrorist attacks by separatist groups was 1,352 attacks,
which equates to approximately 85% of all terrorist incidents in the European Union. [6] According to Europol, the number of failed, foiled, or successful terrorist attacks by so-called left-wing groups was 104 while another 52 attacks were categorized as non-specific. [7] In the same period, two attacks were attributed to so-called right-wing groups

There is a huge disparity in who is causing and committing terrorism and who is being victimized and blamed for it.
by Europol. [8]

Despite the overwhelming facts, whenever Arabs or Muslims commit crimes and acts of terrorism, they are the individuals that
are focused on whereas non-Arabs and non-Muslims are ignored Orientalism still manages to assess . If it does acknowledge that Muslims are the biggest victims of terrorism,

some guilt to the victims of terrorism by tacitly portraying them as members of a savage community or society that are as
much prone to facing a violent end as animals in a jungle. Whether Imagery and Empire Illusions are at work in the world. The truth has been turned on its head. The victims are being portrayed as the perpetrators.

stated candidly, implied, or unmentioned, the notion of Arabs and Muslims as savages and terrorists plays on the imagery that
the so-called Western World embodies equality, freedom, choice, civilization, tolerance, progress, and modernity whereas the
so-called Arab-Muslim World underneath its surface represents inequality, restrictions, tyranny, a lack of choices, savagery,
intolerance, backwardness, and primitiveness. This imagery actually serves to de-politize the political nature of tensions. It
sanitizes the actions of empire, from coercive diplomacy with Iran and support for regime change in Syria to the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq and US military intervention in Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. As mentioned earlier, in varying degrees, this imagery extends to other places that are seen by US Orientalists as non-Western

places or entities, like Russia and China. It is because of US foreign policy and economic
At its roots, this imagery is really part of a discourse that sustains a system of power that allows power to be practiced by an empire over outsiders and against its own citizens.

interests that Arabs and Muslims are unempirically portrayed as terrorists while real world data that shows that US
intervention is creating terrorism is ignored . This is why there is a fixation on the attack on Parliament Hill in Canada, the Martin Place hostage crisis in Sydney, and the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, but US, Canadian, Australian, and French governmental support for
terrorism that has cost tens of thousands of lives in Syria is ignored.
Wont go nuclear Cant steal or buy the nuke, plus its against their own interests
Michael Cruickshank, australian journalist in Berlin for Conflict News "Dont Stress. ISIS Cant Buy A Nuclear Weapon" May
23, 2015 www.conflict-news.com/dont-stress-isis-cant-buy-a-nuclear-weapon/

In this months issue of ISISs glitzy Dabiq magazine, an article attributed to high-profile hostage and former journalist John Cantile claims that ISIS has
the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon. It could allegedly do this in Pakistan with its billions of dollars in the bank using weapons dealers with
links to corrupt officials in the region. While there are very real reasons why people concern themselves about Pakistans nuclear arsenal, the likelihood that one could be sold

to ISIS is laughably small. Pakistan currently has an arsenal of approximately 120 nuclear warheads, many of which are attached to ballistic missile delivery systems. This stockpile of
weapons which was developed in order to counter a similar nuclear weapons program in India continues to grow and become more sophisticated. These nuclear weapons are

stored in some of the most secure facilities within Pakistan, and are thus very unlikely to be victims of theft. ISISs (alleged)
belief that it can purchase said weapons from corrupt dealers largely stems for smaller and less significant sales of
conventional arms to groups like the Haqqani Network in the region. However these shady arms deals are not the sort of underground free-for-all that ISIS
imagines in Dabiq. Rather they are likely to be completely controlled by Pakistans notorious Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) which sometimes fosters terrorist groups in order to counter perceived India
encroachment on its territory. Such activities are especially evident in the Kashmir region. While the ISI has been known to pursue such policies without
concern to possible blowback in Pakistan, it is not at all possible that it would be crazy enough to green light the sale of a
nuclear weapon to ISIS. The detonation of this weapon anywhere in the world would have very immediate ramifications for
Pakistan, and could itself trigger a war with India which would annihilate both countries. Assuming that the ISI is a rational actor (which it almost certainly is) such a decision
would be in the worst interests of Pakistan, and thus would never happen. Furthermore, it is unlike that ISIS has the money to pay for such a device even if it
exists. With an estimated 2 billion dollars in the bank, the Islamic State is by far the worlds richest terror group, but much of this is not held in liquid, easily tradable assets. Also, should they

manage to actually spend billions on a nuclear weapon, it would deplete almost all of their funds, leaving them nothing to
support their convention war effort, which would rapidly run out of ammo and arms. ISIS represents a very real threat, but it will likely never get its
hands on a nuclear weapon.

Overblown their evidence mistakes terror threats for terror attacks, key difference in the lit
Benac et al. 14 NANCY BENAC, AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian, and AP writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report. The associated Press. Sep 24, 2014 How
imminent is an 'imminent' attack threat? http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/story/26618333/how-imminent-is-an-imminent-attack-threat

WASHINGTON (AP) - Smart people in the administration have spent the last two days telling the American people that U.S. strikes against the Khorasan Group
were necessary to disrupt "imminent attack plotting" against U.S. and Western interests. They warned that members of the shadowy Khorasan Group,
an al-Qaida offshoot, were "nearing the execution phase" of an attack in the U.S. or Europe. They spoke of "active plotting that posed an imminent threat."
People may have come away with the impression that the terror group was on the brink of pulling off something awful. Perhaps
not. In government-speak, "imminent attack plotting" doesn't necessarily mean an attack is imminent. Careful parsing of the language

reveals a distinction between imminent plotting and an imminent attack. Likewise, an imminent threat doesn't necessarily mean
an imminent attack. And, in the view of the government, there's more than one meaning for imminent, it turns out. Dictionary.com defines
imminent as "likely to occur at any moment." But a Justice Department white paper released in February 2013 gives a more nuanced view. "An 'imminent' threat of violent attack

against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and
interests will take place in the immediate future," the memo reads. That's because U.S. officials say they can't wait until preparations for a
terrorist act are completed before they take action to defend U.S. interests. So their idea of taking action against an "imminent threat" involves a more elastic
time frame. In the case of the Khorasan Group, two U.S. officials told the AP that U.S. officials aren't aware of the terrorists identifying

any particular location or target for an attack in the near future. But intelligence officials have known for months that Khorasan group extremists were scheming with bomb-makers
from al-Qaida's Yemen affiliate to find new ways to get explosives onto planes, the officials said. The plans were far enough along that the Transportation Security

Administration over the summer banned uncharged mobile phones and laptops from flights to the U.S. that originate in Europe and the
Middle East. Despite persistent questioning after the airstrikes, U.S. officials have not explained whether something changed in recent weeks to compel them to launch cruise missiles. Secretary
of State John Kerry said Wednesday on CNN that, although the U.S. had been tracking the group's plots for some time, "the moment actually was ripe," for military strikes. Sen. Carl Levin, D-

Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, described the imminent threat of the al Qaida-linked Khorasan group this way Wednesday at a defense writer's breakfast: " The

briefings we had indicated that there was a growing ability, near ability to put together an explosive device which could get
through the security at airports and that's all I can tell you. And they were at a point, at a critical point in being able to develop that capability." Two American
officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal decision-making, told the AP that the government was concerned that

the group could go underground after the AP reported that it was a top U.S. concern. A bulletin from the FBI and the Department
of Homeland Security issued Tuesday said U.S. officials had "no indicators of advanced al-Qaida or ISIL plotting in the
homeland." But that memo, which used ISIL as an acronym for the militant Islamic State group, doesn't rule out terror plotting afoot elsewhere that could
be focused on U.S. targets. ___ AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian and AP writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
Hype - $10 million didnt get al Qaeda 1 nuke.
Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst. His most recent book is "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al
Qaeda's Leader." (WMD terrorism fears are overblown, December 5, 2011, Accessed on: 6/11/15,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/05/bergen.wmd/) Weintraub
The congressionally authorized Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism issued a report this week that concluded: "It is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be
used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." The findings of this report received considerable ink in The New York Times and The Washington Post and plenty of airtime on networks around the world,

Terrorists have already used weapons of mass

including on CNN. And the day the report was released Vice President-elect Joseph Biden was briefed on its contents. So is the sky falling? Not really.

destruction in the past decade in attacks around the world, and they have proven to be something of a dud. In the fall of 2001, the anthrax attacks in the
United States that targeted politicians and journalists caused considerable panic but did not lead to many deaths. Five people were killed. The alleged author of that attack, Bruce E. Ivins, was one of the leading biological weapons
researchers in the United States. Even this brilliant scientist could only "weaponize" anthrax to the point that it killed a handful of people. Imagine then how difficult it would be for the average terrorist, or even the above-average
terrorist, to replicate such efforts. Similarly, the bizarre Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which recruited leading scientists and had hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, embarked on a large-scale WMD program in the early 1990s
in which cult members experimented with anthrax and invested in land in Australia to mine uranium. In the end, Aum found biological and nuclear attacks too complex to organize and settled instead on a chemical weapons
operation, setting off sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995 that killed 12 commuters. It is hard to imagine a place better suited to killing a lot of people than the jam-packed Tokyo subway, yet the death toll turned out to be small in
Aum's chemical weapons assault. More recently, in 2006 and 2007 al Qaeda's Iraqi affiliate laced several of its bombs with chlorine. Those attacks sickened hundreds of Iraqis, but victims who died in the assaults did so more from
the blast of the bombs than because of inhaling chlorine. Al Qaeda stopped using chlorine in its bombs in Iraq more than a year ago. There is a semantic problem in any discussion of WMDs because the ominous term ''Weapons of
Mass Destruction'' is something of a misnomer. In the popular imagination, chemical, biological and nuclear devices are all weapons of mass destruction. In fact, there is only one weapon of mass destruction that can kill tens or

terrorists would have one of four

hundreds of thousands and that is a nuclear device. So the real question is: Can terrorists deploy nuclear weapons any time in the next five years or even further in the future? To do so,

options: to buy, steal, develop or be given a nuclear weapon. But none of those scenarios are remotely realistic outside the world of Hollywood. To understand how complex it is

to develop a nuclear weapon, it is worth recalling that Saddam Hussein put tens of millions of dollars into his nuclear program with no success . Iran, which has

had a nuclear program for almost two decades, is still years away from developing a nuclear bomb. Terrorist groups simply don't have the massive resources of states, and so
the notion that they could develop their own, even crude, nuclear weapons is fanciful. Well, what about terrorists being given nukes? Preventing this was one of the underlying rationales of the push to topple Hussein in 2003. This

First,
does not pass the laugh test. Brian Michael Jenkins, one of the leading U.S. terrorism experts in a book published this year, "Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?," points out that there are two reasons this is quite unlikely.

governments are not about to hand over their crown jewels to organizations that are "not entirely under state control and
whose reliability is not certain." Second, "giving them a nuclear weapon almost certainly exposes the state sponsor to retaliation." For
the same reason that states won't give nukes to terrorists, they also won't sell them either, which leaves the option of stealing a nuclear weapon. But that is similarly unlikely because nuclear-armed governments, including Pakistan,
are pretty careful about the security measures they place around their most valued weapons. None of this of course is to suggest that al Qaeda is not interested in deploying nuclear devices. Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda
leaders have repeatedly bloviated about the necessity of nuking the West and have even implied that they have the capability to do so. This is nonsense. Yes, in the mid-1990s when Al Qaeda was based in Sudan, members of the
group tried to buy highly enriched uranium suitable for a nuke, but the deal did not go through. And it is certainly the case that a year or so before 9/11, bin Laden was meeting with veterans of Pakistan's nuclear program to discuss

former U.N.
how al Qaeda might get into the nuclear weapons business. But all of this was aspirational, not operational. There is not a shred of evidence that any of this got beyond the talking stage. In 2002,

weapons inspector David Albright undertook a careful study of al Qaeda's nuclear research program and concluded it was
virtually impossible for al Qaeda to have acquired any type of nuclear weapon. However, there is plenty of evidence that the group has experimented with crude
chemical and biological weapons, and also attempted to acquire radioactive materials suitable for a "dirty" bomb, a device that marries conventional explosives to radioactive materials. But even if al Qaeda successfully deployed a
crude chemical, biological or radiological weapon these would not be weapons of mass destruction that killed thousands. Instead, these would be weapons of mass disruption, whose principal effect would be panic -- not mass
casualties. So if not WMDs, what will terrorists use in their attacks over the next five years? Small-bore chemical, biological and radiological attacks are all quite probable, but those attacks would kill scores, not thousands. What
we are likely to see again and again are the tried and tested tactics that terrorists have used for decades: The first vehicle bomb blew up on Wall Street in 1920 detonated by an Italian-American anarchist. Since then, the car/truck
bomb has been reliably deployed by terrorists thousands of times. Assassinations, such as the one that killed Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, sparking one of the bloodiest wars in history. Hijackings, such as those that
inaugurated the worst terrorist attack in history on 9/11. Guys armed with AK-47s intent on murder and mayhem as we saw in Mumbai, India, brought one of the world's largest countries to a standstill and generated continuous
news coverage around the globe for 60 hours. Why go the deeply uncertain, and enormously complex and expensive WMD route when other methods have proved so successful in getting attention for terrorists in the past? The
Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism makes all sorts of sensible recommendations. Among them is creating a WMD adviser in the White House who would coordinate all the
issues of WMD proliferation and terrorism, something the Obama administration would do well to implement. Right now, responsibility for this important job is diffused over numerous agencies, from the Department of Energy to the
Pentagon. But the report's overall conclusion that WMD terrorism is likely to happen "somewhere in the world" in the next five years is simultaneously stating the obvious -- because terrorists already have engaged in crude chemical

and biological weapons attacks -- but also highly unlikely because deploying true WMDs remains beyond the capabilities of terrorist groups today and for the
foreseeable future.

No nukes - Terrorists wont use nukes damages their causes

Kapur 08 [S. Paul Assoc Prof in Dept of Strategic Research at the US Naval War College. Nuclear Terrorism, in The Long
Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st Century Asia. Ed. Muthiah Alagappa. p. 324]
Before a terrorist group can attempt to use nuclear weapons, it must meet two basic requirements. First, the group must decide that it wishes to engage in nuclear terrorism.
Analysts and policy makers often assume that terrorist groups necessarily want to do so (Carter 2004; U.S. Government 2002). However, it is not clear that terrorist
organizations would necessarily covet nuclear devices. Although analysts often characterize terrorism as an irrational activity (Laqeuer 1999: 4-5),
extensive empirical evidence indicates that terrorist groups in fact be- have rationally, adopting strategies designed to achieve
particular ends (Crenshaw 1995: 4; Pape 2003: 344). Thus whether terrorists would use nuclear weapons is contingent on whether doing
so is likely to further their goals. Under what circumstances could nuclear weapons fail to promote terrorists' goals? For certain types of terrorist
objectives, nuclear weapons could be too de- structive. Large-scale devastation could negatively influence audiences important
to the terrorist groups. Terrorists often rely on populations sympathetic to their cause for political, financial, and military
support. The horrific destruction of a nuclear explosion could alienate segments of this audience. People who otherwise would
sympathize with the terrorists may conclude that in using a nuclear device terrorists had gone too far and were no longer deserving of support. The catastrophic
effects of nuclear weapons could also damage or destroy the very thing that the terrorist group most values. For example, if a
terrorist orga- nization were struggling with another group for control of their common home- land, the use of nuclear weapons against the enemy group
would devastate the terrorists' own home territory. Using nuclear weapons would be extremely counter- productive for the terrorists in this scenario. It is
thus not obvious that all terrorist groups would use nuclear weapons. Some groups would probably not. The propensity for nuclear acquisition and use by ter- rorist groups
must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
No loose nukes or state sponsors, cant smuggle into the U.S. or build them
Mearsheimer 11, January, John J., Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of
Chicago. He is on the Advisory Council of The National Interest, Imperial by
Design,http://nationalinterest.org/article/imperial-by-design-4576?page=3, EMM

The fact is that states have strong incentives to distrust terrorist groups, in part because they might turn on them someday, but also because countries
cannot control what terrorist organizations do, and they may do something that gets their patrons into serious trouble. This is why there is hardly any
chance that a rogue state will give a nuclear weapon to terrorists. That regimes leaders could never be sure that they would
not be blamed and punished for a terrorist groups actions. Nor could they be certain that the United States or Israel would not
incinerate them if either country merely suspected that they had provided terrorists with the ability to carry out a WMD attack. A nuclear handoff, therefore, is not a
serious threat. When you get down to it, there is only a remote possibility that terrorists will get hold of an atomic bomb. The most likely way
it would happen is if there were political chaos in a nuclear-armed state, and terrorists or their friends were able to take advantage of the ensuing confusion to snatch a loose
nuclear weapon. But even then, there are additional obstacles to overcome: some countries keep their weapons disassembled,
detonating one is not easy and it would be difficult to transport the device without being detected. Moreover, other countries
would have powerful incentives to work with Washington to find the weapon before it could be used. The obvious implication is that we
should work with other states to improve nuclear security, so as to make this slim possibility even more unlikely. Finally, the ability of terrorists to
strike the American homeland has been blown out of all proportion. In the nine years since 9/11, government officials and
terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that another major attack on American soil is probableeven imminent. But
this is simply not the case.3 The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by individuals with links to al-Qaeda like the shoe
bomber, who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and the underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a Northwest
Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009. So, we do have a terrorism problem, but it
is hardly an existential threat. In fact, it is a minor
threat. Perhaps the scope of the challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John Muellers telling comment that
the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s . . . is about the same as the number killed over
the same period by lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.
 Iran War

Tag
al-Gharbi 15 (Musa al-Gharbi, senior fellow with the Southwest Initiative for the Study of Middle East Conflicts (SISMEC).
May 1, 2015 "Irans nuclear threat is a myth" america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/irans-nuclear-threat-is-a-myth.html)

On April 21, Iran and six world powers resumed the final phase of nuclear talks after a preliminary framework deal reached
earlier this month. Iran and the P5+1 countries Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States are
expected to reach a final accord by the end of June.

Yet hawks in Washington and Israel continue to oppose the negotiations. They argue that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a
nuclear weapon or even remain within sprinting distance of acquiring one. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to
Israel, they claim, and would likely provoke a nuclear arms race in the troubled Middle East. Others have suggested that a
nuclear-armed Iran may even precipitate World War III, pushing the world closer to a nuclear winter.

Most of these fears are simply unfounded. In fact, even if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon and managed to obtain one, it would
not be able to carry out a successful nuclear strike against Israel or the United States.

No ballistic missile option

Irans primary challenge in targeting the U.S. or Israel would be geographic. Roughly 1,100 miles separate the Islamic Republic
from Israels borders. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which maintain joint missile-defense pacts with Israel, occupy much of
the intervening space. This means that a missile from Iran could easily be intercepted by one of these countries before it
reaches Israel.

Even if this first line of defense failed, Israel has three complementary missile defense systems that are among the most
sophisticated in the world. Israel has the strongest military in the region and has recently quadrupled its air forces striking
power, which would allow the country to quickly intercept incoming projectiles.

Moreover, launching a surprise attack would be extraordinarily difficult, given Israels superior intelligence capabilities, which
are focused almost entirely on Iran not to mention its unprecedented cooperation with the United States.

Israel also has other geographical advantages: It would be nearly impossible for Iran to strike Israel without killing large
numbers of Palestinians in the process. Iran has been one of the most vocal and consistent supporters of the Palestinian cause.
Thus it is unthinkable that Tehran would carry out a nuclear strike, which could annihilate the Palestinian territories. Nuclear
fallout from such a strike could prove devastating to southern Lebanon and western Syria, causing immense harm to two of
Irans key regional allies, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime.

A strike on the United States would be even less plausible. To reach the U.S., an Iranian missile would have to deliver a nuclear
payload more than 6,000 miles. The capacity of Irans intercontinental ballistic missiles is nowhere near this range, and it wont
be for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the missile would have to make it through the network that protects Israel, cross
the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic, all without being detected or intercepted by NATO, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S.
Navy, U.S. satellites and Washingtons robust missile defense systems.

Clearly, any attempted nuclear strike on Israel or the U.S. is certain to fail. In fact, it would amount to suicide for Tehran. The
regional and international response would be immediate, more or less unanimous and overwhelming in scale: The Islamic
Republic would not survive.

The majority of the American public supports a nuclear deal as the best alternative to preventing rather than enabling
Irans nuclear ambitions.

Hawks contend that, even if it lacked the capacity to attack Israel or the U.S., Iran could provide highly enriched nuclear
material to terrorist groups to be incorporated into a devastating dirty bomb that could be deployed against the U.S. or Israel.
But this scenario is unlikely for a number of reasons.

For one, Irans regional allies including Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemens Houthis are primarily nationalistic and rarely
operate outside their home countries or their perceived national interests. Moreover, none of these groups have a
demonstrated intent or capability to attack the U.S. mainland. This is in part why U.S. intelligence recently removed Iran and
Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats.

Moreover, dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction. A radiological dispersion device does not have much more
explosive power than a conventional weapon. Moreover, the relatively small amounts of nuclear material emitted in the
process are unlikely to pose a severe immediate or long-term health risk to the public.

Therefore, even if Irans proxies obtained nuclear material and decided to carry out a radiological attack in Israel or the United
States, the effect would hardly be catastrophic. The consequences for Iran, on the other hand, would be.

No deterrence

The logic behind nuclear deterrence is that a country will be hesitant to carry out an attack against an adversary that possesses
nuclear weapons, lest it use weapons of mass destruction in reprisal. However, given that Iran cannot carry out a successful
nuclear strike against Israel or the United States under any conceivable circumstances, nuclear weapons would do little to
deter Israel or the U.S. from attacking Tehran.

On the contrary, if in violation of its international commitments, Iran makes concrete steps toward developing and testing a
nuclear weapon or manages to obtain one, that could be used as sufficient justification for a military intervention to disarm
and possibly dismantle the Islamic Republic.

Irans procurement of a nuclear weapon would result in its becoming a pariah state like North Korea, with increased isolation.
This is in stark contrast to the military, economic, geopolitical and ideological superpower it is poised to become if fully
integrated into the international community. Hence Irans Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is right to suggest that
nuclear weapons hold no strategic value for Tehran.
Most nuclear nonproliferation and foreign policy experts, as well as the majority of the American public, support a nuclear deal
as the best alternative to preventing rather than enabling, Irans nuclear ambitions. Those presenting apocalyptic visions of
nuclear-armed Iran are not independent ballistics experts. Instead, they are ideologues or parties who are aligned with one of
Irans geopolitical adversaries or cynical politicians who want to exploit the Iranian bogeyman in the service of their domestic
political agendas. In fact, even in the unlikely event that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would hardly be the end of the
world.

Iran threat is exaggerated

ANDREW HANDLEY, political writer for listverse MARCH 6, 2014 "10 Signs We Are Headed Into World War"
IIIlistverse.com/2014/03/06/10-signs-we-are-headed-into-world-war-iii/

rumors of war are also being whispered in

While tension rises on the Eastern European front and Southeast Asia is mired in an explosive territorial dispute,
the Middle Eastspecifically, Iran. But is Iran any real threat? Depending on the spin, its easy to think so. In January 2014, Iran
dispatched a fleet of ships toward US national waters. The Senate has decided that unless military action is taken, Irans nuclear development will continue
unchecked. And on February 12, 2014, Irans military chief answered that claim by declaring the countrys willingness to go toe-to-toe with American forces, on land or at sea.
It sounds like a crisis in the making, but its not as bad as it seems. Those warships were a rusty frigate and a supply boat,
the White House in no way backs the Senates bill, and while Iranian general Hassan Firouzabadi did threaten the US and the
Zionist regime (Israel), its worth remembering that theyve done so plenty of times in the past. Another point of contention is Irans
military force. Including paramilitaries, Iran states that they have 13.6 million people who can pick up a weapon at a moments notice.
While that number is probably exaggerated, it doesnt matter much anywayWorld War III, if it happens, will be mostly an
aerial war dependent more on long-range technologies than close-quarters combat. And that, surprisingly, is an example of why not to count
Iran out of the picture. They have an air force of 30,000 men with several hundred aircraft, along with cruise missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,240 mi). Thats plenty
of range to hit US bases in the Gulf. But most importantly, continued attention on Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries is spreading the Wests foreign resources a
little too thin, especially now that Russia wont be any help in that region.
 Israel-Iran
Israel creates the treat of Iran launching a nuke as a justification for their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Question their impact scholarship, Iran has no intent to nuke them, plus multiple factors.
Yousef Munayyer is executive director of the Palestine Center. April 21, 2010 "Why Iran won't attack Israel"
articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/21/opinion/la-oew-0421-munayyer-20100421
Palestinians are in Israel today because they managed to survive the depopulation of 1948, the year the Jewish state was founded (Arabs constitute about 20% of Israel's
population). Ironically, while Benny Morris' scholarship suggests that the mere existence of these Palestinians in Israel -- and millions more in the occupied
territories -- irks him, Israel's substantial Arab population also blows a hole in his argument about the need to deal with the supposed Iranian nuclear threat. Morris is part of
an increasingly vociferous chorus warning of an impending apocalypse for Israel at the hands of a nuclear Iran eager to rid the Middle East
of its Jews. Yet Iran's religious leaders have repeatedly stated that such weapons are "un-Islamic" or "forbidden under Islam." Morris' role in our
understanding of the region's history is confounding . Arguably, no one played a more central role in exposing Israel's role in the depopulation of
Palestinians from their homeland than Morris. In his seminal work, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem," Morris, using declassified military documents, exposes the
calculated effort by early Israeli leaders to impose a Jewish majority through ethnic cleansing. Long considered a champion of modern Israeli historians who sought to shed
light on the ugly side of Israel's birth, Morris shocked many Israelis and Palestinians alike when he later changed course. To
Morris, the ethnic cleansing of the
Palestinians was no longer the problem at the heart of the conflict; in fact, he suggested that the problem was that Israel didn't
finish the job in 1948. Morris said in a 2004 interview "Under some circumstances expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war
crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands." Morris added later in the interview that if Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-
Gurion, "was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. ... If he had carried out a full expulsion rather than a partial one he would have
stabilized the state of Israel for generations." Yet the pesky Palestinian minority Morris wishes had been expelled decades ago serves as a
deterrent from a nuclear-armed Iran, should the Islamic Republic ever build nuclear weapons and consider using them on
Israel. The fact that Arab Israelis were among the casualties of the 2006 war with Hezbollah speaks to the reality that no nuclear attack on Israel could happen without the
deaths of countless Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention the likely destruction of Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam. The reality of Palestinian
casualties, the destruction of Jerusalem, the onset of regional war and the immediate destruction of Iran's regime as a result of
a multilateral conventional or even nuclear counterattack all serve as a credible deterrent to a nuclear Iran. The Iranian
leadership has shown a demonstrable interest in self-preservation The alarmism espoused Morris and company isn't
grounded in reality. Rather just as with Iraq, Syria and now Iran Israel constantly needs an enemy that it says threatens
its existence. Otherwise the Jewish state would have a harder time maintaining its overwhelming military supremacy in the
region and continuously changing the subject from resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to practically anything else. The
ideology at the foundation of the state of Israel and the very justification for its existence requires the existence of apocalyptic anti-Semitic forces with the intent and
capability to annihilate. Without
these boogeymen, whether it is Saddam Hussein, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Arabs
who "want to push Israel into the sea," the state of Israel ceases to have any justification for the maintenance of a Jewish
majority by force or for its ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands . The fact that Benjamin Netanyahu, the pro-colonization
Israeli prime minister, has made every effort to connect the idea of a nuclear Iran to the Holocaust is evidence of this scare-
mongering. Iran, like Iraq in 2003, is an inflated but necessary fear for Israel. No credible analysis of the situation envisions a
scenario in which Iran would use nuclear weapons against the Jewish state. But proponents of Israel's colonial enterprise,
who support maintaining a Jewish majority by the force of walls and soldiers in occupied territory, want everyone to believe
that the focus should be on Iran, not on the occupation, and that Israel's security policies are justifiable against "existential
threats." The need for these inflated threats has increased in the years since Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Despite these agreements, Israel still
maintains and furthers its occupation of Palestinian lands through blockade and settlement expansion. The emperor may be naked in Tel Aviv, but he can continue avoiding
attention and shame if he persuades the world to look in Tehran's direction instead.

