SOI DAs WSDI 2014

Law of the Sea Scenario

Law of the Sea 1NC

The Law of the sea has the final say on maritime matters
Bangladesh dispute proves.
Business Wire July 08, 2014 10:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time Bangladesh
Prevails in Maritime Boundary Dispute with India
(http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140708006138/en/BangladeshPrevails-Maritime-Boundary-Dispute-India#.U8mVRfldVhE)
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--An international arbitral tribunal in The Hague today awarded Bangladesh the
vast majority of waters in the Bay of Bengal that were also claimed by India. a long-standing problem in bilateral

By a vote of 4-1, the fivemember tribunal agreed with Bangladesh that the equidistance method
proposed by India for dividing the Parties maritime zones was inequitable to
relations has now been resolved in a manner acceptable to both States.

Bangladesh. Instead, it fixed the boundary based on equitable principles that largely mirrored Bangladeshs claims
to the disputed waters. The award of the tribunal, which cannot be appealed, is binding on both States .

It
brings to an end the arbitration that Bangladesh commenced under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 2009 after
several decades of unsuccessful diplomatic negotiations. Bangladesh won a similar
judgment in a companion case against Myanmar in 2012. The 2012 judgment was issued by the 21-member
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany. It too rejected equidistance
boundaries (as proposed by Myanmar) and awarded Bangladesh a greater share of the disputed waters in another
part of the Bay of Bengal. Bangladeshs lead counsel in both cases were Paul Reichler and Lawrence Martin of Foley
Hoag LLP in Washington, DC. This is another great day for Bangladesh, declared Foreign Minister Mr. Abul Hassan
Mahmood Ali after reviewing the tribunals award. This result is even better for Bangladesh than the 2012 ITLOS
Judgment. It gives Bangladesh much more maritime territory than was ever possible during decades of
negotiation, he added. The Foreign Minister explained: We achieved everything we hoped to and more. Before we
started these two cases in 2009, Bangladesh was trapped between Myanmar on one side and India on the other.
They wanted to lock us within 115 M from our coast. Now, we not only have a large exclusive economic zone
extending out to 200 M across a sizable area, we also have undeniable sovereign rights in the sea bed extending
nearly 300 M from our coast. According to the Foreign Minister, Bangladesh today is able to do something it never
could before: take full advantage of all of the rights that UNCLOS promises coastal States, he said. The clarity and
legal certainty that the Award provides will allow us to fish in our own waters and exploit the abundant oil and gas
beneath our continental shelf without hindrance. In addition to Messrs. Reichler and Martin, Bangladeshs legal
team included Professor James Crawford of Cambridge University, Professor Philippe Sands of the University College
London, Professor Alan Boyle of the University of Edinburgh, and Professor Payam Akhavan of McGill University. Mr.
Reichler praised the outcome, calling the arbitral tribunals award a thorough, well-reasoned decision. He added
that it

continues the progressive development of maritime delimitation

jurisprudence in a positive direction. Bangladesh was not the only winner
today. With its careful and balanced decision, the arbitral tribunal brought
great credit to itself and showed once again the wisdom of the drafters of
UNCLOS in providing for compulsory dispute settlement. According to Mr. Reichler,
a long-standing problem in bilateral relations has now been resolved in a manner acceptable to both States.

[Insert link
When the United States doesnt follow the law of the sea it
allows other countries to follow suit
Scott G Borgerson may 2009 the national interest and the law of the sea
Council on foreign relations pages 38-39
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea may seem an obscure agreement to nonexperts. That is not the case.
The convention is a carefully negotiated international agreement numbering several hundred pages that covers a
host of measurable national security, economic, and environmental issues of vital strategic importance to the

United States. By remaining a nonparty to the convention, the United States not only forfeits these concrete
interests but also undermines something more intangible: the legitimacy of U.S. leadership and its international

For example, American pleas for other nations to follow pollution

and fishing agreements ring empty when the United States visibly rejects
the Law of the Sea Convention. Remaining outside the convention also
hurts its diplomatic hand in other international forums, as well as the
perceptions of other states about U.S. commitments to multilateral
solutions. As former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day OConnor has noted, The decision not to
sign on to legal frameworks the rest of the world supports is central to the
decline of American influence around the world.27 Given the unprecedented challenges,
reputation.

threats, and opportunities the United States currently faces, it is as important as ever at this critical juncture to

one of the underlying

foundations of U.S. global leadership has been a perceived commitment to
the international rule of law and willingness to build international
institutions that create a predictable international order from which all
peace-loving countries can benefit. Acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention will help
strengthen American influence and diplomatic leadership. Historically,

undergird continued U.S. leadership, by sending a tangible signal that the United States Conclusions and
Recommendations 39 remains committed to its historic role as an architect and defender of world order.

A strong law of the sea is key to resolve Chinese conflict

John Hemmings 7 December 2011
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/12/07/the-south-china-sea-dispute-a-legalsolution-needed/ The South China Sea dispute: a legal solution needed
It seems clear that the dispute cannot be solved by diplomatic or political
means. While discussions around the Sea tend to look at continental shelves, innocent passage, exclusive
economic zones, global commons and the strategic considerations of USChina rivalry, at heart the issue is one of
sovereignty. As such, it holds a particular place in the public perceptions of the six claimant states populations. It
would be impossible for any diplomat to give concessions on these issues of sovereignty without risking material
harm to their government. This is particularly true of China, where there are strong public perceptions over the

Choosing one of the three legal mechanisms on offer the UNCLOS

tribunals, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, or the International
Court of Justice would neatly bypass this challenge , putting responsibility for any decision with
a third party. The lengthy period taken in international cases of this type may
also be beneficial to regional states: ASEAN and its members could take
the time to put resources into education and public awareness on
maritime law, investing in legal conferences, seminars and workshops for journalists, politicians and
diplomats. This could at least persuade the populations of the legal process
fairness.
issue.

UNCLOS is key to resolve SCS conflict.

Gregory b. Poling July 2013
http://csis.org/files/publication/130717_Poling_SouthChinaSea_Web.pdf page 3-4
the South China Sea in focus: clarifying the limits of maritime dispute
The Southeast Asian parties have seen their positions on many of these questions slowly converge. For instance, all
four appear to operate under the assumption that the Spratlys and Paracels are not legally islands but merely rocks

An honest effort to resolve or

even manage the disputes in the South China Sea requires that this and other
and therefore entitled only to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea.

assumptions be codified in law. This does not mean that any of the claimants have to give up
anything regarding their claims to the features in the South China Sea. Instead, it would allow them to
strengthen the legal basis of their maritime claims and separate the far
more intractable but geographically much smaller territorial disputes. Most
important, it would allow them to present a united front to China in arguing one crucial point: The only
acceptable basis for maritime claims in the South China Sea must be
international law, especially UNCLOS.

SCS conflict causes global war

Lawrence Wittner 11, Professor of History at the State University of New York
Albany, November 28, Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?
http://www.huntingtonnews.net
for centuries
national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest
weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up
providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension
between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by Chinas growing economic and military
strength, the U.S. government recently challenged Chinas claims in the South
China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened
U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all,

Clinton, the United States was asserting our own position as a Pacific power. But need this lead to nuclear war?

both the United States and China

possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack
Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all,

China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of Chinas offshore
islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly,
and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else. Of
course, China didnt have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be

loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials

should convince us that, even
as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue
more temperate. But the

during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals,

that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there havent been very many
at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should
convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistans
foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use any weapon in its arsenal.
During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own
nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, dont nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do
they? Obviously, NATO leaders didnt feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATOs strategy was to respond to
a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-

if U.S. government officials really believed that

nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing Star Wars
and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensiveand probably
armed Soviet Union. Furthermore,

unworkablemilitary defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear
might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a
Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is
estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government

about forty of these Chinese nuclear

weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would win any nuclear war with
China. But what would that victory entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately
slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many
more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war
would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering,
radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions
would blot out the sun and bring on a nuclear winter around the globe
has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only

destroying agriculture, [and] creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and
destruction.

US China war highly possible- leads to extinction

Wittner, 11 (Lawrence S. Wittner, COMMENTARY: Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?, 11/28/11,
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/14446) j.shack

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be
used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations
employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S.
relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example
of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough.
Disturbed by Chinas growing economic and military strength, the U.S.
government recently challenged Chinas claims in the South China Sea,
increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S.
military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United
States was asserting our own position as a Pacific power. But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And

the United States and China possess large

numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack
China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the
conflict over the future of Chinas offshore islands , Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of
yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both

the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons
would be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else. Of course, China didnt have nuclear
weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose
nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear
arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits
argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there havent been very
manyat least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan,
should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war.
Pakistans foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use any weapon in its
arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied
its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, dont nuclear weapons deter a nuclear
attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didnt feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATOs strategy was to
respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the
nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence
worked, they would not have resorted to championing Star Wars and its modern variant, national missile defense.
Why are these vastly expensiveand probably unworkablemilitary defense systems needed if other nuclear
powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans
convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear
arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today ,

it is estimated that the U.S.

government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the
Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred.
Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach
the United States. Surely the United States would win any nuclear war with China. But what would that
victory entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least
10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many
more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese
death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be
reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris
sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a
nuclear winter around the globedestroying agriculture, creating
worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction . Moreover, in another
decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently

expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more
than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States.
The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars modernizing its nuclear weapons
and nuclear production facilities over the next decade. To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war,
there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers
have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process
is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations. If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their
survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.

Uniqueness
The United States follows the law of the sea in the status squo
Jeremy Rabkin June 1, 2006 The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Bad Deal for America
http://cei.org/pdf/5352.pdf
The United States is already committed, by its own policies, to abide by
UNCLOS rules on transit rights and wants other nations to do so as well.
The difficulties concern exceptions or the handling of exceptional
circumstances. The question is who decides on the exceptional cases? The answer provided in UNCLOS III is
a new international tribunal, most of whose judgeselected by the usual U.N. formulas to assure geographical and
political balance cannot be expected to have much sympathy for American concern

U.S. Leaders Support Law of the Sea Treaty

Block, 2013 (Ben Block, 2013, staff writer,
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5993, U.S Leaders Support Law of the Sea Treaty,
2013)
The Law of the Sea has set international standards for fishing, deep sea
mining, and navigation since the majority of the world's countries signed
it in 1982. It provides coastal nations with exclusive rights to ocean
resources within 200 nautical miles of their borders - areas known as
"exclusive economic zones," or EEZs. The agreement also oversees an
international tribunal to settle fishing, pollution, and property rights
disputes, as well as the International Seabed Authority, a body formed to
assign mining rights beyond the EEZs. If the United States approves the treaty,
the agreement would include the country with the largest EEZ in the
world, while also potentially clearing the way for U.S. oil companies to mine
the Arctic Ocean. U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
supported the treaty during their tenures, but conservative members of
Congress repeatedly blocked its ratification due to concerns that it would limit
commerce and allow international bodies to wield greater control over U.S.
interests. President Obama's administration and current Senate leaders
have already expressed support for the treaty. During the confirmation
hearing for Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Republican Senator Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska asked whether the treaty would be a priority. "Yes, it
will be, and it will be because it is long overdue," Clinton said in response. "If
people start drilling in areas that are now ice free most of the year, and
we don't know where they can and can't drill or whether we can, we're
going to be disadvantaged. So I think that you will have a very receptive
audience in our State Department and in our administration." Democratic
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, chair of the foreign relations committee,
followed Clinton's response with his own support for the treaty. "We are
now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the Sea
Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee," Kerry said. "The key
here is just timing." President Obama and the Congress are focusing foremost on

national economic recovery. The House of Representatives is debating an $825

billion financial bailout that would provide $550 billion for government spending in
several environmentally related infrastructure projects and $275 billion in tax cuts
for families and businesses. Among the international treaties that President
Obama supported during his campaign - including a nuclear test ban, a global
bill of rights for women, biodiversity accords, and a renewed climate change
agreement - the Law of the Sea is likely to face less opposition, according to
observers. It is supported by a wide array of interest groups, including the U.S.
Navy and Coast Guard, international environmental groups, and the
mining, fishing, shipping, and telecommunications industries. "The fact is, if
you can't get the Law of the Sea treaty through the Senate with the breadth of
support it currently has...it will be very difficult to really run the trap [lines] on any
of these other treaties," said Don Kraus, Chief Executive Officer of the lobbying
group Citizens for Global Solutions. In his final week in office, former President
George W. Bush issued a directive calling for the Senate to ratify the treaty
"promptly." Yet conservatives insist that approval will not be simple. "If [Democratic
leaders] start cramming a bunch of controversial treaties down the Senate's throat
with the thinking that Republicans will just take it, I think they're wrong," said
Steven Groves, a Heritage Foundation international law fellow. "So many of these
treaties are objectionable, and Law of the Sea is one of them." Industry groups
support the treaty largely for its clarification of rules regarding the high
seas - ocean waters beyond national jurisdiction - and the Arctic Ocean. Russia,
Canada, the United States, and several Scandinavian countries have all claimed
territorial rights to Arctic maritime regions as ice caps recede.

The United States Needs this Treaty Now

Better World, 2012
(Betterworld campaign, 2012,
http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/international-security/law-of-thesea.html, Law of the Sea Treaty, 2012)
With 160 nations on board, the treaty is being implemented and decisions are being
made that affect American interests even as the U.S. absents itself. The U.S. should
ratify this treaty and secure itself a seat at the table to help promote the
responsible use of the world's oceans and set the oceanic rules of the
road. The United States cannot currently participate in ongoing treaty revisions or key
commissions -- including one that decides commercial claims in the extensive
U.S. outer continental shelf. Action is needed now to bolster protections for vulnerable
coral reefs and marine animals, including dolphins, whales, sea turtles, skates, and rays. Action is also needed to
mitigate against oil pollution and the encroachment of invasive species,
overexploitation of marine resources, and destruction of marine habitats .
Recent data on the melting of the Arctic ice cap has businesses and other
governments rushing to claim rights to virgin oceanic territory and natural
resources. In August 2007, Russia planted its national flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole. The
Canadians and Danes are staking claims in the Arctic as well. Only nations who are party to the Convention can
make such claims -- or challenge the claims of others.

Joining the convention would give the

U.S. a seat at the table in negotiating how these resources will be

preserved and used. While the U.S. is voluntarily abiding by the terms of the
treaty, we are now impotent to take action when other nations do not .
Joining the treaty would give the U.S. the right to call on other nations to live up to
their responsibilities, including requiring coastal states to preserve marine life in their territorial waters. Ratification

show that the U.S. is willing to work with other countries

in solving global problems. It would show a commitment to international
partnerships which are not only crucial to U.S. efforts to meet its security
challenges, but also to rehabilitating the U.S. international image . Right now,
the U.S. is in the same league as Libya, Iran, Syria, and North Korea in
having signed but not ratified this treaty.Ratification would bring 4.1 million square miles of ocean
would be a good way to

under U.S. jurisdiction -- an area larger than the continental United States.The U.S. obtains 28 percent of its natural
gas and almost as much of its oil production from the ocean's outer continental shelf -- an area that would be vastly
expanded by ratification of this treaty. Accession to the Convention would be a boon to the United States military,

Ratification would ensure rights to navigate

on and fly freely over the sea; thus, the U.S. Navy is among the strongest advocates for endorsing
especially in the context of the war on terror.
the Law of the Sea Treaty.

links

Renewable energy link

The US is only legally allowed to gain energy in its EEZ if it is
under UNCLOS
United Nations 1982
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm PART V
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE Article 56
In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has : (a) sovereign rights
for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the
natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed
and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone ,
such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as
provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to: (i) the establishment and use of artificial
islands, installations and structures; (ii) marine scientific research; (iii) the protection and preservation of the

In exercising its
rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive
economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and
duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the
provisions of this Convention. 3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and
marine environment; (c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention. 2.

subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.

Exploration link
The United States has to apply to the UN for exploration
permits before it can explore the ocean
United Nations 1982
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex3.htm
ANNEX III BASIC CONDITIONS OF PROSPECTING, EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION
Article 3
1. The Enterprise, States Parties, and the other entities referred to in article 153, paragraph 2(b), may apply to the
Authority for approval of plans of work for activities in the Area. 2. The Enterprise may apply with respect to any
part of the Area, but applications by others with respect to reserved areas are subject to the additional

Exploration and exploitation shall be carried

out only in areas specified in plans of work referred to in article 153, paragraph 3, and
approved by the Authority in accordance with this Convention and the relevant
rules, regulations and procedures of the Authority. 4. Every approved plan of work shall: (a) be
in conformity with this Convention and the rules , regulations and procedures of the
Authority; (b) provide for control by the Authority of activities in the Area in
requirements of article 9 of this Annex. 3.

accordance with article 153, paragraph 4; (c) confer on the operator, in accordance with the rules, regulations and
procedures of the Authority, the exclusive right to explore for and exploit the specified categories of resources in
the area covered by the plan of work. If, however, the applicant presents for approval a plan of work covering only
the stage of exploration or the stage of exploitation, the approved plan of work shall confer such exclusive right

Upon its approval by the Authority, every plan of work, except

shall be in the form of a contract concluded
between the Authority and the applicant or applicants
with respect to that stage only. 5.

those presented by the Enterprise,

The US exploration of the Ocean

NOAA, 2010 ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraion,
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/oceans/oceanex/, ocean Exploration May 04,
2010)
In June 2000, the President directed the Secretary of Commerce to
convene an Ocean Exploration Panel, composed of ocean explorers,
researchers, and marine educators. The panel developed a national strategy for exploring the
oceans. The report, Discovering Earths Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration, details
recommendations for establishing and promoting an interagency, multidisciplinary Ocean Exploration Program that
is global in scope but concentrated in U.S. waters. The panel recommended that NOAA take charge of the endeavor.

In response, NOAA created the Office of Ocean Exploration (OOE) to lead

the effort. OOE is a major program office within NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. OOE
coordinates the agencys exploration efforts and facilitates research
expeditions. Most cruises to date have been multidisciplinary endeavors conducted in conjunction with such
organizations as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, and many

OOE partners with several NOAA offices and programs,

including the National Marine Sanctuary Program.NOAA's National Ocean
Service (NOS)helps to plan explorations that take place within the nation's
13 national marine sanctuaries and one ecological research reserve. In
academic institutions.

addition, NOS directs and maintains official Web site for these explorations, NOAA Explorer. This offering serves as
an archive of the exploration program, chronicling of the missions with detailed daily logs, informative essays, and
rich multimedia offerings.

It offers over 130 hands-on, standards-based lesson and

a curriculum based on the explorations. Since the inception of the NOAA Ocean Exploration
Program in 2001, the nations marine sanctuaries have been the site of many
important expeditions. Exploration teams have visited sanctuaries in the
Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes to study and map
historic shipwrecks, characterize benthic habitats, increase our
understanding of deep water corals and seamounts, and appreciate the
interconnectedness of, and threats to, the marine environment.

Artic drilling link

The US is not able to make claims on the artic
By Andrew Holland on May 14, 2012 Race for Arctic Energy Resources Shows
Need for U.S. to Ratify Law of the Sea Treaty
(http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2012/05/14/race-for-arctic-energy-resourcesshows-need-for-u-s-to-ratify-law-of-the-sea-treaty/)
Under UNCLOS, the EEZ for resources on or under the seabed can be
extended a further 150 nautical miles (for a total of 350 nautical miles
from shore) if it can be proved that the continental shelf extends that far.
In the Arctic, all the other littoral states Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway,
Iceland, and Russia have put their claim for extended seabed EEZs into the
UNCLOS secretariat for the purposes of claiming the seabed rights to the
undiscovered resources, but because the U.S. is not a party to UNCLOS,
the U.S. has not submitted any claim. The map, provided in the IISS (my former employer)
2012 Military Balance, shows how some of those claims overlap. Because the U.S. has not ratified
the Convention, American diplomats are not at the table when those
territorial claims are arbitrated.

America has no legal justifications to drill for oil in the artic

Andrew Langer 01/06/2014 The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty:
http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer
Andrew Langer is the president of the Institute for Liberty.
Russia and China, two of Americas most powerful strategic foes, are
actively exploring the Arctic and Pacific for oil, gas and seabed mineral
riches. The U.S. is not. Why? Because, Russia and China have ratified the Law of the Sea
Treaty and the U.S. hasnt. Without ratifying LOTS, the U.S. has no standing to
apply for mining and drilling permits under international law. Bottom line:
there is a new Cold War taking place, and America is not winning. The seabed holds trillions
of dollars of mineral resources. According to RT, a Russian/English news channel, Russian
Foreign Ministry official Alexander Gorban last month stated his hope that there will never
be a war for resources or an even hotter conflict in the Arctic Region. In the next
breath, he then went on to reiterate that Russia is indeed "trying to fight for the Arctic
shelf Gorban is a close Putin ally and his acknowledgement that Arctic conflict is possible
demonstrates the global stakes in play. Russia is not alone in recognizing the value of the
LOTS in the fight for global resource dominance. Five countries border the Arctic:

Russia, the U.S. (via Alaska), Canada, Norway and Denmark (via
Greenland). However, only one country is ineligible to mine or drill those
resources -- the U.S. Thats because the U.S. is not a member of the
international body that grants title, or property rights, to countries to
engage in the exploration of seabed resources. That body is called the
International Seabed Authority (ISA). Admittance into that body is accomplished
via ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Internal link
Adherence to the law of the sea signals commitment to other
nations of the rule of the law boosts UNCLOS credibility
John Norton Moore May 12, 2004 http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/housetestimony.pdf UNITED STATES ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
A COMPELLING NATIONAL INTEREST page 21
Supporting the United States interest in fostering the rule of law in international
affairs. Certainly the promotion of a stable rule of law is an important goal
of United States foreign policy. A stable rule of law facilitates commerce
and investment, reduces the risk of conflict, and lessens the transaction costs
inherent in international life. Adherence to the Law of the Sea Convention, one
of the most important law-defining international conventions of the Twentieth
Century, would signal a continuing commitment to the rule of law as an
important foreign policy goal of the United States;

US is losing credibility
Garderner, 07
( GW Gardener, 2007, http://www.worldissues360.com/index.php/to-restore-itscredibility-us-must-show-strong-and-soft-leadership-71846/, to restore its credibity,
US must show strong and soft leadership, August 11, 2007)
Unfortunately, the yin and yang of US politics in recent times has showed that
the American political system reacts like a yo-yo - migrating cyclically from honesty to
darkness, from efficiency and effectiveness to inefficiency and ineffectiveness .
This randomness of US leadership is disturbing and causes the rest of the
world to reel from presidential declarations in national security strategy documents that the goal of the
national security apparatus is to ensure the USA's recognition as the "world leader" . All
by itself, such hubris and arrogance would turn off other international partners. But under the GW Bush
administration, the international community's faith in the USA's leadership capabilities has been dramatically
shattered. Missed intelligence reports, fumbled opportunities to stop Al Qaida, an obsession with Saddam Hussein in
the face of graver threats, and inability to make friends with other international leaders, and a fascination with the

If the US is to aspire to
be a leader, it cannot declare its desire in national security policy statements. Instead, it ought to
aspire to global respect for our institutions and commitment to doing the
right thing by our neighbors, friends and fellow citizens, and in the eyes of whatever moral authority guides
authority of monopolistic corporate capitalism run counter to the world's ethos.

us in our quest for perfection. In using guns, the US should set the gold-standard for appropriate and effective use

the US ought to practice what it preaches.

Again, looking back at the successes of JFK, he showed both a strong and a soft side to US leadership. Both will
be required if the USA is to restore its credibility in the world as a
champion for freedom, liberty, representative polity, human rights and
economic and social opportunity for all.
of coercive force. And in soft-power initiatives,

Impact

Impact China
Tension Between nations --- a war is inevitable
Howard, 62 (Michael Eliot Howard, author and historian, The Causes of Wars
and Other Essays, Book, pages 37-38, 1962
The strategic approach derives from two characteristics of the
international system. The first is the instability of the actors themselves. States may be
treated as persons in international law and deal with each other as such in diplomatic
negotiation, but they are in fact corporations which do not exist in the precise
and finite sense that an individual human being exists. International law may
recognize and legitimize their existence, but it can neither create them nor preserve them. They come into
being and have their geographical extent delineated as the result of
political process in which the actual or potential use of force often plays a
considerable part; and similar processes may dissolve and destroy them .
The Germany of 1871-1945 is an interesting example of successful wars
from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries and disappeared as the
result of unsuccessful wars in the twentieth. The United States exists as a
predominantly Anglo-Saxon unit because of a war fought between 1740 and
1763; as a sovereign unit because of a war fought between 1776 and 1783; as a geographical
unit embracing California and other south-western states because of a war fought in 1846; and as a
unit at all because of a war fought between 1861 and 1865. The Soviet
Unions frontiers of war fought between 1918-21 and 1941-5. Ukraine,
Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, for the same reasons, have no such
sovereign independence. The frontiers and at times the very existence of
such states as Poland and Israel have been determined by wars. The list
can be extended almost indefinitely.

Nuclear war ends in extinction

Germanos 13 (Andrea Germanos, staff writer, Common Dreams, Nuclear War Could Mean 'Extinction of
the Human Race', December 10, 2013, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/10-2 ds)
A war using even a small percentage of the world's nuclear weapons threatens the lives of two billion people, a new

"A nuclear war using only a fraction of existing arsenals would

produce massive casualties on a global scalefar more than we had
previously believed," said Dr. Ira Helfand. The findings in the report issued by International Physicians for
report warns.

Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) are based on studies by climate

nuclear war would alter the climate and agriculture,

thereby threatening one quarter of the world's population with famine. Nuclear
scientists that show how

Famine: Two Billion People at Risk? offers an updated edition to the groups' April of 2012 report, which the groups

"A nuclear war

using only a fraction of existing arsenals would produce massive
casualties on a global scalefar more than we had previously believed ," Dr.
say "may have seriously underestimated the consequences of a limited nuclear war."

Ira Helfand, the reports author and IPPNW co-president, said in a statement. As their previous report showed, years
after even a limited nuclear war, production of corn in the U.S. and China's middle season rice production would
severely decline, and fears over dwindling food supplies would lead to hoarding and increases in food prices,
creating further food insecurity for those already reliant on food imports. The updated report adds that Chinese
winter wheat production would plummet if such a war broke out. Based on information from new studies combining
reductions in wheat, corn and rice, this new edition doubles the number of people they expect to be threatened by
nuclear-war induced famine to over two billion. "The prospect of a decade of widespread hunger and intense social
and economic instability in the worlds largest country has immense implications for the entire global community,

as does the possibility that the huge declines in Chinese wheat production will be matched by similar declines in

The crops would be impacted, the report

because of the black carbon particles that would be
released, causing widespread changes like cooling temperatures,
decreased precipitation and decline in solar radiation. In this scenario of
famine, epidemics of infectious diseases would be likely, the report states,
and could lead to armed conflict. From the report: Within nations where famine is
widespread, there would almost certainly be food riots, and competition
for limited food resources might well exacerbate ethnic and regional
animosities. Among nations, armed conflict would be a very real possibility as
states dependent on imports attempted to maintain access to food
supplies. While a limited nuclear war would bring dire circumstances, the impacts if the world's biggest
nuclear arms holders were involved would be even worse. " With a large war between the United States
and Russia, we are talking about the possible not certain, but possible extinction of the
human race," Helfand told Agence-France Presse.
other wheat producing countries," Helfand stated.
explains, citing previous studies,

A Nuclear War would have devastating effects

Nichols, 2014 ( Mary Nichols, design & Trend Contributor, Researchers
Simulate the Devastating Effects of Nuclear War For The first Time, Design&Trand,
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/16983/20140721/researchers-simulate-thedevastating-effects-of-nuclear-war-for-the-first-time.htm, July 21, 2014)
Worldwide famine, deadly frosts, global ozone losses of up to 50 per cent
and more would be the reality for any remaining inhabitants of the planet still remaining after a
nuclear conflict. The researchers hope their study of what they call a relatively 'small' nuclear war will
serve as a deterrent against such weapons being used by any nation in the future, writes The Daily Mail.
Researchers use computer models to simulate the study, in a paper called 'Multidecadal
global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear
conflict.' They looked at the outcome of a 'limited, regional nuclear war
between India and Pakistan in which each side detonates 50 15-kiloton weapons.' They then used
computer models to examine the impact on the planet and the environment. The
immediate result of 100 nuclear weapons roughly the size of those
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being detonated would be the release
of five megatons of black carbon into the atmosphere, researchers wrote in the paper.
Black carbon would block out the sun. Following a spell of black carbon
rain, a deadly weather front that would devastate what remained of
humanity following the nuclear war and temperature of Earth would begin
to drop into winter, writes The Daily Mail. After a year the temperature would
fall by 1C (2F), while after five it would be 1.5C (3F) cooler than it is
now. About 20 years after the conflict would warm again to just 1F (0.5C) below today's temperature.
Accompanying what the researchers call 'the coldest average surface
temperatures in the last 1,000 years' would be a huge loss in ozone levels,
writes The Daily Mail. They say that global ozone losses of 20 to 50 per cent would
occur over populated areas in 'levels unprecedented in human history'.
The drop in temperature would also produce 'killing frosts', that would
reduce the world's growing season by 10 to 40 days. Meanwhile the

eradication of up to half of the ozone would increase UV rays in some

locations by as much as 80 per cent. Combined with the global cooling, this 'would put
significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global
nuclear famine,' according to the researchers. The dropping temperature would also
decrease the amount of rainfall. Five years after the conflict Earth would
see 9 per cent less rain, while 26 years after the war there would still be
4.5 per cent less rain, writes The Daily Mail. The researchers hope that the study of a small nuclear war
will encourage superpowers such as the U.S. and Russia to discuss nuclear disarmament. 'Knowledge of the impacts
of 100 small nuclear weapons should motivate the elimination of more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that exist
today,' they wrote in the paper.

Impact - Biodiversity
States following UNCLOS is key to oceanic biodiversity artic
shipping
Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen 2013, August 1
http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=ilr
THE ADEQUACY OF THE LAW OF THE SEA AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW TO THE MARINE ARCTIC: INTEGRATED OCEAN MANAGEMENT AND SHIPPING
pages 291-293 Professor at the University of Tromso
The marine environment in the Arctic is under pressure by climate
changes and increasing human activities.1 As a result of the climate changes, the sea ice is
melting, providing new

With increased human activities, such as mining

and oil drilling and tourism, and the opening of new sailing routes,
international shipping in the Arctic is increasing. This traffic includes cruise ships,
opportunities for human activities.

transit, and distance shipping.2 Due to this development, the marine Arctic may come under new and increasing

Shipping may have severe environmental consequences for the

sensitive environment in the marine Arctic. One of the most serious
threats from shipping is the risk of oil spills due to accidents. In the Arctic,
oil pollution may have more severe consequences than in other areas. The
threats.

infrastructure is poorly developed which will make it difficult to respond to oil spills.3 Also, it is recognized that the
marine Arctic is sensitive to operational discharges from the vessels.4 Shipping may also have other environmental
impacts such as physical damage to habitats and the introduction of alien species through the ballast water. The
environmental consequences of Arctic shipping are reviewed in the report Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment to the
Arctic Council.5 One of the recommendations provided in this report is to protect areas that are sensitive to

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea7 Articles 192
and 194 oblige states to protect and preserve the marine environment
against the impacts of shipping.8 The duty reflected in Article 192, to protect and preserve the
shipping.6

marine environment, is recognized as general international law and applies to all states in all maritime zones in the
marine Arctic. The general obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment were extended through the
adoption of the 1992 Convention of Biological Diversity, 9 where principles and obligations to ensure sustainable
use and conservation of ecosystems and the biological diversity, were introduced.10 Under CBD, which is binding to

states are required to assess the biological

diversity, to consider effects of shipping, to take actions to address
adverse effects of shipping, and to protect areas to ensure conservation of
ecosystems, habitats, and species.11 A core element of conservation of marine biodiversity is to
all Arctic states except the United States,

protect sensitive areas, habitats, ecosystems, and species.

Artic biodiversity is a hotspot that is key to global biodiversity

Christine Michel et al , 17 February 2013 http://www.arcticbiodiversity.is/thereport/chapters/marine-ecosystems Contributing Authors: Bodil Bluhm, Violet Ford,
Vincent Gallucci, Anthony J. Gaston, Francisco J. L. Gordillo, Rolf Gradinger, Russ
Hopcroft, Nina Jensen, Kaisu Mustonen, Tero Mustonen, Andrea Niemi, Torkel G.
Nielsen and Hein Rune Skjoldal. Chapter 14. Artic Biodiversity Assessment
Arctic marine ecosystems are important constituents of global
biodiversity. Arctic marine ecosystems are habitats to a vast array of over

5,000 animal species and over 2,000 species of algae and tens of
thousands of microbes (see Josefson & Mokievsky, Chapter 8, Danils et al., Chapter 9 and Lovejoy,
Chapter 11). The marine Arctic also provides habitat for large populations of marine mammals and birds (see Reid
et al., Chapter 3 and Ganter & Gaston, Chapter 4), some of which form colonies that are among the largest seabird

The unique characteristics of Arctic marine ecosystems also

contribute directly to global diversity. For example, Arctic sea ice ecosystems
support biodiversity at various scales ranging from unique microbial
communities to apex predator species such as the polar bear Ursus maritimus and walrus
Odobaenus rosmarus whose ecology is closely associated with the sea ice environment. Indirectly, the Arctic
Ocean plays a key role in shaping the global biodiversity of marine and
terrestrial ecosystems as it plays an essential role in the Earth climate
system. The Arctic Ocean also influences marine ecosystems of the Atlantic Ocean directly, as waters and sea
colonies on the planet.

ice exiting the Arctic Ocean affect the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the North Atlantic.

the Arctic Ocean receives waters from the Pacific and Atlantic
Oceans, and therefore Arctic marine ecosystems are influenced by global
changes that influence biodiversity in these oceans. The Arctic is subject to rapid
Conversely,

environmental changes. The current increase in global temperature is most rapid in the Arctic, with a predicted
summer temperature increase of up to 5 C over this century (IPCC 2007), and surface water temperature
anomalies as high as 5 C recorded in 2007 (Steele et al. 2008). Arctic sea ice, a key defining characteristic of the
Arctic Ocean, is declining faster than forecasted by model simulations (in Meltofte et al., Chapter 1), with the
potential for a summer ice-free Arctic within the next few decades (Stroeve et al. 2007, Wang & Overland 2009).
The effects of these and other environmental changes (e.g. changes in freshwater input, shoreline erosion) on Arctic
marine ecosystems are already documented (e.g. Wassmann et al. 2010, Weslawski et al. 2011). These changes,
together with increased economic interest and development in the Arctic, put pressure on the biodiversity of Arctic
marine ecosystems and on the species that inhabit them.