Isreal wont attack Iran 3 independent reasons

*yellow and blue =long, blue=short

Kek 15 (Zachary Keck, chief writer for the National Interest February 9, 2015 "5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran"
nationalinterest.org/commentary/five-reasons-israel-wont-attack-iran-9469 )
Although not a member of the P5+1 itself, Israel has always loomed large over the negotiations concerning Irans nuclear program. For example, in explaining French
opposition to a possible nuclear deal earlier this month, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stated: The security concerns of Israel and all the countries of the region have
to be taken into account. Part of Fabius concern derives from the long-held fear that Israel will launch a preventive strike against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear
weapons. For some, this possibility remains all too real despite the important interim agreement the P5+1 and Iran reached this weekend. For example, when asked on ABCs
This Week whether Israel would attack Iran while the interim deal is in place, William Kristol responded: I don't think the prime minister will think he is constrained by the
U.S. deciding to have a six-month deal. [] six months, one year, I mean, if they're going to break out, they're going to break out. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
has done little to dispel this notion. Besides blasting the deal as a historic mistake, Netanyahu said Israel is not obliged to the agreement and warned the regime in Iran is
dedicated to destroying Israel and Israel has the right and obligation to defend itself with its own forces against every threat. Many dismiss this talk as bluster, however.
Over at Bloomberg View, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg argues that the nuclear deal has boxed-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so comprehensively that it's
unimaginable Israel will strike Iran in the foreseeable future. Eurasia Group's Cliff Kupchan similarly argued: The chance of Israeli strikes during the period of the interim
agreement drops to virtually zero. Although the interim deal does further reduce Israels propensity to attack, the truth is that the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Irans
reasons why Israel isnt likely to attack Iran.
nuclear facilities has always been greatly exaggerated. There are at least five
1. You Snooze, You Lose First, if Israel was going to strike Irans nuclear facilities, it would have done so a long time ago. Since getting
caught off-guard at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel has generally acted proactively to thwart security threats. On no issue has
this been truer than with nuclear-weapon programs. For example, Israel bombed Saddam Husseins program when it consisted of just a single
nuclear reactor. According to ABC News, Israel struck Syrias lone nuclear reactor just months after discovering it. The IAEA had been
completely in the dark about the reactor, and took years to confirm the building was in fact housing one. Contrast this with Israels policy toward Irans
nuclear program. The uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy-water reactor at Arak first became public knowledge in 2002. For more
than a decade now, Tel Aviv has watched as the program has expanded into two fully operational nuclear facilities, a budding nuclear-research reactor, and countless other
well-protected and -dispersed sites. Furthermore, Americas extreme reluctance to initiate strikes on Iran was made clear to Israel at least as far back as 2008. It would be
completely at odds with how Israel operates for it to standby until the last minute when faced with what it views as an existential threat.
2. Bombing Iran Makes an Iranian Bomb More Likely Much like a U.S. strike, only with much less tactical impact, an Israeli air strike against
Irans nuclear facilities would only increase the likelihood that Iran would build the bomb. At home, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
could use the attack to justify rescinding his fatwa against possessing a nuclear-weapons program, while using the greater domestic support for the
regime and the nuclear program to mobilize greater resources for the countrys nuclear efforts. Israels attack would also give the Iranian regime a
legitimate (in much of the worlds eyes) reason to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and kick out
international inspectors. If Tehrans membership didnt even prevent it from being attacked, how could it justify staying in the regime? Finally, support for
international sanctions will crumble in the aftermath of an Israeli attack, giving Iran more resources with which to rebuild its nuclear facilities.
3. Helps Iran, Hurts Israel Relatedly, an Israeli strike on Irans nuclear program would be a net gain for Iran and a huge loss for
Tel Aviv. Iran could use the strike to regain its popularity with the Arab street and increase the pressure against Arab rulers. As
noted above, it would also lead to international sanctions collapsing, and an outpouring of sympathy for Iran in many countries
around the world. Meanwhile, a strike on Irans nuclear facilities would leave Israel in a far worse-off position. Were Iran to respond by
attacking U.S. regional assets, this could greatly hurt Israels ties with the United States at both the elite and mass levels. Indeed, a war-
weary American public is adamantly opposed to its own leaders dragging it into another conflict in the Middle East. Americans
would be even more hostile to an ally taking actions that they fully understood would put the U.S. in danger. Furthermore, the quiet but growing cooperation
Israel is enjoying with Sunni Arab nations against Iran would evaporate overnight. Even though many of the political elites in these countries
would secretly support Israels action, their explosive domestic situations would force them to distance themselves from Tel Aviv for an extended period of time. Israels
reputation would also take a further blow in Europe and Asia, neither of which would soon forgive Tel Aviv.
 ISIS
Inevitable: ISIS is perpetuated by the US its a strategic advantage for the CIA
Wayne Madsen, foreign politics writer. June 29 2015"ISIL: Made in Langley" conspiracyanalyst.org/tag/isil/

Venezuelas president Nicolas Maduro, who the CIA is busy trying to overthrow, called ISIL a Frankenstein, a monster nursed
by the West itself in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 2014. Not coincidentally, as President Barack Obama
declared that Venezuela posed a national security threat to the United States in March, there were reports of nascent ISIL
activity in Venezuela. The U.S. Army War College, including Professor Robert Bunker, began issuing statements that increased
ISIL activity in Venezuela would be good for U.S. national security because ISIL is the natural enemy of Hezbollah, which the
U.S. neocons are claiming has gained a strategic toehold in Venezuela. The links between ISIL and the West in Latin America
have not been lost on the Western Hemispheres sage senior statesman, former Cuban president Fidel Castro. In September
2014, Castro accused Israels Mossad, in league with Senator McCain, of helping to create ISIL. The ultimate perpetrators of
ISILs ravaging of the Middle East are not to be found in the deserts of the Middle East and the mountains of Afghanistan but in
the seventh floor directors suite at CIA headquarters in Langley. In 1985, the same year the CIA sponsored the summit of right-
wing terrorist groups in Jamba, Angola, the CIA tried to kill Lebanons Shia Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadl-Allah
with a car bomb in Beirut. The CIA missed the ayatollah but killed 80 innocent people and wounded 256. Today, the CIA allows
ISIL to get its fingers dirty in carrying out such terrorist attacks from Iraq and Syria to Yemen and Libya. ISIL cannot be brought
to its knees without dealing harshly with Mr. Brennan and his top advisers.

China solves now

Nieuwenhuizen 15 - Simone van Nieuwenhuizen, 6 February 2015, Master of International Relations (Diplomacy) from
Peking University "Tough choices for Beijing following execution of Chinese ISIS militants"
www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/02/06/Tough-choices-China-following-execution-ISIS-
militants.aspx?COLLCC=3593087969&
Despite China's long-standing diplomatic principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, Beijing cannot completely control its citizens'
involvement in terrorist activity abroad. Whether China likes it or not, it is being drawn into the conflict against ISIS. China's state media yesterday
reported that three Chinese ISIS militants were executed in 2014 following their attempted desertion from the terrorist organisation. Quoting an unnamed
Kurdish security official, a reporter for the Global Times wrote that one militant was killed in Syria in September after becoming disillusioned and trying to
return to the Turkish university where he had been a student. The other two were beheaded in December along with 11 other militants from six different
nationalities. In response to the report, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson simply stated: 'China opposes all forms of terrorism. China is willing to
strengthen cooperation with the international community to fight together against terrorist forces, including the "East Turkestan Islamic Movement
(ETIM)", in order to protect regional and global security and stability.' This standard statement effectively summarises the Chinese Government's thinking
on counter-terrorism: the emphasis is on the international community's cooperation with China in its fight against the threats of domestic terrorism and
separatism (ETIM is an Islamic terrorist organisation founded by Uyghur militants in western China), while China's cooperation with the international
community in its fight against international terrorist organisations remains limited. This thinking is frequently expressed in the country's media. Last week,
an op-ed in the Global Times put the blame for the execution of a Japanese hostage at the hands of ISIS squarely on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, arguing
that Abe values Japan's relationship with Washington above the safety of its own citizens. It reasons that the execution should serve as a warning to other
East Asian nations not to become embroiled in this conflict, and ends by expressing the hope that 'from now on, whenever China encounters any kind of
terrorist attack, Japanese, US and European public opinion will make a clearer-cut condemnation of those attacks.' The involvement of Chinese citizens in
ISIS is increasingly under scrutiny. Just two weeks ago, Malaysia's Home Minister confirmed that 300 Chinese militants had used his country as a transit
point to join ISIS. Three weeks ago, Chinese authorities arrested 10 Turkish nationals for providing false passports to alleged terrorists from Xinjiang. China
will soon be forced to make difficult policy choices with significant implications for its diplomacy and international role. It will no longer be able to make
official statements linking Uyghur separatists within its borders to international terrorist organisations without making a tangible contribution to counter-
terrorism efforts abroad.

Wont go nuclear
STEPHEN M. Walt is the Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University (Why We Dont
Need to Worry About a Nuclear Handoff, Foreignpolicy.com, JULY 25, 2013, Accessed on: 6/5/15,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/25/why-we-dont-need-to-worry-about-a-nuclear-handoff/) Weintaub
After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. national security establishment started focusing on the various ways that "international terrorism" might pose a threat to U.S. interests or the United States itself.
Unsurprisingly, experts began to dream up all sorts of frightening scenarios and worry about all sorts of far-fetched scenarios. I remember this period well, and I recall sitting through seminars and
workshops at which lots of very smart and creative people were imagining various nasty things that groups like al Qaeda might try to do. Hijack gas trucks and blow up the Lincoln Tunnel? Take over
the Mall of America and create carnage on a big shopping day? Commandeer a supertanker and smash it into the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge? Wait until summer and then set forest fires all over the
American West? The list of conceivable dangers was infinitely long, but if you sat in enough of those seminars, you could easily become convinced that it was only a matter of time before somebody
did something really nasty to you or your loved ones. Imagination is one thing, but disciplined risk assessment is another. Its easy to dream up bad things that could
conceivably happen, but intelligent public policy should rest on a more careful and sustained appraisal of how likely those various scary
things are. And thats why I suggest you read Keir Lieber and Daryl Presss recent article in the journal International Security on "Why States Wont Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists." The
fear that nuclear-armed states would hand weapons to terrorists has been a staple of U.S. threat-mongering ever since 9/11. It
was a key part of the justification for invading Iraq in 2003, and it forms part of the constant drumbeat for military action against Iran. But it never made much sense for two reasons. First, a nuclear-
armed state has little incentive to give up control over weapons it has labored long and hard to acquire, for what could the state possibly gain from doing so? Second, a state giving nuclear weapons to
terrorists could never be sure that those weapons would not be traced back to it and thereby invite devastating retaliation. Lieber and Press examine the historical record and show
that it is almost impossible to conduct a major terrorist operation and not be blamed for it. Heres the abstract for their article: Many experts
consider nuclear terrorism the single greatest threat to U.S. security. The fear that a state might transfer nuclear materials to terrorists was a core justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and,
more recently, for a strike against Irans nuclear program. The logical basis for this concern is sound: if a state could orchestrate an anonymous nuclear terror attack, it could destroy an enemy yet
avoid retaliation. But how likely is it that the perpetrators of nuclear terrorism could remain anonymous? Data culled from a decade of terrorist
incidents reveal that attribution is very likely after high-casualty terror attacks. Attribution rates are even higher for attacks on the U.S. homeland or the territory of a major U.S. ally 97 percent for
incidents in which ten or more people were killed. Moreover, tracing a terrorist group that used a nuclear weapon to its state sponsor would not be
difficult, because few countries sponsor terror; few terror groups have multiple sponsors; and only one country that sponsors terrorism, Pakistan, has nuclear weapons or enough material to
manufacture them. If leaders understand these facts, they will be as reluctant to give weapons to terrorists as they are to use them directly; both
actions would invite devastating retaliation. I might add that this is the kind of important, nonpartisan, policy-relevant work that more social scientists ought to be doing. It is also important to
disseminate these findings widely, so that 1) U.S. policymakers wont keep chasing phantom dangers, 2) the leaders of nuclear-armed states understand that their arsenals are good for deterrence and
not much else, and 3) said leaders also understand the need to keep whatever weapons they might have under very reliable control.
Power War
 *Extinction - Great Power War
No nuclear war between great powers its in a countrys interest to avoid war and miscalc is highly
unlikely
Yellow and blue = long. Blue = Normal (20s)

John Aziz, political analyst for The Week, March 6, 2014 "Don't worry: World War III will almost certainly never happen"
theweek.com/articles/449783/dont-worry-world-war-iii-almost-certainly-never-happen

Next year will be the seventieth anniversary of the end of the last global conflict. There have been points on that timeline such as the Cuban missile crisis in 1962,
and a Soviet computer malfunction in 1983 that erroneously suggested that the U.S. had attacked, and perhaps even the Kosovo War in 1999 when a global conflict was a real possibility. Yet today in the shadow of a

flare up which some are calling a new Cold War between Russia and the U.S. I believe the threat of World War III has almost faded into nothingness. That is, the

probability of a world war is the lowest it has been in decades, and perhaps the lowest it has ever been since the dawn of modernity. This is certainly a view
that current data supports. Steven Pinker's studies into the decline of violence reveal that deaths from war have fallen and
fallen since World War II . But we should not just assume that the past is an accurate guide to the future. Instead, we must look at the factors which have led to the
reduction in war and try to conclude whether the decrease in war is sustainable. So what's changed? Well, the first big change
after the last world war was the arrival of mutually assured destruction. It's no coincidence that the end of the last global war
coincided with the invention of atomic weapons. The possibility of complete annihilation provided a huge disincentive to
launching and expanding total wars. Instead, the great powers now fight proxy wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan (the 1980 version, that is), rather than
letting their rivalries expand into full-on, globe-spanning struggles against each other. Sure, accidents could happen, but the possibility
is incredibly remote. More importantly, nobody in power wants to be the cause of Armageddon. But what about a non-
nuclear global war? Other changes economic and social in nature have made that highly unlikely too. The world has
become much more economically interconnected since the last global war. Economic cooperation treaties and free trade
agreements have intertwined the economies of countries around the world. This has meant there has been a huge rise in the volume of global trade since World War II,
and especially since the 1980s. Today consumer goods like smartphones, laptops, cars, jewelery, food, cosmetics, and medicine are

produced on a global level, with supply-chains criss-crossing the planet. An example: The laptop I am typing this on is the cumulative culmination of thousands of hours of
work, as well as resources and manufacturing processes across the globe. It incorporates metals like tellurium, indium, cobalt, gallium, and manganese mined in Africa. Neodymium mined in

China. Plastics forged out of oil, perhaps from Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Venezuela. Aluminum from bauxite, perhaps mined in Brazil. Iron, perhaps mined in
Australia. These raw materials are turned into components memory manufactured in Korea, semiconductors forged in Germany, glass made in the
United States. And it takes gallons and gallons of oil to ship all the resources and components back and forth around the world, until they are finally assembled in China, and shipped once again
around the world to the consumer. In a global war, global trade becomes a nightmare. Shipping becomes more expensive due to
higher insurance costs, and riskier because it's subject to seizures, blockades, ship sinkings. Many goods, intermediate
components or resources including energy supplies like coal and oil, components for military hardware, etc, may become
temporarily unavailable in certain areas. Sometimes such as occurred in the Siege of Leningrad during World War II the supply of food can
be cut off. This is why countries hold strategic reserves of things like helium, pork, rare earth metals and oil, coal, and gas. These kinds of breakdowns were troublesome enough in the economic landscape of the early and mid-
20th century, when the last global wars occurred. But in today's ultra-globalized and ultra-specialized economy? The level of economic adaptation even for

large countries like Russia and the United States with lots of land and natural resources required to adapt to a world war would be crushing, and huge numbers of business and livelihoods

would be wiped out. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images) In other words, global trade interdependency has become, to borrow a phrase from finance, too

big to fail. It is easy to complain about the reality of big business influencing or controlling politicians. But big business has just about the most to lose from breakdowns
in global trade. A practical example: If Russian oligarchs make their money from selling gas and natural resources to Western Europe, and send their children to schools in Britain and Germany, and lend and borrow money
from the West's financial centers, are they going to be willing to tolerate Vladimir Putin starting a regional war in Eastern Europe (let alone a world war)? Would the Chinese financial industry be happy to see their multi-trillion dollar
investments in dollars and U.S. treasury debt go up in smoke? Of course, world wars have been waged despite international business interests, but the world today is far more globalized than ever before and well-connected domestic

But what of the military-industrial

interests are more dependent on access to global markets, components and resources, or the repayment of foreign debts. These are huge disincentives to global war.

complex ? While other businesses might be hurt due to a breakdown in trade, surely military contractors and weapons manufacturers are happy with war?
Not necessarily. As the last seventy years illustrates, it is perfectly possible for weapons contractors to enjoy the profits from
huge military spending without a global war. And the uncertainty of a breakdown in global trade could hurt weapons
contractors just as much as other industries in terms of losing access to global markets. That means weapons manufacturers may be just as uneasy about the prospects for large-scale war as other businesses. Other
changes have been social in nature. Obviously, democratic countries do not tend to go to war with each other , and the spread of liberal democracy is correlated against the decrease in war around the world. But the spread of

internet technology and social media has brought the world much closer together, too. As late as the last world war,
populations were separated from each other by physical distance, by language barriers, and by lack of mass communication
tools. This means that it was easy for war-mongering politicians to sell a population on the idea that the enemy is evil. It's hard
to empathize with people who you only see in slanted government propaganda reels. Today, people from enemy countries
can come together in cyberspace and find out that the "enemy" is not so different, as occurred in the Iran-Israel solidarity movement of 2012 . More importantly,
violent incidents and deaths can be broadcast to the world much more easily. Public shock and disgust at the brutal reality of war broadcast over YouTube and Facebook
makes it much more difficult for governments to carry out large scale military aggressions. For example, the Kremlin's own pollster today released a survey showing that 73 percent of Russians disapprove of Putin's handling of the
Ukraine crisis, with only 15 percent of the nation supporting a response to the overthrow of the government in Kiev. There are, of course, a few countries like North Korea that deny their citizens access to information that might
contradict the government's propaganda line. And sometimes countries ignore mass anti-war protests as occurred prior to the Iraq invasion of 2003 but generally a more connected, open, empathetic and democratic world has

the world as a whole is getting richer. Fundamentally,

made it much harder for war-mongers to go to war. (Kena Betancur/Getty Images) The greatest trend, though, may be that

wars arise out of one group of people deciding that they want whatever another group has land, tools, resources, money, friends, sexual partners, empire,
prestige and deciding to take it by force. Or they arise as a result of grudges or hatreds from previous wars of the first kind. We don't quite live in a superabundant world yet, but the long

march of human ingenuity is making basic human wants like clothing, water, food, shelter, warmth, entertainment,
recreation, and medicine more ubiquitous throughout the world. This means that countries are less desperate to go to war to
seize other people's stuff. Now, the future is infinite and today's trends don't last forever. Declarations of the "end of history" often come back to haunt
those who make them, and I am well aware that a world war is still possible. Trying to predict the actions of nations in the present is hard enough, and
further into the future becomes exponentially more difficult. (Then again, my take is like Pascal's Wager: If I'm wrong, who's going to be around to tell me so?) Further into the
future, severe climate change, and resource depletion, for example, could lead to new pressures to go to war (although climate mitigation and adaptation as well as recycling technologies mean both

of these possibilities are avoidable). The development of robotic soldiers and drones may make it easier for countries (or even corporations) to go to war. Technical errors, computer glitches, or diplomatic

misunderstandings can lead to war. Terrorism, inequality, and internal political or civil strife can all create the pressure for war. But the tendency toward inertia is strong. It is clear at

least that the incentives for world war are far lower than they were in previous decades, and the disincentives are growing. The apocalyptic visions
of a new world war between nations or empires that three generations of children have been raised into continue to diminish.

Nukes wont cause extinction their evidence is flawed. Underline, bold, highlight, italicize, and star this
card in another pen color, draw a pentagram around it, cut it out, and glue it on to your ballot.
JR Nyquist (Defense Analyst) may 20 1999 Worldnetdaily.com

nuclear war would not be the end of the world. I then point to studies showing that "nuclear winter"
I patiently reply to these correspondents that

has no scientific basis, that fallout from a nuclear war would not kill all life on earth. Surprisingly, few of my correspondents are convinced.
They prefer apocalyptic myths created by pop scientists, movie producers and journalists. If Dr. Carl Sagan once said "nuclear winter" would follow a

nuclear war, then it must be true. If radiation wipes out mankind in a movie, then that's what we can expect in real life. But Carl Sagan was

wrong about nuclear winter. And the movie "On the Beach" misled American filmgoers about the effects of fallout. It is time,
once and for all, to lay these myths to rest. Nuclear war would not bring about the end of the world, though it would be horribly destructive.
The truth is, many prominent physicists have condemned the nuclear winter hypothesis. Nobel laureate Freeman Dyson once said of

nuclear winter research, "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight." Professor Michael
McElroy, a Harvard physics professor, also criticized the nuclear winter hypothesis. McElroy said that nuclear winter researchers "stacked the deck"
in their study, which was titled "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions" (Science, December 1983). Nuclear winter is the theory that the mass use of nuclear
weapons would create enough smoke and dust to blot out the sun, causing a catastrophic drop in global temperatures. According to Carl Sagan, in this situation the earth would freeze. No crops could
be grown. Humanity would die of cold and starvation. In truth, natural disasters have frequently produced smoke and dust far greater than those expected from a nuclear war.
In 1883
Krakatoa exploded with a blast equivalent to 10,000 one-megaton bombs, a detonation greater than the combined nuclear
arsenals of planet earth. The Krakatoa explosion had negligible weather effects. Even more disastrous, going back many thousands of years, a meteor
struck Quebec with the force of 17.5 million one-megaton bombs, creating a crater 63 kilometers in diameter. But the world
did not freeze. Life on earth was not extinguished. Consider the views of Professor George Rathjens of MIT, a known antinuclear activist, who said,
"Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory." Also consider Professor Russell
Seitz, at Harvard University's Center for International Affairs, who says that the nuclear winter hypothesis has been discredited.
Two researchers, Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. Thompson and Schneider stated:

"the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of
probability." OK, so nuclear winter isn't going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn't the radiation from a nuclear war contaminate
the whole earth, killing everyone? The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a problem, but we should not
exaggerate its effects. As it happens, there are two types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout. According to researcher Peter
V. Pry, "Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill billions of people everywhere in the world." Of course, delayed fallout would

increase the number of people dying of lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. "However," says Pry, "these deaths would probably be
far fewer than deaths now resulting from ... smoking, or from automobile accidents." The real hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a
type of fallout created when a nuclear weapon is detonated at ground level. This type of fallout could kill millions of people, depending on the targeting strategy of the attacking country. But short-
term fallout rapidly subsides
to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It is not permanent. People who live outside of the affected areas will
be fine. Those in affected areas can survive if they have access to underground shelters. In some areas, staying indoors may even
suffice. Contrary to popular misconception, there were no documented deaths from short-term or delayed fallout at either Hiroshima
or Nagasaki. These blasts were low airbursts, which produced minimal fallout effects. Today's thermonuclear weapons are even "cleaner." If used in airburst mode,
these weapons would produce few (if any) fallout casualties.

War predictions fail - empirically

Fettweis 7 (Christopher, Asst Prof Poli Sci Tulane, Asst Prof National Security Affairs US Naval War College On the
Consequences of Failure in Iraq, Survival, Vol. 49, Iss. 4, December, p. 83 98)

Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, policymakers should keep in mind that the unprecedented is also unlikely . Outliers in international
behaviour do exist, but in general the past is the best guide to the future. Since the geopolitical catastrophes that pessimists
expect will follow US withdrawal are all virtually without precedent, common sense should tell policymakers they are probably
also unlikely to occur. Five years ago, US leaders should have realised that their implicit prediction for the aftermath of invasion
- positive, creative instability in the Middle East that would set off a string of democratic dominoes - was without precedent. The
policy was based more on the president's unshakeable faith in the redemptive power of democracy than on a coherent understanding of international relations. Like all
faith-based policies, success would have required a miracle; in international politics, miracles are unfortunately rare. Faith is once again driving
predictions of post-withdrawal Iraq, but this time it is faith in chaos and worst-case scenarios. Secondly, imagined consequences
are usually worse than what reality delivers. Human beings tend to focus on the most frightening scenarios at the expense of
the most likely, and anticipate outcomes far worse than those that usually occur. This is especially true in the United States,
which for a variety of reasons has consistently overestimated the dangers lurking in the international system .3 Pre-war Iraq was no exception;
post-war Iraq is not likely to be either.
Drone Wars
 Indo-Pak War
No Indo-Pak War not in the strategic interest of either country
Ali 14 (http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/20987/india-does-not-want-to-invade-us-and-the-us-is-not-our-enemy/, India does
not want to invade Pakistan and the US is not our enemy!, Rafay Bin Ali, A software developer working with financial clients
from Toronto. He is currently doing his MBA from IBA, Karachi, and is planning an entrepreneurial set-up in Pakistan, 2/23/14)

India no longer considers Pakistan a threat. Lets face it. India is poised to become a global economic engine; its economy is the
10th largest and third by Purchasing Power Parity. India is a member of the G4 and has recently acquired almost absolute
control of the International Cricket Council (ICC). Having a G4 membership alone raises Indias global influence. Further, the
day is near when India would be a permanent member in the UN Security Council. India played its cards well and is a potential
super-power. It is time for Pakistan to come out of its shell of denial and recognise Indias swift progression. Myth 1: India is
Pakistans eternal enemy Pakistanis are often found lamenting when India is offered a better deal by the US. The tendency of
the West to prefer India has irked me for the longest of times. Nonetheless, when I analyse it rationally, I find asking myself,
Why would they have it any other way? India has proven its mettle across diverse sectors of national importance. So, why
should it, then, not be offered a better package than us? Further, given our all too frequent anti-US rhetoric, we should be
grateful that the US still provides us abundantly, which in return sustains a big chunk of Pakistan. Rationally speaking, whatever
interest India may have had in the past to invade Pakistan is probably now lost. Now India is a lucrative business destination for
many, including the US, and has repositioned itself as a competitor on a global level. With Indians stationed at key places
globally, Indian leaders have re-imagined the world where the epicentre of power (economically at least) is India. This dream
may be far off but is certainly not far-fetched. Subsequently, it is not in Indias strategic interests to continue to apportion
defense budgets to fight a war with Pakistan in the hopes of an invasion more so when Pakistan is in the midst of the worst
crisis inflicted by rapid radicalisation of society. In the same way, Pakistan must reduce the combatant engagement reserved
for a war with India because it serves no other purpose but to satisfy inflated egos. National sovereignty is vital, yes, but it is
important to realize that India has upped the ante and has no strategic advantage by conquering Pakistan as many would
have us believe. The money spent fighting India could be spent elsewhere more productive; besides that, a peaceful South Asia
is in everybodys interest. It would be great and to the benefit of both the nations, if India and Pakistan were to reach a trade
agreement like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and opened borders for tourism and trade. If Pakistan has
an enemy it is not India it is the wretched forces of extremism that have wreaked havoc on a typical Pakistanis lifestyle.
 South China Sea
[Note: All no US-China war cards still apply]
SCS military presence wont lead to war countries understand the others intentions
Thayer 13 - Carlyle A. Thayer, Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy,
Canberra. 13 May 2013 "Why China and the US wont go to war over the South China Sea"
www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/

Even before Washington announced its official policy of rebalancing its force posture to the Asia Pacific, the
United States had undertaken steps to strengthen its
military posture by deploying more nuclear attack submarines to the region and negotiating arrangements with Australia to rotate Marines through Darwin. Since then, the United States has
deployed Combat Littoral Ships to Singapore and is negotiating new arrangements for greater military access to the Philippines. But these developments do not presage

armed conflict between China and the United States. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy has been circumspect in its
involvement in South China Sea territorial disputes, and the U nited S tates has been careful to avoid being entrapped by regional
allies in their territorial disputes with China. Armed conflict between China and the United States in the South China Sea
appears unlikely. Another, more probable, scenario is that both countries will find a modus vivendi enabling them to collaborate
to maintain security in the South China Sea. The Obama administration has repeatedly emphasised that its policy of rebalancing to
Asia is not directed at containing China. For example, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the US Pacific Command, recently stated, there has also been criticism that
the Rebalance is a strategy of containment. This is not the case it is a strategy of collaboration and cooperation. However, a review of past USChina military-to-military interaction indicates that
an agreement to jointly manage security in the South China Sea is unlikely because of continuing strategic mistrust between the two countries. This is also because the currents of regionalism are
growing stronger. As such, a third scenario is more likely than the previous two: that China and the United States will maintain a relationship of
cooperation and friction. In this scenario, both countries work separately to secure their interests through multilateral institutions such as the East Asia
Summit, the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus and the Enlarged ASEAN Maritime Forum. But they also continue to engage each other on points of mutual

interest. The Pentagon has consistently sought to keep channels of communication open with China through three established bilateral mechanisms: Defense Consultative Talks, the Military
Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and the Defense Policy Coordination Talks. On the one hand, these multilateral mechanisms reveal very little about US

China military relations. Military-to-military contacts between the two countries have gone through repeated cycles of cooperation and suspension, meaning that it has not
been possible to isolate purely military-to-military contacts from their political and strategic settings. On the other hand, the channels
have accomplished the following: continuing exchange visits by high-level defence officials; regular Defense Consultation Talks; continuing working-level discussions under the MMCA; agreement on
the 7-point consensus; and no serious naval incidents since the 2009 USNS Impeccable affair. They have also helped to ensure continuing exchange visits by senior military officers; the initiation of a
Strategic Security Dialogue as part of the ministerial-level Strategic & Economic Dialogue process; agreement to hold meetings between coast guards; and agreement on a new working group to draft
principles to establish a framework for military-to-military cooperation. So the
bottom line is that, despite ongoing frictions in their relationship, the United
States and China will continue engaging with each other. Both sides understand that military-to-military contacts are a critical
component of bilateral engagement . Without such interaction there is a risk that mistrust between the two militaries could spill over and have a major negative impact on
bilateral relations in general. But strategic mistrust will probably persist in the absence of greater transparency in military-to-military relations. In sum, Sino-American relations in the South China Sea
are more likely to be characterised by cooperation and friction than a modus vivendi of collaboration or, a worst-case scenario, armed conflict.