Hotspots are key to human survival

Sunil K. Nautiyal, Rama Rao Nidamanuri 2010
http://www.nieindia.org/Journal/index.php/ijees/article/view/40 Conserving
Biodiversity in Protected Area of Biodiversity Hotspot in India: A Case Study
hotspots are the world's most biologically rich areas hence recognized
as important ecosystems not important only for the rich biodiversity but
equally important for the human survival as these are the homes for more than 20% of the
The

world's population. India got recognition of one of the mega-diversity countries of world as the country is home of
the two important biodiversity hotspots: the Himalaya in north and the Western Ghats in the southern peninsula.
Policy makers and decision takers have recognized the importance of biodiversity (flora and fauna) and this has
resulted to segregate (in the form of protected areas) the rich and diverse landscape for biodiversity conservation.

An approach which leads towards conservation of biological diversity is

good efforts but such approaches should deal with humans equally who
are residing in biodiversity hotspots since time immemorial . In this endeavor, a
study was conducted in Nagarahole National Park of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, in Karnataka. Our empirical studies
reveal that banning all the human activities in this ecosystem including agriculture, animal husbandry has produced
the results opposite to the approach 'multiple values' of national park. To monitor the impact, existing policies have
been tested from an economic and ecological view-point. Unfortunately, the local livelihoods (most of them belongs
to indigenous tribes) in the area have received setbacks due to the implementation of the policies, though
unintentionally. However, the

ecological perspective is also not showing support for

the approach and framework of the current policies in the hotspots.
Satellite data showed that the temporal pattern of ecosystem processes
has been changing. An integrated approach for ecosystem conservation
and strengthening local institutions for sustainable ecosystem
management in such areas is therefore supported by this study.

Aff answers

Non-Unique
LOST is just a piece of paper- China violating- nobody will
adhere
Bandow, 09 ( Doug Bandow, associet at the CATO institute, paper Promises vs. Real
Cost, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/paper-promisesvs-real-costs, April, 2009)
The international
community might agree that it is wrong to seize ships for ransom, but a
few thugs with guns in Somalia beg to differ. Paper guarantees cannot
stop seajacking. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wants Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea
The return of piracy to the high seas demonstrates the limits of international law.

Treaty, the ultimate in paper guarantees. LOST, which essentially creates a second United Nations, is an artifact of
the collectivist New International Economic Order popular in the 1970s, but it is being resold as a guarantor of

The convention obviously doesnt do anything to prevent

piracy. Moreover, the recent contretemps between the U.S. and Chinese navies
demonstrates that LOSTs navigational guarantees are no more certain.
freedom of the seas.

LOST was crafted to redistribute wealth from First World democracies to Third World autocracies. The USNS

Chinese vessels
harassed the U.S. vessel and ordered it to leave, causing the U.S. Navy to
send in a supporting destroyer. Territorial waters extend just 12 nautical miles, but LOST
Impeccable, an unarmed spy ship, was operating 75 miles from Chinas Hainan Island.

empowers nations to exercise control over resources in the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Washington
contends that U.S. ships are allowed to conduct activities in waters beyond the territorial sea of another state
without prior notification or consent, according to Defense Department spokesman Stewart Upton. Beijing

Chinas contention that

peaceful uses of the ocean do not include spying is plausible . Alas, LOST fails
to offer the clear, unambiguous protection of navigational freedom as
claimed by its proponents. LOST largely codifies customary international law, which favors free
transit. However, the treaty only offers a paper guarantee. Even if LOST
recognizes the Impeccables right to spy, it offers no practical protection
of that right. If China - or Brazil, Malaysia or Pakistan, which also purport to forbid intelligence gathering
disagrees. Washington would seem to have the better argument, though

within their exclusive zones - believes it to be in its interest and ability to prevent foreign passage, it wont spend a
lot of time parsing ambiguous LOST provisions before acting. Geopolitical interest and military capability, not

The problem is likely to grow as Beijing develops a

blue-water navy. Last month, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C.
Blair told the Senate Armed Services Committee: In the past several
years, they have become more aggressive in asserting claims for the
[exclusive zones] which are excessive under almost any international
code. Despite Chinas adherence to LOST. Although the treatys navigational benefits are more theoretical than
real, LOST has significant downsides. Most important, the so-called Part XI governing seabed
juridical technicalities, will triumph.

mining was amended in 1994, but the result is only less bad. LOST was crafted to redistribute wealth from First
World democracies to Third World autocracies. The International Seabed Authority would regulate private ocean
development, mine the seabed itself through an entity called the Enterprise, and pay off favored nations and
groups. Those objectives remain unchanged. Moreover, treaty proponents talk excitedly about new litigation
opportunities created by LOST. Professor William C.G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies wrote
that the convention may prove to be one of the primary battlegrounds for climate change issues in the future. He
dismissed the argument that the document does not authorize such litigation: While very few of the drafters of
[the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] may have contemplated that it would one day become a
mechanism to confront climate change, it clearly may play this role in the future. Environmental activists also look
forward to using LOST Article 207, which directs countries to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and
control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources. Treaty advocates publicly claim the provision
is merely hortatory.

Yet the mandate already has sparked litigation between

Ireland and Britain. Moreover, Citizens for Global Solutions and the World
Wildlife Federation argue that the convention will stop Russia from
polluting the Arctic. They have yet to explain how LOST would bind Russia
but not America. No wonder Bernard H. Oxman of the University of Miami
warned LOST backers to shut up about their plans. He explained:
Experienced international lawyers know where many of the sensitive
nerve endings of governments are. Where possible, they should try to
avoid irritating them. Finally, the United Nations proclaims that LOST is not a static instrument, but
rather a dynamic and evolving body of law that must be vigorously safeguarded and its implementation
aggressively advanced. If you like activist judges at the national level, imagine what you will get at the

Before the Senate approves the Law of the Sea Treaty,

members should consider the tradeoff they would be making. The
convention offers paper benefits but imposes real costs. Its a deal only a
pirate could love.
international level.

UNCLOS bad
LOST pushes Anti- American agenda
Meese 3, ( Meese ad all, reasearchers at the Haritage Foundation, The United
Nations Convention on the Land of the Sea Treaty: the Risks Outweigh the Benefits,
The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/05/theunited-nations-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-the-risks-outweigh-the-benefits,
May, 2007)
UNCLOS has been a contentious issue in the U.S. for a quarter of a
century. International negotiators completed drafting UNCLOS in 1982. It was designed to establish a
comprehensive legal regime for international management of the sea and the resources it contains. Among its
sweeping provisions were several that pertained to the rights of passage by both commercial and naval vessels.

President Ronald
Reagan, however, refused to sign UNCLOS in 1982 because he did not
believe, on balance, that the treaty served U.S. interests. In 1994, however, the
These built on a series of 1950s-era conventions and were supported by the Navy.

Clinton Administration sought and received a package of changes in UNCLOS that it touted as correcting the
problems that led President Reagan to withhold his signature. President Clinton signed the revised treaty and
forwarded it to the Senate. The record shows that the Senate was not convinced that the 1994 changes corrected

As a multilateral treaty
negotiated under the auspices of the U.N, UNCLOS poses the usual risks to
U.S. interests of such multilateral treaties. In the international
organizations created by such treaties, the U.S. often faces regional,
economic, or political blocs that coordinate their votes to support
outcomes counter to U.S. interests. The bloc voting process is frequently
driven by the same overtly anti-American agenda that is often apparent in
the U.N. General Assembly. While the U.S. can achieve positive outcomes in these forums, its
the problems, and it has deferred action on the treaty ever since.

successes are usually limited, having been watered down or coupled with demands from other participating states

One example of U.S. interests being thwarted by

bloc voting is the new U.N. Human Rights Council. The U.S. was a strong proponent of
that it would otherwise not accept.

creating a new body to replace the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which had became a haven for
human rights abusers to protect one another from scrutiny and censure. Once locked into negotiations over the
specifics of the new council, however, the U.S. was repeatedly outnumbered and isolated. As a result, the council
has minimal requirements for membership, and China, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other repressive states
have won council seats. Unsurprisingly, the council has performed just as badly, if not worse, as its predecessor,

Further, U.N.-related multilateral treaties

often create unaccountable international bureaucracies. The UNCLOS bureaucracy is
and the U.S. has declined even to seek a seat on it.

called the International Seabed Authority Secretariat, which is headed by a secretary-general. The Secretariat has a
strong incentive to enhance its own authority at the expense of state sovereignty. Thus University of Virginia School
of Law Professor John Norton Moore describes this sort of treaty as a "law-defining international convention." The
law that is being defined and applied by international bureaucrats is one designed to govern the actions of the

For example, a provision of UNCLOS that

would impose direct levies on the revenues of U.S. companies generated
through the extraction of resources from the deep seabed reveals this
bias against state sovereignty. When international bureaucracies are
unaccountable they, like all unaccountable institutions, seek to insulate
themselves from scrutiny and become prone to corruption. The International
participating states, not to serve their joint interests.

Seabed Authority Secretariat is vulnerable to the same corrupt practices that have been present at the U.N. for

The most pertinent example of this potential for corruption is the

United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal, in which the Iraqi government
benefited from a system of bribes and kickbacks involving billions of
years.

dollars and 2,000 companies in nearly 70 countries. Despite ample evidence of the
U.N.'s systemic weaknesses and vulnerability to corruption, the U.N. General Assembly has yet to adopt the reforms
to increase transparency and accountability proposed by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others. This
example is particularly pertinent considering that the Authority could oversee significant resources through fees
and charges on commercial activities within its authority and potentially create a system of royalties and profit

Many U.N. bodies suffer vulnerability to corruption, mismanagement,

and abuse, and the U.S. should be concerned about the protections in
place to prevent the occurrence of these ills in the International Seabed
Authority. The entire U.N. system should adopt strong, consistent practices to increase transparency and
sharing.

accountability. Until that happens, the U.S. should resist ratifying or acceding to any treaty that relies on U.N.
institutions, funds, or programs to interpret, implement, or enforce its provisions

LOST leaves America open for attack

Cohen, 05
( Bonner Cohnen, 2005, PhD, Law of the Sea Treaty Could Prove Dangerous to
America, http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA534LawofSea.html, November 2005)
As if the war in Iraq and the ever-present threat of a terrorist attack
weren't enough to worry about, the Bush administration may have decided
to resurrect one of the worst foreign-policy ideas to come along in
decades: the Law of the Sea Treaty. Those with long memories may recall that President Reagan
refused to sign the UN-inspired Law of the Sea Treaty in 1982, after his administration's efforts to make the pact
acceptable to the U.S. were roundly rejected by a coalition of developing and communist countries. The treaty's

A
closer look, however, reveals a deeply flawed document still at odds with U.S.
interests. Ostensibly, the treaty establishes an international consensus on the
extent of jurisdiction countries may exercise off their coasts and allocates
rights and duties among nations in all maritime areas. In reality, the treaty -then as now -- represents a fundamental assault on American sovereignty, one
which is all the more troubling in this age of global terrorism . Aside from killing as
supporters now claim it has been "fixed," with the provisions Reagan objected to having been removed.1

many civilians as possible, Al Qaeda and its allies are keen on inflicting economic disruption and environmental
degradation on their enemies. To this end, one of the potentially most devastating weapons in the terrorists' arsenal
is the hijacked supertanker. When loaded with fuel and manned by terrorists, these behemoths can be scuttled or
blown up, spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other toxic materials in or near our coastal

Yet, taken together, the treaty's provisions on the environment,

navigation, and the high seas are woefully inadequate to meet this kind of
unconventional threat and actually make it more likely .3 This point was made
waters.

abundantly clear by Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, in testimony before the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee. "If, for instance, foreign vessels operating on the high seas do not fit into
one of three categories (i.e., they are engaged in piracy, flying no flag or transmitting radio broadcasts), [the treaty]
would prohibit U.S. Navy of Coast Guard vessels from intercepting, searching or seizing them," he noted.4 What's

the treaty undercuts the Bush administration's comprehensive and

innovative plan to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI. This U.S.-led multinational program of
high-seas interdiction, boarding, and searching of vessels suspected of
carrying WMD is, as Mr. Gaffney pointed out, barred by the Law of the Seas Treaty.
Author and defense consultant John M. Leitner, whose involvement with
negotiating the treaty goes back to the 1970s, fears that the pact "would
effectively gut our ability to intercept the vessels of terrorists or hostile
more,

foreign governments even if they were transporting nuclear weapons ."5

"We must ensure," he adds, "that we are not binding the government of the
United States to a legal regime that makes us more vulnerable and trades
the lives of our innocent citizens for the sake of participating in yet
another unnecessary treaty."6 Concerns about national security and
homeland defense are not the only reasons to be concerned about the
treaty. Among other things, the treaty creates a supranational regulatory agency,
the International Seabed Administration, complete with its own judicial
process and the authority to regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface .
It would be staffed by unelected and unaccountable international bureaucrats.7 "The creation of yet another
International Court," Mr. Leitner notes, "where the United States or our citizens can be dragged before politically
motivated foreign jurists to adjudicate and set penalties is not a pleasant prospect."

LOST is just a way to take power over smaller countries

Wadlow, 2014 (Rene Wadlow, president of the Association of world Citizens,

the Law of the Seize, Pacific. Scoop, http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/, July, 2014)

June of each year has been proclaimed by the UN General Assembly as the
Day of the Law of the Sea. However, according to my friend John Logue, Director of Villanova
University Common Heritage Institute who had participated with me as non-government organization
representatives in the 93-week long negotiations in New York and Geneva,

it should be called the

Law of the Seize. What started out in November 1967 with a General Assembly presentation by
Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta as a call to establish a new political and legal regime for the ocean space ended in

It was a mixed bag of successes and

disappointments, but the Convention on the Law of the Sea has now been
ratified by 162 states but not by the United States and certain other
industrialized states. Ambassador Pardos phrase the common heritage of
mankind meant more than a global commons, open to all to exploit . It
implied the establishment of rules by which exploitation of a part of the
earths resources were to be governed, and of institutions capable of
acting on behalf of mankind as a whole. For Pardo, the common heritage of mankind was to
lead to the transformation of world politics. (1) For global citizens, the quality of the Law of the Sea
Convention was of particular significance. The Convention tried to structure what had
been largely customary international law and state practice into a legal
comprehensive treaty. The Convention was an effort to formulate a written constitution for the world
December 1982 with a draft convention.

oceans. It was perhaps the most comprehensive legislative attempt in the annals of international law. The
Convention specified that the greater part of the oceans was considered res communitis, a global common beyond
national ownership, although the diplomats accepted an extension of national sovereignty from three to 12 miles
from the coast line and a new concept of a 200-nauticle mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). However, the UN Law
of the Sea Conference was first and foremost a political conference with over 160 states participating. From the
outset of the conference, it was agreed that the convention had to be drafted by consensus in order to create a
political and legal system for the oceans acceptable to all to manage what Arvid Pardo had called the common
heritage of mankind. During the negotiations, there were groupings that cut across the Cold War divisions of the
times, especially within a group called the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged countries. There were
also informal groups of persons who acted in a private capacity, a mixture of NGO representatives, legal scholars,
and business corporation representatives who prepared suggestions on many of the issues of the conference. (2)

Although the negotiations were carried out by the representatives of

governments, all considered to be equal, there were a number of key
individuals who through their personality, vision, negotiating skills, and
drive played roles well beyond the status in world politics of their states.

Thus, the President of the conference, Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe of Sri Lanka was an outstanding leader, so
much so, that when there was a change in government in Sri Lanka and Amerasingh was replaced as Ambassador
to the UN, it was decided, after heated debates, that he should continue as President of the conference the only
case of a private citizen directing a UN conference. Unfortunately, he died in 1980 before the conference ended so
he did not see the fulfillment of his efforts. He was replaced as President by a man who had already played a key
role as chair of a working group, the very able Tommy Koh of Singapore. Paul Engo of Cameroon, chair of a different
working group, was the dynamic voice of Africa, while Jens Evensen of Norway was the most active and constructive

The conference was, in many ways, a

race against time as unilateral measures by individual states were
breaking old conventional rules, making ocean practices a mixed pattern
of national legislation, and customary international law. Unilateral legislation was
leader among European and North American diplomats.

being passed concerning the two key issues of the conference: national sovereignty beyond the shore line and deep
sea mineral mining. South American states were claiming a 200-mile limit beyond the shore line, and the US
Congress had passed legislation to allow US corporations to mine mineral resources on the sea bed, in particular
manganese nodules.

LOST only take from the US Oil rights

Bell, 2012 (Larry Bell, writer for forbes, Will U.S Sovereignty Be LOST at Sea?
Obama Supports U.N Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenue, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/20/will-u-s-sovereignty-be-lost-at-seaobama-signs-u-n-treaty-that-redistributes-drilling-revenues/, 5/20/12)
A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet
been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations
beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy . If
approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-

As part of the deal, as much as 7% of

U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies
operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to
poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for Americas audacity in perpetuating
prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution. Under current law, oil companies are
required to pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury (typically at a rate of 12 % to 18%) for
oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the northern coast of Alaska. Treasury keeps a portion,
sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.

and the rest goes to Gulf states and to the National Historic Preservation Fund. But if LOST is ratified, about half of
those Treasury revenues, amounting to billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the ISA. We will be required to
pay 1% of those international royalties beginning in the sixth year of production at each site, with rates increasing
at 1% annual increments until the 12th year when they would remain at 7% thereafter. Like the U.N.s Kyoto
Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the

The U.S. would have one vote

out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand
over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it for free. And
who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such
undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China,
Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabweall current voting members of LOST. The
treaty was originally drafted in 1968 at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third
World dictators interested in implementing a scheme to weaken U.S.
power and transferring wealth from industrialized countries to the
developing world. It had been co-authored by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx
sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body.

who ran the World Federation of Canada. In a 1999 speech she declared: The world ocean has been and is so to
speak, our great laboratory for making a new world order. Recognizing this as a global grab, President Reagan

thought it was such a lousy idea that he not only refused to sign, but actually fired the State Department staff that
helped negotiate it.

Lost is a step closer to destruction of U.S sovereignty

Roff, 2012 ( Peter Roff, editor at U.S news & World Report, Kill the Law of

the Sea Treaty, US news, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peterroff/2012/05/10/kill-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty, May 10, 2012

In reality the Law of the Sea Treaty is one more step towards a system of
global governance under which U.S. sovereignty would be subordinated to
an international system managed by an unelected, self-perpetuating form
of bureaucratic aristocracy that cares little for democratic traditions. Which,
Hanna suggests, is one of a series of reasons the Senate should continue to vote down efforts to ratify it. The
Law of the Sea Treaty would do irreparable harm to U.S. military and
intelligence operations and would force the United States to hand over
proprietary technology to countries actively hostile to U.S. interests. It
would also create a system for resolving disputes lying outside the jurisdiction of
the U.S. legal system, leaving American citizens and businesses at the
mercy of international tribunals whose members are not necessarily adherents to Western
political or legal traditions and who may not hail from democratic nations. The Law
of the Sea Treaty, as previously mentioned, establishes a global
bureaucracy that could leave U.S. businesses awash in a sea of
destructive environmental regulations that would be costly and
anticompetitive while these same bureaucrats handed out U.S.
government money to give the economies of unfriendly countries a boost.
The treaty would, Hanna says, impose global royalties and fees on American
energy companies that will destroy U.S. jobs and make energy from
traditional sources like natural gas and oil even more expensive . It might
also embolden the military of countries like the People's Republic of China,
who could use its language to justify a more aggressive posture in the
South China Sea, while at the same time impeding the ability of the United
States to interdict weapons of mass destruction being transported from
one nation to another on the high seas.

China DA

1NCs

Generic
China taking the lead on Ocean Exploration and Development
New Diving Record Looking for further dominance now
Yuanqing 7/3/14 (Sun Yuanqing, China Daily, China takes lead in underwater exploration, July 3,
2014, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2014-07/03/content_17639033.htm ds)
In the 1930s, 18-year-old Austrian biology student Hans Hass went diving off the southern coast of France for the
first time. Some 80 years later, the legendary diving pioneer remains an inspiration for underwater adventurers,
most recently the Chinese.

The Jiaolong submersible won the 2014 Hans Hass Fifty

Fathoms Award in Sanya, Hainan province, in June. The award is jointly given by the
Historical Diving Society Hans Hass Award Committee and Swiss watchmaker Blancpain. The submersible,
independently developed in China, reached as deep as 7,062 meters in the
Mariana Trench in the western Pacific Ocean in 2012, setting a new record
among Chinese divers. The committee initiated a double prize for Cui Weicheng, deputy chief designer
of Jiaolong, for his individual achievements, and the State Oceanic Administration for its support in building the
submersible. The award has been honoring individuals for excellence in underwater science and technology since
2003. Previous recipients include renowned film director and diving pioneer James Cameron and Stan Waterman,
pioneering underwater film producer and photographer. This is the first time a Chinese project has won the award.

"Today, it is China that is leading the world in its commitment to manned deep
ocean exploration," says Krov Menuhin, chairman of the award committee and advisory board member at
the Historical Diving Society, an international non-profit organization that studies man's underwater activities and
promotes public awareness of the ocean. "And the far-sighted vision, the courage and the immense engagement to
implement this program is in keeping with the pioneering spirit of Hans Hass. He entered the ocean with the same
vision, courage and commitment," he says. The winners received a framed cast bronze plaque, with an image of
Hans Hass, designed by ocean artist Wyland. And Blancpain presented them Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe diving
watches with specially engraved cases. The brand will serve as the official time keeper for Jiaolong's future
underwater expeditions. It also announced a collaboration with the State Oceanic Administration to launch projects
to raise public consciousness of the ocean in China in the coming years. The details are still being discussed. "We
are very impressed with Jiaolong with its ability to constantly dive into new depths, especially its crew, whose

courage, focus and action enabled them to reach new frontiers all the
time," says Marc Junod, vice-president and head of sales at Blancpain. The research and development of Jiaolong
basically started from zero in 2002. None of the crew members had seen, let alone been in, a virtual submersible
before. Fu Wentao, one of the oceanauts of Jiaolong, shared his experience underwater, including encounters with
curious creatures. "Unlike the terrestrial creatures, those under the water are not cautious at all. They are actually

Cui is planning to launch a project to

develop a submersible that will be able to dive as deep as 11,000 meters
with financial support from both the government and the private sector.
very curious and will even swim toward us," Fu says.

"The combination will fuel faster development in underwater science," Cui says. "The sea is vast and rich, but we

While funds for the financing of manned

deep-ocean explorations in the West are drying up, China has just
committed to a long-term project that will change the way everyone thinks
about the sea, says Menuhin. As the creator of the world's first modern diving wristwatch, Blancpain has
have a lot of research to do before we can exploit it."

long been a supporter of major manned deep-water explorations. "We are not just getting involved today because it
is trendy to protect the Ocean. Our philosophy is to help as many people as possible to learn about, and get familiar
with, the underwater world. Because we believe that people can only respect and protect what they love. And they
can only love what they know," says Junod.

US and China cannot cooperate multiple barriers in the way

influence is zero sum and wont change their stance on South
China Sea
Manning 13 (Robert A. Manning is a senior fellow of the Brent Scowcroft Center for International Security
at the Atlantic Council. He served as a senior counselor to the undersecretary of state for global affairs from 2001 to

2004 and a member of the U.S. Department of State Policy Planning Staff from 2004 to 2008, The National Interest,
U.S., China Drift Toward Zero Sum, July 22, 2013, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/us-china-drift-towardzero-sum-8754?page=2 ds)
For all the soaring rhetoric of the Obama-Xi Summit about the US and China committing to forge a bold, new partnership and avoiding a
1914-like stumbling into conflict, one could be forgiven for thinking the bilateral relationship is lapsing into a same old, same old
ritualistic diplomacy. The modest headlines generated at this months so-called Strategic and Economic Dialogue (SED)that the

United States and China agreed to launch talks on a Bilateral Investment Treaty and some new cooperation on
climate changewere small steps in the right direction. But they hardly rise to the level of tipping the
part cooperative, part competitive relationship toward a more mutually
beneficial partnership between the worlds two largest economies. The
imperative to move beyond what some have dubbed a sweet and sour bilateral relationship was underscored by a Pew Global
Survey released on July 17. The poll confirmed that mutual distrust is growing: Chinas
approval rating in the United States dropped by 14 percent to 37 percent; negative views of the United States in China rose by 9 percent
to 53 percent since a similar 2011 poll. In fact, administration officials privately confirm news reports that they were disappointed and a

the Chinese were also not pleased either as their

U.S. counterparts ran down the laundry list of complaintsfrom cyber and
trade to maritime behavior and proliferation. On the hot button issue of cybersecurity, for
bit frustrated at the outcomes. I suspect

example, with an apparent lack of urgency, they held the first meeting of the Cyber Working Group, and agreed only to enhance
dialogue. As a report in the New York Times observed,

It was a measure of how little was agreed

upon that at a dinner on Thursday night, at the end of the meetings, the Chinese and Americans spent much of their time praising
their cooperation on a single project: Building a Chinese garden at the national arboretum. This stands in stark
contrast to the ongoing Chinese charm offensive trumpeting their desire for a
new type of great power relationship, heralded as a cooperative winwin approach. Of course, Chinas campaign, a successor its peaceful rise propaganda is filled
with things the United States should stop doing (e.g. selling arms to Taiwan, reverse the pivot,
ignore the Dalai Lama, etc.). But a careful search of Chinese writings is devoid of answers to the
question of what China would do differently in this wondrous new relationship.
So, no surprise it was precisely on key irritants and sources of strategic distrust in the relationship Chinese cybertheft,
exchange rates, WTO compliance and geopolitical tensions in East Asia over disputed East and South
China Sea territoriesthat little progress occurred. Some Points of Light On the plus side of the
strategic checklist, China appears to be moving closer to the U.S. position on North Korea, distancing itself from its wayward ally (as was
also evidenced at the Obama-Xi Summit). Beijing, a U.S. official remarked to me, is talking to us about North Korea in ways it never
would before. Whether this is a tactical shift or a strategic move remains to be seen, but Beijing is keeping more distance from and
squeezing Pyongyang more than it has in the past. In addition, while separate from the SED, I am reliably told that more productive
military-to-military talks are moving forward after a long period that greatly frustrated many at DOD and the Pacific Command. There
was modest positive movement on some economic issues. If the United States and China can negotiate a strong investment treaty, it
would open access to a range of Chinese markets for U.S. investment. Whether vague statements to pursue cooperation in areas such as
climate change, nuclear security and counterterrorism will result in more than exchanges of scripted talking points remains to be seen.
But some of the actions at the state and local levels such as eco-partnerships and eco-cities may be more interesting, perhaps
developing deeper sinews of the relationship between cities, states and civil society than at the national state-to-state level. Curiously,
one development with the potential to become a very important economic and environmental aspect of the relationship went all but
unnoticed. China, which has larger recoverable shale gas reserves than the United States (but has yet to develop them) announced a
move to accelerate developing a legal and regulatory framework for Unconventional Oil and Gas (shale and tight oil). The complex
geology of Chinas shale, water shortages and a technology deficit are impediments to the realization of its shale gas prospects. U.S.
firms have technology that could more quickly develop Chinas shale gas, but are fearful of the predatory practices of Chinese state oil
companies. This may be an area where public-private partnerships and agile energy diplomacy could make a difference. Apart from the
economic benefits, China is still nearly 70 percent dependent on coal, and developing shale gas could allow them to convert electric
power plants from coal to gas. Given that China is the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse-gas emissions, that could be a major move
to combat climate change. Lessons Learned Whether U.S.-Chinese bilateral ties can tip the balance toward a more cooperative and less
strategically competitive relationship clearly remains an open question. If diplomatic creatures like the SED are the main tools to
manage the relationship, one must be skeptical that layers of mutual distrust will be sufficiently dissipated, and new habits of
cooperation (or at least compatibility) be fostered. Instead, the whole SED experience seems to reaffirm the importance of setting and
maintaining priorities. A new chapter in U.S.-Chinese relations also requires sustained high-level focus: who is the point person in the
U.S. government and who is their Chinese counterpart? Cybersecurity is too critical an issue to languish in an SED Working Group. If we
are serious, why not have the U.S. cyber chief meet with their Chinese counterpart? Similarly, on the respective U.S. and Chinese
postures in East Asia, new understandings need to be reached as to what each side can live with. And it would be helpfulif only to
counter Chinese paranoia and conspiracy theoriesif the administration would clearly articulate that China would be welcome to join the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). A major regional trade accord without the worlds largest trading power would be of dubious virtue. As
China institutes its next wave of economic reforms, meeting TPPs high standards will be in its own interest to be competitive. There is a
compelling, rational case for Washington and Beijing to move toward a more cooperative relationship for mutual benefit. It is difficult to
see global prosperity and a stable international system endurelet alone address global problems like climate changewith

the

United States and China drifting toward zero-sum competition . But history is littered
with conflicts sparked by irrational actors. It will require leadership and vision from both sides to get past the current security

dilemma behavior and worst-case fears. But absent that, muddle-through management of the relationship may run out of fingers to put
in the dikes over time.

China tightening grip on South China Sea High risk of

miscalculation Plan could tip it over the edge
Gertz 14 (Bill Gertz, American editor, columnist and reporter for The Washington Free Beacon and The
Washington Times, Inside the Ring: U.S., China in war of words over South China Sea air zone February 12, 2014,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/12/inside-the-ring-obama-pushback-against-china-is-pr/?page=all
ds)

The Obama administration appears to be launching a new diplomatic push

to prevent China from imposing another destabilizing air defense zone over
international waters. China watchers say the administrations pushback against China is probably too
little, too late, as China reportedly is making legal preparations for the new air
defense zone over the South China Sea. Administration political messaging has been
confused, vacillating between statements of U.S. neutrality in maritime disputes and mild statements of support for
regional friends and allies, analysts say. In an apparent attempt to remedy the problem, senior military leaders and
White House and State Department officials in recent days issued relatively tough warnings to Beijing not to impose

China heightened
tensions in the region late last year by imposing an ADIZ over the East
China Sea, including waters off Japans Senkaku islands that China claims as its
territory. Japan, South Korea and the United States said they will ignore Chinas
claims over the sea. Recently, U.S. intelligence agencies warned that China
appears to be readying another zone over the South China Sea, a move
that is expected to set off further confrontations with Southeast Asian states including
an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the contested South China Sea.

Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia, which use the waters for fishing and are eyeing undersea oil and gas deposits.
On Monday, Air Force Gen. Herbert Hawk Carlisle, commander of U.S. air forces in the Pacific, bluntly stated that
Chinas imposition of a South China Sea ADIZ would be a very provocative act.

The risk from

miscalculation is high. Its greater than it should be , Gen. Carlisle told Bloomberg
News in Singapore.

A Southern China Sea war goes nuclear

Rehmen 13 (Iskander Rehmen, an associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment
and a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow. His research focuses on security and crisis stability in Asia, specifically the
geopolitical ramifications of naval nuclearization in the Indian Ocean, Dragon in a Bathtub: Chinese Nuclear
Submarines and the South China Sea, March 19, 2013, http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/09/dragon-inbathtub-chinese-nuclear-submarines-and-south-china-sea/fpjl ds)

Despite Americas best efforts to construct stronger ties with China,

relations in-between both countries have been repeatedly buffeted by a
series of tensions and misunderstandings. Many of these frictions appear to have resulted
from a more assertive Chinese posture in the South China Sea. Almost every week, Asian headlines seem to be
dominated by reports of jingoistic statements over disputed islets, or of a renewed bout of aggressive maneuvering
by boats from one of Beijings numerous maritime agencies. When attempting to explain this upsurge in Chinese
pugnacity, analysts have pointed to the rising power's selective interpretation of the law of the sea and growing
unwillingness to compromise over what it calls its blue national soil, particularly when confronted with an
increasingly intransigent domestic populace. Others have pointed to the more immediately tangible benefits to be
derived from the presence of numerous offshore oil and gas deposits within contested waters. Strangely enough,
however,

one of the principal explanations for Chinas increased prickliness

towards foreign military presence within its maritime backyard has yet to

be clearly articulated. Indeed, not only is the South China Sea one of the
worlds busiest trade thoroughfares, it also happens to be the roaming
pen of Chinas emerging ballistic missile submarine fleet, which is stationed at
Sanya, on the tropical Island of Hainan. The United States, with its array of advanced anti-submarine
warfare assets and hydrographic research vessels deployed throughout the region, gives Beijing the
unwelcome impression that Uncle Sam cant stop peering into its nuclear
nursery. When Chinese naval strategists discuss their maritime environs, the sentiment they convey is one of
perpetual embattlement. Pointing to the USs extended network of allies in the Indo-Pacific region, and to their own
relative isolation, Chinese strategists fear that Beijings growing navy could be ensnared within the first island
chain-a region which they describe as stretching from Japan all the way to the Indonesian archipelago. Applying this
maritime siege mentality to naval planning; they fret that the US Navy could locate and neutralize their fledgling
undersea deterrent in the very first phases of conflict, before it even manages to slip through the chinks of first
island chain. This concern helps explain China's growing intolerance to foreign military activities in the South China
Sea. Tellingly, some of the most nerve-wracking standoffs involving US and Chinese forces have unfolded in close
proximity to Hainan. The infamous Ep-3 crisis, during which a US spy plane entered into collision with a Chinese
fighter jet, occurred while the planes crew was attempting to collect intelligence on naval infrastructure
development. Similarly, the USNS Impeccable incident, during which a US hydrographic vessel was dangerously
harassed by five Chinese ships, took place approximately seventy miles to the south of Hainan. During the
confrontation, Chinese sailors reportedly attempted to unhook the Impeccables towed acoustic array sonars. In
public, China's protests over foreign military activities are couched in territorial terms. In private, however,

Chinese policymakers readily acknowledge the centrality of the nuclear

dimension. Thus in the course of a discussion with a former Chinese official, I was told that even though
territorial issues are of importance, our major concern is the sanctity of our future sea-based deterrent. He then
went on to describe, with a flicker of amusement, how fishermen off the coast of Hainan regularly snag US sonars in
their nets, and are encouraged to sell them back to the local authorities in exchange for financial compensation. Of
course, such cat and mouse games are nothing new-and are perfectly legal- provided they occur within
international waters or airspace. During the Cold War, American and Soviet ships would frequently conduct forward
intelligence gathering missions, sometimes in very close proximity to each others shores. At the time, American
thinkers cautioned that such risky behavior could potentially lead to misinterpretation and nuclear disaster. Unlike
the Soviets, however, who could confine the movements of their boomers to the frigid, lonely waters of the Barents

Chinese have chosen to erect their nuclear submarine base

smack-bang in the middle of one of the worlds busiest maritime
highways. Needless to say, this location is hardly ideal. When it comes to picking strategic
and Okhotsk seas, the

real-estate in their near seas, the Chinese have but a limited roster of options. After all, their maritime backyard is
girded by a sturdy palisade of states which increasingly view Chinas meteoric rise, and attendant truculence at sea,
with a mixture of alarm and dismay. Like a dragon caught floundering in a bathtub, Chinas naval ambitions are
simply too broad and grandiose for its constricted maritime geography. This perceived lack of strategic depth
provides a partial explanation to Beijings increased obduracy over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In

China aims to establish a ring of

maritime watch towers or bastions around Hainan. Absolute control over the remote
order to better protect its valuable subsurface assets,

Spratly islands, in addition to the more proximate Paracels, would greatly facilitate this concentric defensive
configuration. Until not long ago, Chinas strategic submarine force wasnt really taken seriously. Their lone 0-92 Xia
class boat was deemed too antiquated-and noisy-to be anything more than a symbol of Beijings desire for great
power status. Some observers had ventured that China would be content to rely almost exclusively on its rapidly
modernizing land-based missile system for its deterrent. Recent developments, however, suggest that this may be
about to change. In its latest report to Congress, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated
that China could soon equip its new class of Jin submarines with the JL-2 ballistic missile, which has a range of

This would enable Beijing, the report adds, to establish a

near-continuous at-sea strategic deterrent. In all likelihood this force will be berthed at
Hainan. The second Obama Administration will therefore have the unenviable
task of dealing with tensions in a region which is not only riddled with
territorial divisions, but is also rapidly morphing into one of the worlds
most sensitive nuclear hotspots.
approximately 4 600 miles.

OTEC 1NC
China taking the lead on Ocean Exploration and Development
New Diving Record Looking for further dominance now
Yuanqing 7/3/14 (Sun Yuanqing, China Daily, China takes lead in underwater exploration, July 3,
2014, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2014-07/03/content_17639033.htm ds)
In the 1930s, 18-year-old Austrian biology student Hans Hass went diving off the southern coast of France for the
first time. Some 80 years later, the legendary diving pioneer remains an inspiration for underwater adventurers,
most recently the Chinese.

The Jiaolong submersible won the 2014 Hans Hass Fifty

Fathoms Award in Sanya, Hainan province, in June. The award is jointly given by the
Historical Diving Society Hans Hass Award Committee and Swiss watchmaker Blancpain. The submersible,
independently developed in China, reached as deep as 7,062 meters in the
Mariana Trench in the western Pacific Ocean in 2012, setting a new record
among Chinese divers. The committee initiated a double prize for Cui Weicheng, deputy chief designer
of Jiaolong, for his individual achievements, and the State Oceanic Administration for its support in building the
submersible. The award has been honoring individuals for excellence in underwater science and technology since
2003. Previous recipients include renowned film director and diving pioneer James Cameron and Stan Waterman,
pioneering underwater film producer and photographer. This is the first time a Chinese project has won the award.

"Today, it is China that is leading the world in its commitment to manned

deep ocean exploration," says Krov Menuhin, chairman of the award committee and advisory board
member at the Historical Diving Society, an international non-profit organization that studies man's underwater
activities and promotes public awareness of the ocean. "And the far-sighted vision, the courage and the immense
engagement to implement this program is in keeping with the pioneering spirit of Hans Hass. He entered the ocean
with the same vision, courage and commitment," he says. The winners received a framed cast bronze plaque, with
an image of Hans Hass, designed by ocean artist Wyland. And Blancpain presented them Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe
diving watches with specially engraved cases. The brand will serve as the official time keeper for Jiaolong's future
underwater expeditions. It also announced a collaboration with the State Oceanic Administration to launch projects
to raise public consciousness of the ocean in China in the coming years. The details are still being discussed. "We
are very impressed with Jiaolong with its ability to constantly dive into new depths, especially its crew, whose

courage, focus and action enabled them to reach new frontiers all the
time," says Marc Junod, vice-president and head of sales at Blancpain. The research and development of Jiaolong
basically started from zero in 2002. None of the crew members had seen, let alone been in, a virtual submersible
before. Fu Wentao, one of the oceanauts of Jiaolong, shared his experience underwater, including encounters with
curious creatures. "Unlike the terrestrial creatures, those under the water are not cautious at all. They are actually

Cui is planning to launch a project to

develop a submersible that will be able to dive as deep as 11,000 meters
with financial support from both the government and the private sector.
very curious and will even swim toward us," Fu says.

"The combination will fuel faster development in underwater science," Cui says. "The sea is vast and rich, but we

While funds for the financing of manned

deep-ocean explorations in the West are drying up, China has just
committed to a long-term project that will change the way everyone thinks
about the sea, says Menuhin. As the creator of the world's first modern diving wristwatch, Blancpain has
have a lot of research to do before we can exploit it."

long been a supporter of major manned deep-water explorations. "We are not just getting involved today because it
is trendy to protect the Ocean. Our philosophy is to help as many people as possible to learn about, and get familiar
with, the underwater world. Because we believe that people can only respect and protect what they love. And they
can only love what they know," says Junod.

US and China cannot cooperate multiple barriers in the way

influence is zero sum in multiple aspects
Manning 13 (Robert A. Manning is a senior fellow of the Brent Scowcroft Center for International Security
at the Atlantic Council. He served as a senior counselor to the undersecretary of state for global affairs from 2001 to

2004 and a member of the U.S. Department of State Policy Planning Staff from 2004 to 2008, The National Interest,
U.S., China Drift Toward Zero Sum, July 22, 2013, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/us-china-drift-towardzero-sum-8754?page=2 ds)
For all the soaring rhetoric of the Obama-Xi Summit about the US and China committing to forge a bold, new
partnership and avoiding a 1914-like stumbling into conflict, one could be forgiven for thinking the bilateral
relationship is lapsing into a same old, same old ritualistic diplomacy. The modest headlines generated at this

Strategic and Economic Dialogue (SED)that the United States and China
agreed to launch talks on a Bilateral Investment Treaty and some new cooperation on climate changewere small
steps in the right direction. But they hardly rise to the level of tipping the part
cooperative, part competitive relationship toward a more mutually
beneficial partnership between the worlds two largest economies. The
imperative to move beyond what some have dubbed a sweet and sour bilateral relationship was underscored by a
Pew Global Survey released on July 17. The poll confirmed that mutual distrust is
growing: Chinas approval rating in the United States dropped by 14 percent to 37 percent; negative views of
months so-called

the United States in China rose by 9 percent to 53 percent since a similar 2011 poll. In fact, administration officials

the
Chinese were also not pleased either as their U.S. counterparts ran down
the laundry list of complaintsfrom cyber and trade to maritime behavior
and proliferation. On the hot button issue of cybersecurity, for example, with an apparent lack of urgency,
privately confirm news reports that they were disappointed and a bit frustrated at the outcomes. I suspect

they held the first meeting of the Cyber Working Group, and agreed only to enhance dialogue. As a report in the New
York Times observed, It was a measure of how little was agreed upon that at a dinner on
Thursday night, at the end of the meetings, the Chinese and Americans spent much of their time praising their

This stands in stark

contrast to the ongoing Chinese charm offensive trumpeting their desire for a
new type of great power relationship, heralded as a cooperative winwin approach. Of course, Chinas campaign, a successor its peaceful rise propaganda is
filled with things the United States should stop doing (e.g. selling arms to Taiwan,
cooperation on a single project: Building a Chinese garden at the national arboretum.

reverse the pivot, ignore the Dalai Lama, etc.). But a careful search of Chinese writings is devoid of answers to the
question of what China would do differently in this wondrous new relationship. So, no surprise it was precisely on key
irritants and sources of strategic distrust in the relationshipChinese cybertheft, exchange rates, WTO compliance
and geopolitical tensions in East Asia over disputed East and South China Sea territoriesthat little progress
occurred. Some Points of Light On the plus side of the strategic checklist, China appears to be moving closer to the
U.S. position on North Korea, distancing itself from its wayward ally (as was also evidenced at the Obama-Xi Summit).
Beijing, a U.S. official remarked to me, is talking to us about North Korea in ways it never would before. Whether
this is a tactical shift or a strategic move remains to be seen, but Beijing is keeping more distance from and
squeezing Pyongyang more than it has in the past. In addition, while separate from the SED, I am reliably told that
more productive military-to-military talks are moving forward after a long period that greatly frustrated many at DOD
and the Pacific Command. There was modest positive movement on some economic issues. If the United States and
China can negotiate a strong investment treaty, it would open access to a range of Chinese markets for U.S.
investment. Whether vague statements to pursue cooperation in areas such as climate change, nuclear security and
counterterrorism will result in more than exchanges of scripted talking points remains to be seen. But some of the
actions at the state and local levels such as eco-partnerships and eco-cities may be more interesting, perhaps
developing deeper sinews of the relationship between cities, states and civil society than at the national state-tostate level. Curiously, one development with the potential to become a very important economic and environmental
aspect of the relationship went all but unnoticed. China, which has larger recoverable shale gas reserves than the
United States (but has yet to develop them) announced a move to accelerate developing a legal and regulatory
framework for Unconventional Oil and Gas (shale and tight oil). The complex geology of Chinas shale, water
shortages and a technology deficit are impediments to the realization of its shale gas prospects. U.S. firms have
technology that could more quickly develop Chinas shale gas, but are fearful of the predatory practices of Chinese
state oil companies. This may be an area where public-private partnerships and agile energy diplomacy could make a
difference. Apart from the economic benefits, China is still nearly 70 percent dependent on coal, and developing
shale gas could allow them to convert electric power plants from coal to gas. Given that China is the worlds largest
emitter of greenhouse-gas emissions, that could be a major move to combat climate change. Lessons Learned
Whether U.S.-Chinese bilateral ties can tip the balance toward a more cooperative and less strategically competitive
relationship clearly remains an open question. If diplomatic creatures like the SED are the main tools to manage the
relationship, one must be skeptical that layers of mutual distrust will be sufficiently dissipated, and new habits of
cooperation (or at least compatibility) be fostered. Instead, the whole SED experience seems to reaffirm the
importance of setting and maintaining priorities. A new chapter in U.S.-Chinese relations also requires sustained
high-level focus: who is the point person in the U.S. government and who is their Chinese counterpart? Cybersecurity
is too critical an issue to languish in an SED Working Group. If we are serious, why not have the U.S. cyber chief meet
with their Chinese counterpart? Similarly, on the respective U.S. and Chinese postures in East Asia, new
understandings need to be reached as to what each side can live with. And it would be helpfulif only to counter

Chinese paranoia and conspiracy theoriesif the administration would clearly articulate that China would be
welcome to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). A major regional trade accord without the worlds largest trading
power would be of dubious virtue. As China institutes its next wave of economic reforms, meeting TPPs high
standards will be in its own interest to be competitive. There is a compelling, rational case for Washington and
Beijing to move toward a more cooperative relationship for mutual benefit. It is difficult to see global prosperity and
a stable international system endurelet alone address global problems like climate changewith

the United

States and China drifting toward zero-sum competition. But history is littered with
conflicts sparked by irrational actors. It will require leadership and vision from both sides to get past the current
security dilemma behavior and worst-case fears. But absent that, muddle-through management of the relationship
may run out of fingers to put in the dikes over time.

China told the US to stay out of the South China Sea and is
willing to defend it
Blanchard, 7/15 (Ben Blanchard, China tells U.S. to stay out of South China Seas dispute, 7/15/14,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/15/us-china-usa-asean-idUSKBN0FK0CM20140715) j.shack

China told the United States on Tuesday to stay out of disputes over the
South China Sea and leave countries in the region to resolve problems
(Reuters) -

themselves, after Washington said it wanted a freeze on stoking tension. Michael Fuchs, U.S. deputy assistant

secretary of state for Strategy and Multilateral Affairs, said no country

was solely responsible for escalating tension in the region . But he reiterated the
U.S. view that "provocative and unilateral" behaviour by China had raised
questions about its willingness to abide by international law . China claims
90 percent of the South China Sea, which is believed to contain oil and gas
deposits and has rich fishery resources. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Vietnam and Taiwan also lay claim to parts of the sea, where about $5
trillion of ship-borne trade passes every year. China's Foreign Ministry repeated that it had
irrefutable sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, where most of the competing claims overlap, and that China
continued to demand the immediate withdrawal of personnel and equipment
of countries which were "illegally occupying" China's islands. "What is regretful is
that certain countries have in recent years have strengthened their illegal
presence through construction and increased arms build up ," the ministry said in a
statement. China would resolutely protect its sovereignty and maritime rights
and had always upheld resolving the issue based on direct talks with the countries involved "on the basis of
respecting historical facts and international law", it added .

the region

China "hopes that countries outside

maintain their neutrality, clearly distinguish right from wrong and earnestly
in
reference to the United States. Recent months have seen flare-ups in disputes over rival offshore
claims. Anti-Chinese riots erupted in Vietnam in May after China's state oil company
CNOOC deployed an oil rig in waters also claimed by Vietnam , which has also
strictly

respect the joint efforts of countries in the region to maintain regional peace and stability", it added ,

accused China of harassing its fishermen China's official Xinhua news agency said authorities had on Tuesday
deported 13 Vietnamese fishermen and released one of two trawlers seized recently for illegally fishing close Sanya
on the southern tip of China's Hainan island. Relations between China and the Philippines have also been tested in
recent months by their dispute over a different area. A Foreign Ministry spokesman in Manila said the Philippines

The United States wants

the 10-nation Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China to have "a real
and substantive discussion" to flesh out a call for self-restraint contained in a Declaration of Conduct
strongly supported the U.S. call for all sides to stop aggravating the tension.

they agreed to in 2002, with a view to signing a formal maritime Code of Conduct, Fuchs said. A U.S. official said the
issue was raised again last week with China at an annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue, a bilateral forum that
seeks to manage an increasingly complex and at times testy relationship. China's Foreign Ministry said that it and
ASEAN were carrying out the Declaration of Conduct and "steadily pushing forward" talks on the Code of Conduct.

The Plan places OTEC in the South China Sea best

temperature differential
UTM, 13 (Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, OTEC potential OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN
MALAYSIA, 1/3/13, http://utmotec.wordpress.com/about/) j.shack
Malaysia is not yet on any global map showing the areas with the potential of generating ocean-thermal energy.

marine survey in the South China Sea during the

period 2006-08 (MyMRS), it has been confirmed that indeed the temperature at the bottom
of the North-Borneo Trough (and also known as Sabah Tough ) at a water depth of 2900 metres
(m) is about 3C, compared to that of the surface at about 29 C. According to the
popular scientific literature, any area with such a temperature-differential of over
22 C has the potential generating not only renewable energy but also
freshwater. Ocean thermal energy conversion relies on the fact that water near the
surface is heated by sunlight while seawater deep in the dark is much
colder. OTEC plants use warm surface water to heat ammonia or some
other fluid that boils at a low temperature. The resulting gas is used to drive turbines that
produce electricity. The gas is then cooled by cold water pumped up from the ocean depths
and the resulting fluid is recycled to help generate power . In other words OTEC is a
However, with the completion of a recent

power plant to use warm surface seawater to evaporate working fluid of ammonia-water, and then the ammonia
vapor drives turbines to generate electricity. The ammonia vapor is cooled by cold deep seawater to be condensed
and the re-liquefied ammonia-water is recycled as the working fluid. Sabah Trough It is located just some 100
kilometres off the Sabah coast.

Look for it in Google maps and a red blimp marks its

watery location in the South China Sea. Above water, theres nothing to see, which is just as
well, as the action only takes place about 2,900 metres down. And to understand the significance of the Sabah
Trough, you must know that between 2006 and 2008, a marine survey would show a 4C reading of the bottom

this is a remarkable find

in the field of science as any area with a temperature-differential of over
22C not only has the potential to generate fresh water, but renewable
energy as well.
temperature while the surface reading fell close to 29C. For the uninitiated,

A Southern China Sea war goes nuclear

Rehmen 13 (Iskander Rehmen, an associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment
and a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow. His research focuses on security and crisis stability in Asia, specifically the
geopolitical ramifications of naval nuclearization in the Indian Ocean, Dragon in a Bathtub: Chinese Nuclear
Submarines and the South China Sea, March 19, 2013, http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/09/dragon-inbathtub-chinese-nuclear-submarines-and-south-china-sea/fpjl ds)

Despite Americas best efforts to construct stronger ties with China,

relations in-between both countries have been repeatedly buffeted by a
series of tensions and misunderstandings. Many of these frictions appear to have resulted
from a more assertive Chinese posture in the South China Sea. Almost every week, Asian headlines seem to be
dominated by reports of jingoistic statements over disputed islets, or of a renewed bout of aggressive maneuvering
by boats from one of Beijings numerous maritime agencies. When attempting to explain this upsurge in Chinese
pugnacity, analysts have pointed to the rising power's selective interpretation of the law of the sea and growing
unwillingness to compromise over what it calls its blue national soil, particularly when confronted with an
increasingly intransigent domestic populace. Others have pointed to the more immediately tangible benefits to be
derived from the presence of numerous offshore oil and gas deposits within contested waters. Strangely enough,
however,

one of the principal explanations for Chinas increased prickliness

towards foreign military presence within its maritime backyard has yet to
be clearly articulated. Indeed, not only is the South China Sea one of the
worlds busiest trade thoroughfares, it also happens to be the roaming
pen of Chinas emerging ballistic missile submarine fleet, which is stationed at
Sanya, on the tropical Island of Hainan. The United States, with its array of advanced anti-submarine
warfare assets and hydrographic research vessels deployed throughout the region, gives Beijing the
unwelcome impression that Uncle Sam cant stop peering into its nuclear
nursery. When Chinese naval strategists discuss their maritime environs, the sentiment they convey is one of
perpetual embattlement. Pointing to the USs extended network of allies in the Indo-Pacific region, and to their own
relative isolation, Chinese strategists fear that Beijings growing navy could be ensnared within the first island
chain-a region which they describe as stretching from Japan all the way to the Indonesian archipelago. Applying this
maritime siege mentality to naval planning; they fret that the US Navy could locate and neutralize their fledgling
undersea deterrent in the very first phases of conflict, before it even manages to slip through the chinks of first
island chain. This concern helps explain China's growing intolerance to foreign military activities in the South China
Sea. Tellingly, some of the most nerve-wracking standoffs involving US and Chinese forces have unfolded in close
proximity to Hainan. The infamous Ep-3 crisis, during which a US spy plane entered into collision with a Chinese
fighter jet, occurred while the planes crew was attempting to collect intelligence on naval infrastructure
development. Similarly, the USNS Impeccable incident, during which a US hydrographic vessel was dangerously
harassed by five Chinese ships, took place approximately seventy miles to the south of Hainan. During the
confrontation, Chinese sailors reportedly attempted to unhook the Impeccables towed acoustic array sonars. In
public, China's protests over foreign military activities are couched in territorial terms. In private, however,

Chinese policymakers readily acknowledge the centrality of the nuclear

dimension. Thus in the course of a discussion with a former Chinese official, I was told that even though
territorial issues are of importance, our major concern is the sanctity of our future sea-based deterrent. He then
went on to describe, with a flicker of amusement, how fishermen off the coast of Hainan regularly snag US sonars in
their nets, and are encouraged to sell them back to the local authorities in exchange for financial compensation. Of
course, such cat and mouse games are nothing new-and are perfectly legal- provided they occur within
international waters or airspace. During the Cold War, American and Soviet ships would frequently conduct forward
intelligence gathering missions, sometimes in very close proximity to each others shores. At the time, American
thinkers cautioned that such risky behavior could potentially lead to misinterpretation and nuclear disaster. Unlike
the Soviets, however, who could confine the movements of their boomers to the frigid, lonely waters of the Barents

Chinese have chosen to erect their nuclear submarine base

smack-bang in the middle of one of the worlds busiest maritime
highways. Needless to say, this location is hardly ideal. When it comes to picking strategic
and Okhotsk seas, the

real-estate in their near seas, the Chinese have but a limited roster of options. After all, their maritime backyard is
girded by a sturdy palisade of states which increasingly view Chinas meteoric rise, and attendant truculence at sea,
with a mixture of alarm and dismay. Like a dragon caught floundering in a bathtub, Chinas naval ambitions are
simply too broad and grandiose for its constricted maritime geography. This perceived lack of strategic depth
provides a partial explanation to Beijings increased obduracy over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In

China aims to establish a ring of

maritime watch towers or bastions around Hainan. Absolute control over the remote
order to better protect its valuable subsurface assets,

Spratly islands, in addition to the more proximate Paracels, would greatly facilitate this concentric defensive
configuration. Until not long ago, Chinas strategic submarine force wasnt really taken seriously. Their lone 0-92 Xia
class boat was deemed too antiquated-and noisy-to be anything more than a symbol of Beijings desire for great
power status. Some observers had ventured that China would be content to rely almost exclusively on its rapidly
modernizing land-based missile system for its deterrent. Recent developments, however, suggest that this may be
about to change. In its latest report to Congress, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated
that China could soon equip its new class of Jin submarines with the JL-2 ballistic missile, which has a range of

This would enable Beijing, the report adds, to establish a

near-continuous at-sea strategic deterrent. In all likelihood this force will be berthed at
Hainan. The second Obama Administration will therefore have the unenviable
task of dealing with tensions in a region which is not only riddled with
territorial divisions, but is also rapidly morphing into one of the worlds
most sensitive nuclear hotspots.
approximately 4 600 miles.

REM 1NC
China is a leader in the REM industry now Looking to further
its control
Johnson, 6/19/14 (Eric Johnson, Journalist with 30+ years of experience, China Ramping Up Rare
Earths Output to Highest Level in 5 Years, The Street, June 19, 2014,
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12750759/1/china-ramping-up-rare-earths-output-to-highest-level-in-5-years.html
7/16/14, ds)

China's mining companies were told Thursday to boost their

combined output of rare earths to the highest level in five years. The
government order to increase production 13% from last year's level is likely to hold down
BEIJING (TheStreet) --

near-term prices for the hard-to-find metals used in all sorts of high-tech gear, from lasers to hybrid cars. But the
latest annual rare earths quota affecting state-owned mining companies such as China Minmetals, Baotou Steel
Rare Earth and Aluminum Corp. of China (ACH_) has put more pressure on their global competitors such as

China's mines churn out most of the world's 17 types

global market share in recent years have

America's Molycorp (MCP_) and Australia's Lynas (LYSCF_).

of rare earth metals. Estimates of the country's

ranged from 60% to 90%.

This dominance sparked a dispute with other countries over quotas and
export limits imposed by Beijing in 2010. The row ended with a World Trade Organization ruling in March against

Most of these metals with quirky names such as ytterbium and europium are sold to
China-based manufacturers, including multinationals. But exports are apparently
increasing. The industry data provider Chinese Rare Earth Information Net reported
a 19% year-on-year jump in rare earth export licenses to about 800
awarded to Shanghai companies between January and May. On Thursday, the
China.

Ministry of Land and Resources set the 2014 nationwide rare earths quota at 105,000 metric tons, up from 93,800
last year. The ministry also set breakout quotas for individual provinces. Also, it announced mine output quotas for
other limited-use metals such as tungsten and antimony. Citing concerns over environmental damage, illegal
exports and mining sector overcapacity, the government slashed the national rare earth quota in 2012 to 46,900
metric tons from 93,000 the year before and 89,000 in 2010. It also cut export quotas, sparking expansions at
Molycorp and Lynas but rattling buyers of rare earths worldwide. To further control the industry, since 2012 the
government has been forcing small mines to close or consolidate with major players. Baotou, for example, said in
January it had taken control of nine smaller companies. Shuttered companies and laid-off workers have been eligible
for government financial support. A moratorium on new rare earth mines was ordered until at least June 2015.

China's biggest miners have thus gotten bigger. The largest, Shanghai-listed Baotou, has huge reserves
of rare earths and can process about 54,000 metric tons annually. It's also reportedly
storing about 80,000 metric tons.

The REM industry is a zero sum game

Herberg 10 (Mikkal E. Herberg, Senior Lecturer in the Graduate School of International Relations and
Pacific Studies at the University of CaliforniaSan Diego, and Research Director on Asian energy security at The
National Bureau of Asian Research, Asias rising power and Americas Continued Purpose 2010,
http://www.nbr.org/publications/strategic_asia/pdf/Preview/SA10/SA10_Energy_preview.pdf ds)
Energy and resource security have become critical issues on the economic and strategic agenda in Asia as demand
and dependence on imported supplies grow. Regional powers, most notably China, have responded with
nationalistic strategies to secure control over energy and commodity supplies. China, India, and other countries in

The
zero-sum energy and resource atmosphere in the region is feeding
geopolitical rivalries among China, the U.S., India, Japan, and Korea, and this competition is
now extending to rare earth minerals, which have increasingly important
defense and energy applications. policy implications: The U.S. has major stakes in the impact of
the region are also becoming major energy investors in Iran, Sudan, Myanmar, and other pariah states.

Asias energy security strategies on regional stability, security, and prosperity. The region needs to find collective
ways to build trust, manage the impulse toward energy competition, work together on new supplies, and build new
energy infrastructure. Regionally, the U.S. and China must lead the development of a strategic regional energy

dialogue on common energy security concerns. This dialogue should be aimed at confidence-building and improving
trust in each countrys energy policies. The U.S., Japan, and Korea should try harder to involve China and India
more directly in the global institutions for managing oil market disruptions, such as the International Energy Agency
(IEA). 2010 The National Bureau of Asian Research Energy The Rise of Energy and Resource Nationalism in Asia
Mikkal E. Herberg Over the past decade, Asia has emerged at the center of global energy and commodity markets
as demand for these commodities has accelerated due to the regions rapid economic growth. This trend is
particularly salient in the case of energy. Rapid industrialization, a massive scale of urbanization, rising per capita
income, and increased levels of transportation and motorization have all stimulated demand for oil, natural gas,
coal, and electricity. Although the boom in energy has been centered in China, regional demand for other raw
materials and commodities, including iron ore, copper, aluminum, and rare earth minerals essential for a range of
high-tech products and defense applications, has also skyrocketed. Owing to Asias relatively limited resource base
in many of these raw materials, the regions import dependence for critical energy and industrial inputs is rising
dramatically. Moreover, the geographic distribution of resources Asia needs to fuel economic growth is highly
uneven, particularly in the case of energy. A rapidly rising share of Asias petroleum will need to be imported long
distances from the Persian Gulf and Africa, historically unstable regions of the world. Consequently, there is a
profound and growing sense of insecurity across the region over the reliability of future energy supplies and fears
that shortages or disruptions could become severe bottlenecks to continued economic growth and political stability.
For most Asian governments, particularly in China, economic performance and job creation are seen as ensuring the
bedrock for political legitimacy and stability. Similar anxieties Mikkal E. Herberg is a Senior Lecturer in the Graduate
School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of CaliforniaSan Diego, and Research Director
on Asian energy security at The National Bureau of Asian Research. He can be reached at
<mherberg@ucsd.edu>. 2010 The National Bureau of Asian Research 114 StrategicAsia 201011 are beginning

concerns over supplies

of rare earth minerals have begun to intensify competition to lead the way in hightech clean energy products while heightening the potential national security
consequences of shortages of materials necessary for critical military applications.
Consequently, energy security and security of supplies of other key raw
materials have increasingly become a matter of the high politics of
national security rather than just the low politics of domestic energy
and economic policy.1
to affect markets for and investments in other key raw materials. For example,

US getting involved in the REM industry leads to conflict with

China
Herberg 10 (Mikkal E. Herberg, Senior Lecturer in the Graduate School of International Relations and
Pacific Studies at the University of CaliforniaSan Diego, and Research Director on Asian energy security at The
National Bureau of Asian Research, Asias rising power and Americas Continued Purpose 2010,
http://www.nbr.org/publications/strategic_asia/pdf/Preview/SA10/SA10_Energy_preview.pdf ds)

Energy and national resource security are now vital concerns on the
strategic and economic agendas of all the major Asia-Pacific powers. Although energy
security has been a critical issue since the oil shocks of the 1970s, todays anxieties have been further fed by the
extraordinary run-up in prices for energy and industrial commodities beginning in 2003 and culminating in 2008.
The global energy and raw materials sector was gripped by what many called a super-cycle of long-term secular
commodity price increases.2 The onset of a severe global recession led to a collapse in energy and raw material
prices in 2009, but rising prices and supply insecurity have re-emerged as major economic concerns in 2010 as the

While major
powers seek to ensure access to key commodity supplies, energy
and resource nationalism and a zero-sum atmosphere over controlling
future oil, energy, and commodity supplies have become a source of
regional rivalry, tensions, and potential conflict. Competition and national
suspicion over control of energy and other resources is spilling over and
affecting the tenor of the regions most important strategic rivalries most importantly, the rivalry
between the United States and China. There have been some efforts to improve regional and
global recovery, led by Asia (and, in particular, China), drives a resumption of the super-cycle.3
regional

multilateral cooperation in order to maintain open markets and access to energy and resource supplies, but for the

most part cooperation has been in relatively short supply The United States, as the
traditional hub and guarantor of stability in Asia and the key energy-exporting regions of the world, has major
stakes in how Asia and China respond to energy and resource insecurities. Driven by needs for energy and raw
materials, China is destined to become a significant player in key energy- and resource-exporting regions, such as
the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America. India is also rapidly becoming an important investor in
these regions. Chinas and Indias new involvement in these regions could have a powerful impact on U.S.
diplomatic, nonproliferation, human rights, and strategic goals. Moreover, given that Asia lacks a regional

such competition has the potential to

destabilize the region. Asian stability is central to U.S. prosperity and
security; thus, the potential for conflict driven by energy competition and resource
architecture and the institutions to manage conflict,

insecurity must become a conscious and carefully crafted dimension of Washingtons regional strategy. The goal of
this chapter is to analyze Asias energy and resource security challenges and their impacts on U.S. geopolitical and
energy security interests. The discussion will be divided into four sections. The first section will focus on Asias
energy prospects and the energy security dilemmas that condition the behavior of the major Asian powers. The
second section will discuss how the key Asian countries are addressing their energy security concerns, the roots of
their energy strategies, and the impact of these strategies on regional relations. The third section will examine the
implications of Asias energy security challenges for the United States and will consider what must be done to try to
shape Asias competitive energy security dynamics into more cooperative channels that would contribute to, rather
than undermine, regional stability and economic security. The fourth section will discuss another resource security
issue emerging in Asia that could affect regional rivalriesnamely, the growing controversy over control of rare
earth minerals.