No one would go to war over the Spratlys economic ties

Diaz 15 - Jess Diaz, writer for the Philippine Star April 13, 2015 "US wont risk war with China over Spratlys lawmakers"
www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/04/13/1443234/us-wont-risk-war-china-over-spratlys-lawmakers

MANILA, Philippines - The United States would not risk war with China over the disputed Spratlys group of islets in the West
Philippine Sea, two congressmen said yesterday. Bayan Muna Representatives Carlos Zarate and Neri Colmenares made the
assessment in reaction to US President Barack Obamas expression of support for Philippine efforts to seek a diplomatic
solution to the territorial dispute. President Obamas statement on Chinas expansion is a calculated response, but the US
would not risk a war with China because its economy would collapse without China, they said. They said the US owes China at
least $1.28 trillion and has a $579-billion trade with Beijing, compared to only $17.6 billion with the Philippines.
 US-China War
No US-China war 3 independent warrants
Deterrence - China can strike back
Economic ties 1.3 trillion means the US cant do anything about an attack
China will be able to economically control the US soon, they wouldnt blow their chances with an attack

Whitney 15 - Mike Whitney, writer for sott.net 23 Jun 2015 "Why China won't get sucked into a pointless war with the U.S."
www.sott.net/article/298228-Why-China-wont-get-sucked-into-a-pointless-war-with-the-US

The last thing the Obama administration wants is a shooting war with China, mainly because China has the ability to strike
back, and not just militarily either. Let me explain: According to political scientist Pang Zhongying, "The current relationship between China and
the US is one that has never existed in the history of international relations.....The level of interdependence between China
and the US is unprecedented in history. Before the 1970s, no one could possibly imagine or predict that these two countries would be interdependent to the
extent of today. At that time, interdependence existed only between the US and Europe, or among the G7 at the most. The level of interdependence today did not exist
between the US and China." In other words, the two countries need each other and are bound together in a complex web of economic
and financial ties, including China's massive holding of US debt which amounts to an eyewatering $1.3 trillion . This
interdependence means that the US cannot abuse China in the same way it has Russia without putting itself at risk. So, while
the US still maintains the dominant position economically and militarily, it can't simply throw caution to the wind by imposing
sanctions or escalating hostilities beyond a certain point without jeopardizing its own security. China knows this, which is why it will
continue to pursue its own agenda aggressively while deflecting US belligerence and hostility as best as it can. The People's Republic of China (PRC) is still
committed to "peaceful development". US antagonism is just one of the many hurdles that China will have to overcome to
actualize its plan for integrating the Eurasian landmass into the world's largest and most prosperous trading bloc. Check out this
excerpt from Alfred McCoy's seminal piece "The Geopolitics of American Global Decline": "China's leadership began collaborating with surrounding states on a massive
project to integrate the country's national rail network into a transcontinental grid. Starting in 2008, the Germans and Russians joined with the Chinese in launching the
"Eurasian Land Bridge." Two east-west routes, the old Trans-Siberian in the north and a new southern route along the ancient Silk Road through Kazakhstan are meant to bind
all of Eurasia together.... In
April, President Xi Jinping announced construction of that massive road-rail-pipeline corridor direct from western China to its new port at
Gwadar, Pakistan, creating the logistics for future naval deployments in the energy-rich Arabian Sea..... By
building the infrastructure for military bases in
the South China and Arabian seas, Beijing is forging the future capacity to surgically and strategically impair U.S. military
containment. ... In a decade or two....China will be ready to surgically slice through Washington's continental encirclement
at a few strategic points without having to confront the full global might of the U.S. military, potentially rendering the vast
American armada of carriers, cruisers, drones, fighters, and submarines redundant..... If China succeeds in linking its rising industries to the vast
natural resources of the Eurasian heartland, then quite possibly.... "the empire of the world would be in sight." ("The Geopolitics of American Global Decline", Alfred McCoy,
The Unz Review) There it is, eh? The end of one empire and the beginning of another. China's
leaders aren't going to blow their big chance by
getting sucked into a costly and pointless war with the United States. That's ridiculous. They're going to keep plugging away
until the Silk Road becomes a reality.

No war and doesnt go nuclear factors check

Keck 13 - Zachary Keck, Managing Editor of The Diplomat, Deputy Editor of e-International Relations & worked at the Center
for a New American Security and in the U.S. Congress, where he worked on defense issues. July 12, 2013 "Why China and the
US (Probably) Wont Go to War" thediplomat.com/2013/07/why-china-and-the-us-probably-wont-go-to-war/

The fact that both the U.S. and China have nuclear weapons is the most obvious reasons why they wont clash, even if they
remain fiercely competitive . This is because war is the continuation of politics by other means, and nuclear weapons make war extremely bad politics. Put
differently, war is fought in pursuit of policy ends, which cannot be achieved through a total war between nuclear-armed states. This is not only because of nuclear weapons destructive power. As
Thomas Schelling outlined brilliantly, nuclear weapons have not actually increased humans destructive capabilities. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that wars between nomads usually ended with
the victors slaughtering all of the individuals on the losing side, because of the economics of holding slaves in nomadic societies. What makes nuclear weapons different, then, is not just their
destructive power but also the certainty and immediacy of it. While extremely ambitious or desperate leaders can delude themselves into believing they can prevail in a conventional conflict with a
stronger adversary because of any number of factorssuperior will, superior doctrine, the weather etc. none of this matters in nuclear war. With nuclear weapons, countries dont have to prevail
on the battlefield or defeat an opposing army to destroy an entire country, and since there
are no adequate defenses for a large-scale nuclear attack, every leader
can be absolute certain that most of their country can be destroyed in short-order in the event of a total conflict. Since
no policy goal is worth this level of sacrifice, the
only possible way for an all-out conflict to ensue is for a miscalculation of some sort to occur. Most of these can and should be dealt by Chinese
and the U.S. leaders holding regularly senior level dialogues like the ones of the past month, in which frank and direct talk about redlines are
discussed. These can and should be supplemented with clear and open communication channels, which can be especially useful when unexpected crises arise, like an exchange of fire between low-
level naval officers in the increasingly crowded waters in the region. While this possibility is real and frightening, its hard to imagine a plausible scenario where it leads to a nuclear exchange between
China and the United States. After all, at each stage of the crisis leaders know that if it is not properly contained, a nuclear war could ensue, and the complete destruction of a leaders country is a
more frightening possibility than losing credibility among hawkish elements of society. In any case, measured means of retaliation would be available to the party wronged, and behind-the-scenes
diplomacy could help facilitate the process of finding mutually acceptable retaliatory measures. Geography is the less appreciated factor that will mitigate the
chances of a U.S.-China war, but it could be nearly as important as nuclear weapons. Indeed, geography has a history of
allowing countries to avoid the Thucydides Trap, and works against a U.S.-China war in a couple of ways. First, both the United
States and China are immensely large countriesaccording to the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. and China are the third and fourth largest countries in the world by
area, at 9,826,675 and 9,596,961 square km respectively. They also have difficult topographical features and complex populations. As such, they are virtually unconquerable by another power. This

is an important point and differentiates the current strategic environment from historical cases where power transitions led to
war. For example, in Europe where many of the historical cases derive from, each state genuinely had to worry that the other side could increase their power capabilities to such a degree that they
could credibly threaten the other sides national survival. Neither China nor the U.S. has to realistically entertain such fears, and this will lessen their insecurity and therefore the security dilemma they
operate within. Besides being immensely large countries, China and the U.S. are also separated by the Pacific Ocean, which will also weaken their sense of insecurity
and threat perception towards one another. In many of the violent power transitions of the past, starting with Sparta and Athens but also including the European ones, the rival states were located in
close proximity to one another. By contrast, when great power conflict has been avoided, the states have often had considerable distance between them, as was the case for the U.S. and British power
transition and the peaceful end to the Cold War. The reason is simple and similar to the one above: the difficulty of projecting power across large distancesparticularly bodies of waters reduces
each sides concern that the other will threaten its national survival and most important strategic interests. True, the U.S. operates extensively in Chinas backyard, and maintains numerous alliances
and partnerships with Beijings neighbors. This undeniably heightens the risk of conflict. At the same time, the British were active throughout the Western Hemisphere, most notably in Canada, and
the Americans maintained a robust alliance system in Western Europe throughout the Cold War .
Even with the U.S. presence in Asia, then, the fact that the
Chinese and American homelands are separated by the largest body of water in the world is enormously important in reducing
their conflict potential, if history is any guide at least.

No solvency China is oblivious to efforts to stop war, means happens anyway

Archibald 15 - David Archibald, writer for the American Thinker, April 30 2015 "Seven Reasons China Will Start a War By
2017" www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/seven_reasons_china_will_star_a_war_by_2017.html

This is a term created by the strategist Edward Luttwak to describe the fact that China is seemingly oblivious to the effects of
its actions on its neighbours. China sees itself as the center of the world and purely through the lens of its own self-interest.
This has the practical result that China could not perceive the possibility of things not going the way it wants them to. Luttwak
also considers that the Chinese overestimate their own strategic thinking. He says that China doesnt have a strategy so much
as a bag of stratagems, most of which involve deception.

Alt cause Nationalism, they want to be #1

Archibald 15 - David Archibald, writer for the American Thinker, April 30 2015 "Seven Reasons China Will Start a War By
2017" www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/seven_reasons_china_will_star_a_war_by_2017.html

The Chinese are a proud nation. They actually resent the fact that the United States is considered to be the number one nation
on the planet. China also realises that to be recognised as number one, they have to defeat the current number one in battle.
This is why it wont be just creeping increments in Chinese aggression. They need a battle for their own psychological reasons.
This means that they will attack the United States at the same time that they attack Japan. Because surprise attacks are more
successful, it will be a surprise attack on US bases in Asia and the Pacific and perhaps well beyond. This most likely will include
cyber-attacks on US utilities and communications. China has structured its armed forces for a short, sharp war. Of any country
on the planet, they are possibly the most prepared for war. They have one year of grain consumption in stock and even a
strategic pork reserve. They have just filled up their strategic petroleum reserve of about 700 million barrels. Chinas war has
nothing to do with securing resources or making their trade routes secure. Some western analysts have projected those
notions onto China to rationalise what China is doing. The Chinese themselves have not offered these excuses. To China it is
all about territorial integrity, which is sacred and not the profane stuff of commerce.
 US-Russia War
No US-Russia war 9 deterrence factors means no one would risk it.
*Each reason is in bold* Blue = short. Yellow = long

Michael Peck, writer for Forbes covering national security 3/05/2014 "7 Reasons Why America Will Never Go To War Over
Ukraine" www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/05/7-reasons-why-america-will-never-go-to-war-over-ukraine/

America is the mightiest military power in the world. And that fact means absolutely nothing for the Ukraine crisis. Regardless of
whether Russia continues to occupy the Crimea region of Ukraine, or decides to occupy all of Ukraine, the U.S. is not going to get into a shooting war with Russia. This has
nothing to do with whether Obama is strong or weak. Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan would face the same constraints. The
U.S. may threaten to impose economic sanctions, but here is why America will never smack Russia with a big stick: Russia is
a nuclear superpower . Russia has an estimated 4,500 active nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or
perhaps Iran, whose nuclear arsenals couldnt inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of the planet. U.S. missile
defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive Russian strike. For the 46 years of the Cold War, America and Russia were
deadly rivals. But they never fought . Their proxies fought: Koreans, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Israelis and Arabs. The one time that U.S. and Soviet forces
almost went to war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Neither Obama nor Putin is crazy enough to want to repeat that. [Image: U.S. Marine Corps vehicle during
amphibious assault exercise.] U.S. Marine Corps vehicle during amphibious assault exercise. Russia has a powerful army . While the Russian military is a shadow
of its Soviet glory days, it is still a formidable force. The Russian army has about 300,000 men and 2,500 tanks (with another 18,000 tanks in storage),
according to the Military Balance 2014 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Its air force has almost 1,400 aircraft, and its navy 171 ships, including 25 in the
Black Sea Fleet off Ukraines coast. U.S. forces are more capable than Russian forces, which did not perform impressively during the 2008 Russo-Georgia War. American
troops would enjoy better training, communications, drones, sensors and possibly better weapons (though the latest Russian fighter jets, such as the T-50, could be trouble for
U.S. pilots). However, better is not good enough. The Russian military is not composed of lightly armed insurgents like the Taliban, or a hapless army
like the Iraqis in 2003. With advanced weapons like T-80 tanks, supersonic AT-15 Springer anti-tank missiles, BM-30 Smerch multiple
rocket launchers and S-400 Growler anti-aircraft missiles, Russian forces pack enough firepower to inflict significant American
losses. Ukraine is closer to Russia. The distance between Kiev and Moscow is 500 miles. The distance between Kiev and New York is 5,000 miles. Its much easier for Russia
to send troops and supplies by land than for the U.S. to send them by sea or air. The U.S. military is tired. After nearly 13 years of war, Americas

armed forces need a breather. Equipment is worn out from long service in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel are worn out from repeated
deployments overseas, and there are still about 40,000 troops still fighting in Afghanistan. The U.S. doesnt have many troops to send . The U.S. could easily
dispatch air power to Ukraine if its NATO allies allow use of their airbases, and the aircraft carrier George H. W. Bush and its hundred aircraft are patrolling the Mediterranean.
But for a ground war to liberate Crimea or defend Ukraine, there is just the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary
Unit sailing off Spain, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment in Germany and the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina. While the paratroopers could drop into the combat zone, the Marines would have sail past Russian defenses in the Black Sea, and
the Stryker brigade would probably have to travel overland through Poland into Ukraine. Otherwise, bringing in mechanized
combat brigades from the U.S. would be logistically difficult , and more important, could take months to organize. The American
people are tired. Pity the poor politician who tries to sell the American public on yet another war, especially some complex conflict
in a distant Eastern Europe nation. Neville Chamberlains words during the 1938 Czechoslovakia crisis come to mind: How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that
we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. Americas allies

are tired. NATO sent troops to support the American campaign in Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. Britain sent troops
to Iraq and Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the Western European public
marching in the streets to demand the liberation of Crimea, especially considering the regions sputtering economy, which might be snuffed out should Russia stop
exporting natural gas. As for military capabilities, the Europeans couldnt evict Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi without American help. And Germans fighting Russians
again? Lets not even go there. This doesnt mean that war is impossible. If Russia invades the Baltic States to protect their ethnic Russian minorities, the guns could indeed
roar. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members. What would Ronald Reagan have done if the Soviets had invaded West Germany? Barack Obama would face more or
less the same question in a Baltic crisis, or if a Ukraine conflict spills over into fellow NATO member Poland.

It would also be extremely disadvantageous for Russia 5 reasons they could not and would not risk
confrontation, even nuclear
*Reasons in bold* Blue = short. Yellow = long. Edited for ableist language

Maral Margossian, political journalist for the Daily Collegian. March 27, 2014 "Five reasons why Russia wont start World
War III" dailycollegian.com/2014/03/27/five-reasons-why-russia-wont-start-world-war-iii/
The recent events in Eastern Europe involving Russia and Ukraine have spawned, at their most extreme, apocalyptic claims. Here are five
reasons why Russia wont start World War III, or any other war for that matter:

1. The world is MAD . The end of World War II ushered the world into a precarious atomic age that characterized the international atmosphere
during the Cold War. Luckily, the Cold War never escalated to nuclear war. Why? Because of mutually assured destruction (or
MAD). Russia knows that if it pushes that big red button, we have our own even bigger, redder button to push in retaliation.
The odds of a nuclear war with Russia are extremely unlikely.

2. The impact of economic sanctions on the Russian economy is far too crippling [damaging] for Russia to fund a war. As a part of a
globalized world, economic sanctions are more than mere slaps on the wrist. Already the sanctions imposed on Russia have begun to take their toll. The West has yet

to attack Russias strongest economic assets, but the declining strength of the Russian economy puts Putin far from a position to wage a world

war.

3. Putins actions demonstrate his longing for Russias glory days before the fall of the Soviet Union. His annexation of Crimea is more out of
fear than strength. Putin feels threatened by Russias changing role in world affairs and is using Crimea to tell the world that
Russia still matters.

4. Russia is already seen as the big bad wolf of Europe . Though Putin may have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his involvement in the Syrian
chemical weapons deal, Russias popularity among many Western countries is not very high. The recent suspension of Russia from the G8 group is a

symbolic action that demonstrates that Russia will have to face a united front of world powers if it chooses to start a war.

5. There is just too much at stake. War between Ukraine and Russia is one thing; Russias military is large enough and strong enough
to easily defeat Ukraine. However, if Russia decides to take further aggressive action, it must also contend with surrounding European

Union member nations and their potential involvement in the war. Moreover, Russias involvement in other international affairs will be affected. For example,
the ongoing effort to normalize relations between Iran and the rest of the world will be jeopardized, considering Russia is
involved in those efforts. Crimea may have symbolic meaning close to the hearts of Russians, but it isnt worth risking the
domino effect of events that can potentially occur. So, those of you who feel abnormally unsettled by the recent turn of events can rest easy. While Russias actions cant
be brushed aside and should be taken seriously, the chances of this confrontation escalating to a great war are slim assuming these countries act rationally.

Alt causes outweigh Russia sees NATO expansion as western aggression, and Putin feels hes a laughing
stock
*Edited for ableist language*

Ivan Sukhov, american writer for The Moscow Times Oct. 22 2014 "Why Putin Is So Angry"
www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-putin-is-so-angry/509929.html

At a news conference during recent talks in Milan, President Vladimir Putin made an off-color
The Internet is rife with mean-spirited jokes:

comment regarding a grandfather's genitals that caused a greater stir than the time back on Oct. 12, 1960, when former Soviet
leader Nikita Khrushchev pounded his shoe against the podium while addressing the United Nations. But honestly speaking, people have
deliberately distorted the truth in this regard. To begin with, Khrushchev never banged his shoe on the podium during his speech. The scandalous episode in question took place during the 15th session of the UN General Assembly
when Khrushchev merely twirled his shoe in his hand during an official report in order to show his complete lack of interest. That might have gone beyond the bounds of conventional etiquette, but it was far from the picture we are

given of a leader angrily pounding the podium with his shoe to underscore his words. And since the previous story turns out to be untrue, there is nothing with which to compare the current episode. In fact, Putin has
repeatedly taken the liberty of telling off-color jokes in public even using the grandfather joke on previous occasions and many of his counterparts in other countries also make
risque comments from time to time. The difference here is that the Russian president is clearly angry. That anger comes through in his facial expressions, gestures, jokes and the biting comments he makes from the corridors of
international meetings at which he is either on the verge of brawling with the Moldovan president or raising his voice to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Even the fact that he was late to his recent meeting with Merkel indicates
that he is angrier than usual: this time he preferred watching a military parade in Belgrade to keeping his appointment schedule. Of course, the modern world is structured in such a way that the anger or other emotion of any single

individual including the president of the world's largest country should not have a significant impact on anything. At least, we assume the world is built that way. But when the Russian president's anger
begins violating all the rules of diplomacy, it is worth asking what has caused it. This is important to know, at the very least for anyone engaged in negotiations with Russia. The answer is simple:
Putin's anger is born of frustration. He has repeatedly been unable to convince his negotiating partners in the West of what
seem to him to be obvious truths. For example, it is obvious to Putin that the West has been pressuring Russia for many years,
possibly since the beginning of the post-Soviet period. It is the West that has encroached on Russia as European Union and
NATO borders have steadily expanded eastward toward his country. To put it bluntly, Moscow views that as Western
aggression. The Russia-Georgia War in 2008 was largely a response to the NATO summit in Bucharest at which the West confirmed its readiness to discuss procedural
matters for including Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, completely ignoring Russia's concerns. Moscow is convinced that it is
crucial for Russia to maintain its influence in Ukraine in order to preserve stability at home. And yet the West continues to ignore that concern, even after the dramatic events in Ukraine have led to
more deaths than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In a sense, Putin sees himself as someone barely managing to hold the front door of his home open even as the outside
world is trying to slam it shut in his face. For him, and for the vast majority of Russians who unconditionally support him, Crimea is like a foot that Russia has managed to wedge into the door to prevent it from closing completely.

But that only caused the outside pressure to increase, even while the one doing the pushing continues to publicly declare the
person inside the house as the aggressor. Imagine yourself in that situation. You want to call 911, but know that the same
crusher pushing on the door will probably be the one to pick up the receiver. You have to agree that anyone in such a situation
would get a little angry. And as it turns out, the person inside the house is also deaf to all arguments that Russia's quietest border is its border with NATO, that NATO and the EU are absolutely transparent and modern
organizations devoted exclusively to implementing progressive structural reforms in countries that have recently joined them and, finally, that no one is planning to attack Russia. To add to his problems, the man inside the house
overestimates his strength, imagining Russia to have the might of the former Soviet Union and, along with that power, a claim not only to the house, but to the sprawling front and back yards as well. And he feels this way more out of

habit than anything else, using terminology that has long gone out of use. All Russian fears of NATO expansion are based on articles of Soviet military doctrine
written 50 years ago stating that the priority was not even national security but the ability to deliver a crippling [damaging]
"counterstrike from the grave" against a Western attack. Obviously, those lines no longer have any relevance. For many people in the new post-Soviet Eastern Europe, Russia would
remain a familiar and potentially desirable partner if only it offered something besides the constant call to kowtow to Moscow. Whether we want it or not, relationships in the modern world are

based on whom you like and there is not much to like about modern Russia. Of course, everyone is responsible for their own happiness. But in all honesty,
nobody bothered to explain to Russia how to make itself likable at that unforgettable moment when, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it entered the international
community as an uncertain teen. The world was much more interested in knowing how Russia would manage its inheritance. In the end, Russia's dialogue with the rest of the world was like talking through a small, grated opening in
a door to someone on the other side. It seemed preposterous to suppose that, stuck on its own side of that door, Russia might start to like itself and develop the same hopes and aspirations as its adult European neighbors on the
other side. Russia and the West will inevitably script out new episodes in the ongoing saga of their relations. It remains unclear when this new "television series" will begin or who will play the leading roles, but I like to believe that
when it does start, all the actors will do a better job of taking into account each other's habits and interests.
 Water Wars

Water increases co-op, not aggression statistical analysis proves

Walsh 13 - Bryan Walsh Foreign Editor at TIME Dec. 10, 2013 "New Mideast Pipeline Deal Shows Why Water Doesnt Start
Wars" science.time.com/2013/12/10/new-mideast-pipeline-deal-shows-why-water-doesnt-start-wars/

On Dec. 9, Israel,
Jordan and the Palestinian Authority signed a major deal that calls for the construction of a large desalination
plant in Jordan that would take billions of gallons of water from the Dead Sea and convert it to clean drinking waterwater that
would be shared by Jordan and Israel. The leftover brine water would be pumped via a new, 100-mile pipeline and discharged back into the Dead Sea, the massive lake that
has water 10 times as salty as that found in the oceans. The deal also calls for Israel to increase the amount of water it sells to the parched Palestinian Authority by as much as
30 million cu. meters. Silvan Shalom, the Israeli water and energy minister, called the agreement of the highest diplomatic, economic, environmental and strategic
importance. My colleague Karl Vick in Jerusalem has more on the deal, which environmentalists have a number of qualms about. The Dead Sea has been shrinking for years,
with the lakes surface area declining by 20% over the past two decades as water from the River Jordan, which feeds into the Dead Sea, has been appropriated for farming and
domestic use in Israel, Syria and Jordan. The deal itself looks to be much smaller than a mega-project that has been on the drawing board for almost 20 years. But even if the
Dead Sea deal is less than historic, its still a deal, hammered out by entities that usually have a hard time even speaking to each other. And its a reminder that contrary to
the much-repeated phrase that the next world war will be fought over water, similar deals tend to be the rule with
international disputes over water, not the exception. Far from being a source of violent conflictlike religion or oilwater is
something that even bitter rivals can usually sit down and discuss, however reluctantly. (MORE: Immense Freshwater Reserves
Discovered Beneath Ocean Floor) I dont blame you if you dont believe me. The idea that water is a limited resource that will inevitably be the
source of conflict in arid regions of the world is considered a given in many security, foreign policy and environmental circles. Just see this
piece, or this one, or that one. Or this piece, or this one, or that one. (And those are just from 2013.) Water wars were even the subject of the 2008 James Bond film Quantum
of Solacethe one with the eco-villain named Greene who was going to corner the Bolivian market on water, which I have to say, is pretty dull compared to irradiating the
gold in Fort Knox (Goldfinger) or flooding all of Silicon Valley (A View to a Kill). Even Mark Twain, referring to disputes between Western U.S. states over the Colorado River,
memorably said that whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fightin over. But
when it comes to actual armed conflictas opposed to wars of
wordsIm sorry to say that Mr. Twain has it wrong. Thats what science journalist Helen Barnaby discovered when she began
work a number of years ago on a proposed book about water wars. In the course of her research, Barnaby discovered that
there hasnt been an actual war between two nations over water for about 4,500 years, back when Lagash and Umma, two
Mesopotamian city-states located in what is now southern Iraq, took up arms over boundary canals. Sandra Postel and Aaron Wolf found
that between the years of 805 and 1984, countries signed more than 3,600 water-related treaties. Their analysis of 1,831 international
water-related treaties over the second half of the 20th century found that two-thirds of the encounters were of a cooperative
nature. India and Pakistan have abided by the World Bank-arbitrated Indus Waters Treaty since 1960, and none of the three wars the bitter rivals have fought were caused
by water disputes. Even as Palestinians and Israelis kill each other, water professionals on both sides interact through the Joint Water Committee, established by the Oslo-II
Accords in 1995. As Barnaby put it herself in a Nature essay in 2009: Countries do not go to war over water, they solve their water shortages
through trade and international agreements. Cooperation, in fact, is the dominant response to shared water resources.

No impact lack of statistical backing and their ev is alarmist

Allouche 11 - Food Policy Volume 36, Supplement 1, January 2011, Pages S3-S8 The challenge of global food sustainability
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.013 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Permissions & Reprints The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay
between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade Jeremy Allouche , a Institute of Development Studies,
Brighton, UK Available online 22 January 2011.

In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources and food insecurity with wars.
The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert,
2007) and within international organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that water scarcity threatens economic and
social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and

conflict are here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level. In the Middle East, presidents, prime
ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics (Boutros
Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The
question is not whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political tension and alarmist declaration, but rather to
what extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The evidence seems quite weak. Whether by president Sadat
in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none of these declarations have been followed up by military action. The governance of transboundary water has
gained increased attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global food system as water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can
used for irrigated agriculture. The likelihood of conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food
systems. None of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli. Using the International Crisis Behavior (ICB)
data set and
supplementary data from the University of Alabama on water conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes where water
seems to have been at least a partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were
limited purely to governmental rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18). As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR) water event database,
more than two-thirds of over 1800 water-related events fall on the cooperative scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into
account a much longer period, the following figures clearly demonstrate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
organized political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more
than 3600 water-related treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with
water management or allocations in international basins have been negotiated since 1945 ([FAO, 1978] and [FAO, 1984]). The fear around water wars have been
driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates scarcity with violence, conflict and war. There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary
conflict. Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the allocation of water resources between the
different riparian states (see for example [Allouche, 2005], [Allouche, 2007] and [Rouyer, 2000]). Water rich countries have been involved in a number of
disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each states
estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality,
perceptions of the amount of available water shapes peoples attitude towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued that scarcity drives
the process of co-operation among riparians ([Dinar and Dinar, 2005] and [Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006]). In terms of international relations, the threat of water
wars due to increasing scarcity does not make much sense in the light of the recent historical record. Overall, the water war rationale
expects conflict to occur over water, and appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing national water supplies, an argument which is highly contestable.
Rights/Justice
 Dignity
Dignity means nothing unless its properly defined
Luban 13 - David Luban Georgetown University Law Center 2013 "Human Rights Pragmatism and Human Dignity"
scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2326&context=facpub

During the Second World War, entire groups of

A world in which the intrinsic human dignity of all the worlds citizens is respected and secured is a better world for all.

people were dehumanized, and this showed the importance of universal respect for the global value of human dignity. Just
after the war, there was some dispute about the exact interpretation of the value, and there were heated debates about the
best way to secure its promotion and respect. But there was no objection to the value itself. The basic idea, that all human beings had to be treated with dignity, precisely
because they were human beings, was universally accepted. At the same time, without further elaboration, the idea that human beings have to be

treated with dignity seems rather meaningless . Therefore the United Nations took it upon itself to draw up a list of specific entitlements based on the
value of human dignity: a list of human rights. In San Francisco, it was decided to postpone the task of codifying a list of universal rights. Once the General Assembly had been established it started to
work on this grandiose task. It began by listing the entitlements that arise from the value of human dignity. It used its resolutions to issue declarations, listing
the human rights that can be derived directly from the value of human dignity. These declarations have almost all been transformed into multilateral treaties, which significantly increased their
capacity to motivate action. These human rights have proved to be flexible enough to cope with the changing times.
 Famine
People are statistically less hungry
World Hunger Education Service 15 "2015 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics"
www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

The vast majority of hungry people live in developing regions, which saw a 42 percent reduction in the prevalence of
undernourished people between 199092 and 201214. Despite this progress, about one in eight people, or 13.5 percent of
the overall population, remain chronically undernourished in these regions, down from 23.4 percent in 199092. As the most
populous region in the world, Asia is home to two out of three of the worlds undernourished people.

Hunger related deaths declining

The Hunger Project 08 (Decline in the number of hunger related deaths, http://www.thp.org/reports/decline.htm)

Recent studies indicate that 24,000 individuals die each day of hunger-related causes, according to The Hunger Project, a
global organization committed to the end of world hunger. This figure is a significant decline from the organization's earlier,
widely-used estimate of 35,000 per day. "While this number still represents a horrendous and unnecessary human tragedy, it
also indicates that progress can and is being made," stated Joan Holmes, President of The Hunger Project. The world does not
have direct measurements of hunger-related deaths. The Hunger Project bases its estimates on conclusions drawn from
various studies of undernutrition, malnutrition and mortality. This year, the Unicef "Progress of Nations" report summarized
many of those studies by saying that one-half of child deaths can be attributed to hunger. While there are far fewer studies on
hunger and mortality in adults, most experts agree that 3/4 of all hunger-related deaths are children below the age of 5. Over
the past two decades, child mortality rates from all causes have fallen more rapidly than the rate of population growth,
indicating an overall decline in hunger-related deaths.

Producing more food doesnt solve

Doctoral Studies 9 - School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal - July, 2009 "Increase of Agricultural Production
based on Genetically Modified Food to meet Population Growth Demands"
www.iiuedu.eu/press/journals/sds/sds1_july_2008/09_SECC_05.pdf

Quinn (1996) points out that Malthus warned against the inevitable failure of agriculture to keep up with population. Quinn,
on the other hand, warns against the continued success of agriculture. Viewed through this lens, population growth is the
result of the successful application of agriculture and its tendency to produce more people by producing more food year after
year. According to this logic, we cannot stop increasing food production and hope to still have population growth. The latter
flows from the former, not the other way around. Worse, increasing agricultural production will make it impossible to ever
achieve population stability. As long as more food is being produced year after year, human populations will continue to grow
year after year.

This analysis might seem counterintuitive to some at first brush. To most people the immediate response to famine or a
growing population is that more food needs to be produced. After all, if more people are being born every year and more
people are starving every year, then it seems to reason that the response should be to produce more food. There obviously
isnt enough it. However, biology and the nature of population growth simply does not agree with this commonsense approach
to the situation. Hopfenberg and Pimentel (2001) agree that human population growth is a function of available food supply.
When there is less food, the population will fall. When there is more, it will rise. This is the conclusion of this study examining
the relationship between agricultural production, famine, and population growth.
 Free Speech

Free speech violations high in the squo

Bonilla 12 - (Peter Bonilla Director of the Individual Rights Defense Program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education September 13 2012 "5 Worst Freedom of Speech Violations on US College Campuses" 13, 2012
mic.com/articles/14516/5-worst-freedom-of-speech-violations-on-us-college-campuses)
On Tuesday, I shared the first half of my list of ten of the most common free speech violations which the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE ) encounters in its work defending campus
expression. As I noted yesterday, the list is far from comprehensive, and the offenses listed are in no particular order. They do, however, give a sense of the depth and variety of ways free speech is
threatened at our colleges and universities. Here
are five more of the most common violations against free speech on campus. Be sure to visit yesterdays post
for the first half of the list! 6. Civility
Policies Above: A common bumper sticker in Howard County, Maryland. Wait, whats wrong with civility? Isnt that something
worth aspiring to? Sure but if your university forces such policies on students and then threatens them with discipline for
failing to always be polite, however that is determined, you have a problem. I wrote here last year about Harvards attempt to impose a civility pledge on
incoming freshmen, and its not-so-subtle shaming of those who would decline to sign. Far more drastically, though, students at San Francisco State University were charged in 2007 with, among other
things, acts of incivility for stomping on the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah during an anti-terrorism rally. What should have been an open-and-shut case of pure political protest dragged on for
months before SFSU finally declined to punish the students. The students later sued, and won an injunction against civility policies across that California State University system. To be clear:
Universities are more than welcome to encourage civility. But when
they mandate civility under threat of punishment, theyve crossed the line and
violated their students freedom of expression rights. 7. Punishment of Satire Above: Fry from Futurama considers satire. Intolerance of
satire, as Ive written before, is one of the starkest examples of how far respect for (and basic understanding of) free speech has fallen on
campuses, with students facing accusations of hate speech and harassment simply for subverting 21st-century academia's many

sacred cows or just about anything else, for that matter. Students at Colorado College were found guilty of violence for posting a parody flyer, a student at Johns Hopkins University had the
book thrown at him over a satirical party invitation, and students at Bucknell University were permanently forbidden from having a satirical affirmative action bake sale. Newspapers are frequent
targets as well. Just this spring, a satirical student publication at Rutgers was investigated after publishing a spoof column sending up the pro-Israel columns of another student. Such cases are both
appalling and depressing. Ifwe cant even share a laugh about the major issues of the day, how will we get anything serious done? 8.
Retaliation Against the Student Press Above: Student newspapers are often targets. Universities are known to retaliate against student
newspapers for portraying them in an even slightly negative or embarrassing light. They might, for one, suspiciously fire the newspapers advisor, as
happened at East Carolina University. (The advisor sued and eventually settled for more than $30,000.) Or they could undermine the papers autonomy in order to

control its editorial content, as Quinnipiac University did in 2008, leading students to quit en masse and start a new publication. QU then threatened another organization with
punishment if it even associated with the new paper in any way. (See also the troubling recent case involving the University of Georgias newspaper, the Red & Black.) Or they could simply try to take
their funding, as happened at the University of West Georgia and, more recently, at the University of Memphis, where newspapers saw their funding cut because student governments were unhappy
with their content. Unfortunately, as well see later, individual students have also been known to take matters (literally) into their own hands when they cant tolerate a papers exercise of its free
press rights. 9. Free Speech Punished as Threats Above: Free speech versus hate speech. Few things irk me more than seeing true tragedies like the shootings at Virginia Tech
and Northern Illinois University exploited to justify blatantly unconstitutional attacks on free speech. The University of Wisconsin-Stout did just that with its repeated

censorship of professor James Miller. The theater professors saga began last year when he posted this picture of actor Nathan
Fillion (with a quote from his character as Fireflys Malcolm Reynolds), and was forced by police to take it down due to its mention of killing. Miller
protested by posting this satirical poster which got him reported to Stouts threat assessment team. That the university became a
national laughingstock hardly solves the underlying problem, as more and more universities prosecute speech as threatening when it is clearly not. Such behavior by universities is insulting enough;
when they name drop Virginia Tech as justification, the insult is increased by an order of magnitude. The latest in the long line of offenders is Ohios Sinclair Community College. Currently defending
itself against a First Amendment lawsuit, it invoked Virginia Tech in defending its policy banning handheld signs at campus events. 10. The Right Not to be Offended Above: A
free speech wall ripped down by disapproving students. Perhaps most concerning about the many free speech violations FIRE encounters is just how many of them arent perpetrated by
administrators, but by the students
themselves. In part because theyve been so badly misled and mis-educated about free speech principles,
disrespect for the basic right of free speech is a very real and very troubling problem . In its ugliest incarnation, the entitlement some students feel to
suppress opinions they dislike takes the form of the hecklers veto, with students taking such illiberal courses of action as shouting down speakers whose opinions they think dont deserve to be
heard, stealing and trashing newspapers with content they think doesnt deserve to be read, or destroying the displays of student organizations they think dont deserve a spot in the marketplace of
ideas. It certainly doesnt help when a university bankrolls such mob censorship, as Washington State did with a student-led play. The phenomenon of unlearning liberty is so prevalent in modern
campus life that FIREs President, Greg Lukianoff, has authored a book on it, out this October.

Violations high in squo - police brutality in Ferguson proves

Byers 15 - Christine Byers June 30, 2015 "Justice Department faults Ferguson protest response"
www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/justice-department-faults-ferguson-protest-response/article_32d55f9f-0bf4-
51e4-93d6-71b873cb8038.html

FERGUSON Police
trying to control the Ferguson protests and riots responded with an uncoordinated effort that sometimes
violated free-speech rights, antagonized crowds with military-style tactics and shielded officers from accountability, the
Justice Department says in a document obtained Monday by the Post-Dispatch. Vague and arbitrary orders to keep protesters moving violated
citizens right to assembly and free speech, as determined by a U.S. federal court injunction, according to a summary of a longer report scheduled
for delivery this week to police brass in Ferguson, St. Louis County, St. Louis and Missouri Highway Patrol. They already have the summary, still subject to revision, that was obtained by the
newspaper. It suggests that last years unrest was aggravated by long-standing community animosity toward Ferguson police, and by a failure of commanders to provide more details to the public
after an officer killed Michael Brown. Had law enforcement released information on the officer-involved shooting in a timely manner and continued the information flow as it became available,
community distrust and media skepticism would most likely have been lessened, according to the document. It also says that use of dogs for crowd control incited
fear and anger, and the practice ought to be prohibited. And it complains that tear gas was sometimes used without warning and on people in areas from which there was no safe retreat.
Moreover, it finds inconsistencies in the way police used force and made arrests. The four core agencies dedicated officer training on operational and tactical
skills without appropriate balance of de-escalation and problem-solving training, it reads. The Justice Department examined the response of the four agencies in the first 16 days after Ferguson
Officer Darren Wilson shot Brown, 18, in a controversial confrontation Aug. 9. Those departments were the key players in managing unrest that drew help from about 50 jurisdictions across the

region. In all, the full report is expected to contain about 45 findings, with recommendations for improvement on each point.
 Poverty
Poverty is statistically decreasing
The World Bank, April 17, 2013 "Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty, But Major Challenges Remain"
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global-poverty-but-major-challenges-
remain

WASHINGTON, April 17, 2013The number of people living on less than $1.25 per day has decreased dramatically in the past three
decades, from half the citizens in the developing world in 1981 to 21 percent in 2010, despite a 59 percent increase in the developing world population. However, a new analysis of extreme
poverty released today by the World Bank shows that there are still 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty, and despite recent impressive progress, Sub-Saharan Africa still accounts for more than
one-third of the worlds extreme poor. We have made remarkable progress in reducing the number of people living under $1.25 a day in the developing world, but the fact that there are still 1.2
billion people in extreme poverty is a stain on our collective conscience, said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim. This figure should serve as a rallying cry to the international community to
take the fight against poverty to the next level. Ouranalysis and our advice can help guide the way toward ending extreme poverty by 2030, by
showing where the poor live and where poverty is deepest. The note, The State of the Poor: Where are the Poor and Where are the Poorest?, using data released
in the latest World Development Indicators, shows that extreme poverty headcount rates have fallen in every developing region between 1981 and 2010. And both Sub-Saharan Africa

(SSA) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) seem to have turned a corner entering the new millennium. After steadily increasing
from 51 percent in 1981 to 58 percent in 1999, the extreme poverty rate fell 10 percentage points in SSA between 1999 and 2010 and is now at 48

percentan impressive 17 percent decline in one decade. In LAC, after remaining stable at approximately 12 percent for the last two decades of the 20th century,

extreme poverty was cut in half between 1999 and 2010 and is now at 6 percent. However, despite its falling poverty rates, Sub-Saharan Africa is the
only region in the world for which the number of poor individuals has risen steadily and dramatically between 1981 and 2010. There are more than twice as many extremely poor people living in SSA
today (414 million) than there were three decades ago (205 million). As a result, while the extreme poor in SSA represented only 11 percent of the worlds total in 1981, they now account for more
than a third of the worlds extreme poor. India contributes another third (up from 22 percent in 1981) and China comes next, contributing 13 percent (down from 43 percent in 1981). Incomes rise
and poverty gap narrows in most regions The note finds that the average income of the extremely poor in the developing world has been rising and steadily converging to the $1.25 per day poverty
line. In 2010, the average income of the extremely poor in the developing world was 87 cents per capita per day, up from 74 cents in 1981 (in 2005 Purchasing Power Parity dollars). This increase in
incomes of the extreme poor is unfortunately not seen in Sub-Saharan Africa. Between 1981 and 2010, the average income of the extremely poor has remained essentially flat at approximately half of
the $1.25 line in that region. In addition, the note finds that globally, as of 2010, the aggregate global extreme poverty gap was $169 billion in 2005 PPP terms, which represents approximately 0.25
percent of global GDP. This is less than half the gap in 1981 ($362 billion). It is important to note that extreme poverty gap is the conceptual amount of direct additional income an average extremely
poor person would need to get to $1.25 per day and is not indicative of the level of assistance required to close the gap.

Theyve got it backwards crime causes poverty

Samenow 14 - Stanton E. Samenow Ph.D. Harvard on psychology on Dec 24, 2014 "Crime Causes Poverty"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201412/crime-causes-poverty

Social scientists and public officials have long identified poverty as a root cause of crime or, at least, as a significant risk factor. Such a
causal linkage was made by Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.), who declared, Poverty is the mother of crime. During the 1960s, Attorney
General Ramsey Clark emphasized that the United States government needed to combat crime by improving the deplorable
conditions under which impoverished people were living. What followed was a plethora of social programs aimed at doing just that. Although many
citizens benefited and improved their lot in life, crime remained an intractable problem. What may not be apparent is that
crime causes poverty . Consider the costs of establishing and operating a small business in a rundown inner city neighborhood.
An entrepreneur saves for years and finally amasses funds sufficient to establish a hair salon. She has paid for schooling to learn the skills to become a beautician,
and she has honed them working for other people. Now she can rent space, purchase supplies and a stylists chair or two, and begin fixing womens hair in her own
shop. By careful management of her finances, she is able to invest additional sums in her business and expand the services she offers. A break-in and
robbery occur, setting her back enormously. While awaiting costly repairs, she loses revenue and customers every day. She has to
spend additional sums to tighten security. Having had a small profit margin as she struggled to maintain her salon, she now slides into the red or may not be
able to re-open at all, thus losing the source of her livelihood. Consider what has transpired in inner city areas rocked by social unrest. It
can take years, even decades, for businesses to return to neighborhoods that were burned and looted. Such was the case during the
1968 riots in Washington, D.C., following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Recently, damage occurred to businesses in Ferguson, Missouri after a grand jury did not
indict a white police officer for killing a young black man. It
is not peaceful protestors who threaten the livelihoods of small business owners.
It is criminals who seize upon an opportunity when there is social disorder. In the name of a cause, they strike -- destroying property belonging to
fledgling entrepreneurs. Having begun to emerge from poverty, these merchants are plunged back into it when criminals demolish
overnight what they have worked so hard to build.

Poverty has no linkage to crime their evidence is flawed and assumes the poor to be inferiror
Prager 14 - DENNIS PRAGER author, syndicated columnist, and radio talk-show host, November 18, 2014 "Progressives wont
admit that Judeo-Christian values, not economics, determine moral behavior."
www.nationalreview.com/article/392865/poverty-doesnt-cause-crime-dennis-prager
One of the first clues that this Columbia-educated, liberal, Democrat, New York Jew had that there was something wrong at the heart of progressive/left-wing thought was
when I read and was taught over and over that poverty causes crime. I knew from the first that this was dogma, not truth. How did I know?
First, I thought about the world that I knew best my own. My paternal grandparents were extremely poor immigrants from Russia. They lived
in a small apartment in Brooklyn where they raised four children, none of whom, of course, ever had their own room. Moreover,
my grandfather was a tailor and as such made little during normal years, and next to nothing during the Great Depression. They were considerably poorer than the vast
majority of Americans who lived below the poverty line as it existed when I was in college and graduate school. And they
would have regarded most of those
designated poor today as middle-class, if not rich by the standards of their day. That is worth remembering whenever an American claims that
violent crime in America is caused by poverty. The poor who commit murder, rape, and robbery are not only not starving, they have far more material things than the word
poverty suggests. According to the U.S. Department of Energys Residential Energy Consumption Survey for 2005 (the last year I could find in detail but it doesnt matter
what year, because those who say that poverty causes crime have said it for a hundred years and continue to say it), among all poor households: Over 99
percent have a refrigerator, television, and stove or oven. Eighty-one percent have a microwave; 75 percent have air conditioning; 67 percent have a
second TV; 64 percent have a clothes washer; 38 percent have a personal computer. As for homelessness, one-half of 1 percent living under the poverty line have lost their
homes and live in shelters. Seventy-five percent of the poor have a car or truck. Only 10 percent live in mobile homes or trailers, half live in detached
single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments. Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home, the average of which is a three-bedroom
house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. According to a recent Census Bureau report, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell
phones. When the Left talks about the poor, they dont mention these statistics, because what matters to the Left is inequality, not poverty. But that is another subject. Our
subject is the question, Giventhese statistics, why do the poor who commit violent crime do so? Clearly it is not because they lack
the basic necessities of life. Now I didnt know any of these statistics back in college and graduate school. So how did I know that poverty causes crime was a lie? I
thought about my grandparents, and I could not imagine my grandfather robbing anyone, let alone raping or murdering. Why not?
Because it was unimaginable. They were people whose values rendered such behaviors all but impossible. But there was another
reason. I was as certain as one could be that if I were poor in America, I wouldnt rob, rape, or murder. Which leads me to wonder about
people who believe that poverty causes crime. When people say this, there are only two possibilities. One is that, on some level of
consciousness, they think that if they were poor, they would commit violent crimes. My hunch is that this is often the case. Just as the whites
who say all whites are racist are obviously speaking about themselves, those who claim that poverty leads to violence may well be speaking about themselves, too. The other
possibility is that theyare not speaking about themselves, in which case they would have to admit that poor Americans who rob,
rape, or murder are morally inferior to themselves. Which, of course, happens to be true. People (of any income level) who rob, rape, and murder do so
because they lack a functioning conscience and moral self-control. It is not material poverty that causes violent crime, but poor character. But the poverty causes
crime advocates refuse to acknowledge this, because such an acknowledgment blames criminals rather than American
society for poor peoples violent crimes . And that they wont admit. Because once they do, they will have begun the journey toward affirming
conservatism and Judeo-Christian values, both of which are rooted in the belief that values, not economics, determine moral behavior.
Journalism
Space
 Militarization/Weaponization
Co-op and treaties solve in the long term
Ware 1 - Alyn Ware, coordinator of the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament, a project of the Middle Powers
Initiative 2001 "Weaponization of Space" www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/space-weapons/basics/introduction-
weaponization-space.htm

The US Space Command notes that space is the new frontier - that "space is a region with increasing commercial, civil, international and military
interests and investments." And that "the threat to these vital systems is also increasing." The response of the US is to plan, research, develop and deploy weapons systems to
protect US interests and infrastructure in space. The effect of this approach will likely be an arms race in outer space as other countries move to
protect their
interests against possible attack from the US. The alternative approach is to develop multi-laterally negotiated controls on weapons in
space through a new space treaty. Such a treaty would: Ban the testing, production, deployment or use of weapons in space; Ban the testing, production,
deployment or use of earth-based weapons which operate into space; Require the notification of all planned space activities; Establish monitoring and verification
procedures; Include procedures for resolving conflicts regarding military use of space and enforcement mechanisms for violations of the treaty. The
United Nations
has adopted a number of resolutions calling for negotiations to prevent an arms race in outer space. China has proposed the
establishment of an ad hoc committee in the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a treaty prohibiting the weaponisation
of outer space. Other countries, including Pakistan, have supported the proposal, noting that there are plans for space weaponisation, including elements of Ballistic
Missile Defense programs, and that prevention of an arms race in outer space through an agreed treaty would be preferable to
trying to pull back such developments after they occurred. The CD, which functions by consensus, has been unable to move forward on China's
proposal because of the opposition of some countries, primarily the US which claims that there is not an arms race in outer space and thus there is no need for such
negotiations.

The US wants co-op they wont retaliate

Space.com 11 [Space Debris Threat Needs International Response, Military Says, March 22,
2011, http://www.space.com/11191-space-debris-international-response.html]

The National Space Policy is essentially a vision document. As a result, it's a little short on specifics about how exactly to
develop and maintain the necessary partnerships, officials said. "There are many technical and operational details that have to
be worked out before we at JFCC-Space could begin incorporating data from allies and partners, but we are definitely moving
in that direction," Helms said. These partners aren't limited to other sovereign nations. JFCC-Space currently has 19 SSA sharing
agreements with private industry to help support safe space-flight operations, officials said. As a result of this data sharing,
satellite owners maneuvered their craft 126 times last year to avoid collisions with other satellites or on-orbit debris. "The
United States is committed to safe, responsible and peaceful uses of space," Helms said. "Public provision of space situational
awareness data through the SSA Sharing Program is evidence of the U.S. government's commitment to provide SSA data to the
world, free of charge, in order to enhance safe and responsible space operations and promote transparency."

Alt cause NASA mega lasers now cause weaponization

Venton 15 - Danielle Venton, science writer for Wired 5/12/15 "The Mad Plan to Clean Up Space Junk With a Laser Cannon"
www.wired.com/2015/05/laser-cannon-space-debris/

IF A TEAM of astronomers has its way, the International Space Station will be outfitted with a spiffy laser-wielding telescope. No, no, hold onits not to kill aliens
or rebel civilizations. Its to clean up a huge mess. If anything rivals the human drive for exploration, it is the apparent need to leave a spectacular plume of trash in our wake. In space, the problem is becoming acute. Decades of

discarded satellites and unchecked collisions have left some 3,000 tons of debris in orbit. Thats roughly 15 blue whales, 600 elephants, or 1,500 cars. Mankinds slovenly ways threaten our continued use of space-based
satellites, which have become a core component of modern technological infrastructure. Youve probably used those satellites dozens of ways so far today. Have you sent a text? Watched TV? Used GPS? Checked the weather? If

youd like to keep doing these things, astronomers will soon need to find a way of tidying up low Earth orbit. In that region, between 100 and 1,250 miles above the planet, mere flecks of paint (of which there are many) travel
with sufficient force to sever electrical wires, dent spacecraft, and kill astronauts. Lasers could be the saviors in operation Orbital Clean House. A team of astronomers at Japans RIKEN, a
network of basic-research laboratories, have proposed adding debris-zapping capabilities to a telescope they are already developing for the ISS. They plan to start on a small scale, with a laser no more

powerful than the pointer you use to play with your cat. In time, the power could be increased to become a proper laser cannon. (Yes, dear reader, a laser cannon.) If

the notion of lasers in space sounds slightly terrifying, youre not alone. The problem with it is mostly political, says Don Kessler,
who spent more than 30 years at NASAs Johnson Space Center. Everyone is afraid you are going to weaponize space. Kessler began the field of studying

orbital debris and lends his name to Kessler syndrome, a scenario in which colliding debris begins a cascade of increasing debris and destruction. If you can take out a derelict satellite or

rocket body, you also have the ability to kill a working satellite. And given how important satellites are to militaries, an attack
could prompt a war . But if astronomers are going to put a laser cannon anywhere above Earth, the ISS would be the place to do it. Bolting the proposed laser to the ostensibly neutral space stationwhich already
must make frequent maneuvers to avoid larger, tracked pieces of debrismight be a way to make a scientifically sound idea politically sound as well. For the team at RIKEN, the proposed laser cannon is a way to not only clean up
their beloved orbits but also make their telescope, the Extreme Universe Space Observatory, more practically relevant, says project scientist Marco Casolino. With its wide field of view and the ability to register even the quickest
flashes of light, the scope would be well suited for spotting debris as it whizzes past the ISS. Now, the RIKEN team isnt the first to suggest lasers as debris-fighting tools: Scientists have for at least 30 years kicked around the idea of
laser-vaporizing an objects surface and knocking it into the atmosphere to burn up. Nor is it the only plan currently in development.
 Space Debris
Satellites arent going to be blasted by debris Gravity was just a movie
Lee A. Paradise, writer for Science Clarified encyclopedia. 2001, accessed July 29 2015 "Does the accumulation of "space
debris" in Earth's orbit pose a significant threat to humans, in space and on the ground?"
www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-1/Does-the-accumulation-of-space-debris-in-Earth-s-orbit-pose-a-significant-threat-to-
humans-in-space-and-on-the-ground.html

Considering the small size of objects like satellites or the shuttle placed against an environment as vast as space, the risk of
severe collisions is minimal. Even when an object in space is hit by space debris, the damage is typically negligible even
considering the high rate of speed at which the debris travels. Thanks to precautions such as debris shielding, the damage
caused by space debris has been kept to a minimum. Before it was brought back to Earth via remote control, the MIR space station received
numerous impacts from space debris. None of this minor damage presented any significant problems to the operation of the
station or its various missions. The International Space Station (ISS) is designed to withstand direct hits from space debris as large as 0.4 in (1 cm) in size.
Most scientists believe that the number of satellites actually destroyed or severely damaged by space debris is extremely low.
The Russian Kosmos 1275 is possibly one of these rare instances. The chance of the Hubble Space Telescope suffering the same fate as the Russian satellite is
approximately 1% according to Phillis Engelbert and Diane L. Dupuis, authors of The Handy Space Answer Book . Considering the number of satellites and other man-
made objects launched into space in the last 40 years, the serious risk posed to satellites is astronomically low. In fact, monitoring systems such as the Space
Surveillance Network (SSN) maintain constant track of space debris and Near Earth Orbits. Thanks to ground-based radar and computer extrapolation, this
provides an early warning system to determine if even the possibility of a collision with space debris is imminent. With this
information, the Space Shuttle can easily maneuver out of the way. The Space Science Branch at the Johnson Space Center predicts the chance of such a collision
occurring to be about 1 in 100,000, which is certainly not a significant enough risk to cause panic. Soon the ISS will also have the capability to maneuver in this way as well.