US-China war goes nuclear

Rehmen 13 (Iskander Rehmen, an associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment
and a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow. His research focuses on security and crisis stability in Asia, specifically the
geopolitical ramifications of naval nuclearization in the Indian Ocean, Dragon in a Bathtub: Chinese Nuclear
Submarines and the South China Sea, March 19, 2013, http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/03/09/dragon-inbathtub-chinese-nuclear-submarines-and-south-china-sea/fpjl ds)

Despite Americas best efforts to construct stronger ties with China,

relations in-between both countries have been repeatedly buffeted by a
series of tensions and misunderstandings. Many of these frictions appear to have resulted
from a more assertive Chinese posture in the South China Sea. Almost every week, Asian headlines seem to be
dominated by reports of jingoistic statements over disputed islets, or of a renewed bout of aggressive maneuvering
by boats from one of Beijings numerous maritime agencies. When attempting to explain this upsurge in Chinese
pugnacity, analysts have pointed to the rising power's selective interpretation of the law of the sea and growing
unwillingness to compromise over what it calls its blue national soil, particularly when confronted with an
increasingly intransigent domestic populace. Others have pointed to the more immediately tangible benefits to be
derived from the presence of numerous offshore oil and gas deposits within contested waters. Strangely enough,
however,

one of the principal explanations for Chinas increased prickliness

towards foreign military presence within its maritime backyard has yet to
be clearly articulated. Indeed, not only is the South China Sea one of the
worlds busiest trade thoroughfares, it also happens to be the roaming
pen of Chinas emerging ballistic missile submarine fleet, which is stationed at
Sanya, on the tropical Island of Hainan. The United States, with its array of advanced anti-submarine
warfare assets and hydrographic research vessels deployed throughout the region, gives Beijing the
unwelcome impression that Uncle Sam cant stop peering into its nuclear
nursery. When Chinese naval strategists discuss their maritime environs, the sentiment they convey is one of
perpetual embattlement. Pointing to the USs extended network of allies in the Indo-Pacific region, and to their own
relative isolation, Chinese strategists fear that Beijings growing navy could be ensnared within the first island
chain-a region which they describe as stretching from Japan all the way to the Indonesian archipelago. Applying this
maritime siege mentality to naval planning; they fret that the US Navy could locate and neutralize their fledgling
undersea deterrent in the very first phases of conflict, before it even manages to slip through the chinks of first
island chain. This concern helps explain China's growing intolerance to foreign military activities in the South China
Sea. Tellingly, some of the most nerve-wracking standoffs involving US and Chinese forces have unfolded in close

proximity to Hainan. The infamous Ep-3 crisis, during which a US spy plane entered into collision with a Chinese
fighter jet, occurred while the planes crew was attempting to collect intelligence on naval infrastructure
development. Similarly, the USNS Impeccable incident, during which a US hydrographic vessel was dangerously
harassed by five Chinese ships, took place approximately seventy miles to the south of Hainan. During the
confrontation, Chinese sailors reportedly attempted to unhook the Impeccables towed acoustic array sonars. In
public, China's protests over foreign military activities are couched in territorial terms. In private, however,

Chinese policymakers readily acknowledge the centrality of the nuclear

dimension. Thus in the course of a discussion with a former Chinese official, I was told that even though
territorial issues are of importance, our major concern is the sanctity of our future sea-based deterrent. He then
went on to describe, with a flicker of amusement, how fishermen off the coast of Hainan regularly snag US sonars in
their nets, and are encouraged to sell them back to the local authorities in exchange for financial compensation. Of
course, such cat and mouse games are nothing new-and are perfectly legal- provided they occur within
international waters or airspace. During the Cold War, American and Soviet ships would frequently conduct forward
intelligence gathering missions, sometimes in very close proximity to each others shores. At the time, American
thinkers cautioned that such risky behavior could potentially lead to misinterpretation and nuclear disaster. Unlike
the Soviets, however, who could confine the movements of their boomers to the frigid, lonely waters of the Barents

Chinese have chosen to erect their nuclear submarine base

smack-bang in the middle of one of the worlds busiest maritime
highways. Needless to say, this location is hardly ideal. When it comes to picking strategic
and Okhotsk seas, the

real-estate in their near seas, the Chinese have but a limited roster of options. After all, their maritime backyard is
girded by a sturdy palisade of states which increasingly view Chinas meteoric rise, and attendant truculence at sea,
with a mixture of alarm and dismay. Like a dragon caught floundering in a bathtub, Chinas naval ambitions are
simply too broad and grandiose for its constricted maritime geography. This perceived lack of strategic depth
provides a partial explanation to Beijings increased obduracy over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In

China aims to establish a ring of

maritime watch towers or bastions around Hainan. Absolute control over the remote
order to better protect its valuable subsurface assets,

Spratly islands, in addition to the more proximate Paracels, would greatly facilitate this concentric defensive
configuration. Until not long ago, Chinas strategic submarine force wasnt really taken seriously. Their lone 0-92 Xia
class boat was deemed too antiquated-and noisy-to be anything more than a symbol of Beijings desire for great
power status. Some observers had ventured that China would be content to rely almost exclusively on its rapidly
modernizing land-based missile system for its deterrent. Recent developments, however, suggest that this may be
about to change. In its latest report to Congress, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated
that China could soon equip its new class of Jin submarines with the JL-2 ballistic missile, which has a range of

This would enable Beijing, the report adds, to establish a

near-continuous at-sea strategic deterrent. In all likelihood this force will be berthed at
Hainan. The second Obama Administration will therefore have the unenviable
task of dealing with tensions in a region which is not only riddled with
territorial divisions, but is also rapidly morphing into one of the worlds
most sensitive nuclear hotspots.
approximately 4 600 miles.

Uniqueness

Generic
US cant garner any influence in Pacific Ocean till 2015- China
moving in
Press Release, 7/15 (AFT Holdings Voices Concern Over Waning U.S. Interest in Pacific Ocean
Fisheries, 7/15/14, http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/07/prweb12021564.htm) j.shack

American treaty negotiations with the Pacific Island Nations concluded

Saturday in Auckland, New Zealand, with a No Deal conclusion, leaving the United
States Tuna Fleet without fishing access to the Pacific Ocean in 2015 .
Proposed closure in U.S. territories in the Pacific currently under review by the Administration to revise the status to

Industry or science, has created an

environment of increased pressure to secure fishing access within the
remaining ocean. AFT Holdings, Inc. is a shareholder of Ocean Global and Sea
Global, the largest US Tuna Fleet, which operates 12 purse seine vessels navigating the Pacific.
The vessels provide more than 100,000 tons of fish per year serving the
U.S. canned market. Representatives of Ocean Global and Sea Global participated in the recent treaty
Protected Monument Marine Parks, without consultation with

negotiations, along with other tuna Industry members, U.S. State and National Marine Fisheries representatives, and
noted their extreme disappointment in the outcome. The value offered for 2015 access represented a 38%
increase over 2014 with 100% of the proposed increase coming from Industry, said J. Douglas Hines, chairman and
general partner of AFT Holdings, Inc. With an unprecedented 57% increase alone from the U.S, Fleet over 2014
levels, the value for access considering the price of tuna collapsed from 2013 to 2014 makes economics difficult to
bear." "Although we do hope and expect to have an agreement in the next couple weeks it will not be without
extreme apprehension and real cost. Hines further commented that there is a real concern by stakeholders
representing U.S. commercial interest that the U.S. government is not showing a commitment to the Countrys

that China and other nations

will further expand their influence through fishing and other commercial
interest in the region. AFT Holdings and its stakeholders are now contacting U.S. Government agencies
distant water fisheries in the Pacific region. One feared consequence is

and Congressional leadershipspecifically Hawaiian Senators Schatz and Hironoin an effort to update and search
for bipartisan support that will ensure a future for the United States fleet in the Pacific region. The loss of our
Countrys influence in the Pacific fisheries has a direct impact on thousands of Americansfrom Samoa to Hawaii
onto the Mainland in California and even Georgiawho rely on raw tuna material for jobs, as well as a consistent
supply for the American consumer, Hines said. Over the past 30 years, from Oceans to shore, many have worked
tirelessly to preserve the development and expansion of the U.S.-Pacific interest by working closely with great
Americans leaders such as the late Hawaiian Senator Daniel Inouye, and Alaska Senator Stevens. Over the years,
thru bipartisan efforts we were successful in maintaining this Countrys presence in the Pacific. Now, to see our hard
earned effort ceded to other nations is difficult to accept, which is why our industry remains committed to this fight.

REM
China leading the REM industry now
Wharton 13 (Wharton, University of Pennsylvania, Catch 22: Rare Earths Trade Poses Challenges for
China and Japan June 19, 2013, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/catch-22-rare-earths-trade-poseschallenges-for-china-and-japan/ ds)

Chinas virtual monopoly on supplies of rare earth metals used in many high-tech
applications is drawing much less attention now than it did several years ago, when Beijing
unilaterally halted shipments to Japan, the biggest consumer of the metals. In the meantime, Japan
has maneuvered to diversify its supply base, sought to develop reserves of its own and increased its
use of recycled rare earths, while big non-Chinese producers like Lynas of Australia and Molycorp of
the U.S. have stepped up their own projects. Despite these developments, industry experts say Japan
is as dependent as ever on Chinese supplies. They question, however, whether China is able or likely

Rare earths include 17

elements used in most high tech goods, from advanced military
technology to mobile phones. Total world output was 110,000 tons in 2012, down from
111,000 tons in 2011. Although the metals actually are not rare, Chinas unique ability to
produce them at low cost has won it a 90% share of the world market. As a
to manipulate its control over the supply chain for political ends.

leading manufacturer of electronic devices, sophisticated vehicles and other advanced technology,
Japan is the biggest market for rare earths. Brought up short by Beijings de facto embargo in 2010,
Tokyo has sought to expand access to rare earth reserves in Mongolia, India and other producing
countries. But while its direct imports from China have fallen from more than 80% before 2010 to
below 60% of the total last year, the original supplier for most rare earths sold to Japan still is China.
Ministry of Finance figures show that in 2012, Japan bought 17% of its rare earth imports from France;
9.9% from Vietnam; 4.9% from South Korea; 6.8% from Estonia and 2.4% from the U.S. The statistics

because France, South Korea and Vietnam rare earths are all
coming from China, since they do not produce them themselves. So counting
both indirect and direct imports, Japan still buys more than 80% of its supplies from
China, says Konosuke Takegami, a professor at Takushoku University in Tokyo and specialist in
are misleading,

resource economics. A look at production figures bears that out: According to the U.S. Geological
Surveys Mineral Commodity Summaries, France, South Korea and Estonia produced no rare earths in
2011 or 2012. China produced 95,000 tons in 2012, followed by the U.S. at 7,000 tons,
Australia at 4,000 tons, Brazil at 300 tons, India at 2,800 tons and Malaysia at 350 tons. It is
completely a mistake to say Japan is now much less dependent on China, says Toru H. Okabe, a rare
earth specialist and professor at the Institute of Industrial Science at the University of Tokyo.

Offshore Drilling
China dominating the offshore drilling industry
Odell 7/17/14 (Cinnamon Odell, Senior Rig Market Reporter for ODS-Petrodata, Offshore Mag, Offshore
rig building boom continues, July 17, 2014, http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-74/issue-7/rigreport/offshore-rig-building-boom-continues.html ds)
Despite growing concerns about a possible offshore drilling rig oversupply, owners continue to place orders to build
more jackups, semisubmersibles, drillships, and tender-assisted rigs. Since last year, 103 additional rigs have been
ordered. By far, the most new orders have been for jackups, which accounted for 77 of the total. Drillships were
next with 18 new orders, followed by six semis and two tender-assisted rigs. The latest data can be seen in this

The bulk of the new rig order awards

have gone to Chinese shipyards, which is a testament to the country's
pursuit of an increased slice of the offshore rig-building pie by using its
attractive rig-financing offers. As expected, Singapore and South Korea remain popular spots to
year's worldwide MODU construction/new order survey.

build rigs. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates is growing its rig-building business as well, having achieved seven
new orders in the past year. Construction has begun on 38 of the 103 orders. Accounting for those currently under
construction or being rebuilt as of June 3, 101 are jackups, 35 are drillships, 18 are semis, and 7 are tender-assist
rigs, for a total of 161 units; plus the semi Ocean Apex, which is being rebuilt. Around this time last year, 131 rigs
were under construction or being rebuilt. Since then, 61 rigs have been delivered. Throughout the remainder of this
year, 51 rigs are scheduled for delivery. However, the past year has seen slippage due to delivery delays of thirdparty supplied equipment, so it is likely that some of the units scheduled for shipyard delivery late in the year will
be pushed into early next year. The rest of the currently under-construction rigs have anticipated due dates out to

the majority of rigs are being built in

either the Far East or Southeast Asia. This is in line with last year's survey,
when 77 were under construction in the Far East and another 38 in
Southeast Asia. Notably, the Far East has increased the gap this year, with 98 offshore rigs under
construction versus 43 in Southeast Asia. The increase is almost solely concentrated in
China, which raised its number of units under construction by more than
60% from this time last year, while the other two powerhouses of rig-building, Singapore and South
3Q 2017. Focusing on the shipyards themselves,

Korea, varied from last year by less than five units each. China and Singapore are building predominately jackups,
whereas South Korea's main projects are drillships. South Korea is also responsible for building nearly half of the 19
semis currently under construction. Of the seven tender-assist rigs being built, five are under construction in China
and two in Malaysia. Only 26 of the rigs under construction were not built on a speculative basis. Rather, they were
ordered with a firm drilling contract already in hand. That leaves 135 rigs ordered without contracts that need to
find work prior to delivery in order to avoid zero-rate idle time. So far, 25 of them have secured assignments.
However, some of the other 110 rigs are actually being built with a specific target market or customer in mind, such
as the jackups being built for Mexico's Grupo R, Oro Negro, Perforadora Central, and Perforadora Mexico. All of the
rigs are aimed at the Mexican market, namely state-owned operator PEMEX. The further the delivery date is in the
future, the less aggressively the rig is likely to be marketed, especially when day rates seem to be making a market
correction and either slowing their growth rate, or in some cases trending lower. Contractors would prefer to wait it
out in the hopes of catching the next upward wave rather than locking in a rate during a plateau or decline. Rig
owners continue to prefer higher-specification rigs. This is a direct result of their desire to remain competitive in a
market in which oil companies are focusing on prospects that are increasingly difficult to drill. Looking at the 35
drillships currently under construction, all but two are ultra-deepwater (>7,500 ft/2,286 m) rigs. Many of these
drillships are being built either with two BOP stacks or with the capacity to add a second stack should the operator
require it. The number of rams on each stack has also been trending up since the April 2010 Macondo accident put
the spotlight on BOPs. Presently, the majority of the ultra-deepwater drillships under construction will have either
six- or seven-ram stacks. Before Macondo, the highest-specification rigs typically had five or six rams. Derrick
capacity is another important spec that is trending up, with many units now being built with 2.5 MMlb capacity
derricks. Additionally, as rigs are working in deeper waters farther from shore, the need for increased free deck
space grows. New ultra-deepwater drillships are generally being built with variable deckload capacities upwards of
20,000 tons. The push toward higher-specification units also exists within the jackup segment. Of the 101 currently
under construction, only 12 will be rated for water depths less than 350 ft (107 m). The most popular water depth
rating for under-construction jackups is 400 ft (122 m). In addition, four units are being built with a rated water
depth capability of 492 ft (150 m), three for Maersk Drilling and one for Noble Corp. The higher-spec jackups are
mostly being marketed to the North Sea and Norwegian markets, while the lowest-spec units are primarily targeted
at operations in the Middle East and offshore China. Finally, this building boom does not involve only the major rig

contractors. Nearly 40 different companies are building rigs.

Only one company has double-digit

rigs under construction. Seadrill has 11 units being built, comprised of four jackups, two semis, and
five drillships. The next most active rig contractor is Ensco with six, followed by Grupo R and Maersk with five each.
Notably, the largest offshore rig contractor, Transocean, only has three units currently under construction.

Link

China is defensive of its waters no tolerance for US moving in

Want China Times 7/7/14 (Want China Times, US aircraft detected over Chinese oil rigs off
Paracels, July 7, 2014, http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140707000078&cid=1101
ds)

US reconnaissance aircraft were detected only 200 kilometers from Chinese oil rigs
in the disputed waters around the Xisha (Paracel) islands twice on June 30 and July 2, according to
officials of the Vietnam Coast Guard interviewed by the state-run Vietnam Television. A US aircraft,
apparently a P-8A Poseidon of the United States Navy, was reported flying low over the
Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig on June 29. A Y-8T electronic aircraft equipped with the Gaoxin-4
Communications, Command, Control and Intelligence system was soon dispatched to the air space to confront the

The incident then

escalated again the next day when a Vietnamese fishing boat with six
crews aboard was seized by a Chinese maritime security vessel. The state-run
Global Times said that maritime security vessels from both China and Vietnam have exchanged water
cannon volleys over 70 times since May. Nguyen Phu Trong, the general secretary of the Communist Party of
Vietnam, told the Hanoi-based Tuoi Tre newspaper that the nation is ready for a war with China. If China and
the United States come to armed conflict in the South China Sea, the
Chinese economy will be damaged severely, according to the Tokyo-based Sankei Shimbun.
The United States would be likely to launch its Offshore Strategy, which would crush major shipping
waterways in the Western Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Such a strategy would
cripple the Chinese economy before actual military confrontation began.
US patrol plane. Three more appeared over the Haiyang Shiyou 981 again on July 2.

Internal Link
China will use military force to keep Taiwan
Eckholm, 2001 (Erik Eckholm, Beijing bureau chief of The New York Times, Interview Erik Eckholm,
autumn 2001, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/interviews/eckholm.html) j.shack
So when Bush first goes to China as president the end of October 2001, do you think that he has really worked out
his policy? And do you think the Chinese are gonna be content with what they discover? I can't predict what he is
going to do. Every word is gonna be watched very carefully in Beijing. This is much more important to China than it
may seem to Americans. The relationship with the United States is the number one foreign policy issue, right now,
for the Chinese government I think. And - and they are very anxious to find a way to have smoother relations and
put the negative things a little bit to the side if they can. What are these issues ? The Chinese leadership is
far more preoccupied with their domestic situation. And economic progress than they are with foreign policy
ventures. Taiwan is the big thorny issue in the middle of this. They can't give up Taiwan. That's sort of
central to their national identity, their political identity. But, they don't want that to blow up in their faces either.
They need Western technology, investment. They want to become a partner in the advanced nations of the world.
And they can't do that if they are in a cold war with the United States. So, from their point of view, they are putting
up with quite a bit of questionable criticism and intrusion on things like their human rights policies. Or other
domestic issues. They are willing to live with some of that if we can have overall friendly relations. Now, with
Taiwan, at the end of the day, it really depends on what the Taiwan people and Taiwan government decide for their

if they just outright

declared independence there is no question that China would have a
military action and it could cause quite a conflagration. I mean the United States is
not formally committed to defending Taiwan. But certainly if it comes under attack from
China the United States will take very serious action. And who knows what the
future. If they ever claim independence, how do you think China would react? I think

consequences will be? To some degree both the United States and China are a hostage to what the Taiwanese
people decide. But on the other hand, both sides have a great deal of leverage and the Taiwanese people, whatever
their true beliefs might be if they were unencumbered by the threat of mainland China next to them, so far they

they elected a president last year whose party

theoretically was dedicated to independence. He very quickly back-tracked
to sort of a central position in Taiwan. If they can just preserve the status
quo, preserve in a way their ambiguous status and see how things developed , they probably can live
with that. And, in fact, I think the Chinese can live with that too. What the Chinese
are most afraid of is a real movement toward independence. Which they
have to stop. They have to continually warn Taiwan - and the United
States - that "hey, don't push us too far. Or we will be forced to react
militarily." That doesn't mean they want to invade Taiwan. They have a short timetable. The number one
principle--if you are a Chinese leader--is not that you have to regain Taiwan in
the next five years. It's that you can't lose Taiwan. Why do they worry about a small
have been pretty pragmatic. Even when

island, like this? It's their unfinished civil war. It just looms very large in the in the history and mythology of the
People's Republic of China. They fought a civil war with this nationalist government. They essentially defeated
them. The nationalists escaped to an island which they consider an integral part of China. And then, because of
American support and other intervening factors, they never finished. And I think especially for the military, this is
the main reason for being. Is to prevent Taiwanese independence and some day retake Taiwan. ... I think preventing
Taiwanese independence is sort of a core principle of politics here. And no politician could go against that. ...

Nuclear war between China and US is possible and near

Lulko, 13 (Lyuba Lulko, USA considers scenario of war with China, 1/28/13,
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/28-01-2013/123594-usa_china_war-0/) j.shack

relations between China and the U.S. have been slipping into a
confrontation similar to the Cold War has been discussed by media for two years, but for the
first time these allegations began to take practical shape . Obama called China a "rival" and
instructed to study the degree of nuclear threat posed by the country . The
U.S. began redeploying its fleet in the Pacific Rim. The reasons behind the
confrontation are both economic and political. China is the world's only country
capable of leaving the U.S. behind in terms of GDP in the near future
(according to experts - 8 years from now). America is experiencing economic
recession, high unemployment and a threat of a default. China is growing
steadily, artificially maintaining low exchange rate of the yuan, which
stimulates domestic production and exports. In addition, in recent years China has
been withdrawing U.S. dollars from its foreign exchange reserves and
investing them in gold, euros, and raw materials. The trend is clear - China no
longer wants to be a creditor of the U.S. The U.S. is concerned and trying to work through
international institutions. For example, Obama signed a claim to the WTO, accusing the Chinese
government of offering subsidies for Chinese auto companies. The U.S.
lawmakers have actually recognized China as a manipulator in the currency pair
yuan-dollar, and the U.S. imposed trade tariffs on twenty Chinese goods .
However, this is a drop in the ocean. Actions similar to "Jason-Vanik" amendment are nowhere in
sight. Why? Because the U.S. dependence on the Chinese economy is so high that
by introducing such sanctions the United States would destroy its own
industry that is being rapidly brought to China . From a political point of view, first of all,
The fact that the

these are two completely different systems. On the one hand - communist, collective, but isolated China, on the

political relations worsened after the

adoption in January of 2012 of a new U.S. military doctrine, according to which
the main area of its military presence has become the Asia-Pacific Region
(APR). The tense relations between China and Japan over territorial claims
may lead the U.S. to a tough choice of joining the military conflict on the
side of its ally. The same can be said with regard to the Philippines, with which the United States has a
mutual defense treaty. China is flexing its muscles, staging military exercises in the Asia-Pacific region
(including those shared with Russia), conducting cyber-attacks against the U.S., and
bringing people into the streets at unprecedented anti-Japanese protests .
other - neo-liberal, individualistic U.S. Second, the

In response, the Americans are conducting their exercises, trying to play a role of the arbiter in maritime

disputes between China and its neighbors, entering into an agreement on

the development of ballistic missiles with South Korea, creating a military
base in Australia, etc. The situation is deteriorating, and the USA is considering possible
scenarios of a war with China, and even nuclear conflict. On January 2nd, Obama
signed into law a new concept of national security, which ordered the U.S.
Strategic Command (STRATCOM) by August 15th to submit a report on the
underground network of tunnels in China and the U.S. capabilities to use
conventional and nuclear forces to neutralize and destroy these tunnels.
Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists Hans Kristensen said that the
lack of transparency in the intentions of both countries increases the risk of a war between China and the U.S. He
said that the two countries are dancing a dangerous dance that increases military tension and could potentially lead
to a small war in the Pacific. Ian Bremmer, an American political scientist and president of Eurasia Group, said in an
interview with Time that the current strategic relations between the two countries are very similar to the Cold War.
He said that the U.S. ideology has not changed, although it is not as powerful as before. Its main provisions are
individual freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. But in recent years it has been hit hard, both by the financial
crisis and the violation of human rights in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, as well as huge interest of corporations in
the elections. Old institutions like the G-20 are no longer working. Bremmer acknowledged that the country was

poorly prepared for the challenges of the Cold War. In the end, experts said, if the U.S. wants to establish productive
relations with China, it should create a strong foundation in the form of organizations that China is interested in
joining. Ultimately, a club that the Chinese would want to join needs to be created, Bremer said. However, he
provided no explanation on what this "club" would be like. A club against Russia? Quite the contrary, the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) where the United States is not present has been already established in Asia. Or is it
a club where all Asia-Pacific countries will be playing against China? This is unlikely, because at the last summit of
another regional association - the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) (which does not include China) in
July of 2012 with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a strategy against China's actions in the disputed
archipelago South China Sea has not been developed. Chinese allies are obvious - Cambodia, Thailand and
Myanmar with which China has a powerful financial leverage. Bremmer may be talking about an Agreement on
Trans-Pacific Partnership that is seen in the U.S. as an instrument of the "return to Asia" and is intended to replace
the APEC (that includes Russia and China). But China would not join an organization where the rules are dictated by
the U.S. This means that creation of the said "club" is not realistic.

Chinas Military capabilities exceedes the US- Confrontation

problematic
Snyder, 13 ( Michael Snyder, WHY THE NEXT WAR WITH CHINA COULD GO VERY BADLY FOR THE UNITED
STATES, 5/29/13, http://www.infowars.com/why-the-next-war-with-china-could-go-very-badly-for-the-united-states/)
j.shack
Most Americans assume that the U.S. military is so vastly superior to everyone else that no other nation would ever

In recent
years, the once mammoth technological gap between the U.S. military and
the Chinese military has been closing at a frightening pace . China has been
accomplishing this by brazenly stealing our technology and hacking into our
computer systems. The Pentagon and the Obama administration know all about this, but they dont do
dream of fighting a full-scale war against us. Unfortunately, that assumption is dead wrong.

anything about it. Perhaps the fact that China owns about a trillion dollars of our national debt has something to do

In any event, today China has the largest military in the world and
the second largest military budget in the world. They have stolen plans for
our most advanced jets, helicopters, ships and missile systems. It is
estimated that stealing our technology has saved China about 25 years of research
and development. In addition, China is rapidly developing a new generation of
strategic weapons that could potentially enable it to actually win a future
war against the United States. At one time such a notion would have been
unthinkable, but as you will see below, the next war with China could go
very badly for the United States. The Washington Post is reporting on a
confidential report that was prepared for the Pentagon, and what this report says
about the extent of Chinese cyber espionage is absolutely startling. Will China know
ALL of our secrets at some point? The following is a brief excerpt from the
Washington Post articleabout the theft of our military technology by China. It turns
out that Chinese hackers have gotten their hands on plans for almost all of
the new cutting edge weapons systems that we have been developing
Some of the weapons form the backbone of the Pentagons regional missile defense
for Asia, Europe and the Persian Gulf. The designs included those for the advanced
Patriot missile system, known as PAC-3; an Army system for shooting down ballistic
missiles, known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD; and the
Navys Aegis ballistic-missile defense system.
with that.

US depends on China for economic stainability- Nuclear war

Over South China Sea hurts US economy
Lampton, 2001 (David Lampton, director of China studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced
International Studies, Interview David Lampton, autumn 2001,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/interviews/lampton.html ) j.shack
How important is the economy at the moment? How important is that in the relationship with China? It's potentially very important.
First of all,

China, unknown to many Americans, is our fourth-largest trade partner. There

are certainly probably 300,000, 400,000, 500,000 American jobs that are directly
dependent to exports to China, and there are some of our most competitive high tech sector. Obviously,
given the state of our own economy, we don't need more unemployment. ... But China's economic importance
-- particularly to the United States, but the global econom y -- hasn't been recognized in
another way, and that is inter-dependence. Let me just give you a fact that I think is just demonstrative of a larger reality.

Eighty-seven percent of the motherboards of computers in the world are

made in Taiwan. And of that 87 percent of the brains of a computer, the
motherboards made in Taiwan, 50 percent are now made in the PRC, and that
industry is even moving more rapidly towards the PRC. So in certain key areas, China's component manufacturing is absolutely key

China is essential. Also,

China is the most rapidly growing major economy in the world today. And
heaven knows, with Japan lagging and Europe's economy stagnating and
the Americans hovering near a recession, the world needs all the center of
growth that it can get. So I think we are going to recognize that we have a
very great interest in China's prosperity. And is that important to President Bush? I think its essential
to a strategic global industry. So whether you look at it narrowly, or in terms of jobs,

to President Bush. He remembers that his father won the Gulf War, but in fact lost the election, largely because of what was
perceived to be a fading U.S. economy during his father's second run for a second term. I think the son has learned the lessons of
the father, and knows that in the end, you can win a war and lose an election if you don't have a good economy. So that's one
reason to get on with China? I think the president now has both strategic military reasons to try to have a decent, productive
relationship with China. He has economic reasons and, frankly, we have great cultural reasons. Some of the most innovative
intelligent students in American universities today come from abroad, and many of those come from China. So we have cultural
reasons, economic reasons and military reasons. Does that suddenly mean that China is no longer a threat? ... You can't predict how
China is going to behave in the future. But I think what we can say for now, and for the next ten years is, all Chinese I'm familiar
with -- except a few modest interest groups -- are devoted to the proposition that the Chinese first need to economically modernize.
The challenge to America is to make it clear to the Chinese people that the world is supportive of them becoming more prosperous
and having a more dignified place in the world; that the United States does not stand in the way of that; and create an environment
that's going to create the incentives where the Chinese want to play by the rules, where they feel like they're a member of the club.
The odds are very great that, if China is able to continue to move in the direction it's going and that we are basically receptive to the
aspirations of the Chinese people... I think we'll always have difficulty in dealing with China. But it need not be the kind of
experience we faced with the rise of Japan or Germany. At the start of President Bush's administration, there was the crisis over the
U.S. surveillance plane. The tone seemed very belligerent. Why do you think that was? First of all, new American administrations
always come in and feel bound and determined to prove they're not the previous administration. They, in effect, have to say, "We're
not the same as Bill Clinton," and Bill Clinton came in and said, "I'm not the same as George Bush One." So there's this compulsion
to differentiate yourself from your predecessor. That leads to policy reviews, and it usually leads to an initial reflex to reject the
policies of your predecessor. And then, over time, you find, "Well, maybe my predecessor wasn't quite as stupid or ignorant as I
thought. Maybe there were some sound national interest reasons that we had this policy." That's the first thing that leads to this
impulse to differentiate yourself. But there are other things, and that is that this administration came and believed that the Bush
administration, that the Clinton administration had not treated our allies -- in particular, Japan -- with sufficient dignity in the past.
And they came in and wanted to build our relations with our traditional allies, rather than emphasizing China as such a central
player in Asia. And finally, I think they came in with their mindset that, as big countries become great powers, they tend to want to
exercise more power and influence in the world; that rising powers are troublemakers. China is certainly a big country. It was rising,
and I think it was their basic view that China was destined to be a troublemaker like Japan and Germany. In fact, the situation is
quite different in a number of respects. You have a civilian elite now in China that's dedicated to economic development. China still
has tens of millions of people that are desperately poor. And when you talk to China's leaders, that's what they would prefer to talk
about -- how they're moving their country ahead in economic terms. So I think they came in with the wrong mindset, and I must say,
I think the president had a clearer, more constructive vision of China policy than many of his subordinates. But at the beginning,
they didn't even express regret for the death of a pilot. Of course, you can go back in time. We bombed the Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade in 1999. We didn't handle the fact that Chinese had casualties there with great skill and acumen, either. One reason I think
the Chinese got so distressed that we didn't acknowledge immediately the death of a Chinese pilot was that it was exacerbated
because we had made effectively the same mistake with the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in 1999. The basic Chinese mindset is
that the United States now is an unchallenged superpower, and has [assumed] a kind of global policeman role. That basic perception
makes them nervous about signing on to this coalition, no matter how justified we may think it is, and no matter how much they
recognize that they face the same terrorist threat that we do. There does seem to be an anti-American feeling in China? The way I
would put it, there's a deep ambivalence about Americans. Chinese leaders send their sons and daughters in great numbers here to
study. Many of their sons and daughters are living long term in the United States, opening businesses. I think there's great respect

for American technological and financial wizardry, great admiration. The Chinese characters for the United States are the "Beautiful
Country." The traditional name for San Francisco is "Old Gold Mountain." There's this image of the United States as a beautiful,
powerful, clever nation and I think that's the dominant sentiment -- for the United States, in a sense, to be a role model for China.
But when the Chinese define you as a teacher or a role model, they expect the teacher to be deferential and considerate of the
student. And so, often, Chinese people see the United States acting in what they believe is an arrogant, thoughtless way that
basically is designed to keep China down. So there's this admiration that competes with this sense of victimhood, this sense of "You
don't respect us," sort of what we call the Rodney Dangerfield-"I-don't-get-no-respect" kind of view of the United States. So I think
it's deeply ambivalent. But, on balance, the prevailing sentiment is very positive.How dangerous is the Taiwan issue? ... prior to the
World Trade Center bombing and its aftermath, if you asked where in the world could two major nuclear powers come into conflict, I

where two big

nuclear powers could come into conflict would be the Taiwan Strait. In effect,
the prevention of Taiwan going independent is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of
the Chinese communist regime. Chinese leaders believe that, if they were to let Taiwan
go independent and not respond, they would probably be overthrown by
their own nationalistic people. Therefore, I think they would be willing to engage in
what we might call "self-defeating military adventures" in order to prevent
that result, even if they knew they were going to lose . So in my view, the key problem for
would have said that the only probable place -- and it is probably still the only probable place --

the United States is how to deter the PRC from using force against Taiwan. We have to be very clear about that, because I think the

United States would intervene if force were used under most

circumstances I can imagine. But on the other hand, we have to deter Taiwan from
engaging in such risky behavior that they precipitate an attack that will be
destabilizing to Asia, destroy the Taiwan economy and drag the United
States into a regional conflict. And what would provoke this -- for China? They have a list
of things that would provoke, but basically, certainly a ... declaration of independence would be
one of those things. I would think it would probably mean war. It would certainly
mean some form of military conflict or economic embargo or an attempt
by the PRC to destabilize Taiwan's economy. But let's put it this way: It would mean a
substantial escalation of conflict ... the inevitable result of that... So how long is China prepared to wait to
make sure that Taiwan becomes part of China? ...As long as they have confidence that Taiwan is not going to go independent and
that the forces of economic integration are gradually pulling Taiwan towards the mainland, I think they can be very patient; and by
"very patient," I mean decades. Why do they have this extraordinary military buildup of missiles opposite Taiwan? I'm not quite sure

They're probably adding maybe 50 a year

short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles in the area of the Taiwan
Strait in coastal China, and that's a significant threat. But in the end, these missiles are, in
that the word "extraordinary" is justified. But it is significant.

effect, just large bombs. And if you start using those missiles against the people of Taiwan, does anyone seriously think this is going
to increase the willingness of the people of Taiwan to join in any significant political union with the PRC? ...So my general advice to
the PRC is find more positive reasons that the people of Taiwan should want to be in some closer political association with you. You
might be able to prevent them declaring independence with military force, but you will never achieve reunification with those
means. Does America have an obligation to defend Taiwan if it's attacked? We no longer have a treaty obligation to come to the

the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. This

obligates the United States to sell weapons of a defensive character to
Taiwan. It obligates us to be concerned about the situation in Taiwan and
the region. And it obligates the president of the United States to consult with Congress about what to do. So, in a sense, we
defense of Taiwan. What we have is what's called

are obligated to be concerned and give Taiwan the means by which it can defend itself, but we are not obligated to come to the
direct rescue.