Cleanup is working multiple countries actively co-operate, treaties solve, and new tech is more careful
Lee A. Paradise, writer for Science Clarified encyclopedia. 2001, accessed July 29 2015 "Does the accumulation of "space
debris" in Earth's orbit pose a significant threat to humans, in space and on the ground?"
www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-1/Does-the-accumulation-of-space-debris-in-Earth-s-orbit-pose-a-significant-threat-to-
humans-in-space-and-on-the-ground.html

In addition, space agencies around the world have taken steps to reduce space clutter . The United States, for example, has taken an
official stand that is outlined in the 1996 National Space Policy that clearly states: "The United States will seek to minimize the
creation of new orbital debris." For example, space mechanics are far more careful with regard to their tools. In the past, space mechanics
sometimes let go of their tools and were unable to recover them. Strident efforts are now made to retain all objects used to repair satellites and
conduct other missions. The Russians have also agreed to do their part. They used to purposely destroy their equipment in
space to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, but now refrain from that practice. Newly designed crafts and operating procedures
also play a part in helping to keep space clean, while researchers continue to investigate safe ways to clean up the debris that currently exists.
Everything from forcing the debris to reenter the atmosphere in a controlled manner to nudging it away from the Earth's orbit has been discussed. An activity such as
collecting garbage from inside the space station and sending it back to Earth to burn up at reentry is one tangible way space explorers are
helping to ensure the reduction of space clutter. At this time there is no international treaty on how to deal with space debris; however, several nations have
joined together to form the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC). The IADC assesses the subject of space debris and how
it should be handled in the future. Japan, like the United States, has developed a list of safety policies regarding space debris. Because this is ultimately a global issue, other
countries such as France, The Netherlands, and Germany have jumped on the bandwagon with regard to addressing this issue.

Space lasers solve explode the debris so it doesnt damage space craft.
Venton 15 - Danielle Venton, science writer for Wired 5/12/15 "The Mad Plan to Clean Up Space Junk With a Laser Cannon"
www.wired.com/2015/05/laser-cannon-space-debris/

IF A TEAM of astronomers has its way, the International Space Station will be outfitted with a spiffy laser-wielding telescope. No, no, hold onits not to kill aliens
to clean up a huge mess. If anything rivals the human drive for exploration, it is the apparent need to leave a spectacular plume of trash in our wake. In space, the problem is becoming acute.
or rebel civilizations. Its

Decades of discarded satellites and unchecked collisions have left some 3,000 tons of debris in orbit. Thats roughly 15 blue whales, 600 elephants, or 1,500 cars. Mankinds slovenly ways threaten our continued use of
space-based satellites, which have become a core component of modern technological infrastructure. Youve probably used those satellites dozens of ways so far today. Have you sent a text? Watched TV? Used GPS? Checked the
weather? If youd like to keep doing these things, astronomers will soon need to find a way of tidying up low Earth orbit. In that region, between 100 and 1,250 miles above the planet, mere flecks of paint (of which there are many)

travel with sufficient force to sever electrical wires, dent spacecraft, and kill astronauts. Lasers could be the saviors in operation Orbital Clean House. A team of astronomers at Japans RIKEN, a
network of basic-research laboratories, have proposed adding debris-zapping capabilities to a telescope they are already developing for the ISS. They plan to start on a small scale, with a laser no more powerful than the pointer you
use to play with your cat. In time, the power could be increased to become a proper laser cannon. (Yes, dear reader, a laser cannon.) If the notion of lasers in space sounds slightly terrifying, youre not alone. The problem with it is
mostly political, says Don Kessler, who spent more than 30 years at NASAs Johnson Space Center. Everyone is afraid you are going to weaponize space. Kessler began the field of studying orbital debris and lends his name to
Kessler syndrome, a scenario in which colliding debris begins a cascade of increasing debris and destruction. If you can take out a derelict satellite or rocket body, you also have the ability to kill a working satellite. And given how
important satellites are to militaries, an attack could prompt a war. But if astronomers are going to put a laser cannon anywhere above Earth, the ISS would be the place to do it. Bolting the proposed laser to the ostensibly neutral
space stationwhich already must make frequent maneuvers to avoid larger, tracked pieces of debrismight be a way to make a scientifically sound idea politically sound as well. For the team at RIKEN, the proposed laser cannon is
a way to not only clean up their beloved orbits but also make their telescope, the Extreme Universe Space Observatory, more practically relevant, says project scientist Marco Casolino. With its wide field of view and the ability to
register even the quickest flashes of light, the scope would be well suited for spotting debris as it whizzes past the ISS. Now, the RIKEN team isnt the first to suggest lasers as debris-fighting tools: Scientists have for at least 30 years

The European Union is supporting a

kicked around the idea of laser-vaporizing an objects surface and knocking it into the atmosphere to burn up. Nor is it the only plan currently in development.

project called Stardust which is analyzing how to handle space debris and threatening asteroids (items they call non-cooperative targets)and
may settle on lasers as the best plan. Stardust is led by Massimiliano Vasile, of the University of Strathclydes Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Vasile and his team previously
came up with a proposal to use a swarm of navigable laser-equipped satellites to launch coordinated attacks against non-cooperative targets. The project was known,
appropriately, as Laser Bees. In the United States, the N ational A eronautics and S pace A dministrationwhich publishes Orbital Debris Quarterly News, a must read for space junk

enthusiastsproposes fighting space debris with a ground-based laser. (No NASA official could be reached before deadline for comment.) Non-lasery ideas are abundant too, coming in the form of reusable
spacecraft launched off modified jumbo jets or electrodynamic space tethers to slow orbiting junk by accosting it with electricity.

Innovation solves CleanSpace proves

Coxworth 15 - Ben Coxworth experienced freelance writer July 7, 2015 "EPFL's CleanSpace One satellite will "eat" space
junk" www.gizmag.com/cleanspace-one-orbital-debris-satellite/38348/

Three years ago, Swiss

research institute EPFL announced its plans to build a spacecraft that could grab orbital debris and then carry
it back towards Earth, burning up in the atmosphere with it on its way down. Called CleanSpace One, the satellite was depicted at the time as using a claw-like grasping tool. Now,
however, EPFL has announced that it will utilize a folding conical net to essentially gobble up bits of space garbage . When it's launched
possibly as early as 2018 CleanSpace One's first target will be the now-defunct SwissCube satellite. Because the 10 x 10-cm (3.9 x 3.9-in) object will likely be spinning, swallowing it in a net should be
easier than trying to grab it with a claw. Additionally, however, SwissCube's spinning action will make it more difficult to image, as its surfaces will alternately be brilliantly sunlit or hidden in shadow.
That's why CleanSpace One's computer vision system will be running algorithms that account for variables such as the angle of the sun, the dimensions of the target, the speed at which that target is
moving, and the rate at which CleanSpace One itself is spinning. High dynamic range cameras will also allow it to simultaneously expose for both bright and dark surfaces. Once
SwissCube
is within range, CleanSpace One will then extend its net around the satellite, subsequently closing that net back down with the
target inside. The net was designed by students at the Western Switzerland University of Applied Sciences. Animation of it in action can be seen in the following video.
US Relations
 *Notes
So the basic concept/theory behind beating relations advantages is pretty simple. You either want to win that collapse is
inevitable because of alt causes and a weak relationship (which makes it hard for them to win that the plan/CP is key) OR you
want to win that the relationship is so good that nothing is going to stop it (i.e. even their internal link.) EITHER WAY you want
a no impact card to the relations (The Azerbaijan relations section shows a good example of this divide of strategy)

Tips:

Make sure not to read alt cause cards that are their internal links.

Make sure these answers are correctly responsive to their impact scenario these cards have generic utility

Obviously dont read relationship resilient with relationship collapse inevitable go for one story.

ALGG Lab NDI 15

 Albania
Resilient economic ties, treaties, and democratic support
USDS 15 - US Department of State, March 11, 2015 "U.S. Relations With Albania Fact Sheet"
www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3235.htm

U.S. Assistance to Albania U.S. Government assistance aims to help Albania strengthen democratic institutions and rule of law;
promote sustainable, broad-based economic growth; and integrate the country into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. A
fact sheet on U.S. assistance to Albania can be found here. Bilateral Economic Relations Trade with the United States accounts for an insignificant
part of Albania's trade volume, focusing on a narrow range of goods and products. Major imports from the U.S. include food (mainly meat), transportation
equipment (vehicles), machinery, and computer and electronic equipment, while the main exports to the United States are agricultural products, footwear, and textiles.
Albania is eligible to export certain products duty-free to the United States under the Generalized System of Preferences
program. The United States and Albania have signed a bilateral investment treaty. Albania's Membership in International Organizations Albania and the United
States belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, N orth A tlantic T reaty O rganization,
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and W orld T rade
O rganization. Albania also is an observer to the Organization of American States. As of June 2014, Albania is a candidate for accession into the European Union.

Albanians <3 the US Historical diplomatic ties ensures co-op

Lucas 7 - Peter Lucas, writer for the NYT, June 14 2007 "Why Albanians love America"
www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/opinion/14iht-edlucas.1.6137324.html

The thing to remember about the extraordinary reception the Albanian people awarded President George W. Bush on Sunday was that the outpouring of love
was not so much for Bush - although he is popular in the tiny Balkan nation - but for the country he represents. Any president
of the United States would have received the same enthusiastic welcome. Unlike the jaded residents of the rest of old Europe, the Albanians, who are new to democracy, believe that the
United States is a great democracy that believes in spreading freedom and democracy around the world. Albanians believe they are living proof of this. Albania's love affair with the United States did not begin

overnight. It started when President Woodrow Wilson, after World War I, stood up to the victorious nations of Europe and
insisted that Albania, made up of one of the oldest peoples of Europe, was a true nation and that its borders had to be
preserved. Back then the so-called victorious Great Powers - Britain, France and Italy - wanted to divide Albania up among its neighbors, as a sort of reward for fighting and defeating the German/Austrian coalition. Serbia was slated for a piece here, Greece a chunk
there, and Italy a section of the coast. But for Wilson standing up for Albania, the tiny, poor and defenseless country would have disappeared. So it is no small wonder than many an Albanian boy born after 1919 was named Wilson. Albania did disappear for awhile when Italy
invaded it in 1939 and occupied the country. After Italy was defeated by the Allies and dropped out of World War II in 1943, the Germans took its place. The Communist partisans, with some help from Britain and the United States, forced the Germans out. There was nothing to
cheer about, though, when Enver Hoxha and the Communists took over. Hoxha ruled Albania with an iron fist, stamping out freedom, religion and hope. Hoxha died in 1985, and Communism followed suit a few years later. Once again Albania looked to the United States for
guidance. When Secretary of State James Baker paid a visit to the fledging democracy in 1991, the crowds were as large and as enthusiastic as the crowds that greeted Bush on Sunday. Joyous men sought to lift Baker's limousine and carry it into downtown Tirana. Then came
Slobodan Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing of Kosovo in 1999. As hundreds of thousands of Kosovars streamed across the border for safety in Albania, President Bill Clinton dragged a reluctant Europe into following him and his NATO bombing of Serbia that forced Milosevic's

downfall. Once againthe Albanian people learned that their security lay not with the states of Europe but with the United States. When
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Albania in 1999, she was treated like a rock star. The same treatment was given to Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2003
when he went to Tirana to witness the signing of the Adriatic Charter, a document that is leading Albania, Croatia and Macedonia into NATO membership. Albania showed its gratitude when it answered Bush's

call to join the coalition of the willing and follow the United States into Iraq. Albania practically elbowed its way to the front of the line. Although its contribution in manpower was small -
120 soldiers - its spirit was large. Fatos Tarifa, Albania's ambassador to the United States at the time, was widely quoted when he said: "If you believe in

freedom, you believe in fighting for it. If you believe in fighting for it, you believe in the United States." That about sums up the feeling Albanians have for
the United States.
 Algeria
Diplomacy strong recent Kerry visit proves strong cultural values and ensures co-op
Abdallah Baali head of the Ebassy of Algeria to the USA April 9, 2015 "U.S. Secretary of State Kerry hails Algeria's "very
important and constructive" role in the region" www.algerianembassy.org/news/us-secretary-state-kerry-hails-algeria.html

Algrie Presse Service (APS) - Thursday, April 9, 2015

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry paid tribute Wednesday in Washington to Algeria's "very important and constructive" role
and "leadership" in the Maghreb and Middle East region. "Algeria plays a very important and constructive role in the Maghreb
and Middle East region. The united States is grateful to Algeria for that," Mr. Kerry said in a statement issued with Minister for Foreign Affairs
Ramtane Lamamra, at the close of the third session of the Algeria-United States Strategic Dialogue. In his remarks, Mr. Kerry has "thanked" Algeria for its
mediation efforts and its support of the inter-Malian peace agreement, which he called "a roadmap to restore security and
stimulate good governance as well as justice and reconciliation in Mali." "Going forward, the (Malian) parties should uphold their commitments to
peacefully resolve persisting differences and to work together to promote good governance and security," Mr. Kerry added. Switching to Libya, Mr. Kerry said Algeria played a
"fundamental support" role as part of UN efforts seeking to reach a peaceful solution in that country, adding that the recent meeting in Algeria by Libyan parties was "a very
important milestone." "This
confirms Algeria's leadership in the region, but also the commitment of the (Libyan) parties toward
dialogue as the only viable solution to this crisis," said the U.S. Secretary of State, as he underscored that his country "is
committed to continue to support this process leading to a stable, unified and at peace Libya." Addressing cooperation between Algeria
and the United States, in light of the strategic dialogue established between the two countries, Mr. Kerry reiterated his country's "commitment" to further strengthen its
economic and political ties to Algeria, thus enabling, he said, "first-rate U.S. firms to share their ideas with other Algerian firms and businesspeople." "Our strategic dialogue
has enabled progress in various areas," Mr. Kerry said, noting that security cooperation is "the cornerstone of cooperation between the two countries." "Terrorist groups
pose a challenge for all of us and, in this respect, the United States salutes Algeria's initiative to convene next summer an international summit on the theme of de-
radicalization," he said, stressing that the coming summit would come on the heels of the international conference on violent extremism convened last February by his
country. "Algeria and the United States will continue to work together against terrorism and strengthen all aspects of their
security partnership," he insisted. Furthermore, and as he underlined "Barack Obama's gratitude for the important cooperation with
Algeria," Mr. Kerry paid tribute to Algeria for its efforts in support of peace, even though it is located in a difficult region with
lots of challenges. He also recalled that ties between Algeria and the United States stretch very far back in time, as he noted the Florida city of St. Augustine was
founded 450 years ago to honor the Algerian scholar Saint Augustine. Mr. Kerry also recalled that Algeria was one of the first countries to
officially recognize the newly established United States of America and pointed out that the Algerian and American peoples
have a lot in common. The shared interests of the two peoples have been in full view during this third session of the Algeria-
United States Strategic Dialogue, Mr. Kerry said.

Statistic and historic military co-op means they wont sever economic ties
Globalsecurity.org December 27 2012 (date found using the Wayback machine) "Algeria-U.S. Relations"
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/algeria/forrel-us.htm

Cooperation between the Algerian and U.S. militaries continues to grow. Exchanges between both sides are frequent, and
Algeria has hosted senior U.S. military officials. In May 2005, the United States and Algeria conducted their first formal joint
military dialogue in Washington, DC; the second joint military dialogue took place in Algiers in November 2006, and a third
occurred in October 2008. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Commander, U.S. European Command, General
James L. Jones visited Algeria in June and August 2005, and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Algeria in
February 2006. In November 2009, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) Commander General W. Ward visited Algiers and met
with Algerian officials, including President Bouteflika. The United States and Algeria have also conducted bilateral naval and
Special Forces exercises, and Algeria has hosted U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ship visits. In addition, the United States has a
modest International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program ($870,000 in FY 2009 and $950,000 in FY 2010) for
training Algerian military personnel in the United States, and Algeria participates in the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism
Partnership (TSCTP).

MEPI means Algeria is reliant

Globalsecurity.org December 27 2012 (date found using the Wayback machine) "Algeria-U.S. Relations"
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/algeria/forrel-us.htm

Funding through the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) has been allocated to support the work of Algeria's developing
civil society through programming that provides training to journalists, businesspeople, female entrepreneurs, legislators,
Internet regulators, and the heads of leading nongovernmental organizations. Additional funding through the State
Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund provides training for Algerian judges and lawyers, with a particular emphasis
on female judges. The official U.S. presence in Algeria is expanding following over a decade of limited staffing, reflecting the
general improvement in the security environment. During the past four years, the U.S. Embassy has moved toward more
normal operations and now provides most embassy services to the American and Algerian communities.

Alt cause historical conflicts

Robert Looney May 22, 2014 "Handbook of US-Middle East Relations"
https://books.google.com/books?id=WCyiAwAAQBAJ&dq=US+algeria+ties&source=gbs_navlinks_s

The problems between the two countries were exacerbated as a result of the role Algerians believed the played during the
Moroccan-Algerian conflict in fall 1963. Moroccan irredentism was at the origin of the conflict, but the confrontation took the
form of an ideological confrontation between a country closely associated with the west, especially the US and one that prided
itself on being revolutionary, albeit non-aligned, and antagonistic to "imperialistic" maneuvers in the region. Whatever the
exact role it played during that conflict, Algerians were truly convinced that the US provided logistical support to the
Moroccans. Furthermore, Algerian leaders were persuaded that the US was intent on rolling back their revolution and
preventing that experience from being emulated in other third world countries. refusal to sell them, that very same year, badly
needed military equipment for the ill-equipped National Popular Army (ANP) helped confirm Algerian suspicions vis--vis US
intentions, despite the economic assistance that President John F. Kennedy was still trying to provide to In November 1963, the
Soxdets agreed to supply modern military equipment to lAIgeri2l," a decision which irritated the USU? The mutual distrust led
to a closer political and military relationship between the Soviet Union and an association that has continued with Russia to
this day.
 Australia

US-Australian relationship strong and set to overcome threats, ensures co-op

Ungerer 14 - Carl Ungerer independent consultant and a former foreign policy adviser to the Labor government 6 Feb 2014
"Is the US-Australia 'anchor of peace' immune from rust?" www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/07/is-the-us-
australia-anchor-of-peace-immune-from-rust

At a practical level, the constituent parts of the Australia-US alliance have never seemed stronger. A growing number of US
marines are now on regular rotation for exercises throughout northern Australia, alliance cooperation has been extended to
new non-traditional security threats such as cybersecurity and despite the fallout from the release of classified information by
former US National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden, the depth and breadth of the intelligence relationship is
unprecedented.

Alt cause - Snowden leaks

Ludlam 13 - Scott Ludlam, Australian Greens spokesperson on Communications 18 November 2013 "The NSA scandal has
detonated in Australia - we can no longer look away" www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/the-nsa-scandal-
has-detonated-in-australia-we-can-no-longer-look-away

We dont discuss intelligence matters, Australias bewildered prime minister told the media again this morning, making him
the only person left on earth not discussing intelligence matters. Seven months after the fuse was lit, the scandal of the US National Security Agency
surveillance state has finally detonated in Australia. Thats how long it has been since the general public got a look at the first cheesy
powerpoint presentations originating from deep within the US national security establishment. The first slide deck was a brash sales pitch
to agency "customers" of the NSA. It described the degree to which major US tech companies including household names like Microsoft, Google and Apple had been
wormholed, silently spilling the private data of hundreds of millions of people onto the NSAs servers and establishing real-time surveillance of a large fraction of the public
internet. The target of US intelligence, it seems, is everyone. The
revelations of a single brave whistleblower, combined with journalists willing
to risk offending some of the most powerful and secretive institutions on earth, started an avalanche. Congressional inquiries,
international delegations, UN resolutions and still the revelations kept coming. The NSA and its affiliate "five eyes" agencies
have gradually unmoored themselves from the rule of law, and it is no longer clear on exactly whose authority they operate. As
the scandal reached the highest levels of government in Europe and North America, in Australia weve been subjected to a bipartisan consensus of angry silence. Nothing to
see here, move along. This relaxed attitude is nowhere better described than in a wonderfully illuminating exchange I had during a budget estimates committee hearing with
the head of IT services for the Australian parliament. Every device in Parliament House has been backdoored, but all is well, because, well So
fast forward to
November 2013, and its not the NSAs logo on the slideset its the Australian Signals Directorate (formerly the DSD), an
agency whose mission statement reads "Reveal their secrets protect our own". With the apparent help of the NSAs
equipment and expertise, at least since 2009 our security agencies have hacked the private phones of the president of
Indonesia, his wife, and senior Indonesian leaders. Finally, the consequences of indiscriminate surveillance overkill have made
it to Australia. Article 41 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations states that: 1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all
persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. So we are probably in breach of international law, thus the
ferocious reaction from Jakarta. But in every interview Ive fielded since the story broke, Ive been asked what the big deal is dont all governments do this stuff? Is it a
problem that we engage in this behaviour, or just that we got caught? Clandestine intelligence agencies spy on people: its their job. We grant them extraordinary powers
justified by the dangerous work they do go after violent extremists, organised crime syndicates, transnational terror networks. Legitimate targets of surveillance and
prosecution using every tool in the box. There are, after all, people in the world who think flying aircraft into buildings is an acceptable form of political communication. But
since when did the president of Indonesia join this company? The chancellor of Germany? Glenn Greenwalds partner? When did everyone who ever used Facebook or
searched Google become a target of counterterrorism agencies? As
a global society we are now reaping the consequences of the deliberate and
systematic blurring of the boundaries between terrorism, journalism, whistleblowing and democratic dissent. The counter-
movement is alive and well everywhere else on earth; today I feel for the first time that maybe we can advance the
conversation here in Australia. Step one: an undertaking by prime minister Abbott to the Indonesian government that we dont tap the phones of democratically
elected leaders, and that distrust is corrosive of genuine security (this did, after all, happen on his predecessors watch). Step two: the inspector general of intelligence and
security should undertake and publish a review of how the former government came to approve such activity. Step three: an open parliamentary inquiry into the damage
that the unregulated surveillance state is doing to our diplomatic relationships and our human right to privacy, and to draw up some institutional remedies to tip the balance
back in the direction of the rule of law. Mr Abbott, its time to discuss intelligence matters.
China coercion is an alt cause
Ungerer 14 - Carl Ungerer independent consultant and a former foreign policy adviser to the Labor government 6 Feb 2014
"Is the US-Australia 'anchor of peace' immune from rust?" www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/07/is-the-us-
australia-anchor-of-peace-immune-from-rust

Over the next 15 years, however, the Australia-US relationship will confront a regional security environment that will be more
competitive and less amenable to bilateral security agreements. The debate in Australia over what we should do about that
has become polarised between the idea of a radical shift towards a new power-sharing arrangement between the US and
China and the typical political response of steady as she goes. Between these two poles, some commentators have raised the
possibility of a third pathway for the alliance, a strategy of containing Chinas ambitions until it becomes a more responsible
stakeholder in the regions economic and security architecture. Strategies of concert, containment and complacency are
useful fodder for the strategic policy community to chew over. But they tell us little about the specific issues that could go
wrong in the bilateral relationship that would have potential consequences for the alliance. China will remain the most
sensitive subject in the Australia-US relationship. A decade ago, the former Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer,
received a sharp rebuke from his American counterparts for suggesting that Australias alliance commitments might not be
triggered automatically by conflict over Taiwan. In what was an otherwise unremarkable statement of fact, the response from
Washington suggested a divergence of views over what constitutes an alliance commitment. Richard Armitages more recent
warning about Australia free riding on American taxpayers is a reminder that Washingtons alliance expectations are growing.
Although the Australian government has agreed to increase the defence budget to 2% of GDP, achieving this goal at a time of
fiscal stringency will be difficult, if not impossible, in the short term. The 2013 Australian Defence White Paper made the bold
assertion that The government does not believe that Australia must choose between its longstanding Alliance with the United
States and its expanding relationship with China; nor do the United States and China believe that we must make such a choice.
But choices will need to be made. Those choices will not be as simple as appeasing China or backing Americas continued
primacy in Asia. The challenge that China represents to the alliance is structural. Through coercion and intimidation, Beijing
seeks to change the strategic equilibrium in Asia that has flourished under US leadership. China is not a status quo power, and
the alliance is very much about maintaining the status quo. So one of these things will need to change.
 Azerbaijan
Relationship Resilient:
Historical ties and values means the relationship is resilient and ensures co-op
Mammadov 12 - Galib Mammadov, writer for foreing policy journal March 2, 2012 "Future of U.S.-Azerbaijani Relations"
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/02/future-of-u-s-azerbaijani-relations/

The September 11 attacks brought the collaboration between the two countries to a higher level. Azerbaijan was amongst the first
countries to offer the United States unconditional support in the war against terrorism, providing its airspace for Operation Enduring Freedom
in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan was also the first Muslim nation to send its troops to serve shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S. forces in Iraq.
Azerbaijan also joined NATOs Partnership for Peace Program in 1994, which helped to deepen U.S.-Azerbaijani military cooperation. The
Bush Administration primarily focused on military cooperation as the United States and Azerbaijan signed an agreement on this subject in 2002.

Azerbaijan is of key interest to the US they will want to maintain relations

Sen 13 - Ashish Kumar Sen, international politics writer for The Washington Times, October 7, 2013 "Azerbaijan: An American
ally in a sea of threats" www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/7/azerbaijan-an-american-ally-in-a-sea-of-
threats/?page=all

In an increasingly polarized world, the small Caspian Sea nation of Azerbaijan is a tantalizing study in contradictions. Its a
staunch American ally sandwiched between the U.S. nemeses of Iran and Russia, providing a critical transit for U.S. troops and
supplies in and out of Afghanistan. Yet most Americans probably cant spell the countrys name on first chance or pinpoint its
location on a map. Its also a Shiite Muslim country that rejects the theocracy of Tehran in favor of a secular government while
expanding its already friendly relationship with Israel. Its also a former Soviet republic that has cast off the shackles of its once
socialist economy to experience significant growth around its booming oil industry. All that makes Wednesdays election in
Azerbaijan of keen interest to U.S. diplomatic, intelligence and military circles even though theres little suspense: President
Ilham Aliyev is widely expected to win his third five-year term. It is the only country that borders both Russia and Iran.
Therefore, it becomes a pivotal state when it comes to issues such as containment of Iran, as well as access for Americans, not
only into the Caucasus, but also into Central Asia, said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who is now a resident scholar
at the American Enterprise Institute. If Azerbaijan werent resource-rich and if it didnt have the geopolitical position it has, I
dont imagine that so many Americans would be increasingly interested in the former Soviet republic. The U.S.-Azerbaijani
relationship is based on cooperation in several areas, including regional security and energy. Azerbaijan has supplied troops to
work with U.S. forces in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 1988, Azerbaijan has been mired in a conflict with Armenia over
Nagorno-Karabakh, a primarily Armenian-populated landlocked region in Azerbaijan that is held by ethnic Armenian forces and
unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991. While Armenia, once a powerful lobby in Washington, has
embraced Russia, Azerbaijan has leaned toward the West. There is a sense that if Azerbaijan changes its orientation,
American influence will be checkmated in the region, Mr. Rubin said. Political stability in Azerbaijan is to the benefit of
Americas strategic interests.

Relationship fails:
Will collapse inevitably in the long term they feel that the US is just using them.
Kauzlarich 11 - Richard D. Kauzlarich national intelligence officer for Europe from September 2003 to April 2011. Formerly,
he was director of the special initiative on the Muslim World at the United States Institute of Peace. January 13, 2015 "The
Heydar Aliyev Era Ends in Azerbaijan Not with a Bang but a Whisper" www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/13-
aliyev-era-ends-bang-whisper-azerbaijan-kauzlarich

Mehdiyevs candor about the future direction for Azerbaijan could lead to a more normal and practical U.S. bilateral
relationship with Azerbaijan that is unencumbered by an impossible search for a strategic relationship, and also for a
relationship based on shared values. Given developments in the global energy market, access to Azerbaijans energy is no
longer the key political driver in our relations that it was 20 years ago. As it should be, energy is now a commercial and not a
political issue. The improved prospects for a nuclear deal with Iran, and Irans steps toward a more positive engagement with
the global community, could also mean an end to this period of U.S.-Iranian confrontation. This is still a long shot but, if it
happens, Azerbaijans value as a partner in the U.S.s regional confrontations declines. Similarly, as the combat phase of U.S.-
NATO involvement in Afghanistan recedes, the need for a more robust security relationship with Azerbaijan is reduced as well.
Above all, we must now avoid the trap of thinking that somehow Azerbaijan is an element in the current conflict with Russia
over Ukraine.

Especially true with new president Baku

Kauzlarich 11 - Richard D. Kauzlarich national intelligence officer for Europe from September 2003 to April 2011. Formerly,
he was director of the special initiative on the Muslim World at the United States Institute of Peace. January 13, 2015 "The
Heydar Aliyev Era Ends in Azerbaijan Not with a Bang but a Whisper" www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/13-
aliyev-era-ends-bang-whisper-azerbaijan-kauzlarich

Given the previous two decades of close relations and cooperation between Azerbaijan and the United States, why did this
happen? There appear to be multiple, cumulative, triggers rooted in the anxiety of the regime about the risks of a grassroots
uprising or color revolution similar to those in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in the 2000s; in the regimes reaction to and
(mis)interpretation of a series of regional developments; and most significantly in Bakus deep frustration with U.S. policies.
The Aliyev regime has become steadily disillusioned with the United States persistence in pressing Azerbaijan on its
democratic development and criticizing its failures on human rights.
 Bangladesh
Bangladesh relies upon the US would never sever ties, would only co-operate
USDS 15 - The US Department of State January 30, 2015 "U.S. Relations With Bangladesh"
www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3452.htm

Bangladesh is the largest recipient of U.S. assistance in Asia outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. assistance fosters
engagement with the Government of Bangladesh and complements support from other donors to address the underlying
social, demographic, and economic factors that threaten democratic governance, stifle economic growth, and increase
vulnerability to extremism in Bangladesh. The United States continues to build upon previous gains to reduce poverty, enhance
food security, improve health and education, mitigate the impact of climate change and natural disasters, and achieve better
governance to spur equitable and sustainable growth.

We need them and they need us breaking the relationship would be nonsensical
Rivkin 14 - Charles H. Rivkin Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, November 23, 2014 "U.S.-
Bangladesh Trade and Investment Ties: A Partnership for Sustained Success" www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2014/234378.htm

There was agreement that building a stronger "Brand Bangladesh" with a positive reputation for safeguarding labor rights
would attract more foreign investors an essential key to future growth. Stronger enforcement of workers rights and
healthier labor relations, along with attention to such related issues as building safety, will help Bangladesh ensure broad-
based growth and build a middle class as it competes globally and moves up the value-added chain. As I emphasized during my
visit to Dhaka, the United States is proud to have played a supportive role in Bangladeshs economic development success
story over the past 25 years. The United States is now one of Bangladeshs largest foreign investors and our commercial
relationship is equally promising: two-way trade has grown over 50 percent in the past two years, from $4 billion to more
than $6 billion. An improved labor rights climate would encourage more American companies to invest, build on our trade and
investment ties, and help burnish Bangladeshs economic role in the region and beyond. More importantly, it would enhance
the lives and increase the productivity of the nations most valuable economic asset: its working people. The stakes
couldnt be higher for both our nations: President Obama has emphasized how economically important this market is to the
prosperity of the American people. U.S. firms recognize the countrys potential and are eager to do business, and the Business
Council for International Understanding was proud to host and meet with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in New York in
September during the UN General Assembly.
 Brazil
Brazil and the US are tight historic and economic ties means quarrels will never stop relations
Duran 14 - Rebeca Duran, staff writer for the brazil business, March 7 2014 "Commercial Relations: Brazil and United States"
thebrazilbusiness.com/article/commercial-relations-brazil-and-united-states

Brazil has never been invisible to Latin American countries, and neither to the rest of the world. With a territory of approximately 8.5 million square
kilometers and a population of 198 million inhabitants, this giant country has always caught foreign eyes since its discovery. Nowadays, the country concentrates on
other impressive numbers, with a GDP of 2.4 trillion USD, Brazil has the largest economy in Latin America and the seventh
largest economy in the world. All of that explains why the country has received North American attention since its independence in 1822. In that year, Brazil finally
had cut its colonial chains with Portugal, declaring its independence from this European decadent empire, but the declaration wasnt recognized right away. European nations
were hostile to it, and it was only in
1824 that one nation decided to accept the new Brazilian status. That nation was the United States, and,
with the launch of the Monroe Doctrine, condemned any European colonizer intervention in the Americas. Since then, Brazil and United States
shared a long history of relations, which has been generally positive. The relations between both countries may have
confronted some foreign policy disagreements, but were never interrupted . Their engagement on some issues, like security, energy, and the
environment, colored the relations during the years, but, mainly, it was the economic bond between these two nations that kept them united .

NSA spying never hurt relations they have moved forward

Sennes 15 - Ricardo Sennes, executive writer for the Atlatic Council Latin America Center, June 2015 "US-Brazil Relations: A
New Beginning?" www.atlanticcouncil.org/usbrazil/

After the NSA spying scandal derailed US-Brazil relations in 2013, the two countries are now ready to resume deeper bilateral
cooperation. On March 13, US Vice President Joseph Biden invited President Rousseff for either a state visit in 2016, or a less
formal official visit in 2015. Given the importance of reigniting the relationshipand the political and economic situation in
Brazil Rousseff wisely opted for the earlier trip, taking place on June 30. Her visit has the potential to move forward agenda
items that have been waiting on the back burner. While the political difficulties in Brazil may be a warning sign that relations
with the United States will only improve slowly, both sides stand to benefit from a renewed relationship, though in different
ways. On the Brazilian side, the Petrobras corruption scandal coupled with an economy in recession leaves President Rousseff
with diminished political capital just months into her second, four-year term. This gives her plenty of incentives to seek a
positive foreign policy agenda that delivers economic benefits at home. Other motivations for improving US ties include:
Preventing further loss of political and economic influence in the United States to other nations; Gaining better access to
strategic resources of interest to Brazil, such as technology, investments, markets, and human capital; and Enhancing Brazils
presence on the global stage by showing its leadership among developed nations in addition to the Global South. On the US
side, President Barack Obama has shown a clear willingness to take bold international initiatives in his last term as President,
and Brazil should be next on the priority list. Four other factors should drive US action: Improving relations could further
unlock access to Brazils $2.2 trillion economy; Avoiding the loss of political and economic influence in Brazilparticularly to
European countries and China; Laying the seeds for Brazil to be a better partner in working with countries of mutual interest in
Latin America, especially Venezuela, Haiti, and Argentina, thus reducing the burden of dealing with these issues alone; and
Providing new momentum for Brazil to better cooperate with the United States in global topics of mutual interest, such as
terrorism, money laundering, peacekeeping operations, Internet governance, espionage, and drug trafficking.

They are key trading partners hundreds of billions to be made, means co-op inevitable
White House Secretary 12 - The White House Office of the Press Secretary April 09, 2012 "Fact Sheet: The U.S.-Brazil
Economic Relationship" https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/09/fact-sheet-us-brazil-economic-relationship

A Key Trading Partnership Two-way goods and services trade between the United States and Brazil has nearly tripled in the past decade to more
than $100 billion in 2011. In the past five years, goods and services exports from the United States to Brazil more than doubled, from $26.6 billion in 2006 to $62.7
billion in 2011. With 195 million of the worlds consumers, and per-capita income expected to grow more than three percent per year during the next five years, Brazils
demand for goods imports has more than tripled, from $47.2 billion in 2002 to $226.2 billion in 2011. Since 2002, U.S. goods
exports to Brazil have more than tripled, growing from $12.4 billion in 2002 to $42.9 billion in 2011. In 2011, U.S. goods exports to Brazil were up 21 percent
from 2010. These exports were made up of goods from high-tech, value-producing industries. In 2011, the largest U.S. goods export category
to Brazil was machinery, valued at $7.9 billion. Other top export categories included aircraft and parts ($5.4 billion), electric machinery ($4.6 billion), and plastics ($2.1
billion). Exports to Brazil benefit businesses and entrepreneurs across the nation. In every year for the past 10 years, exporters in all 50 states have reported exports to Brazil.
In 2011, nearly three-quarters of U.S. states (36 total) reported goods export shipments in excess of $100 million. U.S. services exports to Brazil have also
increased. From 2002 to 2011, U.S. services exports to Brazil more than tripled, increasing from $5.1 billion in 2002 to $19.9 billion in 2011. In
2010, these services included telecommunications services worth $2.1 billion, and business, professional, and technical services totaling $2.2 billion. In 2011, 1.5
million Brazilians visited the United States, a 26 percent increase compared to 2010, and up about 400,000 in 2002. In 2011,
Brazilians spent $6.8 billion on travel and tourism related goods in the United States, up 148 percent from 2009.

US Brazil relationship will never falter MASSIVE benefits for both countries and shared values
Sennes 15 - Ricardo Sennes, executive writer for the Atlatic Council Latin America Center, June 2015 "US-Brazil Relations: A
New Beginning?" www.atlanticcouncil.org/usbrazil/

The strength of the US-Brazil relationship has important economic and political implications for the United States. Brazil is the
second largest economy in the Western Hemisphere, and the seventh largest in the world, closely trailing the United Kingdom. With two hundred million people and a land
mass that borders all but two South American countries, it can play a critical role in the regions future. The problem is that US-Brazilian ties have never lived up to
expectations, and the disappointments reverberate across the hemisphere. After all, Brazil was among those that derided the idea of a Free Trade Area of the Americas two
decades ago. But we believe adversity presents opportunity and the agenda can be moved forward by focusing on specific, pragmatic areas of
cooperation. Despite Brazils current woes, we remain bullish about the future of Brazil and its continued rise in global importance. The Adrienne Arsht
Latin America Center is committed to highlighting Brazils strategic place in global affairs, and to strengthening the ties between two dynamic, Western countries
with similar histories and values. President Rousseffs visit to Washington, DC, coupled with the significant transformations in US-
Latin American relations and in Brazilian politics, means that we may be on the cusp of a breakthrough . Missing so far has been the
political will to make it happen. Could both parties be ready? Whether in innovation, goods and services trade, investment, or education, the

US-Brazil agenda may in fact be a welcome oasis in the desert of bad news confronting Brazil . We present here, with our esteemed
Nonresident Senior Brazil Fellow Ricardo Sennes, concrete proposals that the United States and Brazil can take to advance cooperation in each area. It will not be easy, but
with galvanized political leadership, it just may be possible.
 Canada
Trade, shared values, intellectual and cultural ties make it resilientif it will collapse its because of trade
disputes over beef and lumber
Andre de Nesnera 04, VOA News, December 11, 2004, The Epoch Times, Some Trade Issues Divide US, Canada,
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-11/24897.html

President Bush recently visited Canada, his first trip abroad since his re-election. The two neighboring countries are strong
allies and have deep ties that bind them. But there are some issues, especially dealing with trade, that still divide Ottawa and
Washington. Trade is the most important component of U.S.-Canada relations. Each country is the others biggest trading
customer. Eighty-four percent of Canadas exports go the United States and Canada buys more than 70 percent of its imports
from its neighbor. So it was no surprise that when President Bush visited Canada, trade issues - and especially contentious
trade issues - were high on the agenda in discussions with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. Charles Doran is Director of
Canadian Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. He says one major
disagreement between the two countries deals with Washingtons tariffs on the import of Canadian softwood lumber, such as
pine. There is a huge amount of trade in lumber between Canada and the United States. Canadians sell a large amount,
billions of dollars, and the argument has been on the part of a small group of producers in the United States that Canada has
subsidized this. Now the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the World Trade Organization, in dispute
resolution panels, have denied that there is unfair subsidy. But in fact, every President for some time has been unable to
unravel the legal challenges and so on, to get rid of that issue, he says. Following the Bush-Martin meeting, the softwood
lumber issue remains unresolved. Professor Doran says another problem stems from the US action to ban beef imports from
Canada because of mad cow disease. There was one cow found in Alberta with this disease, but the consequence of that has
been enormous in the sense that trade for beef, for the United States and Canada has been affected and third markets like
Japan and Europe. They are trying to get around this problem. They are trying to establish common standards, but its hard to
believe, its almost hard to imagine how one cow could cause that much catastrophe to this industry in North America, he
says. Canadian statistics indicate that the 18-month ban has cost the Canadian beef industry more than $4 billion in lost
revenues. That issue, too, still remains to be solved following the Bush-Martin summit. Tied to those two trade issues, is the
question of security along the Canadian-American border - at nearly 9,000 kilometers the worlds longest undefended frontier.
Both countries have stepped up cooperation in the security field, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Kim Nossel, Director of Political Studies at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, says Americans and Canadians are
approaching the border security issue from different angles. From the American perspective, there is the concern about the
porousness of that long, undefended border and the ease with which one could in fact get across the border. From a Canadian
perspective, the major concern is an absolute fear that there will be a terrorist incident in the United States that will openly
and manifestly have come from Canada, that will lead to, essentially, a closing of the border. And of course that border and the
openness of that border is absolutely crucial for Canadian wealth. Experts say Ottawa and Washington have to find a delicate
balance between the free flow of commerce and legitimate security concerns. Gill Troy is a U.S.-Canada expert at McGill
University in Montreal. He says despite various disagreements between the two countries, one overriding issue must be kept
in mind. Even if there is an agreement to disagree, even if the United States says: look, we cant do this because of internal
constituency pressures or external trade pressures, the awareness that nevertheless, while we might part on some issues, we
are still fundamentally friends, we are still fundamentally linked in so many ways - economically, ideologically, intellectually,
culturally, socially - is important, he says. Experts agree that President Bushs trip to Canada was an attempt to improve
relations between the two countries - relations that were strained in recent years, during the tenure of Canadian Prime
Minister Jean Chretien. Analysts say based on the recent Bush-Martin meeting, things are looking up.
 China
The status quo solves the internal link - Diplomacy is up and they can work out quarrels
Tiezzi 15 - Shannon Tiezzi, author for the Diplomat on China, February 12, 2015 "Why 2015 Will Be a Great Year for US-China
Relations" thediplomat.com/2015/02/why-2015-will-be-a-great-year-for-us-china-relations/

Its official: Chinese President Xi Jinpings first state visit to the U.S. is scheduled for September. Xinhua reported today that Xi, in a phone conversation
with U.S. President Barack Obama, accepted the invitation to pay a state visit to the United States in September. Xi is also expected to attend

celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the United Nations in New York this September. Now the race is on for both the U.S. and China to hammer out some

deliverables over the course of the next seven months. My colleague Ankit Panda provided some predictions of what topics might be on the agenda, including progress
on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Other possible topics of discussion: military confidence building measures and agreement on what approach to take at Decembers climate change conference to
be held in Paris. While the announcements wont be made until September, the discussions are already taking place. Two high-ranking U.S. State Department officials are in Beijing this week to begin
laying the groundwork for Xis visit: new Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel. Blinken stopped in China as part of a
larger tour of Northeast Asia, his first trip abroad since assuming his post. Blinken was in Seoul from February 9-10 and will travel to Tokyo on February 12. The
purpose of his visit, he
announced on Twitter, was advancing the rebalance to Asia. Russel, meanwhile, traveled only to China; hes in Beijing for
talks from February 9-12. Both Beijing and Washington were vague on the specifics of these meetings, but the focus was on cooperation rather than airing differences. The U.S. State
Departments press release on Blinkens trip, for example, said only that the deputy secretary would meet with senior Chinese government officials to discuss ongoing cooperation on a wide range of
bilateral, regional and global issues. Chinas official news release on Blinkens meetings spoke of significant and positive progress in China-U.S. relations in 2014. China
expects both
sides to keep up the pace this year and a successful visit by Xi will push forward the new type of major country relationship, the
release added. In the past, preparations for a major bilateral summit (such as Xis visit to the U.S.) have meant concerted attempts by both sides to keep the relationship on an even keel. In October
2009, for example, Obama postponed a meeting with the Dalai Lama, not wanting to rock the boat before his first presidential visit to China in November 2009. Then the relationship entered a rocky
period in 2010 but tensions were carefully smoothed over in preparation for then-President Hu Jintaos state visit to the United States in January 2011. We saw more U.S.-China tensions build from
late 2011, when the pivot to Asia was rolled out, through 2012 and 2013 so much so that many analysts began to worry that structural factors were causing a permanent change for the worse in
the U.S.-China relationship. Even the Sunnylands Summit between Obama and Xi in June 2013 couldnt turn the tide perhaps
precisely because it was designed as an
informal meeting, without the expectation of solid progress that comes with formal state visits. It took new announcements on
U.S.-China cooperation made during Obamas visit to Beijing last year to right the ship. Having two state visits in less than a
year Obamas trip to China in November 2014 and Xis September visit to Washington will help ensure that U.S.-China
relations stay positive . As Russel put it in a recent press briefing on U.S. policy priorities in the Asia-Pacific, We see 2015 as an important year [in U.S.-China relations], and making
headway both on areas of cooperation and making headway on areas of concern, not limited to maritime disputes, are major objectives for the U.S. The U.S. in particular is looking

for breakthroughs on climate change negotiations and a BIT (areas of cooperation) and on cybersecurity issues and how to
handle military contacts in Chinas near seas (areas of concern). What that means for the next seven months is that both Beijing and Washington will try to
keep their very real differences private as they seek to craft at least one major agreement to showcase during Xis September visit. Having Xis visit announced so early puts

the pressure on both sides to keep the relationship steady for over half a year a herculean task, given that a number of
possible irritants in the relationship are out of the control of both Beijing and Washington.

Mutually beneficial economic ties outweigh hundreds of billions of $

USDS 15 - US Department of State Fact Sheet January 21, 2015 "U.S. Relations With
China"www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm

The U.S. approach to its economic relations with China has two main elements: integrating China into the global, rules-based economic and trading
system and expanding U.S. exporters' and investors' access to the Chinese market. Two-way trade between China and the United States has grown
from $33 billion in 1992 to over $562 billion in goods in 2013. China is currently the third largest export market for U.S. goods
(after Canada and Mexico), andthe United States is Chinas largest export market . The stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China was
$61 billion in 2013, up from $54 billion in 2012, and remained primarily in the manufacturing sector. During the economic track of the July 2014 S&ED, the two
countries announced measures to strengthen macroeconomic cooperation, promote open trade and investment, enhance
global cooperation and international rules, and foster financial stability and reform.

Strong statistical supporteconomic ties trump power rise

Hillebrand 10 (Professor of Diplomacy @ University of Kentucky and a Senior Economist for the Central Intelligence Agency,
Evan E. Hillebrand, Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?, Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, Issue 2)
A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797) to Angell (1907) to Gartzke (2003) have theorized that economic interdependence can lower the likelihood of war. Cruce thought that free trade
enriched a society in general and so made people more peaceable; Kant thought that trade shifted political power away from the more warlike aristocracy, and Angell thought that economic
interdependence shifted cost/benefit calculations in a peace-promoting direction. Gartzke contends that trade
relations enhance transparency among nations and
thus help avoid bargaining miscalculations. There has also been a tremendous amount of empirical research that mostly supports the idea of
an inverse relationship between trade and war. Jack Levy said that, While there are extensive debates over the proper research designs for investigating this question, and while
some empirical
studies find that trade is associated with international conflict, most studies conclude that trade is associated with peace , both at the
dyadic and systemic levels (Levy, 2003, p. 127). There is another important line of theoretical and empirical work called Power Transition Theory that focuses on the relative power of states and

warns that when rising powers approach the power level of their regional or global leader the chances of war increase (Tammen, Lemke, et al,
2000). Jacek Kugler (2006) warns that the rising power of China relative to the United States greatly increases the chances of great power

war some time in the next few decades. The IFs model combines the theoretical and empirical work of the peacethrough- trade tradition with the work of the power transition scholars in an attempt
to forecast the probability of interstate war. Hughes (2004) explains how he, after consulting with scholars in both camps, particularly Edward Mansfield and Douglas Lemke, estimated the starting
probabilities for each dyad based on the historical record, and then forecast future probabilities for dyadic militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) and wars based on the calibrated relationships he
derived from the empirical literature. The probability of a MID, much less a war, between any random dyad in any given year is very low, if not zero. Paraguay and Tanzania, for example, have never
fought and are very unlikely to do so. But there have been thousands of MIDs in the past and hundreds of wars and many of the 16,653 dyads have nonzero probabilities. In 2005 the mean probability
of a country being involved in at least one war was estimated to be 0.8%, with 104 countries having a probability of at least 1 war approaching zero. A dozen countries12, however, have initial
probabilities over 3%. The globalization scenario projects that the probability for war will gradually decrease through 2035 for every countrybut not every dyad--that had a significant (greater than
0.5% chance of war) in 2005 (Table 6). The decline in prospects for war stems from the scenarios projections of rising levels of democracy, rising incomes, and rising trade interdependenceall of
these factors figure in the algorithm that calculates the probabilities. Not all dyadic war probabilities decrease, however, because of the power transition mechanism that is also included in the IFs

model. The probability for war between China and the US, for example rises as Chinas power13 rises gradually toward the US
level but in these calculations the probability of a China/US war never gets very high. 14 Deglobalization raises the risks of war substantially. In a
world with much lower average incomes, less democracy, and less trade interdependence, the average probability of a country having at least one war in 2035 rises from 0.6% in the globalization
scenario to 3.7% in the deglobalization scenario. Among the top-20 war-prone countries, the average probability rises from 3.9% in the globalization scenario to 7.1% in the deglobalization scenario.
The model estimates that in the deglobalization scenario there will be about 10 wars in 2035, vs. only 2 in the globalization scenario15. Over the whole period, 2005-2035, the model predicts four
great power wars in the deglobalization scenario vs. 2 in the globalization scenario. Deglobalization in the form of reduced trade interdependence, reduced capital flows, and reduced migration has
few positive effects, based on this analysis with the International Futures Model. Economic growth is cut in all but a handful of countries, and is cut more in the non-OECD countries than in the OECD
countries. Deglobalization has a mixed impact on equality. In many non-OECD countries, the cut in imports from the rest of the world increases the share of manufacturing and in 61 countries raises
the share of income going to the poor. But since average productivity goes down in almost all countries, this gain in equality comes at the expense of reduced incomes and increased poverty in almost
all countries. The only winners are a small number of countries that were small and poor and not well integrated in the global economy to begin withand the gains from deglobalization even for
them are very small. Politically, deglobalization
makes for less stable domestic politics and a greater likelihood of war. The likelihood of
state failure through internal war, projected to diminish through 2035 with increasing globalization, rises in the deglobalization
scenario particularly among the non-OECD democracies. Similarly, deglobalization makes for more fractious relations among states and
the probability for interstate war rises.

US-China bipolarity doesnt solve power balance possible with other countries but not the US
Jiang and Baig 13 - Shiwei Jiang and Tasawar Baig, Old Dominion University Graduate Program in International Studies 13
"Is Bipolarity a sound recipe for world order as compared to other historically known alternatives?"
www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participant-papers/2013-acdusa/Is-Bipolarity-a-sound-recipe-for-world-
order-Shiwei-Jiang.pdf

After demises of former Soviet Union also caused the collapse of bipolar world, and contemporary unipolar setting dominated
the new world order. As Fukuyama (1989) writes, that it is the end of mankinds ideological evolution and the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government. US has emerged as a world leader and indispensable
nation22 power of new order. William Wohlforth sees the unipolarity is a stable time period with more peace and prosperity
across the world. One needs to admit the effective contribution of US in transform the world system on equal basis focusing
more on democratic norms advocates societal equity and freedom of rights. Therefore, it is hard to think about bipolarity or
multipolar settings as a sound recipe for world order. It is also hard to imagine about balancing the US, because it needs
capabilities in many dimensional ways. During first decade of post-Cold war, no one try to struggle for balancing with
unipolarity. Rather, by and large of state and non-state actors acknowledged unipolarity as a more peaceful system with more
hope and prosperity. However, we may see some past maneuverings were initiated like, the European Troika between
France, Germany and Russia; the special relationship between Germany and Russia; the strategic triangle between Russia,
China and India; and the strategic partnership between Russia and China tried to aggregating their capabilities vis--vis some
present struggle of individual rise of few states in order to match with American power23. However, US power is so great that
transcends its boundaries, which is hard to match by others. More importantly, the US located on an ideal isolated location,
which is far away from any major powers of world. In this regard, US does not feel any direct threat. Therefore, one can argue
that its difficult to balance US at global scale rather these rising regional powers like China, EU may create a balance in their
respective regions. Since in unipolar settings, US locates on a geographically isolated land, and it deploys strategic weapons for
defense purpose, but that might create a sense of threat for others. So that others might take it offensive and try to enhance
their capabilities, which will cause balance against threat. In addition, Walt identifies US commitment at multilateral level
with institutions that helps to reduce US ability either as a threat or abandon its major allies24 . Moreover, US for being winner
of liberal and democratic ideals, US not only promote the liberal democratic ideals in larger parts of the world but also it is
maintaining the safeguard of provision of public goods. Therefore, there unipolar settings are more feasible. Though various
scholarships made predictions about restructuring of World order based on balancing is not yet possible. Despite, many
political developments, world did not return to a multipolar balance of power system; rather on can see a substantial and
overwhelmingly growth in American military, political, economic and cultural power25. (p. 284). The US as a holder of
Western order, which primarily based on structure of institutions and an open diplomacy and polities that keeps all states
together. It is one of the reason, American power is also institutionalized now, because, American order is organized around
democratic polities and a complex web of intergovernmental institutions. This institutionalized hegemonic strategy serves US
power, interests and policies to legitimize, expansive and durable26. It shows US power is relative in gain. The durability of
unipolarity will continue.

Americans perception of China is low and falling human rights abuses

Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Meanwhile, Beijings human rights record remains a relative weak spot for Chinas global image. In particular, Americans,
Europeans and Japanese overwhelmingly believe the Chinese government does not respect the rights of its own people.
Across 43 nations, a median of 49% express a favorable opinion of China, while 32% offer an unfavorable rating. However, its
overall image in the United States and Europe is mostly negative. Only 35% of Americans have a positive view of China, while
55% have a negative one. Unfavorable ratings are more common among Republicans (65%) than among Democrats (53%) or
independents (51%). Chinas image in the U.S. has become more negative in recent years as recently as 2011 half of
Americans gave China a positive rating.

Alt cause - Lack of trust over cyberhacking

Mader 15 - IAN MADER, reporter for the World Post 06/05/2015 "China Says Hacking Claims Irresponsible, Wishes U.S.
Would Trust It More" www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/05/china-hacking-us_n_7518188.html

BEIJING (AP) China responded Friday to allegations it was involved in a hacking attack on U.S. government computers by
saying such claims are unproven and irresponsible, and that it wishes the United States would trust it more. The
administration of President Barack Obama has increasingly pressed China on the issue of cyberhacking, and on Thursday U.S.
officials said China-based hackers are suspected of breaking into the computer networks of the U.S. government personnel
office and stealing identifying information of at least 4 million federal workers. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins said the attack
amounted to a foreign power seeking information on U.S. employees who have security clearances for access to sensitive
information. Beijing generally does not explicitly deny specific hacking accusations, but seeks to dismiss them as unproven and
irresponsible, while invariably noting that China is itself the target of hacking attacks and calling for greater international
cooperation in combating hacking.

Alt cause US involvement in the SCS

Johnson 15 - William Johnson, writer for Reuters, June 23, 2015 "The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations"
blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-china-relations/

The South China Sea issue has been front and center for the last 18 months, as China carried out major land reclamation
efforts. While the issue stems from territorial disputes between China and various Southeast Asian nations, which dont
intrinsically involve the United States, the United States sees Chinas island building activities as a potential threat to freedom
of navigation along a critical trade route. China, on the other hand, sees U.S. involvement in the region as meddling in bilateral
disputes with Chinas neighbors. It sees enhanced U.S. military cooperation with Vietnam and the Philippines, and increased
Japanese military activity in the region, as part of a U.S. strategy to contain China. The 2015 dialogue provides an opportunity
to ratchet down the recent level of confrontation in order to smooth the way to a successful state visit by President Xi.

Alt cause NGO bill

Johnson 15 - William Johnson, writer for Reuters, June 23, 2015 "The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations"
blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-china-relations/
Chinas new draft law on NGOs will substantially limit the ability of a wide range of organizations to work in China. The key
sticking point in the new law is that it places regulatory authority over foreign NGOs with Chinas State Security Bureau, rather
than the Ministry of Civil Affairs, which regulates domestic NGOs. Police will be allowed to enter and inspect offices, and seize
documents and equipment. The United States has long been critical of Chinas record on human rights, and this proposed law,
which was released for comment on June 8, will be a focal point in that discussion. Chinas response to U.S. pressure on this
issue will likely turn on its view that foreign elements are stirring up trouble in China. This is the same argument that China
used to explain the Occupy Central pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. Reading between the lines, it is clear that in
both instances, when China says foreign elements, it means the United States and its allies.