US and China engage in Nuclear conflict if tensions rise any

longer
Jiechi, 2001 (Yang Jiechi, China's ambassador to the United States, Why is Taiwan so dangerous, autumn
2001, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/experts/taiwan.html) j,shack

Taiwan is part of
China. It has been part of China since ancient times , and it's just because of some of the
Why does China feel so strongly that Taiwan independence would be an act of war by Taiwan? Because

separatist attempts of certain people on Taiwan and the interference from foreign forces that Taiwan is still separated from the
motherland. I think that people can understand that

when a country is divided its people will like

to see the country reunite, especially in the case of China , which has suffered so much
in the past. So I believe that what we are doing has the support of the peace-loving people in the world and we are seeking peaceful
unification -- one country, two systems, is our basic policy.s. Of course, we will not make a commitment to go to the use of force. We
do not make this kind of commitment precisely because we want to see the peaceful reunification of the country. And there are
some events in

Taiwan

which really cause us grave concern. Some people are openly campaigning for Taiwan independence

the American
side to abide by the three joint communiqus between the two countries
and to stop selling weapons to Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities say openly
Taiwan is an independent nation, or a sovereign nation. In your view, is that a very dangerous statement for
Taiwanese authorities to make? It is a very dangerous statement.... And the overwhelming majority of the people in Taiwan now
have come to understand that precisely because of this kind of a statement and corresponding action s,
they have caused instability across the Taiwan Strait and instability in Taiwan.
and, of course, we have also been concerned by U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and other things. We have urged

And people have lots of complaints about this policy. Can I ask you, then, why has there been a missile build-up on China's southern
coast pointing towards Taiwan? The kind of defensive measures that we take on the mainland are really for our national security and
territorial entirety. If people look at the text of the three joint communiqus, [Editor's Note: see FRONTLINE's chronology] according

United States has pledged to the Chinese side that it

does not seek to carry out long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan and its
arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed the level of those in recent years
since the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the
United States... and then the United States will reduce its arms sales to
Taiwan over the period leading to a final resolution. So you can see that the United
States has not really abided by its own pledge. We have made very strong representation to the
to the August 17 communiqu, the

American side for these acts. We think that these acts should not have happened...

US China war is more likely than the Cold War

Keck, 14 (Zachary Keck, Managing Editor of The Diplomat, US-China Rivalry More Dangerous Than Cold
War? Mearsheimer says a war between the US and China will be more likely than a US-Soviet one was during the
Cold War., 1/28/14, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/us-china-rivalry-more-dangerous-than-cold-war/) j.shack

of the
U.S. and China going to war in the future than there was of a Soviet-NATO
general war during the Cold War. Mearsheimer made the comments at a
lunch hosted by the Center for the National Interest in Washington , DC on
Monday. The lunch was held to discuss Mearsheimers recent article in The
National Interest on U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East. However,
much of the conversation during the Q&A session focused on U.S. policy
The prominent realist international relations scholar John Mearsheimer says there is a greater possibility

towards Asia amid Chinas rise, a topic that Mearsheimer addresses in greater length in the updated

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, which is due out

this April. In contrast to the Middle East, which he characterizes as posing little threat
to the United States, Mearsheimer said that the U.S. will face a tremendous
challenge in Asia should China continue to rise economically . The
University of Chicago professor said that in such a scenario it is inevitable
that the U.S. and China will engage in an intense strategic competition,
much like the Soviet-American rivalry during the Cold War. While stressing
that he didnt believe a shooting war between the U .S. and China is
inevitable, Mearsheimer said that he believes a U.S.-China Cold War will be much
less stable than the previous American-Soviet one. His reasoning was based on
geography and its interaction with nuclear weapons. Specifically, the center of gravity of the
U.S.-Soviet competition was the central European landmass. This created a
rather stable situation as, according to Mearsheimer, anyone that war gamed a NATOedition of his classic treatise,

Warsaw conflict over Central Europe understood that it would quickly turn
nuclear. This gave both sides a powerful incentive to avoid a general
conflict in Central Europe as a nuclear war would make it very likely that
both the U.S. and Soviet Union would be vaporized. The U.S.-China
strategic rivalry lacks this singular center of gravity . Instead, Mearsheimer
identified four potential hotspots over which he believes the U.S. and
China might find themselves at war: the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan
Strait and the South and East China Seas. Besides featuring more hotspots
than the U.S.-Soviet conflict, Mearsheimer implied that he felt that
decision-makers in Beijing and Washington might be more confident that
they could engage in a shooting war over one of these areas without it
escalating to the nuclear threshold. For instance, he singled out the SinoJapanese dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, of which he said there
was a very real possibility that Japan and China could find themselves in a
shooting war sometime in the next five years. Should a shooting war break
out between China and Japan in the East China Sea, Mearsheimer said he
believes the U.S. will have two options: first, to act as an umpire in trying to
separate the two sides and return to the status quo ante; second, to enter
the conflict on the side of Japan. Mearsheimer said that he thinks its more
likely the U.S. would opt for the second option because a failure to do so would weaken U.S.
credibility in the eyes of its Asian allies. In particular, he believes that America trying to
act as a mediator would badly undermine Japanese and South Korean policymakers faith in Americas

Since the U.S. does not want Japan or South Korea to build their own
Washington would be hesitant to not come out decisively on
the side of the Japanese in any war between Tokyo and Beijing .
Mearsheimer did add that the U.S. is in the early stages of dealing with a
rising China, and the full threat would not materialize for at least another ten years. He also
extended deterrence.
nuclear weapons,

stressed that his arguments assumed that China will be able to maintain rapid economic growth. Were

then the U.S. would remain the

preponderant power in the world and actually see its relative power grow
through 2050. In characteristically blunt fashion, Mearsheimer said that he hopes that Chinas
Chinas growth rates to streamline or even turn negative,

economy falters or collapses, as this would eliminate a potentially immense security threat for the
United States and its allies. Indeed, Mearsheimer said he was flabbergasted by Americans and people

He reminded
the audience that at the peak of its power the Soviet Union possessed a
much smaller GDP than the United States. Given that China has a
population size over four times larger than Americas, should it reach a GDP per
capita that is comparable to Taiwan or Hong Kong today, it will be a greater potential
threat to the United States than anything America has previously dealt
with.
in allied states who profess wanting to see China continue to grow economically.

Impact
US China war highly possible- leads to extinction
Wittner, 11 (Lawrence S. Wittner, COMMENTARY: Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?, 11/28/11,
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/14446) j.shack

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be
used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations
employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S.
relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example
of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough.
Disturbed by Chinas growing economic and military strength, the U.S.
government recently challenged Chinas claims in the South China Sea,
increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S.
military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United
States was asserting our own position as a Pacific power. But need this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And

the United States and China possess large

numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack
China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the
conflict over the future of Chinas offshore islands , Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of
yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both

the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons
would be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else. Of course, China didnt have nuclear
weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose
nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear
arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits
argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there havent been very
manyat least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan,
should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war.
Pakistans foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use any weapon in its
arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied
its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, dont nuclear weapons deter a nuclear
attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didnt feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATOs strategy was to
respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the
nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence
worked, they would not have resorted to championing Star Wars and its modern variant, national missile defense.
Why are these vastly expensiveand probably unworkablemilitary defense systems needed if other nuclear
powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans
convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear
arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today ,

it is estimated that the U.S.

government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the
Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred.
Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach
the United States. Surely the United States would win any nuclear war with China. But what would that
victory entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least
10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many
more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese
death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be
reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris
sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a
nuclear winter around the globedestroying agriculture, creating
worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction . Moreover, in another
decade the extent of this catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently

expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is expected to more
than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States.
The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars modernizing its nuclear weapons
and nuclear production facilities over the next decade. To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-China nuclear war,
there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the nuclear powers
have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process
is occurring, is to improve U.S.-China relations. If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their
survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.

Nuclear war ends in extinction

Germanos 13 (Andrea Germanos, staff writer, Common Dreams, Nuclear War Could Mean 'Extinction of
the Human Race', December 10, 2013, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/10-2 ds)
A war using even a small percentage of the world's nuclear weapons threatens the lives of two billion people, a new

"A nuclear war using only a fraction of existing arsenals would

produce massive casualties on a global scalefar more than we had
previously believed," said Dr. Ira Helfand. The findings in the report issued by International Physicians for
report warns.

Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) are based on studies by climate

nuclear war would alter the climate and agriculture,

thereby threatening one quarter of the world's population with famine. Nuclear
scientists that show how

Famine: Two Billion People at Risk? offers an updated edition to the groups' April of 2012 report, which the groups

"A nuclear war

using only a fraction of existing arsenals would produce massive
casualties on a global scalefar more than we had previously believed ," Dr.
say "may have seriously underestimated the consequences of a limited nuclear war."

Ira Helfand, the reports author and IPPNW co-president, said in a statement. As their previous report showed, years
after even a limited nuclear war, production of corn in the U.S. and China's middle season rice production would
severely decline, and fears over dwindling food supplies would lead to hoarding and increases in food prices,
creating further food insecurity for those already reliant on food imports. The updated report adds that Chinese
winter wheat production would plummet if such a war broke out. Based on information from new studies combining
reductions in wheat, corn and rice, this new edition doubles the number of people they expect to be threatened by
nuclear-war induced famine to over two billion. "The prospect of a decade of widespread hunger and intense social
and economic instability in the worlds largest country has immense implications for the entire global community,
as does the possibility that the huge declines in Chinese wheat production will be matched by similar declines in

The crops would be impacted, the report

explains, citing previous studies, because of the black carbon particles that would be
released, causing widespread changes like cooling temperatures,
decreased precipitation and decline in solar radiation. In this scenario of
famine, epidemics of infectious diseases would be likely, the report states,
and could lead to armed conflict. From the report: Within nations where famine is
widespread, there would almost certainly be food riots, and competition
for limited food resources might well exacerbate ethnic and regional
animosities. Among nations, armed conflict would be a very real possibility as
states dependent on imports attempted to maintain access to food
supplies. While a limited nuclear war would bring dire circumstances, the impacts if the world's biggest
nuclear arms holders were involved would be even worse. " With a large war between the United States
and Russia, we are talking about the possible not certain, but possible extinction of the
human race," Helfand told Agence-France Presse.
other wheat producing countries," Helfand stated.

AFF Answers

No Link
China wants peaceful ocean development
Jourdan and Blanchard 6/20/14 (Adam Jourdan and Ben Blanchard, Reuters, China urges
peaceful development of seas, says conflict leads to "disaster", June 20,2014,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/21/us-southchinasea-china-idUSKBN0EW07L20140621 ds)

China, involved in a growing dispute with its neighbors over the energy-rich South China Sea,
wants to promote peaceful development of the oceans, Premier Li Keqiang said,
warning conflicts in the past had only brought "disaster for humanity".
China claims almost the entire ocean, rejecting rival claims to parts of it from Vietnam, the
(Reuters) -

Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei in one of Asia's most intractable disputes and a possible flashpoint. It also
has a long-running dispute with Japan in the East China Sea. " China

will unswervingly follow the

path of peaceful development and firmly oppose any act of hegemony in
maritime affairs," Li said at a maritime summit in Greece on Friday in comments carried by China's Foreign
Ministry website on Saturday. "Developing the oceans through cooperation has
helped many nations flourish, while resorting to conflict to fight over the
sea has only brought disaster for humanity." Concern over China's motives has risen in the
region after China sent four more oil rigs into the South China Sea, less than two months after it positioned a giant
drilling platform in waters claimed by Vietnam around the Paracel Islands. The lack of any breakthrough in the
dispute suggests China and Vietnam are far from resolving one of the worst breakdowns in relations since they
fought a brief war in 1979. Among the obstacles is Beijing's demand for compensation for anti-Chinese riots that
erupted in Vietnam after the drilling platform was deployed at the beginning of May. Speaking at a forum in Beijing
on Saturday, China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, who visited Vietnam this week to discuss the rig
dispute, said China

had both the patience and sincerity to push for talks to

resolve such spats. But China would not sacrifice its sovereignty, he added. "China will not trade its core
interests and will not swallow the bitter pill of harming China's sovereignty, security and development interests,"
said Yang, who outranks the foreign minister. China's state news agency Xinhua, in a report late on Friday, accused
Vietnam of encouraging trawlers to fish in disputed waters around the Paracel Islands by using financial incentives,
saying the problem was rampant. "Vietnamese seized by Chinese law enforcement authorities for illegal fishing
confessed that they were given large subsidies by the Vietnamese government to fish in

'disputed

waters'," Xinhua said in the English-language report. "In addition, armed Vietnamese fishing vessels have
repeatedly looted Chinese fishing boats, posing a serious threat to the safety of Chinese fishermen's lives and
property," it added. The Philippines said this week it will ask an international arbitration tribunal in the Hague to
make a speedy ruling on its dispute with China over exploiting waters in the South China Sea after Beijing refused
to take part in the proceedings.

China and the US working together regarding the ocean not a

zero-sum game
Klapper 7/9/14 (Bradley Klapper, Associated Press, US, CHINA VOW TO IMPROVE COOPERATION, July
9, 2014, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-china-strategic-talks-get-test-week ds)

The United States and China vowed Wednesday to improve their economic and security
cooperation, saying they wouldn't let persistent differences over maritime
claims, cyberhacking and currency hamper a relationship critical to global peace and
prosperity. Opening this year's "Strategic and Economic Dialogue," Chinese President Xi
Jinping stressed the need to avoid confrontation between nations
accounting for a quarter of the world's people and a third of the global
economy. His theme was largely echoed by Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew,
leaders of an American delegation that also included Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen and three other Obama
administration Cabinet members. Nevertheless, the next two days are a test of whether the annual high-level talks

Washington
hopes to secure closer coordination with China against climate change, an
can produce tough compromises or just serve as a venue to talk about greater cooperation.

and stricter rules governing

territorial claims in Asia's contested, resource-rich seas . Xi made clear China
wouldn't be pushed around. "The vast Pacific Ocean has ample space to
accommodate our two great nations," he said through an interpreter. Differences
between the U.S. and China, he said, were "natural." Yet he said the only path forward
end to Chinese industrial cyberespionage against American companies

was respect for each other's sovereignty and to "refrain from imposing your will or model on other side." And in a
reference to China's territorial disputes with its neighbors, he said the U.S. must respect Chinese "territorial
integrity." American allies Japan and the Philippines, as well as Vietnam, have become increasingly worried by
Chinese efforts to drill for oil or assert authority in waters they consider their own. China also has tried to enforce
control over contested airspace. For its part, the U.S. says it takes no sides on whose claims are valid. But its effort
to establish rules for settling the disputes has gained no ground with Beijing. From Washington, President Barack
Obama released a statement hailing the 35th anniversary of U.S.-Chinese diplomatic relations and referenced a
pledge he made with Xi at a summit last year in California to establish a "new model" of superpower cooperation. In
Beijing, in the Diaoyutai guest house where former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's secret talks in the 1970s
laid the groundwork for today's relationship, Kerry emphasized " a

new model is not defined in

words." "It is defined in actions," Kerry said. "The new model will be defined by
the choices we can make together."

United States and China looking for cooperation both can be

in the ocean
Deyner 7/9/14 (Simon Deyner, Bureau Chief for Washington Post, Washington Post, U.S., China try to
emphasize potential for cooperation, July 9, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-china-try-toemphasize-potential-for-cooperation-at-high-level-talks/2014/07/09/dcb6e0d8-e007-491a-abdec2d2e6d60e19_story.html ds)

The United States and China said Wednesday that they are determined
to avoid conflict and maintain peace with each other, but deep differences over
BEIJING

maritime security and mutual recriminations over cyber-espionage continued to loom as high-level annual talks
between the two governments began here. Relations between the two sides have been on a downward spiral this

United
States and China were trying to calm fears about a further deterioration in
ties and stressing the potential for cooperation on a broad range of
issues. Confrontation between China and the United States would
definitely spell disaster for the two countries and for the wider world ,
year, but as the sixth round of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue got underway in Beijing, the

Chinese President Xi Jinping told delegates as he opened the two-day talks. He added that the countries need to
respect each others sovereignty and territorial integrity, strengthen dialogue and promote cooperation. The
immense sea allows fish to leap at liberty, the vast sky lets birds fly freely, he said. The

broad Pacific
Ocean has ample space to accommodate our two great nations. The talks took
place in the same complex of villas in western Beijing where President Richard M. Nixon met Chinese leader Mao
Zedong on a historic visit in 1972. Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the two countries have a profound stake in
each others success but need actions not words to avoid tension. It is not lost on any of us that
throughout history there has been a pattern of strategic rivalry between rising and established powers, he said.

is not inevitable; it is a choice, he said. I

can tell you that we are determined to choose the path of peace and
prosperity and cooperation and, yes, even competition, but not conflict.
But such rivalry was not preordained, he added. It

China will make sure that the Pacific Ocean is big enough to
accommodate the US
Peoples Daily, 7/14 (Peoples daily, China and the U.S. should promote their new model majorcountry relationship, 7/14/14, http://english.people.com.cn/n/2014/0714/c98649-8755064.html) j.shack

Chinese president Xi Jinping addressed the joint opening ceremony of the Sixth Round of China-U.S.
Strategic and Economic Dialogue and the Fifth Round of China-U.S. High-Level Consultation on People-to-People

I always
maintain that the Pacific Ocean is big enough to accommodate both the
United States and China, Xi said in the speech. Xi won approval from both
Chinese and foreign media with a speech which provided guidance on the
development of the current China-US relations, and called on both sides to
stick to cooperation and avoid confrontation, to the benefit of both
countries and to the world as a whole. Over the past 35 years China-US relations have become
Exchange. His speech shows China's confidence in the continued development of China-US relations.

deeply intertwined. They have witnessed historical development through highs and lows. Today, China and the
United States are joining together in an effort to promote their new model major-country relationship.

No Impact
China and US arent interested in going to war
Keck, 13 (Zachary Keck, Managing Editor of The Diplomat, Why China and the US (Probably) Wont Go to
War Geography and nuclear weapons make it virtually unthinkable that Beijing and Washington will clash., 7/12/13,
http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/why-china-and-the-us-probably-wont-go-to-war/) j.shack

China and the U.S. over the past month

has renewed conversation on whether Beijing and Washington, as rising and established power, can defy
history by not going to war. Xinhua was the latest to weigh in on this question ahead of the Strategic
As I noted earlier in the week, the diplomatic summits between

and Economic Dialogue this week, in an article titled, China, U.S. Can Avoid Thucydides Trap. Like many others,

U.S.-China war can be avoided is based largely on their

strong economic relationship. This logic is deeply flawed both historically and logically. Strong
Xinhuas argument that a

economic partners have gone to war in the past, most notably in WWI, when Britain and Germany fought on
opposite sides despite being each others largest trading partners. More generally, the notion of a capitalist peace
is problematic at best. Close trading ties can raise the cost of war for each side, but any great power conflict is so
costly already that the addition of a temporarily loss of trade with ones leading partner is a small consideration at
best. And while trade can create powerful stakeholders in each society who oppose war, just as often trading ties
can be an important source of friction. Indeed, the fact that Japan relied on the U.S. and British colonies for its oil
supplies was actually the reason it opted for war against them. Even today, Chinas allegedly unfair trade policies
have created resentment among large political constituencies in the United States. But while trade cannot be relied
upon to keep the peace,

a U.S.-China war is virtually unthinkable because of two

other factors: nuclear weapons and geography. 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

What makes nuclear weapons different, then, is not just

their destructive power but also the certainty and immediacy of it. While
nomadic societies.

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 countries

according 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. T hus,

while every effort should be made to

avoid a U.S.-China war, it is nearly unthinkable one will occur.

US and China not going to go to war

Thayer 13 (Carlyle A. Thayer, Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence
Force Academy, Canberra, Why China and the US wont go to war over the South China Sea, May 13, 2013,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/ ds)
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 United States 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-tomilitary 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

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
are growing stronger. As such, a third scenario is more likely than the previous two: that

hand, these multilateral mechanisms reveal very little about USChina 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

despite ongoing frictions in their relationship,

the United States and China will continue engaging with each other . Both sides
cooperation. So the bottom line is that,

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

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.
in military-to-military relations. In sum, Sino-American

Russia SOI DA

1NC
Russia is expanding and US movement upset this expansion
URI FRIEDMANMAR 28 2014,

6:53 PM ET The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square
Off Next
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-where-the-us-and-russia-could-square-offnext/359543/
In mid-March, around the same time that Russia annexed Crimea, Russian officials announced another territorial
coup: 52,000 square kilometers in the Sea of Okhotsk, a splotch of Pacific Ocean known as the "Peanut Hole" and
believed to be rich in oil and gas. A UN commission had recognized the maritime territory as part of Russia's

Russia's minister of natural resources and environment proudly

announced, and the decision would only advance the territorial claims in the
Arctic that Russia had pending before the same committee. After a decade and a half of painstaking petitioning,
continental shelf,

the Peanut Hole was Russia's. Common Russian officials were getting a bit ahead of themselves. Technically, the UN
commission had approved Russia's recommendations on the outer limits of its continental shelfand only when
Russia acts on these suggestions is its control of the Sea of Okhotsk "final and binding." Still, these technicalities

Russia isn't only pursuing its territorial ambitions in

Ukraine and other former Soviet states. It's particularly active in the Arctic
Circle, and, until recently, these efforts engendered international cooperation, not conflict. But the Crimean crisis
has complicated matters. Take Hillary Clinton's call last week for Canada and the United States to
form a "united front" in response to Russia "aggressively reopening
military bases in the Arctic. Or the difficultiesU.S. officials are having in designing sanctions against
shouldn't obscure the larger point:

Russia that won't harm Western oil companies like Exxon Mobil, which are engaged in oil-and-gas exploration with
their Russian counterparts in parts of the Russian Arctic. In a dispatch from "beneath the Arctic ocean" this week,
The Wall Street Journal reported on

a U.S. navy exercise, scheduled before the crisis in Ukraine, that

included a simulated attack on a Russian submarine. The U.S. has now canceled a joint naval
exercise with Russia in the region and put various other partnerships there on hold. This week, the Council on
Foreign Relations published a very helpful guide on the jostling among countries to capitalize on the shipping routes
and energy resources that could be unlocked as the Arctic melts. The main players are the countries with Arctic
Ocean coastlines: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia, the United States (Alaska)and, to a lesser
extent, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. These nations have generally agreed to work together to resolve territorial

disputes persist, including American

opposition to Russia's claims to parts of the Northern Sea Route above
Siberia. Here's CFR's infographic on where the Arctic's shipping and natural-resource potential is, and where the
"Arctic Five" are most at odds with each other (you can even layer summer sea ice onto the map!): Few
countries have been as keen to invest in the Arctic as Russia, whose economy and
and environmental issues. But some sovereignty

federal budget rely heavily on hydrocarbons," CFR writes. "Of the nearly sixty large oil and natural-gas fields
discovered in the Arctic, there are forty-three in Russia, eleven in Canada, six in Alaska, and one in Norway,
according to a 2009 U.S. Department of Energy report." Russia, the only non-NATO littoral Arctic state,

has
made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority , restoring Soviet-era airfields
and ports and marshaling naval assets," the guide adds. "In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his
military leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed 'every lever for the protection of
its security and national interests there.' He also ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the
Russian Arctic by the end of 2014." Ultimately, the remarkable international cooperation we've seen in the North
Pole may continue even amid the standoff in Ukraine. This week, for instance, government officials from the eight
members of the Arctic Council, including Russia and the United States, went ahead with a summit in Canada. "The
Russians have been quite cooperative in the Arctic during the past decade," international-law professor Michael
Byers told The Canadian Press, "probably because they realize how expensive it would be to take another approach,
especially one involving militarization."

Russia is willing to go to war with the US in SOI conflicts

Durden 14
Tyler Durden, Russia Prepared To Fight War Over Ukraine, Senior Government Official Admits 02/21/2014 ,
Zerohedge, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-21/russia-prepared-fight-war-over-ukraine-senior-governmentofficial-admits)

Russia
is prepared to fight a war over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea (where the largest ethnic Russian
"If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war," warns a senior Russian government official. The FT reports

population lives and they have a military base). Conjuring images of the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, the
official told the FT, "they will lose Crimea first [because] we will go in and protect [it], just as we did in Georgia."

The Kremlin regards the Georgian conflict as the biggest stand-off

between Russia and the west since the end of the Cold War and it has fed
determination in Moscow to push back against what it believes to be
western attempts to contain Russia. Via The FT, If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war, the official
said. They will lose Crimea first [because] we will go in and protect [it], just as we did in Georgia. In August 2008,
Russian troops invaded Georgia after the Georgian military launched a surprise attack on the separatist region of

Georgia
pitted Russia indirectly against the US and Nato, which had earlier tried to put Georgia on a
South Ossetia in an effort to establish its dominance over the republic. ... The brief conflict with

path to Nato membership. The Kremlin regards the Georgian conflict as the biggest stand-off between Russia and

it has fed determination in Moscow to push

back against what it believes to be western attempts to contain Russia . ...
the west since the end of the Cold War and

The warning of a similar scenario comes because Ukraines civil conflict has fanned tension in Crimea. On the
peninsula, located on the northern coast of the Black Sea where Russias Black Sea Fleet is stationed, ethnic
Russians make up almost 60 per cent of the population, with Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars accounting for the
rest. ... Volodymyr Konstantinov, speaker of Crimeas parliament, said on Thursday that the region might try to
secede from Ukraine if the country split. It is possible, if the country breaks apart, he told the Russian news
agency Interfax. And everything is moving towards that. Russian media also quoted him as saying Crimeans might
turn to Russia for protection. ... The Kremlin has been eager to stress that it is not interfering in Ukraine. ...

many government officials say in private that Ukraine falls inside

Russias sphere of influence. We will not allow Europe and the US to take
Ukraine from us. The states of the former Soviet Union, we are one family, said a foreign policy official.
However,

They think Russia is still as weak as in the early 1990s but we are not. So while some suggest the "agreement"
today is great news, we suspect it solves absolutely nothing as the corruption at the core remains and the push-pull
of East-West tensions remains as the only thing that matters - it sadly appears - is who controls the pipelines.

Russia is banking on oceanic development as a source of

economic growth- US oceanic expansion leads to conflict
Gorenburg 14
(Dmitry Gorenburg, Ph.D. is a senior research scientist with Center for Naval Analysis Corporation's Strategic
Studies division. His areas of expertise include security issues, military affairs, and ethnic politics in Russia, How to
understand Russias Arctic strategy, The Washington Post, February 12 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/12/how-to-understand-russias-arctic-strategy/)
Joshua Tucker: As the Sochi Olympics continue, so does our companion Monkey Cage series of Russian politicsrelated posts. Today we bring you political scientist Dmitry Gorenburg of Harvard Universitys Davis Center for
Russian and East European Studies to discuss Russias Arctic strategy. ***** During most of the late 20th century,

the Arctic region was primarily a zone of military interests, used by both NATO and Soviet
strategic forces as bases for their nuclear submarines and as testing grounds for intercontinental
ballistic missiles. With the end of the Cold War, the Arctic initially lost its strategic significance. In the last
decade, however, thanks to a combination of accelerating climate change and

a rapid increase in energy prices, it has become a key zone of strategic

competition among a range of regional actors and outside powers. Russia has become heavily
involved in these fledgling efforts to develop the Arctic. Russian leaders now primarily see
the Arctic as a potential source of economic growth for the country, both as a strategic
resource base for the future and a potential maritime trade route. Russian actions in the Arctic are
governed by a combination of factors. The highest priority is undoubtedly economic development of Russias Arctic

Russias natural resources ministry has stated that the parts of the
Arctic Ocean claimed by Russia may hold more petroleum deposits than
those currently held by Saudi Arabia. Russia has already put in place plans to
exploit resources in this region, beginning with deposits on the Yamal Peninsula and adjacent
offshore areas. The first offshore development is the Prirazlomnoye oil field south of Novaia Zemlia, which
started production in December 2013. Russian companies face several challenges in
region.

developing these oil and gas resources. Because most of these deposits are offshore in the Arctic Ocean, where
extraction platforms will be subject to severe storms and the danger of sea ice, the exploitation of these resources
will require significant investment and in some cases the development of new technology, and will only be
economically feasible if prices for oil and natural gas remain high. The future economic potential of the region is not

climate change is
has already improved access to the
Russian Arctic. Russian planners are banking on the relatively rapid
development of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which they hope might compete with the Suez
Canal route for commercial maritime traffic. This will require a serious investment in
icebreakers, new and expanded port facilities, places of refuge and other
services. While much of the recent increase in attention paid to the region and investment in it is the result of
perceptions of the Arctics economic potential, Russian leaders also see the Arctic as a
location where they can assert Russias status as a major international
power. This is done by claiming sovereignty over Arctic territory and
through steps to assure Russian security in the region. Many of the actions
designed to promote Russian sovereignty claims to the Arctic have been highly symbolic
in nature. The planting of a titanium flag on the sea floor at the North Pole in 2007 is
typical of these types of actions, as are the highly publicized occasional air patrols along the
limited to the extraction of natural resources. In recent decades, it has become clear that
leading to the rapid melting of the polar ice cap, which

Norwegian, Canadian and Alaskan coastlines. The recent action against Greenpeace protesters who sought to scale
the Prirazlomnoye offshore oil rig is also highly symbolic in nature. While an almost identical protest in 2012
resulted in nothing more than the protesters being removed from the platform and their ship escorted out of
Russian territory, the 2013 incident resulted in Russia

impounding the Greenpeace ship and

highly charged statements by Russian officials accusing the protesters of engaging in piracy.
These actions are indicative of an effort by the countrys leadership to
ensure that the Russian public perceives Russian sovereignty over the Arctic as
uncontested. Russian policy is thus pursued on two divergent tracks. The first track seeks international
cooperation to ensure the development of the regions resources. This includes efforts to settle maritime border
disputes and other conflicts of interest in the region. The second track uses bellicose rhetoric to highlight Russias
sovereignty over the largest portion of the Arctic. This is combined with declarations of a coming military buildup in
the region. This second track is primarily aimed at shoring up support among a domestic audience. Managing the
lack of alignment between these strategic and policy positions, and their potential for counter-productiveness, is an
important challenge for Russias leadership. On the whole, Russia seeks cooperative international relationships in
the Arctic. Although Russian leaders rhetoric is at times confrontational, it is primarily targeted at maintaining their
popularity with their domestic base. Bellicose statements by President Putin and his subordinates about ensuring
Russian sovereignty in the Arctic should not be treated as indicators of an expansionist or militarist agenda in the
region. Although Russia is planning to improve its military and border patrol capabilities in the Arctic, these
improvements are primarily focused on areas such as protection of coastlines and offshore energy extraction
installations, search-and-rescue operations and icebreaker capabilities, and should therefore not be viewed as

the U.S.
government needs to be careful to avoid assuming that provocative statements intended primarily
inherently threatening to other Arctic states. In observing Russian activities in the Arctic,

for a domestic audience are signals of belligerent intent in the region. Instead,

U.S. policymakers need

to watch for

more subtle signals of Russian intent. While statements of Russian intent to build up
military capacity should not cause much worry, actions such as placing and deploying expeditionary forces would

Russian refusal to recognize the decisions or authority of

international organizations in the Arctic, or its withdrawal from such
organizations, should be considered a strong signal that Russia is truly shifting
from a cooperative to a confrontational posture in the Arctic.
be far more provocative.

Oceanic Territorial tensions escalate to armed conflict

Topychkanov 7/17
Petr Topychkanov, Why territorial disputes in Asia-Pacific should worry Russia, Russia Direct, July
17, 2014, http://www.russia-direct.org/content/why-territorial-disputes-asia-pacific-should-worryrussia)

The Asia-Pacific region often attracts the attention of Russia and the
United States, mainly because of the presence of the central power in the region China and
that governments relations with its neighbors. Tensions between China and Japan, as a result of
territorial disputes, continue to increase concern in the region and beyond. In this regard, two

this tension
could escalate into an armed conflict. Second, in order to protect itself from the Chinese
possible scenarios cause the greatest concerns. First of all, there is a concern that

threat, Japan may decide to develop its own nuclear weapons. Both the first and second scenarios are
characterized by great ambiguity. The first question relates to the role of the United States. If this
conflict should escalate, how would the U.S. behave? Beijing knows that Washington has made firm
commitments to Tokyo, implying the use of force (including nuclear weapons) in case of any
aggression against Japan. Undoubtedly, for China this serves as a deterrent, while in Tokyo, they
certainly understand that the U.S. has not always acted in accordance with its undertaken obligations.
For example, during the Pakistan-India war in 1971, the U.S., contrary to the Mutual Defense
Assistance Agreement signed in 1954, did not provide assistance to Pakistan. Moreover, the Americans
imposed an arms embargo on both India and Pakistan. Given their close economic interdependence
today, would the U.S. risk aggravating its relations with China for the sake of their obligations to
Japan? This question has no simple answer. There has been talk in Japanese expert circles to the effect
that, in response to the growing Chinese threat, Japan will use appropriate means. If all the usual
(conventional) means cannot stop the aggression of China, then a decision will have to be made as to
the creation of nuclear weapons. This approach has its fair share of uncertainties and unknowns. First,
it is not a foregone conclusion that China will increase its threats against Japan. It is obvious that
Beijing is interested in using the territorial dispute with Japan to put pressure on that country, and
also to mobilize the masses inside China under nationalist slogans. However, is it really in the interest
of China to engage in a full-scale armed conflict with Japan? Hardly. Second, if we imagine an
apocalyptic scenario, in which China and Japan, which would have acquired a nuclear arsenal,
exchange nuclear strikes against each others territories, it is clear that China will have a chance to
survive this, but Japan has absolutely no way to emerge from such a conflict. Third, in Japan there are
many people who, remembering the disaster of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, continue to strongly oppose
the creation of nuclear weapons. An important obstacle to the escalation of tensions in the Asia-Pacific
region is the position of third-party countries, including Russia, which is interested in developing

Escalation of conflicts in the region,

interruption of trade and economic relations between regional countries
all this goes against Russias interests. In its relations with countries in the Asia-Pacific
relations with China and also its neighbors.

region, Russia mainly focuses on the economic aspects, avoiding emphasis on political issues. In such
a way, Russia avoids getting involved in regional disputes between countries. It is unlikely that there
is any other acceptable alternative to this approach for Russia. This does not mean that Moscow will
be turning a blind eye to the dangerous trends developing in the region. First of all, a cause for
concern is the situation on the Korean Peninsula and North Koreas attempts to acquire nuclear
weapons (Pyongyang is trying to convince everyone that it has already become a nuclear power, but

its missile and nuclear tests put these claims to doubt).