Alt cause controversial Investment bank

Johnson 15 - William Johnson, writer for Reuters, June 23, 2015 "The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations"
blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-china-relations/

Economic alignments in East Asia will likely be a central focus of this years dialogue. China is in the process of starting the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is intended to provide more streamlined funding than the World Bank or the
Asian Development Bank can currently provide. The United States opposed the establishment of the AIIB and lobbied its
allies to decline membership on the grounds that it had unclear governance standards, inadequate environmental controls,
and might not be sufficiently capitalized to sustain its loans. But in the week before a March deadline, the United States
suffered a stinging defeat as its allies, led by the United Kingdom, became founding members of the bank, leaving the United
States and Japan on the outside looking in. Governance of the AIIB, and a means for coordinating its efforts with the World
Bank, will be key elements of the economic discussions.
 EU
US-EU co-op resilient economic dependence, trade agreements, and historical ties
EEAS 10 (European External Action Service. No Date Given, crawled first on July 5 2010 by archive.org/web "EU Relations with
the United States of America" eeas.europa.eu/us/index_en.htm )

The European Union and the United States of America established diplomatic relations as early as 1953, but it was only in
November 1990 that the cooperation was formalised for the first time with the Transatlantic Declaration. Since December
1995, the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) has provided the foundation for the relationship. The ambitious agenda of
cooperation between the EU and the US is taken forward via constant, intensive dialogue. This dialogue takes place at various
levels, from the annual summit meetings between EU and US leaders to technical work at expert level. Within the framework
of the NTA and in line with the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) launched in 1998, the Transatlantic Economic Council
(TEC) was created in 2007 to take forward efforts to boost the transatlantic economy. Under the TEC umbrella, a High-Level
Working Group on Jobs and Growth was established by the 2011 EU-US Summit, tasked to identify policies and measures to
increase EU-US trade and investment to support job creation, economic growth, and international competitiveness. The final
report with conclusions and recommendations from the Working Group was produced on 12 February 2013. On 14 June, the
Council of the European Union adopted negotiating directives for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with
the US. All information on the TTIP can be found here. Together, the EU and the USA have the largest bilateral trade and
investment relationship in the world, roughly 31% of the world trade and over 49% of the world GDP. In keeping with the
evolving political and legal personality of the EU, there is active cooperation across a host of sectors: cooperation in justice and
home affairs, energy and energy security, environment, science & technology, education & training.

They cant solve structural trade issues remain which undermine relations
Daniel S. Hamilton and Frances G. Burwell, Atlantic Council of the United States, Center for European Policy Studies, and the Center for Strategic
and International Studies December 2009 Shoulder to Shoulder: Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership

Most energy has been invested in the G20 rather than in the reform of existing institutions and arrangements, but they also demand
attention. The IMF, for example, has consistently failed to exercise effective surveillance over policies of its major members or to

create mechanisms to promote coordination of either their macroeconomic policies or their financial regulation. Current WTO
negotiations do not fully address the real problems confronting the world and the trading system itself.33 The WTO has failed to address the
trade dimensions of such issues as climate change, security concerns, foreign direct investment, or competition policy.34 Global economic governance suffers from deficits

in effectiveness, coherence, representation and, perhaps most importantly, political legitimacy. The economic crisis offers the
possibility that efforts at reform, long stalled, could be revived. In this turbulent time, a key test of strategic U.S.-EU partnership will
be the ability of the transatlantic partners to work with other key actors to restructure the world economy. There is still no substitute for
transatlantic leadership, but in a G20 world this must be of a different kind -- a more nuanced role that works to preserve the principles that have guided the remarkable global growth of the last few
decades, addresses risky behaviors, and engages emerging economies as responsible stakeholders. They must resist those who see protectionism as the best way to safeguard national prosperity.
They must take the lead in keeping the global economy open, starting by reducing the remaining barriers and obstacles between their own economic spaces, and inviting others to join. They must also
be pathfinders to new forms of global economic governance that recognize the rights and responsibilities of the emerging economies while strengthening a rules-based open market global
economy.35 At the same time, different units and agencies of the U.S. government engage in international economic fora with
often conflicting agendas -- financial, trade, regulatory, development and diplomatic positions are not always well-coordinated.
The same is true for European governments; in fact, this problem is exacerbated by mixed messages at member state and EU
levels. An important priority for both U.S. and EU governments, then, is to offer more coherent all-of-government approaches to their engagement in global governance. In addition, the financial
crisis was rooted in spectacular financial mismanagement and lack of effective oversight in the developed countries. Effective financial regulation will have to be implemented at the national level. In
short, effective global economic governance begins at home.

Europe loves the US statistically anti Americanism is false

Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

A global median of 65% voice an affirmative opinion about America. This includes a median of 74% in Africa, 66% in Western Europe, 66% in Asia,
65% in Latin America, but just 30% in the Middle East. For nearly a decade and a half the U.S. global image has been on a roller coaster ride. At the beginning of the century
America was seen favorably by majorities in most of the countries where comparable public opinion data are available. Over the next few years the bottom fell out of U.S.
approval numbers, amid widespread opposition to the war in Iraq and other aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
Americas image began to rally in some nations
and to soar by the end of the decade following the election of Barack Obama, at least in Europe and parts of Asia and Latin America. After
slipping a bit again in the first years of this decade, brand U.S.
has stabilized and even recovered in a few nations in 2014. Currently, majorities
in 30 of 43 nations express a favorable opinion of the United States. This includes majorities in five of seven European nations, where 78% of
Italians, 75% of the French and 73% of Poles voice positive views of Uncle Sam. There is no evidence of a rise of anti-Americanism in most
of Western Europe , home to great animosity toward Washington in the middle of the last decade. Only in Germany, where U.S. favorability is down 13 points
since 2009, has the positive image of the United States slipped significantly. And, despite this slippage, roughly half of Germans (51%) still see America in a
positive light.

Individual policies cant undermine relations Mutual interests overwhelm.

Ayoob and Zierler 05 Mohammed Ayoob is a University Distinguished Professor of International Relations, and Matthew
Zierler is a visiting Assistant Professor of International Relations at James Madison College, World Policy Journal, Spring,
Volume 22, The Unipolar Concert: The North-South Divide Trumps Transatlantic Differences

Second, disagreements within the concert are often over policy choices, as opposed to fundamental rules of the system or
basic objectives. Deterring and punishing rogue states and denying unconventional capabilities to those outside the club are
shared objectives from which no member of the concert dissents. This was very clear in the runup to the invasion of Iraq in
2003. A reading of the U.N. Security Council debates on Iraq from 1991 to 2003 makes it obvious that there were hardly any
differences among the club of powerful states on taking steps that would severely derogate Iraqs sovereignty and eventually
bring about a regime change. The imposition of no-flight zones and invasive inspections under U.N. auspices between 1991
and 2003 clearly demonstrated this unity of purpose. The differences were over the tactics to achieve these ends. The same
applies to the concerts objectives regarding Iran. The shared objective is to deny Iran nuclear weapons capabilities and to curb
its regional influence; the debate is about how best to attain these goals. A similar situation prevails in the economic arena.
While there may be differences over details and even intra-concert bickering about certain issues, for example, the American
attempt to impose tariffs on European steel, there is a basic consensus about prying open world markets under the guise of
free trade and liberal investment policies, thus making it easier for developed countries to market their high-value-added
products and to invest in profitable ventures abroad. This is accompanied by imposing conditionalities, or structural
adjustments, on Third World economies that would ostensibly help to reduce their fiscal deficits. It is clear that this can only be
achieved through multilateral mechanisms, such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization. The concert of
industrialized states, working through the G-7 in particular, harmonizes its economic policy in such a fashion that it can
effectively use these multilateral forums to promote its neoliberal agenda. We do not mean to suggest that the current
multilateral arrangements and initiatives are set in stone. However, it is unlikely that the instrument will be jettisoned, if only
because of the deep commitment on the part of the concert to maintain it. Moreover, multilateral institutions in the North are
being strengthened as the states from Eastern Europe seek membership in the European Union and NATO. The deepening and
broadening of multilateral institutions in the North have had the added effect of reinforcing the divide between those in the
concert and those outside. In short, multilateralism has not proved to be antithetical to unipolarity. In fact, the two have
worked in tandem to promote the interests of the North in both the economic and security spheres.

US and EU will cooperate regardless of relations, 2 reasons

The European Union: A Distinctive Actor in International Relations KAREN E. SMITH 3 Lecturer in International Relations
London School of Economics, Watson Institute, Winter/Spring 2003 Volume IX, Issue 2

Do These Differences Mean The End Of The West? It should be clear by now that the EU and United States differ in their
approach to international relations. The EU prefers civilian instruments, while the United States is not averse to using military
instruments; the EU prefers multilateralism, while the United States will resort to unilateralism to pursue its interests; the EU
focuses on milieu goals, while the U.S. foreign policy agenda stresses threats to its own security.23 But does this mean that a
transatlantic divorce is imminent? The answer is a qualified no for two principal reasons. The first reason is the strength of
the ties of interdependence and of common values between Karen E. Smith 110 The Brown Journal of World Affairs the EU and
United States. Kevin Featherstone and Roy Ginsberg point out that the United States and EU are condemned to cooperate
because of: the interlinkage of their economies; mutual dependence on order in the international political economy;
mutual dependence on international political order; and common interests in avoiding social collapse in the former Soviet
bloc.24 There are areas of extensive agreement between the EU and United States. Both share basic objectives, such as the
promotion of democracy and the fight against international crime; work closely together in many areas of the world, as in
Southeastern Europe; and share perceptions about the need for an open international trading system. These common
interests are generally stronger than their differences and still distinguish the EU and United States from many other
international actors. Each is also aware of how much it needs the other. Even a superpower as strong as the United States
needs partners; it cannot do just anything it wants in international affairs, not least because it could not afford to do so and
would lose domestic and international legitimacy if it did. And when the EU and United States work together, they can
generally wield considerable influence and be quite effective in reaching their common goals (as in Southeastern Europe). The
second reason is that, pace the realists, the dynamic at work both within Europe and across the Atlantic is not one of the
balance of power. As Richard Rosecrance has argued, the EU is a new type of international actor, which attracts countries
towards it, rather than in opposition to it. As Europe unites, balance of power theory would tell us that it should generate an
opposing coalition to balance it. Yet instead, outsiders want to join the EU or be linked with it. The EU does not threaten
outsidersit attracts them.25 This is because the EU does not appear to outsiders to be amassing power for the sake of
pursuing exclusive EU interests, or to compete more effectively with other international actors. To assume that what is going
on in Europe is merely an attempt to balance the United States is to misunderstand fundamentally the nature of the
enterprise. This is not an attempt to recreate state sovereignty on a larger scale, but to overcome the problems posed by the
exercise of sovereignty in Europe.
 France
US-France relationship is the best its been in 20 years and Hollande settled the NSA issue
John Gizzi, Newsmax's chief political columnist 12 Feb 2014 "Obama, Hollande Resurrect US-French Relations"
www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-France-Obama-Hollande/2014/02/12/id/552387/

President Barack Obama on Tuesday tried to dismiss the notion that France has replaced Britain as the main U.S. partner in Europe,
but it was clear during the state visit of President Francois Hollande that the two have the closest relationship between the
nations' leaders since Presidents Bill Clinton and Francois Mitterrand two decades ago. Laure Mandeville, Washington, D.C., bureau chief of
the venerable French publication Le Figaro, best captured this situation when she pointed out to Obama at his joint news conference
with Hollande, "You have actually praised France very warmly today and granted our president the first state visit of your
second term ... "Does that mean that France has become the best European ally of the U.S. and has replaced Great Britain in that role?" Obama replied that
he has two daughters who are "both gorgeous and wonderful. And that's how I feel about my outstanding European partners.
All of them are wonderful in their own ways." However, as Obama and Hollande went through a welcoming ceremony at the White House, their news
conference, and a state dinner, reporters from France and the United States recalled the sharp tensions between their countries after the U.S. strike against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq in 2003. The strong opposition by then-President Jacques Chirac to the Iraq offensive resulted in a modern-day low point of relations between Paris and Washington. In
the United States, this was symbolized by the congressional cafeterias offering "Freedom Fries" in lieu of French fries. All that was in the dim past Tuesday during the first
state visit of a French president to the United States since 1996. Hollande
said Obama's election as president in 2008 "had been welcomed in
France" because "America was able to make something possible, to make progress possible." He went on to recall his decision
last summer to stand with Obama on a strike on Syria, saying, "We were prepared to resort to force, but we found another
option negotiation." From France and the United States being "extremely attentive" in helping Lebanon deal with its massive
influx of refugees, to his commitment to the cause of climate change, Hollande repeatedly underscored his solidarity with the
American president. The French Socialist president was warm and positive, even regarding the spy controversy by National Security
Agency renegade Edward Snowden. "Following the revelations [of European eavesdropping by the NSA] that appeared due to
Mr. Snowden," Hollande told reporters, " President Obama and myself clarified things. This was in the past ." Hollande
said, "Mutual trust has been restored, and that mutual trust must be based on respect for each other's country, but also based on the protection of private life,
of personal data the fact that any individual, in spite of technological progress, can be sure that he is not being spied on." Obama's response to Le Figaro's Mandeville
notwithstanding, there is a strong case to be made that Obama works more closely with France's Hollande than with British Prime Minister David Cameron. Where Hollande
stood firm with Obama on Syria, Cameron was unable to join any military alliance against the Assad regime when the British House of Commons voted down his proposal. In
addition, it is obvious that France is now the key conduit in trying to help Obama craft a new U.S. relationship with Iran. Hollande said as much when he told reporters:
"Nothing prevented us from having bilateral contacts, and I had some bilateral contacts. In New York I received [Iranian] President [Hassan] Rouhani during the General
Assembly. So it is perfectly legitimate for discussions to take place." Ken Weinstein, president of the Hudson Institute, summarized the Obama-Hollande friendship to
Newsmax. "Unlike President Bush, Barack Obama has a tough time turning foreign leaders into confidants and his judgment, as when he chose [Turkish Premier] Erdogan
as a preferred interlocutor, has been wrong," Weinstein said. "It's
clear that Obama and Hollande have a real and deep rapport. Both need
each other Obama for guidance on Syria, where his policies have failed, and to show that he does have European allies after
Snowden, and Hollande, these days, to prove that he isn't a laughingstock but a world leader."

US-France co-op resilient NATO, the UN, and cultural ties, ensures co-op
Embassy of France June 1 2015 "French-American Relations" www.ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?rubrique100
Rooted in the shared ideals of the French and American Revolutions, the French-American relationship has evolved greatly
from the bonds established more than two centuries ago. From the Battle of Yorktown to the Invasion of Normandy, the
French-American alliance has grown stronger and stronger throughout the years. After all, it is not by coincidence that Eleanor
Roosevelt, former First Lady, and Ren Cassin, Nobel Peace Prize winner, collaborated to write the Universal Declaration of the
Rights of Man over 50 years ago. As our nations confront great challenges in a world of uncertainty, the strength of the
French- American relationship remains strong. Political collaboration through the United Nations and the G8, military
collaboration through NATO, and economic collaboration through various public and private sector initiatives continue to
enhance our relationship and bring France and the United States closer than ever before.

The French love the US Pew Research statistics

Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/
Western Europeans views of Obama remain fairly positive. More than eight-in-ten French (83%) and seven-in-ten Italians
(75%), British (74%) and Germans (71%) have confidence in the U.S. president doing the right thing.

Iran nuclear deal is an alt cause

Adam Kredo senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington
Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news March 27, 2015 "Obama Admin Threatens U.S. Allies for Disagreeing
with Iran Nuke Deal" freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-threatens-u-s-allies-for-disagreeing-with-iran-nuke-
deal/

the Obama administration to stem criticism of its diplomacy with Iran have included threats to nations
LAUSANNE, SwitzerlandEfforts by

involved in the talks, including U.S. allies, according to Western sources familiar with White House efforts to quell fears it will
permit Iran to retain aspects of its nuclear weapons program. A series of conversations between top American and French officials, including between
President Obama and French President Francois Hollande, have seen Americans engage in behavior described as bullying by sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon. The disagreement

over Frances cautious position in regard to Iran threatens to erode U.S. relations with Paris, sources said. Tension between Washington and Paris comes
amid frustration by other U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The White House responded to this criticism by engaging in public campaigns analysts worry will endanger
American interests. Western policy analysts who spoke to the Free Beacon, including some with close ties to the French political establishment, were dismayed over what they saw as the White Houses willingness to sacrifice its

A recent phone call between Obama and Hollande was reported as tense as the leaders
relationship with Paris as talks with Iran reach their final stages.

disagreed over the White Houses accommodation of Iranian red lines. Amid these tensions, U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley met with her French counterpart,
Gerard Araud, Monday to discuss a range of issues. Benjamin Haddad, who has advised senior French political figures on foreign policy issues, said leaders in Paris have not been shy about highlighting disagreements they have with
the White House. France, like other European countries, has negotiated for more than 10 years and endured most of the sanctions burden, said Haddad, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute. The French want a deal, but

One source in Europe close to the

they see no rush and repeat that Iranians need a deal more than we do, and that we shouldnt fix artificial deadlines that put more pressure on us than Iran.

ongoing diplomacy said the United States has begun to adopt a harsh stance toward its allies in Paris. There have been very harsh
expressions of displeasure by the Americans toward French officials for raising substantive concerns about key elements of what the White House and State Department negotiators are willing to concede to Iran, said the source, who
spoke on condition of anonymity. That is because the clarifications expose just how weak the Americans deal is shaping up to be. The meeting between the French ambassador in Washington and the presidents envoy to Paris
not a diplomat but a big fundraiser for his campaignscomes amid these very harsh words that were spoken privately about the ambassadors recent comments on the seeming American desperation for a deal, and the tough words

Strategic differences remain between the United States and its allies over how a final
that President Obama had for President Hollande in their phone call.

deal should look, the source said. The French remain opposed to a recent range of concessions made by the Obama
administration. We may agree that denying Iran a nuclear weapon ability is the goal, but apparently the view of what one can leave Iran and assure that is very different, the source said. Clearly these
are the differences that must be discussed. I dont see France suddenly deciding that America is right and French objections to
weakness are wrong, nor that silence is preferable to transparency. Haddad said the French are hesitant to rush into an agreement. The French want a robust deal with clear
guarantees on issues like [research and development] and inspections to ensure that Iranians wont be able to reduce breakout time during the duration of the agreement (also an issue of discussion), or just after thanks to research

Another
conducted during the period, he said. That is also why they disagreed on lifting sanctions. He also said the French dont trust Iran and believe an ambiguous deal would lead to regional proliferation.

Western source familiar with the talks said the White House is sacrificing longstanding alliances to cement a contentious deal
with Iran before Obamas term in office ends. The President could be hammering out the best deal in the history of diplomacy, and it still wouldnt be worth sacrificing our alliances with France,
Israel, and Saudi Arabiakey partners in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Gulf, the source said. But hes blowing up our alliances to secure a deal that paves Irans way to a bomb. A State Department spokesperson
declined to comment on the issue. Meanwhile, talks between the United States and Iran reached a critical juncture Thursday, as Secretary of State John Kerry met with his Iranian counterpoint to hash out differences over key points
concerning Irans nuclear program. The sides are hoping to reach a framework agreement by March 31 amid reports that Iran is demanding Saudi Arabia immediately halt airstrikes in Yemen, where Iran-aligned forces are working to
bring down the Western-backed government. The issue could complicate the talks as the United States attempts to balance its regional alliance with Iran in Iraq against competing interests with traditional allies in Saudi Arabia. U.S.
negotiators have reportedly softened their stance in recent days on a range of issues relating to Irans continued production of nuclear materials. One of Irans nuclear sites in Fordow could continue to operate, according to the
Associated Press.
 Germany
Germans love the US public opinion stayed positive even after revelations
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Western Europeans views of Obama remain fairly positive. More than eight-in-ten French (83%) and seven-in-ten Italians
(75%), British (74%) and Germans (71%) have confidence in the U.S. president doing the right thing. Revelations that
Washington systematically reads both Americans and some foreigners emails and listens in on their telephone conversations
appears to have significantly damaged Obamas approval in only one European Union (EU) country: Germany. Germans views
of Obama fell 17 percentage points since last year. Nonetheless, German confidence in the U.S. president remains relatively
high.

Germans couldnt care less about the Snowden revelations popular opinion still high, ensures co-op
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Recently the United States has monitored the communications of suspected terrorists, American citizens, the leaders of other
countries and their people, according to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor. These
disclosures have led to widespread criticism of American violations of national sovereignty and personal privacy, although
publics around the world generally have no objection to Uncle Sam monitoring suspected terrorists. Majorities in 31 countries
surveyed voice the view that electronic oversight of alleged terrorists is acceptable. Israelis (90%), Italians (88%) and Kenyans
(88%) are particularly supportive, as are roughly eight-in-ten Russians (81%) and Tunisians (80%). Notably, Germans, who are
particularly incensed about American spying on Chancellor Angela Merkel and on ordinary German citizens, have few qualms
about U.S. eavesdropping on alleged terrorists: 70% support such efforts.

Relations resilient shared values

Daniel R. Coats 01 Ambassador of Berlin, U.S. - German Ties: Common Values, New Challenges US Diplomatic Mission to
Germany, http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/docs/ga1-101201e.htm

During that Cold War era, our

joint efforts to build democracy, security and prosperity took place against the backdrop of an
overwhelming ideological and military threat from the Warsaw Pact countries. As such, the East-West conflict became a
defining characteristic of relations between Atlantic nations -- and especially between the United States and Germany. Throughout those long years
of darkness, the U.S. and Germany stood together -- most visibly right here in Berlin -- in defense of freedom and justice for all Europeans.
The fall of the Berlin Wall, the culmination of those efforts, ushered in a new and promising era in which the United States again stood firmly by Germany's side as it worked to
overcome the half-century division, not only of its own country, but also of Europe. We Americans never doubted that a free and united Germany would once again assume its
rightful place in the community of democracies. Our investment in the reestablishment of a free Germany began with the Marshall Plan, and continued through the Berlin
Airlift and the tension-filled years of the Cold War. Ourunwavering support for Germany was perhaps most in evidence at the time of
German reunification, when -- unlike some who cast doubts on the wisdom of a rapid and full unification process -- we
wholeheartedly and energetically supported you. Our confidence in Germany was, and is, rooted in the conviction that the
German people share the same values as we do, the people of the United States. During those long years of East-West confrontation and
hostility, the commonality of our values was readily apparent. It was clear to all that the Allied nations on both sides of the Atlantic shared a
common commitment to freedom -- freedom of ideas and expression, freedom of markets and commerce, freedom for
citizens to shape their lives and their destinies as they desired. No one questioned our resolve to defend human rights and
human dignity throughout the world. These common values and ideals were clearly contrasted to those of our adversaries. It
was a stark contrast. Indeed, in no other place on earth was the contrast as crystal clear as it was here in Berlin, where barbed wire, guard dogs and killing zones separated
East Berliners from their free neighbors in the West. The United States was founded on the basis of ideals and principles. Our Founding Fathers looked to the ideas of the
European Enlightenment in shaping their vision of a nation far different from most of the autocratic, authoritarian regimes that existed in the late eighteenth century. While
we have grown over the years from a fledgling democracy into a world power, our leaders have continued to be guided by ideals, and by idealism, in their dealings with our
own citizens and with the rest of the world. This does not mean that America's leaders and lawmakers do not pursue American interests, for they most certainly do, as do the
leaders and governments of countries throughout the world. Those interests are complex, and are shaped and influenced by a host of various factors and considerations.
What I would suggest, however, is that America's national interests still reflect, and are still guided by, America's national values. I would further suggest that these values are
broadly shared by democracies throughout the world in which free men and women believe and hold dear. These shared values include the conviction that
individual liberty is the cornerstone of society, and that effective, fair democracy is -- by far -- the most desirable form of
government. In regards to Europe, I believe that we have a common vision. In the years since the end of the artificial division of Europe,
we have made huge strides in realizing that vision -- a vision of a Europe at peace, a Europe of free ideas and dynamic market
economies -- throughout the Atlantic community. The new, grave challenges we now face show that, while much has been accomplished, we still have much
to do.
 India

India-US relation solves nothing

White 15 - Hugh White, professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University in Canberra March 13, 2015
"Sorry, America: India Won't Go to War with China" www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/sorry-america-india-wont-go-
war-china-12415

In his latest contribution to our debate, Shashank Joshi raised some excellent points against my skeptical view of the emerging India-U.S. strategic partnership. But
I'm still unpersuaded. To explain why, it helps to step back and clarify the question we are debating here. It is not whether strategic relations between Delhi and
Washington have grown closer in recent years, because clearly they have. It is what these closer relations mean for the geo-political contest
between America and China. India's position is clearly important to this contest. Many Americans, and many of America's friends in Asia, have long
believed that India's growing wealth and power will be vital in helping America counterbalance China's growing strategic
weight, and resist China's challenge to U.S. regional leadership. Indeed, the belief many people have that India will play this role is central to their confidence that America can and
will preserve the status quo against China's challenge. It is therefore important to decide whether the progress we have seen in U.S.-India relations

justifies that confidence. I have argued that in a geopolitical contest of the kind we see unfolding between America and China today, India's relations with America will only
make a difference to the extent that India is seen to be willing to support America in a U.S.-China conflict. That is because who
wins the contest between the American and Chinese visions of Asia's future order ultimately depends on which is seen to be
more willing to fight for their vision. Each power wants the other to believe that it will go to war to impose its vision, and hopes
that, if all else fails, this will persuade the other to back off. This way of describing what is happening will surprise those who think that this kind of old-fashioned power politics
disappeared after 1989, but it seems to me the only way to understand events in Asia today. In fact, power politics never went away; people simply started to think that America was the only power that was indulging in it. It has been

We can no longer assume that China

taken for granted that America will fight to support its vision of regional order, but that no one would be willing to oppose them. Now China is proving that false.

isnt any more determined to change the current order than America is to preserve it. That is why India's role in this contest
depends on how far it appears willing and able to materially support the U.S. in a conflict with China. In a game played for
these stakes, nothing less counts for much. As I read him, Shashank makes two key points about this question. One is that, while India might not be willing
to send combat forces to fight alongside America's in a coalition against China, it would provide other, non-combat support
such as basing and refuelling facilities. That sounds like what the diplomats call all support short of actual help. It would do very little
either practically or symbolically to bolster America's position against China, and certainly much less than American boosters of the relationship expect. His second key point is that perhaps India

would be willing to provide America with more substantial support if it saw really fundamental issues of regional order at stake
in a U.S.-China conflict. He cites the example of the wide support given to America in opposing Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 by countries who saw basic questions of international order being tested there. I
agree with Shashank that very important issues for India would be at stake in a U.S.-China clash. But deciding to support America against China would be much harder than joining the coalition against Iraq. In every way China is both a
much more valuable partner and a much more dangerous adversary. The key question for India, and for America's other friends in Asia, is what would have to be at stake for them to make that decision? So it boils down to this:

would India go to war with China to help America preserve the current order based on U.S. primacy? If the answer is no , then I don't think the
new warmth between America and India matters much to the future of Asia, and America's position in Asia is rather weaker than most people assume.
 Israel
No impact to US-Israel relations
Chas Freeman, Middle East political writer for mondoweiis, independent newspaper. April 30, 2010 "Freeman: Israel is
useless to US power projection" mondoweiss.net/2010/04/freeman-israel-is-useless-to-us-power-projection
The other day Stephen Maher published a piece on Electronic Intifada saying that American thirst for hegemony in the region, and not the Israel lobby, is the prime motivator
of US policy in Israel and Palestine. What follows is an excerpt of a private email exchange responding to Mahers post, reprinted by permission of the author, Chas Freeman, a
former assistant secretary of defense. Mahers account is far from novel on any score but he is describing Japans, the UKs, or Qatars role in US strategy, not Israels. A
few facts to ponder when considering his assertion that Israel is a huge and essential asset for US global and regional strategy:
the US has no bases or troop presence in Israel and stores only minimal military supplies in the country (and these under terms that
allow these supplies to be used essentially at will by the IDF). Israeli bases are not available for US use. none of Israels neighbors will
facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes
of strategic logistics or power projection. Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies;
the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them. US relations
with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they
complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.
Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own
region and does not do so; on the contrary, it requires constant American defense against political condemnation and
sanctions by the international community. Israel does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign
or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do. Japan provides multiple bases and pays "host nation support" for the US presence (though that presence as well as
the fact that Japan is paying for a good deal of it are growing political issues in Japan). The air base in Qatar from which the US directs air operations throughout the region
(including in both Iraq and Afghanistan) was built and is maintained at host nation expense. So too the ground force and naval facilities we use elsewhere in the Gulf. The US is
paid for the weapons and military services it provides to its European and Asian allies as well as its Arab strategic partners. Washington has never had to exercise a veto or pay
a similar political price to protect any of them from condemnation or sanctions by the international community. Japan and various Arab countries, as well as European nations,
have often paid for US foreign assistance and military programs in third countries or designed their own programs specifically to supplement US activities. Washington
has made Israel our largest recipient of foreign aid, encouraged private transfers to it through unique tax breaks, transferred
huge quantities of weapons and munitions to it gratis, directly and indirectly subsidized the Israeli defense industry, allocated
military R&D to Israeli rather than US institutions, offered Israeli armaments manufacturers the same status as US
manufacturers for purposes of US defense procurement, etc.. Almost all US vetoes at the United Nations and decisions to boycott international
conferences and meetings have been on behalf of Israel. Israel treats its ability to command support from Washington as a major tool of diplomatic influence in third
countries; it does not exercise its very limited influence abroad in support of US as opposed to its own objectives. As others have said with greater indirection than I have
here, one must look elsewhere than Israels strategic utility to the United States for the explanation of its privileged status in US foreign policy, iniquitous as Maher considers
that policy to be.