No one in Russia supports those

Japan and South Korea that are seeking the creation of nuclear weapons. In addition,
Russia is interested in greater transparency in Chinas nuclear arsenal. These clear
forces in

positions can of course be adjusted under the influence of immediate needs of Russia. Thus, after the
escalation of the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea joining Russia, Moscow needed the support of Beijing
and was ready to pay any price for it. Chinese officials made a number of statements in support of
Russias position. China condemned the sanctions imposed against Russia. Probably, at this stage,
Russia will not be focusing on the need for greater openness in Chinas nuclear policy. Russia will
refrain from taking any steps that might displease China. However, we should not perceive this as a
long-term strategy for Russia in the Asia-Pacific region. This is a temporary strategy that Moscow was
forced to adopt in light of recent events. In the long term, relations with China cannot be regarded as
problem-free. That is why, while Russia holds regular military exercises with China, it is also gradually
increasing the numbers of troops stationed in the eastern part of the country. Therefore, we can see
that Russia is actively developing good relations not only with China, but also with the countries that
are wary of China Vietnam, India, South Korea and Japan. Russia is helping India acquire a nuclear
submarine fleet, whose main goal is to contain China in the Indian Ocean. Taking a long-term
perspective, Russia could find common ground with the United States when it comes to China.
However, in the short term, Moscow and Washington are hardly ready for this. The
opinion of the author may not necessarily reflect the position of Russia Direct or its staff.

Conflict quickly goes to nuclear

Saunders 14
(Paul J. Saunders was a State Department Senior Advisor in the George W. Bush
Administration, April 3, 2014, No War with Russia? Don't Be So Sure, The National
Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/no-war-russia-dont-be-so-sure10177?page=2)

Though Moscow now appears willing to talk about Ukraine, it is far from clear that Russias terms will be acceptable to the United
Statesor, more important, to Kiev. Meanwhile, according to NATOs commanding General Philip Breedlove, Russias troops could
seize southern and eastern Ukraine within three to five days. With such high stakes, its time to reexamine some of our fundamental
assumptions about war. Nineteenth-century American humorist Josh Billingsa contemporary and rival of Mark Twainis credited as
the originator of the often-cited warning that it aint what you dont know that gets you into trouble, its what you know for sure
that just aint so. Unfortunately, after two decades of sole-superpowerdom, our president, politicians and pundits seem to know a
great deal that aint so about wars. Thus as Washington debates its response to Russias annexation of Crimea, all sides agree on

certainty may rest upon a series

of dangerously false assumptions. Most assume that as the worlds preeminent military power,
the United States gets to choose whether it goes to war or not. After two major wars in
only one thing: America will not go to war with Russia. Unfortunately, their

Afghanistan and Iraq, plus interventions in the Balkans and Libya and a decision to skip Syria, Americans have become accustomed
to the idea that we can comfortably discuss our military options while others wait because none would dare challenge us. Though
Leon Trotsky was wrong about everything else, policymakers should remember his statement that you may not be interested in
war, but war is interested in you. Would Russia directly attack U.S. forces or other targets? This is unlikely, as Americas military is
far more powerful than Moscowssomething Russian officials admit. Nevertheless, the fact that Russias President Vladimir

Putin has correctly calculated that the United States would not respond
militarily to his actions so far does not mean that he will continue to be
correct indefinitely in judging how far he can go. He knows more than a little that isnt so
himself. This connects directly to a second assumption: that we, Putin, the European Union, Ukraines new government and Crimean
leaders can collectively control or manage events. The collapse of the February 21 agreement between ousted Ukrainian president
Viktor Yanukovych and his opponents-turned-successors demonstrates unmistakably that this is untruethe deal fell apart because
protestors on the Maidan demanded Yanukovychs immediate removal when the U.S., the EU and the leaders of the Ukrainian
opposition were all on board with the agreement and when Putin and Crimeas leaders would have reluctantly accepted it.
Yanukovych fled Kiev and Ukraine because he feared the mob, not establishment opposition leaders. The relative absence of
violence in Crimea has been remarkable. Conditions in eastern and southern Ukraine have been more troubling, and could get
worse. How long can the current relative calm last? If demonstrations and counterdemonstrations devolve into violence, might
Russia intervene elsewhere in Ukraine? What would NATO do if Ukraines weak army and paramilitary groups resisted? Where is the
border between eastern Ukraine and western Ukraine? Would Russias general staff knowingly create a Pakistan-style haven for
irregular fighters in western Ukraine by stopping their advance at that arbitrary point? Might Moscow attack the arms shipments
some advocate or escalate in other ways? Carl von Clausewitz noted that once a war starts, it has its own logic of relentless
escalation to extremes. We forget this at our peril. Many prefer crippling sanctions, arguing that draconian economic measures

could force Moscow to change course, or just inflict a devastating cost, while avoiding armed conflict. This popular view rests on a
third assumption: that sanctions are an alternative to war rather than a prelude to it. Iran, Iraq, North Korea and some others have
been prepared to absorb sanctions without attempting armed retaliationbut none is a major power. The last time the United States
imposed crippling sanctions on another major power was in 194041, when Washington ratcheted up restrictions on trade with
Imperial Japan, culminating in a de facto oil embargo and including bans on exports of iron, steel, copper and other metals as well as
aviation fuel. Though President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was concerned about provoking Japan, U.S. officials thought that it would
be irrational for Tokyo to attack the United States. Japanese leaders saw giving in to Washington as a greater danger. How would
Putin respond to similar pressures? Some take comfort in a critical difference between 1941 and 2014the United States and Russia
are nuclear superpowers. They assume that since nuclear deterrence succeeded in preventing U.S.-Soviet conflict during the Cold

are Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin prepared to use

nuclear weapons? More important, does each believe that the other could use
nuclear weapons in an escalating conventional conflict over Ukraine? If either leader
believes that the other will flinch, nuclear deterrence of conventional war
could suddenly fail. Nuclear deterrence of conventional escalation could
also fail. Moscow has already been waving its nuclear card. Avoiding a war while
War it will do so again. But

resolutely defending U.S. national interestsand deterring Russias further intervention in Ukrainerequires a policy starkly
different from the Obama administrations. Greater resolve is essential, but there is also a fine balance between deterrence and
provocation. President Barack Obamas statement in Europe that Russia cannot be deterred from further escalation by military
force is especially dangerous because it abandons a central foundation of post-World War II American strategythe idea that U.S.
dominance at each stage in a potential escalation chain deters conflict. From this perspective, Mr. Obama may be our first true postCold War president. Too bad that neither America nor the rest of the world may be quite ready for him.

Nuclear war eliminates all life with a combination of

explosions, ecological consequences, and famine
PressTV 13
(PressTVUS-Russia nuclear war to end human race: Study Press TV, Dec 10, 2013,
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/10/339285/usrussia-nuclear-war-to-extinct-human-race/)

nuclear scientist Ira Helfand has warned that a nuclear war between
the United States and Russia could lead to the extinction of the human race. "With a
American

large war between the United States and Russia, we are talking about the possible -- not certain, but
possible -- extinction of the human race, Helfand, the co-president of International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War, said in a report released on Tuesday. "In this kind of war, biologically there

the chaos that would result

from this will dwarf anything we've ever seen," he added. There are currently more
than 17,000 nuclear warheads which have been ignored since the Cold War ended in 1991,
according to the study called Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk?" Helfand said modern
nuclear weapons are far more powerful than the atomic bombs the US
used against Japan in 1945 which killed more than 200,000 people. The scientist warned
that even a limited nuclear war-- involving just less than 0.5 percent of the world's nuclear
arsenal-- would put 2 billion lives at grave risk with more than 20 million people losing
their lives within the first week of the explosions. The ecological consequences of a
nuclear war would put the survival of the entire planet at risk, according to the
study. The firestorms caused by such a war would send approximately 5 million
tons of soot into the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight and dropping
temperatures across the planet. Helfand painted a scenario where this climate
hazard would cause a nuclear famine across the world. Hundreds of millions of
people would face severe food shortages for years. Nine countries are believed to
are going to be people surviving somewhere on the planet but

possess nuclear weapons, with Russia and the United States holding the vast majority of them. Israel
is the Middle East's sole possessor of nuclear weapons. In 2009, Washington pledged to work toward
the abolition of its nuclear weapons, but said it would keep them so long as others keep theirs. In May
2012, seventeen nations issued a joint statement called for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
By this fall the number rose to 125 nations.

Uniqueness
US and Russia stir up political tensions over Arctic
The Guardian, Wednesday 6 July 2011 US and Russia stir up political tensions over Arctic
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/06/us-russia-political-tensions-arctic
The seventh ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in May looked set be a mundane affair, with its focus on
signing a new search-and-rescue agreement and handover of the chairmanship to Sweden. But the atmosphere in
Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, was electrified by the first visit to such a forum by the United States, courtesy of the
secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, secretary of the interior Ken Salazar, and a host of other heavy-hitters. The

the US is putting itself at the centre of the debate about the

future of the far north at a time when a new oil and mineral "cold rush" is
under way as global warming makes extraction more easy. And being the US, the
message was clear:

soft diplomacy was backed up with a bit of symbolic hardware. A few weeks earlier two nuclear-powered
submarines were sent to patrol 150 miles north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Meanwhile Russia also on the eightnation council was happy to push off the agenda any idea that countries such as China could gain observer status.

The US navy move comes as Russia is said to have increased missile

testing in the region and Norway has moved its main military base to the
far north. Meanwhile China has started to woo countries such as Greenland, which are rich in rare earth
minerals needed for mobile phones and other hi-tech equipment. The competing commercial interests in the Arctic
are complicated by the lack of a comprehensive agreement on who owns what. Many countries are in the process of
submitting competing land claims to the UN as part of its Law of the Sea Convention a treaty as yet unsigned by
the US. Canada and others were also disturbed when Artur Chilingarov, a veteran Russian polar explorer, placed a
flag on the Arctic seabed in 2007. He told reporters his mission was to show the Arctic was Russian, adding: "We
must prove the north pole is an extension of the Russian landmass." Canada took exception to the Russian move,
seeing it as provocative, but Moscow dismissed the furore, insisting it was a theatrical gesture by a scientist hired
by private companies to make the descent. But it is telling that the following year Chilingarov also a member of
the state parliament was awarded a new title, Hero of the Russian Federation.

cold war

Concerns about a new

if not just a cold rush have led academics such as Rob Huebert, a professor of political science at

the University of Calgary, to

warn

in a recent paper prepared for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs

Institute that "an arms race may be beginning". Huebert says he has heard the Russian prime
minister, Vladimir Putin, talking of the need to establish a "zone of peace" in the Arctic but sees contrary actions as
well. "Not withstanding the public statements of peace and co-operation in the Arctic issued by the Arctic states,

each state will attach a greater

value to their own national interests in the region. The Arctic states may be
talking co-operation, but they are preparing for conflict." Meanwhile Admiral James
tThe strategic value of the region is growing. As this value grows,

Stavridis, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, in a foreword to a recent Whitehall Ppaper published by the
Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London, argued: "For now, the disputes in the
north have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium over the coming years in the
race of temptation for exploitation of more readily accessible natural resources." Stavridis believes military assets,
such as coastguards, have an important role to play with international co-ordination in the area but mainly for
specialist assistance around commercial and other interests. He added: "The cascading interests and broad
implications stemming from the effects of climate change should cause today's global leaders to take stock, and
unify their efforts to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of co-operation rather than proceed down the icy slope

towards a zone of competition, or worse a zone of conflict."

Huebert points out

that as well as opening a new ultra-hi-tech operations centre inside a mountain at Reitan, in the far north of
Norway, Oslo is also spending unprecedented money on new military hardware , not
least five top-of-the-range frigates. The class of vessel is called Fridtjof Nansen, after the famous polar explorer,
which perhaps indicates where the navy plans to deploy them. Meanwhile Canada's then foreign minister, Lawrence
Cannon, voiced confidence his nation would win the territory. "We will exercise sovereignty in the Arctic," he told his
Russian counterpart in talks in Moscow. But optimists say the fears are exaggerated and point to positive
developments, not least Norway and Russia agreeing a mutually acceptable boundary line dividing up the Barents
Sea. A partnership between Russia, Norway, the US and Britain has been quietly and successfully working away at
decommissioning nuclear submarines and tackling other radioactive waste problems in the Kola Peninsula and
Arkhangelsk regions. One former foreign minister told the Guardian:

complacency

"We want to avoid

but all this alarmist talk of meltdown should be shunned. The Arctic is quite pacific. It is not a
place of turmoil but an area of low tension." However, Paul Berkman, director of the Arctic Ocean geopolitics
programme at the Scott Polar Research Institute, believes the deluge of books and features highlighting potential
problems cannot be dismissed as melodrama. "You have to ask why are these alarming and alarmist headlines

being written and it may be there is unfinished business from the Cold War."
Whether hype or not, he argues that it is necessary to both promote cooperation and prevent conflict. "There is no
room for complacency and while tensions are low there is opportunity to address the risks of political, economic and
cultural instabilities that are inherent consequences of the environmental state-change in the Arctic Ocean."
Inuit leaders are already concerned that the talk of industrialisation and mineral wealth in the Arctic will increase
tension. Aqqaluk Lynge, former chairman of the indigenous peoples' forum, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, described
himself as "nervous" about current developments. "There

is a military build-up and an

increase in megaphone diplomacy We do not want a return to the cold
war," he said. This article was amended on 6 July 2011 to make clear that Lawrence Cannon is no longer the
Canadian foreign minister.

Russias rapid development of their military in the arctic shows

theyre wary of US Oceanic Expansion
Friedman 14
Uri Friedman, The Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square Off Next A closer
look at Moscow's claims in the northern seas, The Atlantic, Mar 28 2014,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-where-the-usand-russia-could-square-off-next/359543/)
Russian officials announced
another territorial coup: 52,000 square kilometers in the Sea of Okhotsk, a splotch of Pacific
Ocean known as the "Peanut Hole" and believed to be rich in oil and gas. A UN commission had
In mid-March, around the same time that Russia annexed Crimea,

recognized the maritime territory as part of Russia's continental shelf, Russia's minister of natural resources and
environment proudly announced, and the decision would only advance the territorial claims in the Arctic that Russia
had pending before the same committee. After a decade and a half of painstaking petitioning, the Peanut Hole was
Russia's. Russian officials were getting a bit ahead of themselves. Technically, the UN
commission had approved Russia's recommendations on the outer limits of its continental shelfand only when
Russia acts on these suggestions is its control of the Sea of Okhotsk "final and binding." Still, these technicalities

Russia isn't only pursuing its territorial ambitions in

Ukraine and other former Soviet states. It's particularly active in the Arctic Circle, and, until
shouldn't obscure the larger point:

recently, these efforts engendered international cooperation, not conflict. But the Crimean crisis has complicated
matters. Take Hillary Clinton's call last week for Canada and the United States to form a "united front" in response
to Russia "aggressively reopening military bases in the Arctic . Or the difficulties
U.S. officials are having in designing sanctions against Russia that won't harm Western oil companies like Exxon
Mobil, which are engaged in oil-and-gas exploration with their Russian counterparts in parts of the Russian Arctic. In
a dispatch from "beneath the Arctic ocean" this week, The Wall Street Journal reported on a U.S. navy exercise,
scheduled before the crisis in Ukraine, that included a simulated attack on a Russian submarine. The U.S. has now
canceled a joint naval exercise with Russia in the region and put various other partnerships there on hold. This
week, the Council on Foreign Relations published a very helpful guide on the jostling among countries to capitalize
on the shipping routes and energy resources that could be unlocked as the Arctic melts. The main players are the
countries with Arctic Ocean coastlines: Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia, the United States (Alaska)
and, to a lesser extent, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden. These nations have generally agreed to work together to

sovereignty disputes persist, including

American opposition to Russia's claims to parts of the Northern Sea Route
above Siberia. Here's CFR's infographic on where the Arctic's shipping and natural-resource potential is, and
resolve territorial and environmental issues. But some

where the "Arctic Five" are most at odds with each other (you can even layer summer sea ice onto the map!):
"Few

countries have been as keen to invest in the Arctic as Russia, whose

economy and federal budget rely heavily on hydrocarbons," CFR writes. "Of the
nearly sixty large oil and natural-gas fields discovered in the Arctic, there are forty-three in Russia, eleven in
Canada, six in Alaska, and one in Norway, according to a 2009 U.S. Department of Energy report." " Russia, the
only non-NATO littoral Arctic state,

has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic

priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets," the guide adds. "In late 2013,

Putin instructed his military leadership to pay particular attention to the

Arctic, saying Russia needed 'every lever for the protection of its security
and national interests there.' He also ordered the creation of a new strategic
military command in the Russian Arctic by the end of 2014." Ultimately, the
President Vladimir

remarkable international cooperation we've seen in the North Pole may continue even amid the standoff in Ukraine.
This week, for instance, government officials from the eight members of the Arctic Council, including Russia and the
United States, went ahead with a summit in Canada. "The Russians have been quite cooperative in the Arctic during
the past decade," international-law professor Michael Byers told The Canadian Press, "probably because they realize
how expensive it would be to take another approach, especially one involving militarization."

US and Russia stir up political tensions over Arctic

The Guardian, Wednesday 6 July 2011 US and Russia stir up political tensions over Arctic
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/06/us-russia-political-tensions-arctic
The seventh ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in May looked set be a mundane affair, with its focus on
signing a new search-and-rescue agreement and handover of the chairmanship to Sweden. But the atmosphere in
Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, was electrified by the first visit to such a forum by the United States, courtesy of the
secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, secretary of the interior Ken Salazar, and a host of other heavy-hitters. The

the US is putting itself at the centre of the debate about the

future of the far north at a time when a new oil and mineral "cold rush" is
under way as global warming makes extraction more easy. And being the US, the
message was clear:

soft diplomacy was backed up with a bit of symbolic hardware. A few weeks earlier two nuclear-powered
submarines were sent to patrol 150 miles north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Meanwhile Russia also on the eightnation council was happy to push off the agenda any idea that countries such as China could gain observer status.

The US navy move comes as Russia is said to have increased missile

testing in the region and Norway has moved its main military base to the
far north. Meanwhile China has started to woo countries such as Greenland, which are rich in rare earth
minerals needed for mobile phones and other hi-tech equipment. The competing commercial interests in the Arctic
are complicated by the lack of a comprehensive agreement on who owns what. Many countries are in the process of
submitting competing land claims to the UN as part of its Law of the Sea Convention a treaty as yet unsigned by
the US. Canada and others were also disturbed when Artur Chilingarov, a veteran Russian polar explorer, placed a
flag on the Arctic seabed in 2007. He told reporters his mission was to show the Arctic was Russian, adding: "We
must prove the north pole is an extension of the Russian landmass." Canada took exception to the Russian move,
seeing it as provocative, but Moscow dismissed the furore, insisting it was a theatrical gesture by a scientist hired
by private companies to make the descent. But it is telling that the following year Chilingarov also a member of
the state parliament was awarded a new title, Hero of the Russian Federation.

cold war

Concerns about a new

if not just a cold rush have led academics such as Rob Huebert, a professor of political science at

the University of Calgary, to

warn

in a recent paper prepared for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs

Institute that "an arms race may be beginning". Huebert says he has heard the Russian prime
minister, Vladimir Putin, talking of the need to establish a "zone of peace" in the Arctic but sees contrary actions as
well. "Not withstanding the public statements of peace and co-operation in the Arctic issued by the Arctic states,

each state will attach a greater

value to their own national interests in the region. The Arctic states may be
talking co-operation, but they are preparing for conflict." Meanwhile Admiral James
tThe strategic value of the region is growing. As this value grows,

Stavridis, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, in a foreword to a recent Whitehall Ppaper published by the
Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London, argued: "For now, the disputes in the
north have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium over the coming years in the
race of temptation for exploitation of more readily accessible natural resources." Stavridis believes military assets,
such as coastguards, have an important role to play with international co-ordination in the area but mainly for
specialist assistance around commercial and other interests. He added: "The cascading interests and broad
implications stemming from the effects of climate change should cause today's global leaders to take stock, and
unify their efforts to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of co-operation rather than proceed down the icy slope

towards a zone of competition, or worse a zone of conflict."

Huebert points out

that as well as opening a new ultra-hi-tech operations centre inside a mountain at Reitan, in the far north of
Norway, Oslo is also spending unprecedented money on new military hardware , not
least five top-of-the-range frigates. The class of vessel is called Fridtjof Nansen, after the famous polar explorer,
which perhaps indicates where the navy plans to deploy them. Meanwhile Canada's then foreign minister, Lawrence
Cannon, voiced confidence his nation would win the territory. "We will exercise sovereignty in the Arctic," he told his
Russian counterpart in talks in Moscow. But optimists say the fears are exaggerated and point to positive
developments, not least Norway and Russia agreeing a mutually acceptable boundary line dividing up the Barents
Sea. A partnership between Russia, Norway, the US and Britain has been quietly and successfully working away at
decommissioning nuclear submarines and tackling other radioactive waste problems in the Kola Peninsula and
Arkhangelsk regions. One former foreign minister told the Guardian:

"We want to avoid

complacency

but all this alarmist talk of meltdown should be shunned. The Arctic is quite pacific. It is not a
place of turmoil but an area of low tension." However, Paul Berkman, director of the Arctic Ocean geopolitics
programme at the Scott Polar Research Institute, believes the deluge of books and features highlighting potential
problems cannot be dismissed as melodrama. "You have to ask why are these alarming and alarmist headlines
being written and it may be there is unfinished business from the Cold War."
Whether hype or not, he argues that it is necessary to both promote cooperation and prevent conflict. "There is no
room for complacency and while tensions are low there is opportunity to address the risks of political, economic and
cultural instabilities that are inherent consequences of the environmental state-change in the Arctic Ocean."
Inuit leaders are already concerned that the talk of industrialisation and mineral wealth in the Arctic will increase
tension. Aqqaluk Lynge, former chairman of the indigenous peoples' forum, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, described
himself as "nervous" about current developments. "There

is a military build-up and an

increase in megaphone diplomacy We do not want a return to the cold
war," he said. This article was amended on 6 July 2011 to make clear that Lawrence Cannon is no longer the
Canadian foreign minister.

Link
Russia steps up military in artic to counter expansion
National Post Wire Services | December 10, 2013 Russia steps up Arctic
military presence just a day after Canada extends territorial claim all the way to the
North Pole http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/russia-steps-up-arctic-militarypresence-just-a-day-after-canada-extends-territorial-claim-all-the-way-to-the-northpole/

The race for the Arctic and its potentially rich resource deposits has
intensified after Russia announced it is expanding its military presence in
the region. President Vladimir Putin made the announcement just a day after Canada said
it will try to extend its territorial claims in the Arctic all the way to the North Pole.
Speaking at a meeting with the top military brass, Putin said that Russia is intensifying the
development of that promising region and needs to have every lever for
the protection of its security and national interests there. He emphasized the
importance of the Soviet-era base at the New Siberian Islands in Russias northeast, which the military started to

the facility as key for protecting shipping

routes that link Europe with the Pacific region across the Arctic Ocean . Putin
also said that Russia will restore a number of Arctic military air bases that fell into
neglect after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark and
Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic ,
which is believed to hold up to a quarter of the planets undiscovered oil and gas. In
overhaul this year. Russian officials have described

2007, Russia staked a symbolic claim to the Arctic seabed by dropping a canister containing the Russian flag on the
ocean floor from a small submarine at the North Pole Russias move comes after Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
announced Monday that federal scientists have been told to do additional work following a 10-year exercise in
mapping the continental shelf. A formal scientific submission was made to the United Nations Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf last week covering territorial claims in the Atlantic, but the government says the
material submitted for the Arctic Ocean is only preliminary. Thats why weve asked our officials and scientists to
do additional and necessary work to ensure that a submission for the full extent of the continental shelf in the Arctic
includes Canadas claim to the North Pole, said Baird. Baird did not dispute published reports that Prime Minister
Stephen Harper stepped in at the last minute to insist that the North Pole be included in Canadas claim after the
scientific assessment put the boundary just south of the pole.

Tensions between the US and Russia are high after Malaysia 17

Hennessey 7/18
Kathleen Hennessey is a reporter for the LA Times, Obama: Downing of Malaysia flight 'wake-up call'
on Ukraine conflict, The LA Times, July 18th, 2014 http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-obamamalaysia-flight-20140718-story.html)

In his first extended remarks on the fiery crash of a Malaysian airliner, President
Obama confirmed Friday that at least one U.S. citizen was killed in a global
tragedy he said should serve as wake-up call to end the conflict in Ukraine. The president said
Quinn Schansman, a Dutch and U.S. dual citizen, was traveling on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which
left Amsterdam Thursday and ended in a field near Ukraine's eastern border with Russia. Schansman
was one of 298 people killed when a missile struck the aircraft. We don't have time for propaganda.
We don't have time for games. We need to know exactly what happened. - President Obama discussing
the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 " Their

deaths are an outrage of unspeakable

proportions," the president said. In a preliminary assessment, U.S. intelligence agencies

have concluded that a missile fired from territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists in eastern
Ukraine brought down the passenger jet. "A surface-to-air missile was fired, and that's what brought
the jet down, Obama said in remarks made at the White House. That shot was taken in a territory
controlled by the Russian separatists. lRelated The crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Europe The

Obama also laid responsibility for the disaster

on Moscow, saying that the separatists have received a a steady flow of
heavy artillery from Russia for months. Obama noted the insurgents, who are seeking to
join Russia, have recently shot down Ukrainian military aircraft in that region. Obama said the
tragedy was the consequence of months of violent conflict fueled by
Russian arms and assistance. U.S. agencies are examining to what extent the Russian
crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 But

government may have been involved in the incident but have reached no conclusions, a U.S. official
told the Los Angeles Times on Friday. But even as Obama outlined the preliminary evidence, he
generally took a measured tone toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he called on to assist
in securing the crash site for investigators. So now is, I think, a somber and appropriate time for all
of us to step back and take a hard look at what has happened," Obama said. " Violence

and

conflict inevitably lead to unforeseen consequences. Russia, these separatists and

Ukraine all have the capacity to put an end to the fighting. The president later said that his
patience would be short. This should snap everybody's heads to attention and make sure
that we don't have time for propaganda. We don't have time for games . We
need to know exactly what happened, and everybody needs to make sure that we're holding
accountable those who -- who committed this outrage, he said.

Obama suggested Russia could

expect more economic sanctions if it did not deescalate the crisis. And to Europe, which has been
more reluctant to impose tough penalties, Obama said the tragedy should serve to strengthen the
resolve to increase sanctions.

Russia is watching the US for all actions

Aljazeera international 7/4
(Putin sends Obama an Independence Day message, says he wants better ties,July 4, 2014, Aljazeera,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/4/putin-obama-russia.html)
Russian President Vladimir Putin told Barack Obama in an Independence Day message Friday that he hopes the two countries can
improve relations, and he urged Washington to treat Moscow as an equal partner. In the message published on the Kremlin website,
Putin said that "regardless of difficulties and disagreements" he hoped Russia and the United States could "successfully develop
relations on pragmatic and equal grounds." "The head of the Russian state expressed hope that ... ties between the two countries
will develop successfully on the basis of pragmatism and equality despite difficulties and disagreements," the Kremlin said in a
statement, outlining a telegram it said was sent to Obama on the July 4 holiday. "Vladimir Putin also highlighted that Russia and the
United States, as countries carrying exceptional responsibility for safeguarding international stability and security, should cooperate

Relations between Russia and

the U.S. have deteriorated as the two countries have struggled to find
common ground in Ukraine, where Russia annexed the Black Sea region of
Crimea in March and a conflict in the east of the country has claimed more
than 400 lives. The U.S. reacted by imposing sanctions on some of Putin's
associates, and has threatened to take further action. The telegram underlined a message
Putin has made central to his third term as president: that Russia, like the U.S. a veto-wielding member of
the U.N. Security Council, must be treated as a world power and on an equal footing
two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin statement made no reference to the
not only in the interests of their own nations but also the whole world," it said.

sanctions that Washington imposed on Moscow, or to other differences between the two former Cold War enemies. But the call for
"pragmatism and equality" in relations suggested Putin put the onus on Obama to improve ties.

last year

Less upbeat than

The language was less upbeat than in last years Independence Day telegram, in which Putin expressed certainty
that Moscow and Washington would be able to work out solutions to various issues regardless of the fact that not all approaches of
the sides concur. The telegram sent on July 4, 2012 at the height of the Syria conflict but long before the Ukraine crisis was also
more positive, referring to an improvement in preceding years and presenting an optimistic outlook for the future. Russia annexed
Crimea after massive pro-Western protests forced out Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, who had spurned a trade pact with the
European Union in favor of better ties with Moscow. Russia accused the U.S. of supporting protests against Putin before his re-

Putin
reiterated complaints this week that the U.S. was trying to "contain" Russia,
using a term from the Cold War era. Other Russian officials have also
taken a tough line this week, deflecting Western accusations that Moscow
did not do enough to ensure pro-Russian separatists who have risen up in
eastern Ukraine stuck to a ceasefire last week. "In fact, we are dealing with a
new offensive type of weapon," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told
election in 2012, and Washington has accused Moscow of suppression of his opponents and of opposing gay rights.

Kommersant newspaper in a reference to the U.S. sanctions, which impose visa bans and asset freezes on a number of Russian firms

Another senior official challenged the U.S. over what he called its
former domination of world affairs. "The hegemony of the U.S. on the
world stage is over," Yevgeny Lukyanov, deputy head of the Russian Security
Council comprising defense and security officials, told RIA news agency. Personal relations between Obama and Putin appear
and officials.

cool as efforts continue to end the violence in east Ukraine. Putin is now weighing whether to engage more with Obama on Ukraine
or risk more sanctions that could undermine Russia's economy, already on the verge of recession. Wire services

Sanctions mean Russia is closely watching the US: looking to

retaliate
Levs And Labott 14
(Josh Levs is an American broadcast journalist based in Atlanta, Georgia, who reports for the CNN new and Elise
Labott is a CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter, Russia vows 'painful' response to new U.S. sanctions over Ukraine, CNN
World, Wed May 7, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/27/world/europe/russia-ukraine-sanctions/)
(CNN) -- The United States expanded its sanctions against Russia on Monday, targeting members of President
Vladimir Putin's "inner circle" and technology that could be useful to Russia's military. President Barack Obama said
the "targeted" sanctions are in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine. "The United States has taken further action
today in response to Russia's continued illegal intervention in Ukraine and provocative acts that undermine
Ukraine's democracy and threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity," the White
House said in a statement. Since a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 17, Russia "has done nothing" to meet
its commitments "and in fact has further escalated the crisis," the White House said in a statement. "The
Department of the Treasury is imposing sanctions on seven Russian government officials, including two members of
President Putin's inner circle, who will be subject to an asset freeze and a U.S. visa ban, and 17 companies linked to
Putin's inner circle, which will be subject to an asset freeze. Russia's president annexes ... words Russian billionaires
avoid new sanctions Donetsk besieged by violence, protesters Occupations run with military precision "In addition,
the Department of Commerce has imposed additional restrictions on 13 of those companies by imposing a license
requirement with a presumption of denial for the export, re-export or other foreign transfer of U.S.-origin items to
the companies." Also, the departments of Commerce and State are tightening their "policy to deny export license
applications for any high-technology items that could contribute to Russia's military capabilities. Those
Departments also will revoke any existing export licenses that meet these conditions," the White House said.