Israel couldnt care less about the Snowden revelations popular opinion still high
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Recently the United States has monitored the communications of suspected terrorists, American citizens, the leaders of other
countries and their people, according to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor. These disclosures have led to
widespread criticism of American violations of national sovereignty and personal privacy, although publics around the world generally have no objection to Uncle Sam
monitoring suspected terrorists. Majorities in 31 countries surveyed voice the view that electronic oversight of alleged terrorists is
acceptable. Israelis (90%), Italians (88%) and Kenyans (88%) are particularly supportive, as are roughly eight-in-ten Russians (81%) and Tunisians (80%). Notably, Germans,
who are particularly incensed about American spying on Chancellor Angela Merkel and on ordinary German citizens, have few qualms about U.S. eavesdropping on alleged
terrorists: 70% support such efforts.

Israel doesnt care about US surveillance towards them

Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Since beginning its war on terrorism more than a decade ago, the U.S. government has launched several hundred missile
strikes from pilotless aircraft called drones to target extremists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and elsewhere. The vast majority of these
drone strikes have been carried out by the Obama administration. Such attacks are extremely unpopular. In 37 of the 44 countries surveyed in 2014
by the Pew Research Center, half or more of the public disapproves of American drone strikes. This includes 26 where strong majorities of seven-in-ten or more are critical of
this signature U.S. military action. Israel (65%), Kenya (53%) and the U.S. (52%) are the only countries where at least half back the use of
drones against suspected terrorists. Among those opposed are the publics of major NATO allies such as Spain (86%), Turkey (83%), France (72%), Germany (67%)
and the United Kingdom (59%), all of which have experienced terrorist attacks on their own soil. Fully 82% in Japan, Americas principal Asian ally, are against the use of
drones, as are 75% in South Korea, another major Washington regional security partner.

Israel still sees the US as a protector statistically they would never break ties
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Nevertheless, half or more of the public in 33 of 44 nations surveyed still think that Washington safeguards Americans
freedoms. The U.S. image as a protector of personal liberties remains quite strong in a number of Asian nations: South Korea
(91%), Philippines (87%), Japan (84%) and Vietnam (75%); and also in the Middle East: Lebanon (84%) and Israel (75%).

Israel wont collapse theyll just turn to Russia for support.

Lincoln Mitchell, national political correspondent at the Observer. 01/22/15 "Borscht Belt: Will Israel Spurn America for
Russia?" observer.com/2015/01/borscht-belt-will-israel-spurn-america-for-russia/

FOR MOST OF LAST YEAR, THE WEST STRUGGLED TO find an appropriate response to Russias incursions into Crimea and eastern and southern Ukraine. Many European and North American
governments strongly condemned Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, but Israel has been noticeably silent. In the past, Israel has been similarly mum on Russian
aggressionor worse. In 2008, when the Russia-Georgia war began, Israel cut its previously substantial military support for Georgia and
withdrew its military advisors. Why has Israel declined to slap Russia? Because the Jewish state may someday need Russia as a powerful ally if relations with the

U.S. withersomething thats not an immediate risk but not necessarily unthinkable. If Moscow could legitimately present itself as being
on the side of Israel and against jihadist terror, it would be much more difficult for American presidents to pass sanctions against Russia or try to bring its neighbors into
NATO.

Alt cause Obama hostility

Chris Coffey, reporter for algemeiner the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America, March 22 2015 Senator Says
Obamas Open Hostility to Netanyahu Causing Democrats to Lose Trust in President
www.algemeiner.com/2015/03/22/senator-says-obamas-open-hostility-to-netanyahu-is-causing-democrats-to-lose-trust-in-
president/

After the Israeli Prime Minister backed away later in the week from his pre-election opposition to a two-state solution to the Israel-
Palestinian peace process, the White House publicly rejected this olive branch, saying it was going to re-evaluate its
thinking. The White House is even considering an end to US opposition to a UN Security Council resolution supporting the
creation of an independent Palestinian state, according to reports. Obamas hostility towards Netanyahu has reportedly
become so personal, that he is also considering cutting all direct ties with the Israeli Prime Minister . The increasing White House
enmity towards the Israeli Prime Minister also resulted in an atypical statement from pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, which rebuked the President for rebuffing Netanyahus efforts to
repair relations.

Cant solve American public opposition that outweighs

Lincoln Mitchell, national political correspondent at the Observer. 01/22/15 "Borscht Belt: Will Israel Spurn America for
Russia?" observer.com/2015/01/borscht-belt-will-israel-spurn-america-for-russia/

Any responsible Israeli leader must at least explore the unimaginable, especially with younger Americans viewing Israel quite differently from older
Americans. Those who see themselves as Democrats are less likely than Republicans to be positively predisposed to Israel.
During last summers war in Gaza, 45 percent of Democrats called Israels actions justified versus 73 percent of Republicans,
according to a CNN poll. If this trend continues and Israel policy becomes a genuinely partisan issue, the future of the Israel-
U.S. relationship will be in grave danger. Some Middle East experts say its nosediving already, including Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to
Israel. The U.S.-Israel relationship is critical, is essential to Israels survival. And the relationship is in trouble, he said in a recent speech. It is, of course, a very big
step from declining popular support for Israel to abolishing or even substantially reducing U.S. assistance to Israel. Nonetheless, this is clearly the goal
of at least some Americans who oppose Israel.
 Italy
Italy couldnt care less about the Snowden revelations popular opinion still high
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Recently the United States has monitored the communications of suspected terrorists, American citizens, the leaders of other
countries and their people, according to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor. These
disclosures have led to widespread criticism of American violations of national sovereignty and personal privacy, although
publics around the world generally have no objection to Uncle Sam monitoring suspected terrorists. Majorities in 31 countries
surveyed voice the view that electronic oversight of alleged terrorists is acceptable. Israelis (90%), Italians (88%) and Kenyans
(88%) are particularly supportive, as are roughly eight-in-ten Russians (81%) and Tunisians (80%). Notably, Germans, who are
particularly incensed about American spying on Chancellor Angela Merkel and on ordinary German citizens, have few qualms
about U.S. eavesdropping on alleged terrorists: 70% support such efforts.
 Japan

The Japanese still see the US as a protector statistically they would never break ties
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Nevertheless, half or more of the public in 33 of 44 nations surveyed still think that Washington safeguards Americans
freedoms. The U.S. image as a protector of personal liberties remains quite strong in a number of Asian nations: South Korea
(91%), Philippines (87%), Japan (84%) and Vietnam (75%); and also in the Middle East: Lebanon (84%) and Israel (75%).

Mutually beneficial economic ties ensure co-op

Cooper 14 - William H. Cooper, Specialist in International Trade and Finance February 18, 2014 "U.S.-Japan Economic
Relations: Significance, Prospects, and Policy Options" https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32649.pdf

The U.S.-Japan economic relationship is strong and mutually advantageous. The two economies are highly integrated via trade
in goods and servicesthey are large markets for each others exports and important sources of imports. More importantly,
Japan and the United States are closely connected via capital flows. Japan is a major foreign source of financing of the U.S.
national debt and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, as the mounting U.S. public debt needs to be financed and
the stock of U.S. domestic savings remains insufficient to meet the investment needs. Japan is also a significant source of
foreign private portfolio and direct investment in the United States, and the United States is the origin of much of the foreign
investment in Japan.

Resilient economic ties and shared values

USDS 15 - US Department of State, February 4, 2015 "U.S. Relations With Japan" www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4142.htm
U.S. economic policy toward Japan is aimed at increasing access to Japan's markets and two-way investment, stimulating domestic
demand-led economic growth, promoting economic restructuring, improving the climate for U.S. investors, and raising the standard of living in both the United States and
Japan.
The U.S.-Japan bilateral economic relationship--based on enormous flows of trade, investment, and finance--is strong,
mature, and increasingly interdependent. It also is firmly rooted in the shared interest and responsibility of the United States
and Japan to promote global growth, open markets, and a vital world trading system. Japan is a major market for many U.S. products, including
agricultural products, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, films and music, commercial aircraft, nonferrous metals, plastics, medical and scientific supplies, and machinery. U.S.
imports from Japan include vehicles, machinery, optic and medical instruments, and organic chemicals. U.S. direct investment in Japan is mostly in the finance/insurance,
manufacturing, nonbank holding companies, and wholesale sectors. Japanese direct investment in the U.S. is mostly in the wholesale trade and manufacturing sectors. The
United States and Japan cooperate in a number of international economic fora. Japan formally began participating in the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations
in July 2013, joining 11 other Asia-Pacific countries, including the United States, that are aiming to conclude a comprehensive, high-standard free trade agreement. In parallel
with the TPP multiparty negotiations, the United States and Japan are also engaged in bilateral negotiations to address issues in the areas of automotive trade, insurance, and
other non-tariff measures.
 Kenya
Kenya couldnt care less about the Snowden revelations popular opinion still high
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Recently the United States has monitored the communications of suspected terrorists, American citizens, the leaders of other
countries and their people, according to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor. These
disclosures have led to widespread criticism of American violations of national sovereignty and personal privacy, although
publics around the world generally have no objection to Uncle Sam monitoring suspected terrorists. Majorities in 31 countries
surveyed voice the view that electronic oversight of alleged terrorists is acceptable. Israelis (90%), Italians (88%) and Kenyans
(88%) are particularly supportive, as are roughly eight-in-ten Russians (81%) and Tunisians (80%). Notably, Germans, who are
particularly incensed about American spying on Chancellor Angela Merkel and on ordinary German citizens, have few qualms
about U.S. eavesdropping on alleged terrorists: 70% support such efforts.

Kenya doesnt care about US surveillance towards them

Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Since beginning its war on terrorism more than a decade ago, the U.S. government has launched several hundred missile
strikes from pilotless aircraft called drones to target extremists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and elsewhere. The vast majority of these
drone strikes have been carried out by the Obama administration. Such attacks are extremely unpopular. In 37 of the 44 countries surveyed in 2014
by the Pew Research Center, half or more of the public disapproves of American drone strikes. This includes 26 where strong majorities of seven-in-ten or more are critical of
this signature U.S. military action. Israel (65%), Kenya (53%) and the U.S. (52%) are the only countries where at least half back the use of
drones against suspected terrorists. Among those opposed are the publics of major NATO allies such as Spain (86%), Turkey (83%), France (72%), Germany (67%)
and the United Kingdom (59%), all of which have experienced terrorist attacks on their own soil. Fully 82% in Japan, Americas principal Asian ally, are against the use of
drones, as are 75% in South Korea, another major Washington regional security partner.
 Korea (South)
Korea still sees the US as a protector they would never break ties
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Nevertheless, half or more of the public in 33 of 44 nations surveyed still think that Washington safeguards Americans
freedoms. The U.S. image as a protector of personal liberties remains quite strong in a number of Asian nations: South Korea
(91%), Philippines (87%), Japan (84%) and Vietnam (75%); and also in the Middle East: Lebanon (84%) and Israel (75%).
 Mexico

Mexico and the US depend on each other would never sever ties
Gutirrez 13 - Gernimo Gutirrez is the managing director of the North American Development Bank. NOVEMBER 24, 2013
"Mexicos Growth Has Helped the U.S." www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-
nafta/mexicos-growth-has-helped-the-us

While an impressive figure on its face, what often astounds Americans and Mexicans alike is that Mexico buys more from the United States than the
BRICs combined Brazil, Russia, India and China. As cited by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 6 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with
Mexico. This is a border-oriented relationship, yes, given the volume of surface trade, but states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York with export goods
such as transportation equipment, metals and jewelry, also benefit greatly from the growing consumer base of the U.S.s southern neighbor.
According to the Woodrow Wilson Center, 25 cents of every dollar of imported goods from Canada to the U.S. is Made in USA content, and the figure is 40 cents of every
dollar for goods imported from Mexico. This indicates that Nafta is creating partners and not competitors among its member countries. As
for Mexicos interest in
this bilateral relationship, it can be summarized in two facts: about 80 percent of Mexicos exports go to the U.S., while 50 percent of the
accumulated foreign direct investment received between 2000 and 2011 comes from its northern neighbor. Moreover, Nafta has been the fundamental anchor for reforms
that make Mexico a more modern economy and open society.

Mexico-US trade higher than snoop dogg

Villarreal 15 - M. Angeles Villarreal Specialist in International Trade and Finance April 20, 2015 "U.S.-Mexico Economic
Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications" https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf

Mexico is one of the United States key trading partners, ranking second among U.S. export markets and third in total U.S.
trade (imports plus exports). Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States and Mexico have developed significant economic
ties. Trade between the two countries more than tripled since the agreement was implemented in 1994. Through NAFTA, the United States, Mexico, and Canada
form one of the worlds largest free trade areas, with about one-third of the worlds total gross domestic product (GDP). Mexico has the
second-largest economy in Latin America after Brazil. It has a population of 124 million people, making it the most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world and the
third-most populous country in the Western Hemisphere (after the United States and Brazil). Mexicos gross domestic product (GDP) was an estimated $1.3 trillion in

2014, about 7% of U.S. GDP of $17.4 trillion. In purchasing power parity3 , Mexicos GDP is higher, $2.1 trillion in 2014 or about 12% of U.S. GDP . Per
capita income in Mexico is significantly lower than in the United States. In 2014, Mexicos per capita GDP in purchasing power parity was $16,773, or 69% lower than U.S. per capita GDP of $54,634
(see Table 1). Ten years earlier, in 2004, Mexicos per capita GDP in purchasing power parity was $11,080, or 74% lower than the U.S. amount of $41,887. Although there is a notable income disparity
with the United States, Mexicos per capita GDP is relatively high by global standards, and falls within the World Banks upper-middle income category.4 Mexicos economy relies heavily on the United
States as an export market. The value of exports equaled 33% of Mexicos GDP in 2014, as shown in Table 1, and approximately 80% of Mexicos exports are headed to the United States. U.S.-Mexico
Trade The United States is, by far, Mexicos leading partner in merchandise trade, while Mexico is the United States third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among
U.S. exports to
U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA entered into force in January 1994.

Mexico increased from $41.6 billion in 1993 (the year prior to NAFTAs entry into force) to $240.3 billion in 2014, an increase of 478%. Imports from Mexico
increased from $39.9 billion in 1993 to $294.2 billion in 2014, an increase of 637% (see Figure 1). The merchandise trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $1.7 billion in 1993 to a widening
deficit that reached a peak of $74.3 billion in 2007. In 2014, the merchandise trade deficit with Mexico was $53.8 billion. In services, the United States had a surplus of $12.1 billion in 2013. U.S.
exports in services to Mexico totaled $29.9 billion in 2013, while U.S. imports totaled $17.8 billion.5

Co-op inevitable millions of Americans depend on it

Christopher Wilson, writer for Wilson Center, independent research No Date, Accessed July 31 2015 "Working Together:
Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico" www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/working-together-economic-ties-
between-the-united-states-and-mexico

Investment: U.S. investment in Mexico has grown nearly six-fold since NAFTA was put in place, but the story of Mexicos burgeoning
investments in the United States is less understood. Though still a fraction of the size of U.S. investment in Mexico, Mexican
companies have increased their
FDI holdings in the U.S. from $1.2 billion in 1993 to $12.6 billion in 2010. The report explores the U.S. investments and job creation of some of
Mexicos largest companies, including Cemex, Bimbo, Amrica Mvil, Lala, Gruma, and others. Jobs and Trade, a State-by-State approach: This report
provides a comprehensive look at the value, composition, and effects of each states trade with Mexico. There are 6 million U.S. jobs that depend on trade
with Mexico. Two border states that trade extensively with Mexico, California (692,000 jobs) and Texas (463,000 jobs), have the most. Yet it is not only
border states like Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, that depend on trade with Mexico. South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Nebraska also send more than 20% of their exports
to our southern neighbor. Because of the size and integrated nature of the North American auto industry, Detroit exports $10.9 billion in goods to
Mexico , more than any other metropolitan area.
 Philippines
Filipinos still see the US as a protector statistically they would never break ties
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Nevertheless, half or more of the public in 33 of 44 nations surveyed still think that Washington safeguards Americans
freedoms. The U.S. image as a protector of personal liberties remains quite strong in a number of Asian nations: South Korea
(91%), Philippines (87%), Japan (84%) and Vietnam (75%); and also in the Middle East: Lebanon (84%) and Israel (75%).
 Russia
Russians couldnt care less about the Snowden revelations popular opinion still high
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Recently the United States has monitored the communications of suspected terrorists, American citizens, the leaders of other
countries and their people, according to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor. These
disclosures have led to widespread criticism of American violations of national sovereignty and personal privacy, although
publics around the world generally have no objection to Uncle Sam monitoring suspected terrorists. Majorities in 31 countries
surveyed voice the view that electronic oversight of alleged terrorists is acceptable. Israelis (90%), Italians (88%) and Kenyans
(88%) are particularly supportive, as are roughly eight-in-ten Russians (81%) and Tunisians (80%). Notably, Germans, who are
particularly incensed about American spying on Chancellor Angela Merkel and on ordinary German citizens, have few qualms
about U.S. eavesdropping on alleged terrorists: 70% support such efforts.
 Saudi Arabia
Relations resilientmultiple reasons
Zeigler 11 - Lucien Zeigler, chief writer for arabianomics 18 March 2011 "Saudi-US Relationship Could Be Strengthened By
Middle East Turmoil" web.archive.org/web/20110323001103/http://arabianomics.com/2011/03/18/saudi-us-relationship-
could-be-strengthened-by-middle-east-turmoil/

However there is a massive difference between short-term strains and long-term ones. The US-Saudi relationship, like all
bilateral relations between friendly nations, has had its ups and downs. To argue that the current row over Bahrains protests
amounts to a relationship-changing crisis is more than a stretch especially when considering the history of the so-called
special relationship. Historical observers of the relationship will note that there have been several points over which the two
nations disagreed, often strongly and publicly with each other. So, if one puts the recent disagreements into the context of
relationships history, including the 1970s oil shock, the 9/11 attacks, and other events that had the potential to spoil bilateral
ties, it is easy to be confident about the strength of US-Saudi relations despite some current disagreements. After all, the
Kingdom is the United States strongest regional ally, and one of its most important trading partners because of, but also
beyond, oil. US-Saudi trade figures have risen consistently in the last decade, and the Saudi economy continues to diversify
and grow. Speaking about the US-Saudi commercial partnership at the 2010 US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum in
Chicago, Illinois, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said: We are fortunate that Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have a strong
foundation of trust and partnership to build on. Today Saudi Arabia is taking unprecedented steps to expand and diversify its
economy into knowledge based industries. American companies have the expertise and resources to help the Kingdom reach
its ambitious development goals and the opportunities for commercial engagement and partnership are immense. When you
look at the sum of these projects, you see a country that is demonstrating vision and a commitment to generational growth.
So, what we have is a crystal clear example of win-win opportunities. Saudi Arabia is embarking on historic development
projects and its government welcomes U.S. companies to help it succeed. Saudi Arabia and the United States also cooperate
closely on counterterrorism and balancing external regional threats. It would even be reasonable to argue that the current
row over the situation in Bahrain and Libya will actually strengthen US-Saudi ties in the long run. The reality about US foreign
policy in the region, as we see in Libya and Bahrain, is that the United States wants a smaller footprint in regional affairs, for
better or worse for their interests. Saudi Arabias desire to increase its influence in the region, especially as a long time US ally,
is not necessarily a bad thing even if American policymakers disagree with some of their actions. It is also true that a
strengthened GCC will rely less on US security in the long-run to counter regional existential threats from Iran and its allies, but
once again, this is not a bad thing and has been a long time coming for Saudi Arabia. The United States has been selling
advanced weaponry and providing training to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states for reasons more than private profit. Finally,
the greatest tangible evidence of a strong US-Saudi bond in the future is arguably not in cooperation on defense, security,
terrorism, or even business and trade. It is in education. One of King Abdullahs greatest legacies for the relationship and to his
own people will be his commitment to forever changing Saudi Arabias education system, and part of that change has been the
King Abdullah Scholarship Program. The program sends bright Saudi students abroad, and the number one destination for
those students is the United States. These students not only learn about US culture and society to bring back to Saudi Arabia,
they bring Saudi culture and society to the United States. They are, as Saudi Ambassador to the United States Adel Al-Jubeir
remarked, themselves ambassadors from the Kingdom to the American heartland. Addressing a large group of Saudi students
in the United States last year, Al-Jubeir said, I can say to you with all sincerity that your work in the United States and your
presence, your very being, has helped strengthen the fruitful and cooperative relationship between the people of Saudi Arabia
and the people of the United States. Disagreements, large and small, are healthy occurrences in relationships. The US-Saudi
relationship has faced more than its share of difficult problems covering the many decades of their alliance, and there is no
question that some interests in the short-term of this period of great change may diverge. However, this relationship has
overcome greater tests, and emerged stronger from each as a result. If history is any guide, current disagreements will be no
different, and the so-called special relationship should remain intact for years to come.
 Turkey
Mutual trade interests ensure co-op
Altay 12 - Dr. Serdar Altay, Project Coordinator Cenk Sidar, Managing Director Emre Tuncalp, Director, Operations
Donna Brutkoski, Chief Editor 2012 "U.S.-TURKISH ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN A NEW ERA: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR A STRONGER STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP" https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/reports/20120312-USCC-
Report.pdf

There is an upward trend in bilateral trade between Turkey and the United States. According to the data provided by the
Turkish Ministry of Economy, bilateral trade volume in goods reached $16 billion in 2010, with $3.8 billion exported by Turkey
and $12.3 billion exported by the United States. This growth was largely driven by the steady increase in Turkish imports from
the United States over the past decade, thanks to high economic growth and rising domestic demand. Turkey also saw overall
exports growth earlier in the decade, but Turkish exports to the U.S. are now back down to the levels seen at the beginning of
the decade. Although both countries have overall trade deficits, the bilateral trade deficit is shouldered by the Turkish side and
is steadily increasing. Turkeys traditional export and import partners are in Europe, and its trade with other neighboring
countries has been increasing thanks to dedicated effort. Growth of trade with the United States, meanwhile, has lagged
behind (see graphs below).

Turkey wont abandon relations with the US.

Andrew Terrill 03, Strategic Studies Institutes Middle East specialist, PhD in International Relations from Claremont, March
2003, Strategic Effects of the Conflict with Iraq, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/irqmide/irqmide.pdf

Turkey, nevertheless, wishes to be seen as a reliable NATO ally by the United States and also wishes to have a voice in
determining the future of Iraq should the Saddam regime be removed from power. For these reasons, the Turkish leadership
has been looking for the absolute minimum cooperation with the United States that is necessary on this issue to prevent a
decline in the relationship. They are also seeking as much aid as possible for the help they do offer. In the aftermath of a U.S.
invasion of Iraq, Turkey will probably continue to seek ways to consolidate good relations with the United States while making
a simultaneous effort to avoid the appearance of excessive complicity in supporting a U.S. invasion. The Turkish military will
remain the ultimate decisionmaker on the future of U.S.-Turkish military ties and to the extent possible will seek to keep these
ties intact.
 United Nations
UN fails and not key to global problemscoalitions solves
Haas, 10 Richard Haas, CFR President, 1/5/2010, The Case for Messy Multilateralism,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/21132/case_for_messy_multilateralism.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F42%2Fun

But to acknowledge that we are all multilateralists now (or at least need to be) is only to start the conversation. Multilateralism is not one thing but many. The
issue takes on a new urgency in the aftermath of the recent Copenhagen conference, which brought together representatives of 193 governments in an unsuccessful effort to
reach a formal, binding and comprehensive accord. Whatever its consequences for climate change, Copenhagen is but the most recent reminder that classic multilateralism is
increasingly difficult to achieve. This same reality also helps to account for the world's inability to agree to a new global trade accord. Launched in Qatar nearly a decade ago,
the Doha round of negotiations has stalled. There are simply too many participants, too many contentious issues and too many domestic political concerns to discuss. This
problem also explains the near-total irrelevance of the U nited N ations General Assembly. "One man, one vote" may provide a sound basis for domestic
politics, but on a global scale democracy (or, more precisely, democratic multilateralism) is a prescription for doing nothing. It is not simply the large number of participants
but the fact that it makes little sense to give countries with minuscule populations and economies equal standing with, say, China or the US. The UN's founders predicted as
much when they created the Security Council. The idea was to establish an elite body to tackle the world's most important issues. The problem is that the
composition of the Security Council reflects what the world looked like after the second world war. That world is now more than 60 years
old. Missing from the ranks of permanent members are India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and representatives of a more integrated Europe. It was this weakness (along
with the inability to agree on the make-up of a reformed Security Council) that in part led to the creation of the Group of Seven and the trilateral
process in the 1970s. Japan and the European Commission gained a seat at this important table. Yet over the decades, the G7 also
proved inadequate, as it left out such critical countries as China and India. Hence the emergence of the Group of 20 in the midst of the global financial crisis and the
Major Economies Forum as concerns over climate change mounted. It is too soon to judge the impact of these latest versions of elite multilateralism. In the meantime, we
are seeing the emergence of multiple innovations. One is regionalism. The proliferation of bilateral and regional trade pacts (most
recently in Asia) is in part a reaction to the failure to conclude a global trade accord. Such arrangements are inferior - they do not, for example,
normally deal with subsidies, much less cover all products and services. They can also have the perverse effect of retarding trade by discriminating against non-members. But
some trade expansion is preferable to none. A
second alternative is functional multilateralism - coalitions of the willing and relevant. A
global accord on climate will prove elusive for some time to come. But that need not translate into international inaction. A
useful step would be to conclude a global pact to discourage the cutting down and burning of forests, something that accounts for a fifth of the world's carbon output.
Copenhagen made some limited progress here, but more needs to be done to assist such countries as Brazil and Indonesia. Yet another
alternative might be
described as informal multilateralism. In many cases it will prove impossible to negotiate international accords that will be
approved by national parliaments. Instead, governments would sign up to implementing, as best they can, a series of measures consistent with agreed-upon
international norms. We are most likely to see this in the financial realm, where setting standards for the capital requirements of banks, accounting systems and credit ratings
would facilitate global economic growth. None of this - not elitism or regionalism or functionalism or informalism - is a panacea. Such collective action is invariably less
inclusive, less comprehensive and less predictable than formal global accords. It can suffer from a lack of legitimacy. But it is doable and desirable, and can lead to or
complement classic multilateralism. Multilateralism in the 21st century is, like the century itself, likely to be more fluid and, at times, messy than what we are used to.
 Vietnam
The Vietnamese still see the US as a protector statistically they would never break ties
Pew Research Center JULY 14, 2014 "Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to Americas
Image" www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-
image/

Nevertheless, half or more of the public in 33 of 44 nations surveyed still think that Washington safeguards Americans
freedoms. The U.S. image as a protector of personal liberties remains quite strong in a number of Asian nations: South Korea
(91%), Philippines (87%), Japan (84%) and Vietnam (75%); and also in the Middle East: Lebanon (84%) and Israel (75%).