Ryabkov, Russia's deputy minister for

foreign relations, called the sanctions "meaningless, shameful, and
disgusting." "It will only intensify all the processes in Ukraine which it intends to change
or stop," Ryabkov told CNN, speaking English. "It is yet another sign of a reckless behavior
of the U.S. administration. No lessons are learned from the past. The U.S. does literally nothing to
Russia: The U.S. won't 'impress its cronies' Sergey

impress its cronies and clients in Kiev on whom there is full responsibility for constant deterioration of the situation
in Ukraine. This is what needs to be changed and not the policy of Russia. " A

response of Moscow will

follow, and it will be painfully felt in Washington D.C ." A senior Ukrainian government
official called the new sanctions "a very good step, but we hope it's not the final step. Sector sanctions would be the
really painful measure." The sanctioned include a Putin 'trusted ally' The seven officials named are: -- Oleg
Belavantsev, Russia's envoy to Crimea. -- Sergei Chemezov, who oversees Russia's high-tech sector as head of
state-owned corporation Rostec and is "a trusted ally of Putin," according to the White House. -- Dmitry Kozak,
deputy prime minister. Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Photos: Crisis in Ukraine Observers detained in eastern Ukraine
Living on the edge in eastern Ukraine 'Chaotic' situation unfolding in Ukraine -- Evgeniy Murov, director of Russia's
Federal Protective Service. -- Aleksei Pushkov, deputy of the State Duma. -- Igor Sechin, president of Russia's
leading petroleum company, Rosneft. -- Vyacheslav Volodin, Putin's first deputy chief of staff, one of the advisers
who encouraged Putin to move into Crimea, according to the White House. Obama: This isn't personal Earlier,

speaking to reporters in Manila, Philippines, Obama praised the Ukrainian government for abiding by its agreements

The goal of the new sanctions, he said, is not to

go after Putin personally, but "to change his calculus with respect to how the
current actions that he's engaging in in Ukraine could have an adverse impact on the
Russian economy over the long haul -- and to encourage him to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk
made in Geneva and operating "in good faith."

when it comes to diplomatically resolving the crisis." "There are specific steps that Russia can take. And if it takes
those steps, then you can see an election taking place in Ukraine; you can see the rights of all people inside of
Ukraine respected." If the latest round of sanctions don't work, the next phase could target sectors such as banking,
Obama said. EU sanctions coming The European Union also is expected to impose sanctions Monday on about 15
Russian officials who are believed to be undermining democracy and creating chaos in Ukraine, according to
Western diplomats. The sanctions will include asset freezes and travel bans. The EU is not expected to impose
sanctions on Putin associates in part because the European judiciary system has a much higher bar in terms of
applying the law, the diplomats said. Judges are not able to look at intelligence to sign off on the sanctions, they
said. One Western diplomat said there was also some division within the EU as to whether sanctions against Putin's
cronies should be imposed. Several European countries are also concerned that their economic interests would be
greatly affected by such sanctions. Additionally, some countries feel more space should be given to diplomacy
before such measures are considered, the diplomat said. Neither the United States nor EU is ready to impose
sanctions on Russian industries, like the energy sector, both U.S. officials and Western diplomats said. "Today's
targeted actions, taken in close coordination with the EU, will increase the impact we have already begun to see on
Russia's own economy as a result of Russia's actions in Ukraine and from U.S. and international sanctions,"
U.S.Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a statement. "Russian economic growth forecasts have dropped sharply,
capital flight has accelerated and higher borrowing costs reflect declining confidence in the market outlook."

Sanctions have put Russia on high alert of any US action

Russia Beyond the Headlines, 7/17/2014,
Sanctions drive Russia-U.S. relations into corner, says Putin July 17, 2014,
Interfax, Russia Beyond the Headlines,
http://rbth.com/international/2014/07/17/sanctions_drive_russiaus_relations_into_corner_says_putin_38281.html)
Sanctions are driving Russia-U.S. relations into a corner, Russian President Vladimir
Putin said, following the imposition of a third wave of sanctions against Russia by the
United States on July 16. Yet he told Russian journalists in Brasilia that the door was still open for
negotiations with Washington. The new U.S. sanctions levied on Russia "disagree with the national interests of the
United States itself," Putin opined. "The actions of the U.S. administration do harm to their own biggest companies,"

the
sanctions, they regularly have a boomerang effect and, no doubt, will drive Russia-U.S.
relations into a corner and do a lot of harm; I am confident they will be
damaging to the long-term national interests of the American state and people," Putin
the Russian president stated, adding that Moscow would look into the sanctions without haste. "As to

told reporters on Thursday. Can Russia sue the U.S. and the EU via the WTO over sanctions? Can Russia sue the U.S.
and the EU via the WTO over sanctions? Earlier, the U.S. Department of the Treasury imposed more sanctions on a
number of Russian companies and individuals. The U.S. introduced sanctions that prohibit U.S. citizens from
providing new financing to two Russian banks, Gazprombank and Vnesheconombank, and two Russian energy firms,
Novatek and Rosneft, limiting their access to U.S. capital markets, a statement on the U.S. Department of the
Treasury website reads. Putin said that he regretted that his U.S. partners had chosen this path. "But our door is still
open for negotiations, to a search for a way out of this standoff. Hopefully common sense and the wish to resolve all
problems by peaceful and diplomatic methods will win," Putin said. "For instance, big companies wish to work in
Russia but certain restrictions will make them less competitive than energy companies from elsewhere in the
world," Putin said. "We have given the largest U.S. [oil] company an opportunity to develop the shelf. Doesn't the
U.S. want it to work there? It is damaging its own oil majors and for what? For making one mistake and insisting on
making another?" Putin asked. He added that such policy was unprofessional, to say the least. " Sooner

or

later these methods of resolving international problems will have to

change and the losses will be suffered by those who use them," Putin
pointed out. The sanctions will also affect eight Russian armaments firms, including Almaz-Antey, the Bazalt

Federal State Unitary Enterprise State Research and Production Enterprise, the Sozvezdie Concern, NPO
Mashinostroyenia, the Kalashnikov Concern, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau, Radio-Electronic Technologies, and
Uralvagonzavod. According to the statement, the companies "are responsible for the production of a range of
materiel that includes small arms, mortar shells, and tanks." Ryabkov on Russian-U.S. relations: We will not respond
symmetrically Ryabkov on Russian-U.S. relations: We will not respond symmetrically The
prime minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic also fell under the U.S. sanctions for "threatening
the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine," the statement reads. According to the
statement, The Department of the Treasury also designated Feodosiya Enterprises and four Russian government
officials, including Sergei Beseda of the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russian Minister for Crimean Affairs Oleg
Savelyov, State Duma Deputy Chairman Sergei Neverov, and Russian presidential aide Igor Shchyogolev. The
European Union has also made the same move and brought its own sanctions against Russia with a view to
targeting entities, including from the Russian Federation, that are materially or financially supporting actions
undermining or threatening Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence," conclusions adopted at
the special meeting of the European Council read. The European Council also requested that the European
Investment Bank suspend the signing of new financing operations in the Russian Federation. EU member states will
also coordinate their positions within the EBRD Board of Directors with a view to also suspending financing of new
operations, the conclusions read. "The European Council invites the Commission to reassess EU-Russia cooperation
programs with a view to taking a decision, on a case by case basis, on the suspension of the implementation of EU
bilateral and regional cooperation programs," the conclusions read. This however, according to them, will not affect
projects dealing exclusively with cross-border cooperation and civil society.

Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines http://rbth.com/international/2014/07/17/sanctions_drive_russiaus_relations_into_corner_says_putin_38281.html)

Internal Link
Russia steps up military activity in the pacific
CNN 14
By Brad Lendon, CNN Russia increases military flights in Pacific, U.S. general says
updated 10:33 AM EDT, Wed May 7, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/world/asia/russian-bomber-flights/
(CNN) --

Russia has stepped up military activity in the Pacific, including sending long-

range bombers on flights off the coast of California and around the island of Guam, as tensions have
risen in Ukraine, a top U.S. Air Force general said Monday. "What Russia is doing in Ukraine and Crimea has a direct
effect on what's happening in the Asia Pacific," Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle said in a presentation to the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Russia's president annexes ... words Heavy clashes reported in
Ukraine Analysis:

Putin has already gone too far Pro-Russian militants gain

ground

"They've come with their long-range aviation off the coast of California; they
circumnavigated Guam," Carlisle said, showing a picture of a U.S. F-15 fighter "intercepting" a Russian Tu-95 "Bear"
bomber off the Pacific island. Guam is home to Andersen Air Force Base, which has been used by the U.S. military
for flights of B-2 and B-52 bombers across the Pacific. Flights around Japan and the Korean peninsula have also

Russian planes have

stayed in international airspace, and such flights are not unusual, but the increase has
U.S. commanders keeping a wary eye. "It's to demonstrate their capability to do it; it's to
"increased drastically," as well as naval activity in that area, Carlisle said. The

gather intel" from U.S. military exercises with allies in the region, Carlisle said of the reasons for the Russian activity.
"We relate a lot of that to what's going on in the Ukraine," he said. Pro-Russian separatists have taken control over
swaths of Ukraine near its borders with Russia. Ukraine's government and many in the West believe that the
separatists are backed by Russia and fear that Russian President Vladimir Putin is fomenting trouble to increase his
influence in the region. Unrest has simmered in Ukraine since street protests forced out pro-Moscow President Viktor
Yanukovych in February. The interim government scheduled presidential elections this month, but pro-Russian
activists in the eastern part of the country refuse to accept Kiev's authority. Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine
this year after sending troops into the region. Since the Ukraine crisis began, the U.S. and its NATO allies have
moved some troops, aircraft and ships closer to the area as a signal of alliance solidarity. The Russian bomber
flights are not unique to the Asia Pacific region. In late April, fighter jets from the Netherlands intercepted two Tu95s that had flown a half-mile into Dutch airspace. The Dutch F-16s escorted the Russian aircraft out of Dutch
airspace without incident.

Russian actions in Ukraine shows Putin is eager to use military

to gain power- theyre looking for any excuse to go to war
Motyl 14
Alexander J. Motyl is a Professor of political science at Rutgers University, How Far Will Putin Go?, Foreign Policy, MARCH 1, 2014,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/01/putin_russia_ukraine_intervention_war)

What began as a localized crisis in Crimea has now become a de facto state of war between Russia and Ukraine.
After pro-Russian forces seized control of the Crimean parliament and government last week, Russian troops began
occupying strategic sites throughout the autonomous republic on Friday and Saturday. On March 1, President
Vladimir Putin escalated the conflict by submitting the following appeal to the Russian parliament: In connection
with the extraordinary situation that has developed in Ukraine and the threat to citizens of the Russian Federation...
I hereby appeal to the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to use the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the social and political situation in that country is

Council of the Federation gave its approval immediately. The

extraordinary aspect of this request is that it gives Putin carte blanche to deploy Russian
troops, not just in Crimea, where "citizens of the Russian Federation" are supposedly under threat, but "on the
normalised. Needless to say, the

territory of Ukraine" -- that is to say, anywhere "citizens" might be under threat. Insofar as actual or alleged Russian
citizens can be found everywhere in Ukraine, Putin has now arrogated to himself the right to deploy Russian troops
in, and in effect occupy, all of Ukraine. And since he will be the one to define when "the social and political situation
in that country is normalised," that occupation could last as long as he likes -- possibly resulting in permanent
annexation. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that pro-Russian forces have seized administrative buildings and called
for Russian assistance in a variety of Ukraine's southern and eastern provinces: Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk,
Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk. Whether they represent anyone beside themselves is unclear, but there is no doubt
that pro-Russian sentiment does exist among many ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians in these provinces. More
often than not, locals want an expansion of their regional powers and more cultural-linguistic autonomy. These are

the normal demands made by regions and minorities in most contemporary states. If Putin were not a factor,
authorities in Kiev should be able to hammer out some deal that would satisfy the rebellious provinces. If, however,
Putin decides to intervene militarily in Ukraine's southeast, the tussle between Kiev and the provinces automatically
will become a question of separation, dismemberment, and Russian aggression. Both Moscow and Kiev know that
Russia's military is superior to Ukraine's. Russian armed forces number about 750,000 troops; Ukraine's about
150,000. Russia has been aggressively spending on its military in the last decade, while Ukraine has actually been
cutting back. In any armed conflict, Russia would win. Ukraine's only hope would be to threaten to inflict enough
casualties to affect Putin's calculation of costs and benefits. And the farther Russian troops march into Ukraine, the
more popular resistance they will encounter -- and therefore the more civilian casualties they will inflict. Is Putin
willing to start a war over all or most of Ukraine, or will he confine himself to annexing Crimea or, say, a few
southeastern provinces? The costs of a military incursion beyond Crimea would rise with the extent of the incursion.
Annexing Crimea would outrage the Ukrainians and Central Europeans, but might, with some finessing, escape the
ire of Brussels, Berlin, and Washington. Invading Ukraine's southeast would be a naked imperial land-grab that
would probably usher in a new cold war and shut off Russia from the international community. Launching a full-scale
war with numerous civilian casualties, massive human rights violations, and possible ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians
from the southeast would transform Putin into a pariah and earn him the reputation of a war criminal. Russia,
meanwhile, would be completely isolated and possibly subjected to increasing claims on its own territory, by non-

If one considers
Russia's interests, none of this -- the armed intervention in Crimea, the claimed
right to intervene anywhere in Ukraine -- makes sense. Putin's arguments simply do not hold water. As
objective observers will confirm, there is absolutely no threat to Russian
citizens anywhere in Ukraine. There may have been a diminution of overall law and order following the collapse
Russians within the country and by large powers (such as China) on its borders.

of Viktor Yanukovich's regime, but that affects all Ukrainian residents equally. Nor is the Kremlin's claim that
putative "fascists" from Western Ukraine are about to descend on Crimea and the southeast even remotely true. By
the same token, intervention, war, international isolation, and the like will not enhance Russians' living standards or
their sense of well-being. There may be a temporary spurt of excitement at seeing the Russian tricolor hoisted in
Donetsk, but that enthusiasm will quickly fade when Russians realize that these regions will impose an enormous
economic liability. And, finally, there is no way that a truncated Ukraine's transformation into a hostile anti-Russian
state and a permanent occupation by Russian troops of potentially rebellious provinces -- after all, there are also

There is
only one reason Putin has embarked on what Russian democratic opposition leader Boris
Nemtsov calls "folly": flexing his military muscle enhances Putin's authority as a
strongman who will reestablish Russia's grandeur and brook no peoplepower in former Soviet states. Putin's incursion suggests that he must fear Ukraine -- so much so
large numbers of pro-Western Ukrainians in the southeast -- could possibly serve Russia's interests.

that he is willing to risk Russia's prosperity and stability. Putin the rational Bismarckian geostrategist has clearly
given way to Putin the irrational and impulsive leader -- possibly as a result of the triumph of the democratic

Bad leaders
make bad mistakes and, when they do, their power often disintegrates. Unfortunately, thousands of
Ukrainians and Russians may have to die before that happens.
revolution in Ukraine. This may be the only ray of light in an otherwise catastrophic picture.

US provoking Russia to arms race

The Voice of Russia February 4th 14 US provoking Russia to arms race, experts say
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_04/US-provoking-Russia-to-arms-race-experts-say-1104/

The US has stepped up the development of the missile defence system in

Europe. Washington is seriously concerned over the modernization of the
Russian Armed Forces. Four US missile destroyers will be deployed in Europes waters in the coming two
years to protect it from a missile attack. Some days ago one of them, Donald Cook, equipped with the Aegis missile
system, set sail for the Naval Station Rota in Spain. After the Pentagons head Chuck Hagel broke this news at the
Munich Security Conference (MSC), he said two days before that happened he provided assurances to Poland that

the US is ready to deploy the elements of its missile defence there . Europe and
the US are facing the necessity to respond to challenges coming from the Middle East and North Korea. And under
the aggravating circumstances such as the above-mentioned, Chuck Hagel said,

China and Russia are

modernizing their armed forces, thus, sending a challenge to the defence

partnerships around the world.And the fact that the deployment of the US
missile defence system in Europe has been an object of serious concern
for Russia for a long time now - for which it has serious grounds though was hushed up by Chuck
Hagel. A missile defence system is kind of a "holy cow" for the US, Deputy Director of the Institute for the US and
Canadian Studies Pavel Zolotaryov says. The missile defence-related problems are giving a boost to the
development of science at the fundamental and applied level. According to Zolotaryov, any attraction of budgetary
funds to the field of missile defence is bearing fruit. However, what is meant here is not a statement to the effect
that it is possible to create an effective system of missile defence. It is unreal, the Russian expert says. They are
well aware of that and do not aim to create a missile defence system that would be able to repulse a massive
missile strike. As an example, lets take the first stage of the Star Wars Programme that came into being under
Reagan and made it possible to bring the Internet to the global level. It is very difficult to say at the moment what
new technologies may appear today. But in order to maintain its technological superiority over all others the US
must rationally invest in the missile defence system. And for this, it is necessary to find a reason to persuade its
voters to invest in the missile defence system. Therefore, had Iran and North Korea been non-existent, it would
have been necessary to invent them. And one more thing here. Finances taken from the budget, due to be invested
in the missile defence system - in other words, in the advanced branches of science and technology, are being
capitalized. Businessmen are getting involved in military projects as well. Hence, it is rather doubtful that the
missile defence system will ruin the US, Pavel Zolotaryov says. Besides, for the European Union, which is part of
NATO, the programme of missile defence is also of military and practical significance for the formation of a multipurpose system of anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence. Such a system will make it possible to deploy, in case of
need, mobile Patriot systems and their sea-based analogs wherever it is necessary. The system of control is the
main thing here, Pavel Zolotaryov says. The US global system of missile defence is not in conformity with Europe as
an intended purpose, Director of the Centre for Public and Political Studies Vladimir Yevseyev says. Because neither
Iran nor North Korea are in possession of missiles, which could pose a real threat to Europe and the US today. The
Islamic Republic of Iran is armed with missiles of the Ghadr -1 and Shahab 3M type. Their range is not more than
1,600 kilometres. Such missiles pose no threat to the European states. Work on the development of the solid
-fuelled Sejil missile is currently under way in Iran. But it is not yet clear when it will be adopted by the Iranian
Armed Forces. And it is rather doubtful that this will happen soon.
Under such conditions, it is clear that the US is deploying a system of missile defence in Europe, possibly, to deter
the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Yevseyev says. Navy-guided destroyers, which are

are creating a potential threat for

intercepting Russian ground- and sea-based inter-continental ballistic missiles, the expert says. At
being deployed on the military bases in Europe today,

first, Moscow showed restraint while reacting to the US programme of missile defence in Europe and put into
operation new radar stations of the Voronezh DM type. But today Russia is facing the necessity to develop a new
heavy missile, a combat railway missile system, and to increase the arsenal of the intercontinental ballistic missile
systems of the Topol-M and Yars type. As it turns out, the US and NATO are urging Russia to adopt military and

This is how the arms race is unfolding,

Until the West does not regard Russia as an equal
partner, it will be impossible to speak about the development of a common
security system between Russia and NATO. Meanwhile, Russias Foreign Ministry has commented on the
technical measures in this case, to deter the West.
Vladimir Yevseyev says in conclusion.

promotion of the European Missile Defence Programme. As you might remember, Head of the Department at the
Russian Foreign Ministry Mikhail Ulyanov did not rule out that the further development of the missile defence
system might urge Russia to use its right of opting out of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms. The chance to
avoid this scenario is dependent on the political will of the US.

Brink
Russia is getting increasingly upset at the US: will retaliate
Ostroukh and Kolyandr 7/17
(Andrey Ostroukh And Alexander Kolyandr, reporters for the WSJ, Russia Reacts Angrily to U.S. Sanctions Over
Ukraine, The Wall Street Journal, July 17th, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/russia-reacts-angrily-to-u-ssanctions-over-ukraine-1405589347)
MOSCOWRussia

reacted angrily Thursday to a new round of U.S. sanctions imposed

saying the penalties would also hit American interests and
warning it has a right to retaliate. The sanctions ripped into Russia's markets. Moscow's MICEX index slid
over the Ukraine conflict,

3%, with investors interpreting the measures as more likely to hold back the Russian economy than previous sanctions. The ruble
fell 1.7% against the dollar to trade at 35, its weakest level since the start of June. The White House escalated its sanctions
Wednesday and imposed penalties against the country's top commodity companies, state-run banks and arms producers. Hours
later, President Vladimir

Putin said they would have a "boomerang effect" that would

harm the U.S.

The move came following weeks of threats from the West that Russia would face repercussions unless it
helped defuse the crisis in eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russia separatists have been fighting the Ukrainian government for months.

Russian officials have previously mostly shrugged off sanctions, saying that they wouldn't impact the economy, but they
appeared to take a tougher stance on Thursday. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
warned that "reciprocal measures against foreign companies and individuals" could be introduced, but he didn't provide
details. He warned that the sanctions would force Russia to reconsider its
budgetary policy with "more attention given to defense and security
spending." "Any sanctions are evil. They don't add optimism either to the economy or to the people, and they never lead to
obvious success," he said, adding that they will increase anti-Western sentiment. Russia's
foreign ministry warned that sanctions are a "double-edged tool" that will also affect American businesses. "If Washington has
decided to ruin Russia-U.S. relations, then it will be on its own head," the ministry said in a statement. "We do not intend to tolerate
blackmail and we reserve the right for retaliatory measures." U.S. business groups worry American companies are vulnerable to
Russian reprisals if Washington puts tougher sanctions on Moscow than the European Union. The largest companies sanctioned are
the state-controlled Rosneft, ROSN.MZ -0.83% Russia's biggest oil producer; OAO Novatek, NVTK.MZ -1.03% the second-biggest gas
company; OAO Gazprombank, the bank connected with the country's gas-export monopoly; and Vneshekonombank, or VEB, a stateowned development lender that provided much of the backing for the Sochi Olympics construction project. For the four major
Russian companies, the Treasury Department will now limit their access to equity financing and medium- and long-term debt coming
from investors and lenders with ties to the U.S. The Treasury didn't block the assets of these companies or prevent U.S. citizens and
U.S.-related firms from doing ordinary business with them. The sanctions "tighten the screws on Russia," said Viktor Szabo, a
portfolio manager at Aberdeen Asset Management. ADN.LN -0.11% "The weak point of the Russian economy is investment. For
investment you need financing and this makes it more expensive for Russian companies in general," he said. But Gazprombank said
Thursday that the restrictions "do not affect [its] operations and the bank is operating in a normal regime." A few Russian banks
faced disruptions with bank-card payments with Visa V +1.06% and MasterCard MA +1.45% in March this year, after the U.S.
enforced sanctions in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea. To prevent it happening again the Russian parliament passed a law
forcing the two companies to keep hundreds of millions of dollars at the Bank of Russia as collateral against any future freeze. The
card companies said the latest package didn't affect their operations. European leaders meeting in Brussels agreed to further
sanctions against Russia on Wednesday. The decision should allow Europe to cast its sanctions net wider, although the specific
names to be added their list have yet to be decided

Russia will go to war if the US increases its hegemonic policy

Dr Roberts 14
(Dr Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall
Street Journal. US hegemonic drive makes war with Russia/China inevitable, May 26, 2014 PressTV,
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/05/26/364229/why-war-is-inevitable/)
Memorial Day is when we commemorate our war dead. Like the Fourth of July, Memorial Day is being turned into a
celebration of war. Those who lose family members and dear friends to war dont want the deaths to have been in
vain. Consequently, wars become glorious deeds performed by noble soldiers fighting for truth, justice, and the
American way. Patriotic speeches tell us how much we owe to those who gave their lives so that America could
remain free. The speeches are well-intentioned, but the speeches create a false reality that supports ever more
wars. None of Americas wars had anything to do with keeping America free. To the contrary, the wars swept away
our civil liberties, making us unfree. President Lincoln issued an executive order for the arrest and imprisonment of
northern newspaper reporters and editors. He shut down 300 northern newspapers and held 14,000 political

prisoners. Lincoln arrested war critic US Representative Clement Vallandigham from Ohio and exiled him to the
Confederacy. President Woodrow Wilson used WWI to suppress free speech, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt
used WWII to intern 120,000 US citizens of Japanese descent on the grounds that race made them suspect.
Professor Samuel Walker concluded that President George W. Bush used the war on terror for an across the board
assault on US civil liberty, making the Bush regime the greatest danger American liberty has ever faced. Lincoln
forever destroyed states rights, but the suspension of habeas corpus and free speech that went hand in hand with
Americas three largest wars was lifted at wars end. However, President George W. Bushs repeal of the
Constitution has been expanded by President Obama and codified by Congress and executive orders into law. Far
from defending our liberties, our soldiers who died in the war on terror died so that the president can indefinitely
detain US citizens without due process of law and murder US citizens on suspicion alone without any accountability
to law or the Constitution. The conclusion is unavoidable that Americas wars have not protected our liberty but,
instead, destroyed liberty. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic
tyranny. Southern secession did pose a threat to Washingtons empire, but not to the American people. Neither the
Germans of WWI vintage nor the Germans and Japanese of WWII vintage posed any threat to the US. As historians
have made completely clear, Germany did not start WWI and did not go to war for the purpose of territorial
expansion. Japans ambitions were in Asia. Hitler did not want war with England and France. Hitlers territorial
ambitions were mainly to restore German provinces stripped from Germany as WWI booty in violation of President
Wilsons guarantees. Any other German ambitions were to the East. Neither country had any plans to invade the
US. Japan attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbor hoping to remove an obstacle to its activities in Asia, not as a
precursor to an invasion of America. Certainly the countries ravaged by Bush and Obama in the 21st centuryIraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen posed no military threat to the US. Indeed, these were wars
used by a tyrannical executive branch to establish the basis of the Stasi State that now exists in the US. The truth is
hard to bear, but the facts are clear. Americas wars have been fought in order to advance Washingtons power, the
profits of bankers and armaments industries, and the fortunes of US companies. Marine General Smedley Butler
said, I served in all commissioned ranks from a second Lieutenant to a Major General. And during that time, I spent
most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. In short, I was
a racketeer for capitalism. It is more or less impossible to commemorate the war dead without glorifying them, and
it is impossible to glorify them without glorifying their wars. For the entirety of the 21st century the US has been at
war, not war against massed armies or threats to American freedom, but wars against civilians, against women,
children, and village elders, and wars against our own liberty. Elites with a vested interest in these wars tell us that
the wars will have to go on for another 20 to 30 years before we defeat the terrorist threat. This, of course, is
nonsense. There was no terrorist threat until Washington began trying to create terrorists by military attacks,
justified by lies, on Muslim populations. Washington succeeded with its war lies to the point that Washingtons
audacity and hubris have outgrown Washingtons judgment. By overthrowing the democratically elected
government in Ukraine, Washington has brought the United States into confrontation with Russia. This is a

If Gaddafi and
Assad would not roll over for Washington, why does Washington think
Russia will? The Bush and Obama regimes have destroyed Americas reputation with their incessant lies and
confrontation that could end badly, perhaps for Washington and perhaps for the entire world.

violence against other peoples. The world sees Washington as the prime threat. Worldwide polls consistently show
that people around the world regard the US and Israel as posing the greatest threat to peace. (see here and here)
The countries that Washingtons propaganda declares to be rogue states and the axis of evil, such as Iran and
North Korea, are far down the list when the peoples in the world are consulted. It could not be more clear that the
world does not believe Washingtons self-serving propaganda. The world sees the US and Israel as the rogue

The US is in the
grip of the Neoconservative ideology which has declared the US to be the
exceptional, indispensable country chosen by history to exercise
hegemony over all others. This ideology is buttressed by the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines that are the
elements. The US and Israel are the only two in the world that are in the grip of ideologies.

basis of US foreign policy. The Israeli government is in the grip of the Zionist ideology that declares a greater
Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. Many Israelis themselves do not accept this ideology, but it is the ideology of

Ideologies are important causes of

war. Just as the Hitlerian ideology of German superiority is mirrored in the Neoconservative ideology of US
the settlers and those who control the Israeli government.

superiority, the Communist ideology that the working class is superior to the capitalist class is mirrored in the
Zionist ideology that Israelis are superior to Palestinians. Zionists have never heard of squatters rights and claim
that recent Jewish immigrants into Palestine invaders really have the right to land occupied by others for
millennia. Washingtons and Israels doctrines of superiority over others do not sit very well with the others. When
Obama declared in a speech that Americans are the exceptional people, Russias President Putin responded, God
created us all equal. To the detriment of its population, the Israeli government has made endless enemies. Israel
has effectively isolated itself in the world. Israels continued existence depends entirely on the willingness and
ability of Washington to protect Israel. This means that Israels power is derivative of Washingtons power.
Washingtons power is a different story. As the only economy standing after WWII, the US dollar became the world
money. This role for the dollar has given Washington financial hegemony over the world, the main source of

Washingtons power.

As other countries rise, Washingtons hegemony is

imperiled.

To prevent other countries from rising, Washington invokes the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines.
To be brief, the Brzezinski doctrine says that in order to remain the only superpower, Washington must control the
Eurasian land mass. Brzezinski is willing for this to occur peacefully by suborning the Russian government into
Washingtons empire. A loosely confederated Russia . . . a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to
imperial mobilization. In other words, break up Russia into associations of semi-autonomous states whose
politicians can be suborned by Washingtons money. Brzezinski propounded a geo-strategy for Eurasia. In
Brzezinskis strategy, China and a confederated Russia are part of a transcontinental security framework,
managed by Washington in order to perpetuate the role of the US as the worlds only superpower. I once asked my
colleague, Brzezinski, that if everyone was allied with us, who were we organized against? My question surprised
him, because I think that Brzezinski remains caught up in Cold War strategy even after the demise of the Soviet
Union. In Cold War thinking it was important to have the upper hand or else be at risk of being eliminated as a
player. The importance of prevailing became all consuming, and this consuming drive survived the Soviet collapse.

Prevailing over others is the only foreign policy that Washington knows.
The mindset that America must prevail set the stage for the Neoconservatives and their 21st century wars,
which, with Washingtons overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, has resulted in
a crisis that has brought Washington into direct conflict with Russia . I know
the strategic institutes that serve Washington. I was the occupant of the William E.Simon Chair in Political Economy,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, for a dozen years. The idea is prevalent that Washington must prevail

The idea of prevailing

always leads to war once one power thinks it has prevailed. The path to war is
over Russia in Ukraine or Washington will lose prestige and its superpower status.

reinforced by the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative intellectual who formulated US military
and foreign policy doctrine, wrote among many similar passages: Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence
of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere [China] that poses a threat on the
order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional
defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose
resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. In the Wolfowitz Doctrine, any
other strong country is defined as a threat and a power hostile to the US regardless of how willing that country is to
get along with the US for mutual benefit. The difference between Brzezinski and the Neoconservatives is that
Brzezinski wants to suborn Russia and China by including them in the empire as important elements whose voices
would be heard, If only for diplomatic reasons, whereas the Neoconservatives are prepared to rely on military force
combined with internal subversion orchestrated with US financed NGOs and even terrorist organizations. Neither
the US nor Israel is embarrassed by their worldwide reputations as posing the greatest threat. In fact, both are
proud to be recognized as the greatest threats. The foreign policy of both is devoid of any diplomacy. US and Israeli
foreign policy rests on violence alone. Washington tells countries to do as Washington says or be bombed into the
stone age. Israel declares all Palestinians, even women and children, to be terrorists, and proceeds to shoot
them down in the streets, claiming that Israel is merely protecting itself against terrorists. Israel, which does not
recognize the existence of Palestine as a country, covers up its crimes with the claim that Palestinians do not accept
the existence of Israel.

We dont need no stinking diplomacy. We got power. This

is the attitude that guarantees war, and that is where the US is taking the world. The prime minister of
Britain, the chancellor of Germany, and the president of France are Washingtons enablers. They provide the cover
for Washington. Instead of war crimes, Washington has coalitions of the willing and military invasions that bring
democracy and womens rights to non-compliant countries. China gets much the same treatment. A country with
four times the US population but a smaller prison population, China is constantly criticized by Washington as an
authoritarian state. China is accused of human rights abuses while US police brutalize the US population. The

Russia and China are not Libya and Iraq. These two countries
possess strategic nuclear weapons. Their land mass greatly exceeds that of
the US. The US, which was unable to successfully occupy Baghdad or Afghanistan,
has no prospect of prevailing against Russia and China in conventional warfare.
Washington will push the nuclear button. What else can we expect from a government devoid
of morality? The world has never experienced rogue elements comparable to Washington and Israel. Both
governments are prepared to murder anyone and everyone. Look at the crisis that
problem for humanity is that

Washington has created in Ukraine and the dangers thereof. On May 23, 2014, Russias President Putin spoke to the
St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a three-day gathering of delegations from 62 countries and CEOs from
146 of the largest Western corporations. Putin did not speak of the billions of dollars in trade deals that were being

Putin spoke of the crisis that Washington had brought to

Russia, and he criticized Europe for being Washingtons vassals for supporting Washingtons
formalized. Instead

propaganda against Russia and Washingtons interference in vital Russian

interests. Putin was diplomatic in his language, but the message that powerful economic
interests from the US and Europe received is that it will lead to trouble if
Washington and European governments continue to ignore Russias concerns and
continue to act as if they can interfere in Russias vital interests as if
Russia did not exist. The heads of these large corporations will carry this message back to Washington
and European capitals. Putin made it clear that the lack of dialogue with Russia could lead to the West making the
mistake of putting Ukraine in NATO and establishing missile bases on Russias border with Ukraine. Putin has
learned that Russia cannot rely on good will from the West, and Putin made it clear, short of issuing a threat, that
Western military bases in Ukraine are unacceptable. Washington will continue to ignore Russia.
However, European capitals will have to decide whether Washington is pushing them into conflict with Russia that is
against European interests. Thus, Putin is testing European politicians to determine if there is sufficient intelligence

If Washington in its overbearing

arrogance and hubris forces Putin to write off the West, the
Russian/Chinese strategic alliance, which is forming to counteract
Washingtons hostile policy of surrounding both countries with military bases, will harden
into preparation for the inevitable war. The survivors, if any, can thank the Neoconservatives,
and independence in Europe for a rapprochement.

the Wolfowitz doctrine, and the Brzezinski strategy for the destruction of life on earth. The American public contains
a large number of misinformed people who think they know everything. These people have been programmed by
US and Israeli propaganda. They are led to believe that Islam, a religion, is a militarist doctrine that calls for the
overthrow of Western civilization, as if anything remains of Western civilization. Many believe this propaganda. The
US has departed Iraq, but the carnage today is as high as or higher than during the US invasion and occupation.
The daily death tolls from the conflict are extraordinary. The West has overthrown itself. In the US
the Constitution has been murdered by the Bush and Obama regimes. Nothing remains. As the US is the
Constitution, what was once the United States no longer exists. A different entity has taken its place. Europe died
with the European Union, which requires the termination of sovereignty of all member countries. A few
unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels have become superior to the wills of the French, German, British, Italian,
Dutch, Spanish, Greek, and Portuguese peoples. Western civilization is a skeleton. It still stands, barely, but there is
no life in it. The blood of liberty has departed. Western peoples look at their governments and see nothing but
enemies. Why else has Washington militarized local police forces, equipping them as if they were occupying
armies? Why else has Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, and even the Postal Service and Social
Security Administration ordered billions of rounds of ammunition and even submachine guns? What is this taxpayerpaid-for arsenal for if not to suppress US citizens? As the prominent trends forecaster Gerald Celente spells out in
the current Trends Journal, uprisings span four corners of the globe. Throughout Europe angry, desperate and
outraged peoples march against EU financial policies that are driving the peoples into the ground. Despite all of
Washingtons efforts with its well funded fifth columns known as NGOs to destabilize Russia and China, both the
Russian and Chinese governments have far more support from their people than do the US and Europe. In the 20th
century Russia and China learned what tyranny is, and they have rejected it. In the US tyranny has entered under
the guise of the war on terror, a hoax used to scare the sheeple into abandoning their civil liberties, thus freeing
Washington from accountability to law and permitting Washington to erect a militarist police state. Ever since WWII,
Washington has used its financial hegemony and the Soviet threat, now converted into the Russian threat, to
absorb Europe into Washingtons empire. Putin is hoping that the interests of European countries will prevail over
subservience to Washington. This is Putins current bet. This is the reason Putin remains unprovoked by

Putin and China will prepare for the

war that Washingtons drive for hegemony makes inevitable . PCR/HMV
Washingtons provocations in Ukraine. If Europe fails Russia,

Impacts
War between US and Russia would quickly escalate to nuclear
Armageddon
Weber 14
(Peter Weber Is a senior editor at TheWeek.com, What would a U.S.-Russia war look
like?, March 5th, 2014, http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-usrussia-war-look-like)
The chances that the U.S. and Russia will clash militarily over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine are very, very slim.
Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, and President Obama isn't likely to volunteer for another war. But many of
Ukraine's neighbors are NATO members, including Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary. And so are the the
Baltic states Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia further north and right on Russia's border. If any of those countries
come to Ukraine's aid and find themselves in a war with Russia, NATO is obliged to intervene. That's also true if
Russia comes up with some pretext to invade any of those countries, unlikely as that seems. If we learned anything
from World War I, it's that huge, bloody conflicts can start with tiny skirmishes, especially in Eastern Europe. Again,
the U.S. and Russia almost certainly won't come to blows over Ukraine. But what if they did? If you asked that
question during the Cold War it would be like those fanciful Godzilla vs. King Kong, or Batman vs. Superman matchups: Which superpower would prevail in all-out battle? But Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and military technology
didn't stop in 1991. Here, for example, is a look at U.S. versus Russian/USSR defense spending since the end of the
Cold War, from Mother Jones. The U.S. is much wealthier than Russia and spends a lot more on its military. That
doesn't mean a war would be easy for the U.S. to win, though, or even guarantee a victory: As Napoleon and Hitler
learned the hard way, Russia will sacrifice a lot to win its wars, especially on its home turf. So, what would a war

Nuclear
Armageddon Even with the slow mutual nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War, the U.S.
and Russia each have thousands of nuclear warheads at the ready. As Eugene Chow
noted earlier this year, the entire stockpile of U.S. intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBMs) 448 active is essentially aimed squarely at Russia. Russia's
hundreds of ICBMs are probably returning the favor. In all, the U.S. has about 7,700 nuclear
between the U.S. and Russia look like? Here are a few scenarios, from awful to merely bad:

warheads, including 1,950 warheads ready to deploy via ICBM, submarine, and airplane, plus thousands more in
mothballs or waiting to be dismantled, according to the latest tally by the Federation of American Scientists. Russia
has slightly more warheads overall about 8,500 but a slightly fewer 1,800 of them operational. China, in
comparison, has about 250 nuclear warheads, a bit less that France (300) and a bit more than Britain (225). Nuclear
war with Russia is still mutually assured destruction. Hopefully, that's still deterrent enough.

A conventional

war in Eastern Europe

This is the other scenario that never happened in the Cold War. Now, the
possibility of scenario one (nuclear Armageddon) makes this one almost equally unlikely. But for the sake of
argument, let's assume this hypothetical U.S.-Russia war breaks out in Ukraine, and that other NATO forces are
supplementing U.S. troops, ships, and aircraft. Unlike in the Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. keeps China in check (and
vice versa, as Eugene Chow explained), NATO provides the United States with a robust military alliance set up
specifically to take on Soviet Russia. The first dynamic is that Russia would have home field advantage: The Russian
navy has long called Crimea its home, and whatever troops Russia doesn't already have in Ukraine are right next
door, one border-crossing away. The other big starting point is that the U.S. and its NATO allies have Russia
effectively surrounded. By its own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along with the
4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories. Along with its large number of bases in Germany, the U.S. has major
military installations in Qatar and the Diego Garcia atoll to Russia's south and Japan and South Korea to its east.
NATO allies France and Britain are even closer, as this map from Britain's The Telegraph shows: On top of that, NATO
has bases around Russia's western perimeter and in Turkey, right across the Black Sea from Ukraine. What about
Russia? "They have a presence in Cuba," more a way station than a base, NYU professor Mark Galeotti tells The
Washington Post. And Russia has a naval base in Tartus, Syria. But otherwise "they have no bases outside the
former Soviet Union."

Russia has an estimated 845,000 active-duty troops, with as

many as 2.5 million more in reserve. NYU's Galeotti isn't very impressed. Russia's military is
"moderately competent," he tells The Washington Post. "It's not at the level of the American or British or German
military, but it's better than in the 1990s." The Russian troops, especially the Spetsnaz special forces, are "good at
bullying small neighbors, but it would not be effective against NATO. It would not be able to defeat China." Galeotti
is even more brutal about Russia's Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet: As a war-fighting force, it's not particularly
impressive. Its main vessel was basically built to fight other ships and so is only useful in fighting a naval war. It's

got the Moskva, an aging guided-missile cruiser; a large anti-submarine warfare cruiser very dated; a destroyer
and two frigates, which are more versatile; landing ships; and a diesel attack submarine. It's not a particularly

1.4 million
active duty troops and 850,000 reservists, but it can't just throw all of
them at Russia somebody has to maintain those 598 bases around the world, as well as defend the U.S.
powerful force. The Italian navy alone could easily destroy it. [Washington Post] The U.S. military's

NATO's Response Force (NRF), which would probably be the first armed unit to engage the Russians, has 13,000
troops at the ready and thousands more in reserve. Here's NATO describing its first-response team, right before NRF

Russia would have the advantage at sea Sevastopol is its

home port, and the U.S./NATO would have to dislodge its navy the U.S. would have an edge
in the skies, mostly. "The U.S. planes have better radar, missiles, and electronic warfare equipment, while the
war games last fall: If

Russian planes are judged to have superior handling and thrust-to-weight ratio, which would give them an edge in a
classic dogfight," says Charles Clover at the Financial Times. But classic dogfights are at least as dated as Top Gun,
Russian defense analyst Ruslan Pukhov tells FT. "Ever since Soviet days we have been lagging behind the U.S. in
military aviation." Because of that gap, he adds, Soviet and Russian military planners have invested heavily in air
defense systems, and the S-300 and S-400 systems are the best in the world. "It's like boxing," Pukhov says. "If you

Soviet strategists made up

for a weakness in aviation by investing heavily in air defense systems." A
U.S.-Russia war probably wouldn't end up a draw, but it would be a bloody mess. The site
Global Firepower ranks the U.S. the most powerful conventional military in the
world, and that's without NATO, but Russia is a pretty close second (here it differs with
have a weak right arm, you need to compensate by a strong left arm.

Galeotti). If you look down the list of military assets, the U.S. beats Russia in almost every category Russia has
more tanks, ground artillery, and mine warfare craft. There's a wild card, though: Since 2010, the U.S. and Russian
militaries have been increasingly cooperating, including engaging in joint military exercises. Unlike in Soviet times,
or even the 1990s, U.S. and Russian military commanders know one another and are familiar with each other's
armaments and strategies. Until the U.S. put all U.S.-Russian military engagements on hold Monday, the
relationship was good and improving. There's "a very robust, cooperative effort between our militaries," Rear
Admiral Mark C. Montgomery, deputy director for plans, policy, and strategy at U.S. European Command (EUCOM),
told Foreign Policy in 2012, as Russian officers were in NORAD headquarters in Colorado, practicing
counterinsurgency tactics. The naval exercises "tend to be fairly deep in their level of technical engagement,"
Montgomery said, "where say, the ground ones and [special operations forces] ones are still fairly young exercises
that do a lot more walk-thru than detailed exercising. But as they go year to year, they get more complicated." A
proxy war Short of a negotiated peace with no casualties, this is the best of the bad options. The U.S. and Russia
have already fought a string of proxy wars, the big ones being Vietnam to Afghanistan. In this scenario, the U.S.
might finance Ukrainian forces to fight Russian soldiers, with the probable goal of driving them out of Ukrainian
territory. Or, should the U.S. or NATO back the Ukrainian army, Russia might fund pro-Moscow separatist
movements in Ukraine against it. Russia helped the North Vietnamese beat the U.S. in Southeast Asia, and the U.S.
helped the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. If that pattern holds, and Ukraine is the battleground,
then it's bad news for the occupying army. Advantage: America.

AFF answers
Successful teamwork means US and Russia dont quarrel in the
Ocean.
Pacific Area International Affairs 12
(Pacific Area International Affairs, North Pacific Partnerships, Posted by LT
Stephanie Young, Coast Guard Compass, April 18, 2012,
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2012/04/north-pacific-partnerships/)
The safety and economic security of maritime nations depends substantially upon the secure use of the worlds

By securing our worlds oceans we maintain vibrant maritime commerce

and the ability to counter threats from terrorists, transnational criminals and other dangerous
oceans.

elements. Threats to our nation can originate from abroad, and in many cases use the wide open expanses of the
ocean as shelter for illicit and illegal activity. The Pacific is one of these areas, stretching from the coast of Chile to

To combat these threats in the North Pacific, the

U.S. Coast Guard partners with maritime nations with mutual interests in keeping our
oceans secure with the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum. The North Pacific Coast Guard
Forum brings together six countries the United States, Canada, The Peoples Republic of
China, Japan, Republic of Korea and Russia. With the forum, heads of coast guards embrace
a common vision focused on practical, operational outcomes. Numerous bi-lateral and multi-lateral
the Arctic, and seaward for hundreds of miles.

operations and exercises have been conducted focusing on key issues related to maritime security including: piracy
and armed robbery against ships, drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, information sharing and marine safety and

Adm. Joseph Castillo, 11th Coast Guard District commander, attended the last
said: Our shared interest in maritime
safety and security in the Pacific brings these six nations together to accomplish what one singular
nation could not on its own; the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum is tremendously
effective in this respect. An example of a direct result of the relationships developed between the
environmental protection. Rear

experts meeting held in Xiamen, China. At the conclusion, he

nations was the case of the Bangun Perkasa. In September 2011, the U.S. Coast Guard received a report from
Japanese officials stating one of their aircraft had sighted two high seas driftnet vessels engaged in illegal driftnet
fish. The crew of the Bangun Perkasa tend to fishing nets prior to a Coast Guard Cutter Munro law enforcement
boarding. The Coast Guard actively participates with partner nations in the international cooperative efforts against
large-scale high-seas drift net fishing. U.S. Coast Guard photo. Photographs captured two Indonesian flagged
vessels, the Bangun Perkasa and the Shun Li No. 6, actively fishing in a conservation area. In response, Coast Guard
Cutter Munro was deployed and boarded the Bangun Perkasa. This was done so under the authority of the Western
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Boarding and Inspection scheme as Indonesia is a cooperating nonmember and the Bangun Perkasa was in clear violation of conservation and management measures prohibiting
large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing. Munros crew also sighted Shun Li No. 6 actively engaged in high seas driftnet
fishing, but was unable to intercept and conduct a boarding. However, the interception of the Bangun Perkasa, as
well as the detection and deterrence of Shun Li No. 6, demonstrates the increasingly successful communication and

Ultimately, the North Pacific Coast Guard

Forum is about economy of force and securing cooperation that helps promote collaboration with
maritime operations in the vast expanse of the Pacific. Each of these maritime nations benefits from the
interaction between the countries involved with the forum.

secure use of the oceans and also bears a common responsibility for maintaining maritime security and countering
threats in this region. Success cannot be achieved by any one country acting unilaterally,
but requires a coalition of nations maintaining a strong, united international front. - See more at:
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2012/04/north-pacific-partnerships/#sthash.1q43hb1W.dpuf

They have it backward; Russia is playing by the rules to

increase relations in the Artic.
Bernstein 14
(Leandra Bernstein, Editor at LaRouche PAC, Arctic Cooperation May Ease
Russia-US Tensions Analyst, RIA Novosti, May 22, 2014,
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140522/190037278/Arctic-Cooperation-May-EaseRussia-US-Tensions--Analyst.html)
relations between Russia and the US and NATO
cooled through Arctic cooperation, according to the program
director at the George Washington Institute for European, Russian, and
Eurasian Studies. I think the Arctic is, today at least, one of the last places for
cooperation with Russia following the Ukrainian crisis, Marlene Laruelle said.
US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will probably be less directed to cooperation on security issues because of the
WASHINGTON, May 22 (RIA Novosti), Leandra Bernstein Tense
could potentially be

Ukrainian crisis, she specified, but there are several other elements that are still open for discussion. Since

the US has increased its stake in Arctic security and development and currently holds
the chairmanship for the Arctic Council. The US is planning to invest $1.5
billion focusing on the Arctic, according to former State Department official Heather Conley. However, US assets
2011

in the region are limited and they rely on dated technology and borrowed equipment from other Arctic nations.

in
the Arctic from the Russian side is mostly not an issue of military
aggressiveness, but it is a business issue , Laruelle said. Concerning Russias
delimitation of its continental shelf and control over the North Sea Pass, Laruelle said Russia is playing
by the rules. The demarcation of national and international waterways is contested within the Arctic Council,
Russia is currently the only country employing nuclear-powered icebreakers. The securitization trend we see

but the first voyage of a Chinese merchant ship, Hong Xing, through the North Sea Pass last year set a precedent
when the ship adhered to all Russian requirements for passage. There are hopes that increased trade will take
place through Arctic routes. The route is expected to see between ten and twelve commercial trips this year.
Laruelles remarks were part of a panel discussion at the Wilson Center on the interests of the Arctic nations, and
the increasing participation in the region by non-Arctic players, particularly China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.

US Russia War cant happen- Political economic shift prevents

Karlin 14
(MARK KARLIN, editor of Buzzflash at Truthout, The Major Reason There Will Be No
War With Russia: They Are Rasputin Capitalists Now, Truthout, March 27, 2014,
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/the-major-reason-there-will-be-nowar-with-russia-they-are-shady-capitalists-now/18564-the-major-reason-there-willbe-no-war-with-russia-they-are-shady-capitalists-now)

All this talk of a new cold war is just a lot of political blather coming out of DC due to the reemergence of the neocons. The reality is that there will be no war with the Russian Federation because
Russia is now a raffish capitalist nation. Let us just remember Vladimir Putin was a lieutenant colonel in
the KGB (for 16 years) at a time that they might have surpassed the CIA for lacking scruples, although probably not
by much. Since Putin assumed power in Russia in 2000, he has served as either president or prime minister of the
Russian Federation, effectively being the most powerful man in the nation for the past 13 years.

There is no

ideological conflict with Russia now, no wall to bring to down, no communism to overthrow. Under
Putin, the Russian Federation has become a full-fledged member of the
global capitalist system, only with the sleight variation that the Russian mafia plays an open role in the
free market system. Instead of bankers crushing people with financial maneuverings, the Russian oligarchs

allegedly prefer using their friends "Smith and Wesson" to resolve business disputes. Who better to oversee the full
emergence of Russian capitalism -- mafia style -- than the shirtless former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin? There is
much speculation that Putin assumed control of Crimea (where it is speculated that most residents identify with
Russia more than the Ukraine) after NATO overreached by offering Ukraine membership in 2008. Ukraine never
became a NATO member due to internal political upheaval. Yet, with the latest unrest and overthrow of pro-Russian
leadership in Ukraine, Putin no doubt assumed that new Ukrainian leadership might turn to NATO as a way to
intidimidate Putin. During the confusion over the power shift in Ukraine this year, Putin sent Russian troops into the
Crimea as a likely warning to the US and NATO that he was not going to let US and Europe get any closer to the
Russian border. He was, in essence, protecting his turf, just as a drug dealer might do. This is not a confrontation
over ideology; it is a turf war for hegemony. Russia isn't reversing its global capitalism course, but there are natural
resources, economic markets and the fear of further encroachment by US-Europe into Russia's backyard. As an
example of how capitalism is entrenched by both sides in this standoff, the website Wall Street on Parade reports an
unprecedented warning by White House Press Secretaty Jay Carney to try and discourage investment in Russian
equities: Now, once again, it seems that common sense has escaped the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street.
Last Tuesday, Jay Carney, the Press Secretary of the Commander in Chief of the United States, told an assembly of
reporters that he would not recommend investing in Russian equities right now, unless they were going to short
them.... Carney was responding to a question from a reporter about the fact that the Russian stock market had
seen a bounce over the past few days. Carney responded: I think its down for the year, and I think the ruble has
lost its value, and I think that the long-term effect of actions taken by the Russian government in clear violation of
the United Nations charter, in clear violation of its treaty commitments, that are destabilizing and illegal will
have an impact on their economy all by themselves. They will also incur costs because of the sanctions that we and
the EU have imposed, and there will be more actions taken under the authorities that exist with the two executive
orders that the president has signed. So I wouldnt I wouldnt, if I were you, invest in Russian equities right now, I
think the unless youre going short. Its pretty much unprecedented for White House Press Secretaries to
gratuitously dole out stock advice and likely violates a whole raft of securities laws to recommend the dangerous
idea of shorting stock to a room full of strangers, some of whom may be late on their mortgage payment
especially when you dont even hold a securities license. But US capitalist masters of the universe struck back at
Carney's attempted intervention in the global equity market, according to Wall Street on Parade: Exactly one week

Morgan Stanley, which boasts of $1.7 trillion in client assets, nearly 17,000 Financial
Advisors and 740 locations, reinstated its Buy rating on Russian equities .... What
could possibly account for Morgan Stanley taking such a radical position against the worlds only super
power? According to Morgan Stanleys web site, since 1994 the company has been building
relationships and expanding its product offerings in Russia . Morgan Stanley did not
leave Russia after the 1998 financial crisis, and its uninterrupted presence has fostered trust and
credibility with key governmental and corporate decision makers. In addition,
later,

says the company, it has recently established a local trading platform and opened a Russian subsidiary bank in
October 2005 allowing it to provide a full suite of financial services to its clients in Russia and it has managed

most of the highest profile and most successful transactions in equity,

mergers and acquisitions and debt in the Russian market . Perhaps unbeknownst to
Press Secretary Carney, when one recommends shorting Russian equities, one may be imperiling a chunk of the
U.S. stock market as a goodly number of Russian ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) and outright Russian equities have

In short, Russian
capitalism is so integrated into world capitalism, including investors in the
US, that Carney is suggesting - if you accept the Wall Street outlook - that financiers bite off their nose to spite
been afforded entrance to our stock markets by our own Federal regulators.

their face.

I was visiting the Bill Moyers office and studios last summer and my host took me out for lunch. He

a very tall skyscraper being erected midtown and told me it is nicknamed the
"Russian mafia tower" because it was being built with investment funds from the Putinaffiliated Russian oligarchy. So with Russia investing in real estate in
Manhattan, and Wall Street barons investing in Russia despite clumsy White House
warnings, don't expect a military war with Russia anytime soon. It is one big
capitalist family now. The US and Europe just have to remember that Putin has a thuggish ego and
pointed to

doesn't like the Russian Federation feeling cramped or bulllied. Once that is settled, capitalism will continue
blooming between US-Europe and Russia. It hasn't effectively stopped. Russia isn't an adversary; it is a growing
partner with the crooks on Wall Street.

Interests in the Artic have lead the US and Russia to agree; they dont
fight there.
McCormack 13
(Michael McCormack is a Ph.D. candidate in international relations at Florida International
University. His dissertation research focuses on the security and strategic implications of
climate change in the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic can defrost icy U.S.-Russia relations, Russia
Direct, Nov 26, 2013, http://www.russia-direct.org/content/arctic-can-defrost-icy-us-russiarelations)
Reflecting on the American purchase of the present-day state of Alaska from Russia in 1867, it is quite intriguing to
realize how the territory has played a significant role in the two countries relationship over the last century. During
the Cold War, Alaskas proximity to the Soviet Union forced Moscow to remain vigilant over its eastern territory in
addition to the European region to which it was historically oriented. Conversely, shared economic and cultural
interests on either side of the Bering Strait helped to facilitate a number of positive initiatives in Russian-American

Alaskas geographic location gives the

United States a direct stake in the issue of climate change in the Arctic Ocean, an
issue in which Russian territory is also directly affected . While public attention
toward this issue has focused on the perceived rivalry between countries in seeking out the
Arctics potentially vast natural resourcesan implication that largely grew from a 2007 incident in which
Russian researchers planted a Russian flag on the North Pole seabed the Arctic may actually prove to
be a vehicle for positive cooperation between Russia and the United States . As Russia
and the United States remain at odds over many other global issues of note, there is reason to be
optimistic that the two countries can find common ground in developing a positive response to Arctic climate
change. Aside from the Arctics potential natural resource wealth, another pressing issue is the
impact of melting ice on global shipping routes: As the general amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean has
gradually decreased over the past few decades, the viability of using the Arctic Ocean for marine
shipping is expected to increase tremendously in the coming years. Along with Canada,
Denmark, and Norway, the U.S. and Russia (collectively known as the Arctic Five) have
increased their attention to Arctic issues through institutions such as the Arctic
Council. Given the expected increase in marine traffic in the Arctic Ocean in the next two decades, Arctic states
relations immediately following the Cold War era. At present,

have considered upgrading port facilities to handle larger ships that will have gained the ability to operate in the
region. Another significant concern along these lines is the ability of search-and-rescue forces to respond to

the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement which was signed

by Arctic Council members in May 2011came into force. This was a significant step
toward establishing concrete measures in which Arctic states can collaborate and
remain positively engaged on issues of mutual interest in the Arctic Ocean. A second
increased activity. In January 2013,

issue has been to determine territorial rights in the Arctics northernmost fringe. A major obstacle to this process
has been the failure of the United States Congress to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), even despite the support of the last three U.S. administrations. Until the U.S. ratifies the UNCLOS, it has
less of a voice in any future negotiation over the delineation of Arctic territorial rights. Additionally, the U.S. remains
at odds with Canada over the two countries maritime border in the Beaufort Sea. On a more promising note,

Russia and Norway came to agreement to end a longstanding maritime

border dispute in 2010. Certainly, one cannot dismiss the realpolitik that does exist in the minds of Arctic
however,

states when building a strategy for a changing Arctic. The recent Russian arrest of Greenpeace activists protesting
oil drilling on Russias Arctic coastand subsequent heavy-handed charge of piracy that was initially levied against
the activists before being reduced to a lesser charge of hooliganism after international outcrydemonstrates
Moscows continually disproportionate sensitivity to political dissent. Russia and Canada have also made public
commitments to bolster their military presence in their Arctic regions in the near future, while Denmark has
committed to do the same in enforcing its sovereignty over Greenland (interestingly enough, the United States
cancelled the 2013 iteration of its Northern Edge military exercise in Alaska due to budget constraints). There is
also increasing concern that China will attempt to establish a presence in the region in order to tap into its resource
potential, which may throw a wrench into the generally positive dynamic that has developed between the Arctic
states in recent years. In order to prevent potential rivalry from developing in the Arctic region, the United States

and Russia must take an active role in continuing to build positive cooperation through such institutions as the
Arctic Council. With the recent addition of six observer states to the organizationincluding Chinait is imperative
that Arctic states do not waste the opportunity to increase international awareness of the tangible effects of Arctic
climate change. Although the next logical step in this process would be to move toward serious negotiations on an
international framework to manage Arctic territorial disputes and resource extraction, what must come first is U.S.
ratification of the UNCLOS. In doing this, the United States will be able to regain an influential position on oceanic
matters within international institutions. One must be realistic, of course, about the current nature of U.S.-Russian
relations: On the whole, we cannot expect the two sides to reach mutual agreement on many strategic matters in

multinational efforts in responding to Arctic climate change in

recent yearsas well as structures being created for the near futurehave given
reason to hope that this is an issue where the two sides can build lasting
cooperation.
the near future. Nonetheless,

There is no war- Our evidence assumes theirs and shows there

are no deep rooted, fundamental issues of conflict.
Bridge 13
(Robert Bridge, Former Editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, No grounds for new
Cold War with US Medvedev, RT, February 26, 2013,
http://rt.com/politics/medvedev-us-russia-cold-war-interview-451/)
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has denied the existence of any serious reasons
for the possible start of a "cold war" between Russia and the United States. "There is no
cold war and there are no conditions for it, Medvedev bluntly said in an interview with Brazils TV
Globo. While admitting relations between Russian and the United States can and
do become tense from time to time, the Russian PM believes the situation ultimately depends on
the administration and the government teams that are in power on both sides. He also noted that
bilateral relations are influenced by legislation pursued by lawmakers.
To prove his point, Medvedev cited Washingtons passage of the so-called Magnitsky Act, which the premier
criticized as an anti-Russian document. "This subject has been totally politicized and contrived, Medvedev said.
It is a situation where a previously document, an anti-Soviet document [the Jackson-Vanik amendment], has been
replaced by a document of an obviously anti-Russian nature." The Russian PM lamented the fact that a small group
of individual adventurers in the United States were able to take advantage of an unfortunate incident in one
persons life in order to pursue their political and commercial ambitions. It has nothing to do with us personally,
but, to my regret, it puts a strain on our relations with the U.S., which we would not like to have happened," he
said. The Magnitsky Act, which US President Barack Obama signed into law in December, makes it possible to deny
American visas and freeze the assets of Russian nationals who US officials say are complicit in the death of Sergey
Magnitsky, the former accountant from Hermitage Capital who died in prison in 2009 while being investigated in a

there are other issues that continue to hamper

Russia-US relations, including the welfare of Russian orphans who have been adopted into American
massive tax fraud case. Meanwhile,

families, some of who have met with a tragic fate. In December, President Putin signed the Dima Yakovlev Law,
which imposes a ban on the adoption of Russian children by US parents. Russia has also toughened laws
regulating the activities of non-governmental organizations that receive their financial support from abroad. There
also remains the question of a US missile defense system being built in Europe. Moscow says that without Russias
cooperation in the project, the strategic balance will be destroyed and another arms race will be inevitable.

Despite these challenges, Medvedev is confident that Moscow and Washington

will find the political will to keep bilateral relations on track. There are no deeplyrooted, fundamental reasons for a Cold War, " the Prime Minster reiterated. On the contrary,
we are capable of mutually tackling a large variety of issues in many
areas. In wrapping up his comments, Medvedev encouraged his listeners to visit Russia for themselves in
order to form their opinion of the country. "I advise you not to form your opinion on events in Russia judging only
by newspaper articles, TV reports or news on the Internet, Medvedev emphasized. You should come and see for
yourselves what is happening in our country, what tendencies prevail there: whether one can say anything he
wants, whether any problems exist with freedom of speech or any other freedoms."

Even if their conflict happens, nuclear war is out of the

question
Reif 13
(Kingston Reif is the director of nuclear nonproliferation at the Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Received a Marshall Scholarship, and a
Scoville Peace Fellowship, Would the United States ever actually use nuclear
weapons?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 09/17/2013,
http://thebulletin.org/would-united-states-ever-actually-use-nuclear-weapons)
How much is enough? According to the latest estimates, the United States maintains an active stockpile of
approximately 4,650 nuclear warheads, the vast majority of which are 10 to 50 times more powerful than the
bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. It is impossible to conjure up a
believable scenario whereby the United States would use 500 of these weapons, let alone nearly 5,000. Of the
three states against which the United States would consider using nuclear weapons, only Russia possesses a
nuclear arsenal that numbers in the thousands. Together the two countries hold nearly 95 percent of nuclear

The only rationale for

large US and Russian arsenals is to target the others nuclear forces.
Yet even though Washington and Moscow continue to deploy their forces
as if the threat of global thermonuclear war were a distinct possibility , the
reality is that such a conflagration is highly unlikely . The current downturn
in relations over issues like Syria and National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden may
scuttle hopes for another formal arms control agreement , but the two
countries are not enemies like they were during the Cold War. While direct
Russian aggression against the United States is highly improbable, some argue
warheads on the planet, with no other country believed to possess more than 300.
such

that America should retain the ability to threaten using nuclear weapons to deter a Russian conventional attack
against a NATO ally, such as one of the Baltic states. The dubious effectiveness of such a threat aside, the best the
United States could do with nuclear weapons if Moscow decided to invade, say, Lithuania, would be to repel the

Washington
would not be able to use nuclear weapons to eliminate Russias arsenal or
change the regime in Moscow without inviting unacceptable damage in
return. Thus, drastically fewer than the 1,550 strategic warheads the United States and Russia are each allowed
aggression and attempt to deter Russia from future conventional or nuclear attacks. But

to deploy under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty would be sufficient to defeat the immediate aggression
against an ally and attempt to deter further escalation. And what of China, which is believed to have fewer than
300 nuclear warheads, and North Korea, which has fewer than ten warheads andas of nowan uncertain ability to
deliver them? It is difficult to imagine the United States using nuclear weapons against either country. In the case of
China, security dilemmas involving Beijing and US allies over the status of Taiwan and the disputed islands in the
South and East China Seas are potential flashpoints, but all the parties have a strong interest in avoiding military
escalation. In the case of North Korea, Washington could destroy what few valuable targets the regime has using
conventional weapons. Nevertheless it is possible to imagine scenarios, however unlikely, in which the US
government might consider using nuclear weapons against either country. It might retaliate against first use,
retaliate against a major conventional attack that threatens the existence of a US ally, or launch a decapitating first
strike in a deep crisis. But given the relatively small Chinese and North Korean nuclear arsenals and the potency of
US conventional forces, the quantity of US nuclear weapons required would number not in the hundreds but the
dozens. There are simply not enough plausible targets for anything more than that. Critics of this line of reasoning
are likely to argue that while a limited number of nuclear weapons may be sufficient to achieve war aims, many
more are necessary to deter adversaries from attacking either the United States or its allies. Yet what threats now
deterred by an arsenal of nearly 5,000 warheads couldnt be deterred by many fewer weapons? And if a country
couldnt be deterred by a level half the size of the current US stockpile, what logic presumes it would be deterred by

nuclear weapons are of diminishing

strategic and military use to the United States, as the debate about whether to use
military force in Syria demonstrates. As nuclear security and nonproliferation expert James Doyle
points out, with the possible exception of North Korea, no other nuclear power has state goals
or conducts a foreign policy fundamentally hostile to the interests of the
the current level? Impractical and costly. The fact is,

United States. The nonnuclear threats that currently face the United States and
its allies do not rise to the level of requiring a nuclear response . US
conventional forces are unrivaled, which gives Washington the capacity to
achieve almost every conceivable war aim without using nuclear weapons .
Consequently, it is nearly impossible to imagine a situation where the first use of nuclear weapons wouldnt greatly
undermine US power and standing in the world. Given the decreasing role that nuclear weapons play in US security
policy, the arsenal is undoubtedly far too big. But in addition to working towards reducing the size of the arsenal,
the United States should further circumscribe the scenarios under which it would consider using nuclear weapons. It
can do this by transitioning from a posture that is still heavily based on first use to one more focused on retaliation.
Ensuring that the tradition of nuclear non-use continues depends on it.

There are 5 reasons why Russia wont start war

Margossian 14
(Maral Margossian, Five reasons why Russia wont start World War III, Dailycollegian, March 27, 2014,
http://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.

MAD. The end of World War II ushered the world into a precarious atomic age that
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 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
The world is

characterized the international atmosphere during the Cold War. Luckily,

Europe. Though Putin may have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his involvement in the Syrian

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
chemical weapons deal,

between Ukraine and Russia is one thing; Russias military is large enough and strong enough to easily defeat

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.
Ukraine. However,

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.

Intergovernmental agreements and committees check

escalation in the Ocean
NOAA No Date
(NOAA, Bilateral Agreement between the United States and Russia, Accessed
7/21/14,
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/agreements/bilateral_arrangements/russia/us_russia.ht
ml)

The United States and Russia share many important stocks of living marine
resources in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, lending importance to
coordination of efforts of the two countries to conserve and manage those
resources. Marine resources of the Bering Sea include the Alaska pollock (Theragra
chalcogramma), which supports one of the largest and most valuable commercial
fisheries in the world. On May 31, 1988 the United States and Russia signed the
Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and
the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Mutual
Fisheries Relations, establishing the U.S.-Russia Intergovernmental
Consultative Committee. The main objective of the Agreement is to maintain a
fisheries relationship that benefits both countries. The United States and Russia
cooperate on scientific research, consul on fisheries matters beyond their EEZs
and beyond the EEZ of any third party to ensure proper conservation and
management, and cooperate to address Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated (IUU) fishing activities.