JMU Debate 2009-2010

Insert File Name Insert Your Last Name or Initials

Advantage 4: Extinction
1. Withdrawal will cause North Korea invasion of Seoul – Carpenter agrees
Huessy, 03 – Senior Defense Associate at National Defense University Foundation who
specializes in nuclear weapons, missile defense, terrorism and rogue states (8/13/2003,
Peter, “Realism on the Korean Peninsula: Real Threats, Real Dangers,”
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18560, JMP)

However, Carpenter has long advocated a unilateral withdrawal of our U.S. forces from the Republic of Korea, under the
guise of arguing that such a reduction of U.S. forces would save tax-payer dollars, as well as U.S. lives, should there be an
armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
In fact, Carpenter, in conversations I have had with him, readily agrees that a U.S.
withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula might very well precipitate an invasion by the
communists in the North with the aim of quickly capturing Seoul and then suing for
peace in an agreement that would eventually give control over a unified country to the
communists.
Apart from the fact that U.S. forces withdrawn from the ROK would be redeployed elsewhere in the U.S. and thus save the
U.S. taxpayers nothing and given that U.S. military forces deployed overseas and at home have declined by over 1 million
soldiers since the end of the Cold War, a withdrawal from the ROK by the United States would do nothing
except cause another Korean War, kill millions of Korean civilians and soldiers and place
in danger the ability of Japan to maintain its economy in the face of a Korean Peninsula
in communist hands. As every Commander of U.S. forces in Korea since 1979 has told Congress in public
testimony, Japan is not defensible if Korea is taken by the communists. A blockade of trade routes to and from Japan
would become a realistic weapon in the hands of the PRC, not dissimilar to a blockade of Taiwan by the PRC portrayed by
Patrick Robinson in Kilo Class.

2. Will escalate to global nuclear war

Huessy, 03 – Senior Defense Associate at National Defense University Foundation who
specializes in nuclear weapons, missile defense, terrorism and rogue states (8/13/2003,
Peter, “Realism on the Korean Peninsula: Real Threats, Real Dangers,”
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18560, JMP)

It may be wishful thinking, but I believe China has the ability to help shape the future in the region in a positive way. For
the U.S. to withdraw from the ROK, as proposed by Carpenter, might very well initiate not only
another Korean War but also possibly another World War. When I lived in Seoul and attended
Yonsei University in 1969-70, my Korean father and Yonsei professor, Hahm Pyong Choon, later to become Ambassador
to the United States and national security adviser to the President of the Republic of Korea, told me there were always
those who sought to purchase liberty and freedom on the cheap. At an embassy reception in Washington, he reminded me
what he had told me in class: “Those on the left think you are imperialists; those on the right do not want to spend the
money”.
In 1985, the communists planted bombs in Burma where the ROK cabinet was meeting. Professor Hahm was killed by the
very same North Korean communists whom wish to see the withdrawal of American forces from the region. To save a
few dollars, however unintentionally, we might end up the North Korean army in
downtown Seoul. Certainly, armed with nuclear weapons, the North will be difficult at
best to deter from such an attack. To the people of the Republic of Korea: America will not leave, we
will not run, we will not forget the extraordinary sacrifices we both have made to secure the freedom of your country and
ours. This is the basis for the Bush Administration’s strategy, and with that sufficient reason it should be supported.

3. Those transition wars cause global wars culminating in extinction

Nye 90, Joseph, created the theory of “soft power,” Distinguished Service Prof and
Dean, JFK School of Government, Harvard U; PhD in PoliSci, Harvard U; Asst Sec of
Defense for Int’l Security Affairs; Chair, Nat’l Intelligence Council; Deputy Under Sec of
State for Security Assistance (“Bound to Lead,” p. 17)
Perceptions of change in the relative power of nations are of critical importance to
understanding the relationship between decline and war. One of the oldest
generalizations about international politics attributes the onset of major wars to
1
JMU Debate 2009-2010
Insert File Name Insert Your Last Name or Initials

shifts in power among the leading nations. Thus Thucydides accounted for the onset of
the Peloponnesian War which destroyed the power of ancient Athens. The history of the
interstate system since 1500 is punctuated by severe wars in which one country
struggled to surpass another as the leading state. If as Robert Gilpin argues,
international politics has not changed fundamentally over the millennia,” the
implications for the future are bleak. And if fears about shifting power precipitate[s] a
major war in a world with 50,000 nuclear weapons, history as we know it may end.
4. Extinction Good – Extinction is a natural process and promotes evolution
Ward 01, Peter, Paleontologist of University of Washington, PhD Paleontology,
http://www.reviewevolution.com/viewersGuide/Evolution_03.php#73777 (The
Permian Extinction) A.I.

"Extinction is the
As leaves fall from a tree--presumably a symbol for Darwin's tree of life--University of Washington paleogeologist Peter D. Ward tells us:

termination of a species." At least 95 per cent of all species that have ever lived are now
extinct. Extinction is normal, he says, and is happening all the time, at the rate of a few species per year. We watch various animals foraging for food,
and a lioness bringing down her prey. "The extinction of old species that can no longer adapt or compete

creates opportunities for new species that can--in an endless cycle," the narrator says. "So evolution
and extinction are in balance. But what happens when a planet-wide catastrophe strikes and a great dying begins?" The scene changes dramatically--to lightning,
volcanoes, and fire. Five times in the last half-billion years, we are told, mass extinctions wiped out most species alive at the time. As the smoke clears, we see Peter Ward driving through South

the Permian. He stops at an old abandoned

Africa to investigate the greatest of these mass extinctions--the one that occurred at the end of the geological period known as

a hundred years
farmhouse, and sees from the tombstones in a nearby graveyard that the family that used to live there died within a five-year period about a century ago. "So

[ago], these people were just wiped off the face of the Earth, and we have no idea what killed them," says Ward. "And if that's
the case, how am I going to figure out what killed animals that lived in those hills [gesturing], the fossils of which we have from 250 million years ago?" In the rocks of those hills, Ward finds

. "So catastrophic was that mass extinction," says Ward, "that

evidence that a great catastrophe occurred at the end of the Permian

even the small creatures have died out. It's not just the mighty, it's the meek." An animation shows us what might--or might not--have caused the
Permian extinction. "When species died, they didn't die alone," says the narrator. "The collapse of one helped bring down the others." Ward explains: "You could almost analogize that to a house of
cards. Each species props up another, in a sense." We watch as a huge house of playing-cards teeters in front of us. Ward continues: "Because the creature that you eat is that card that is sitting
under you that gives you your energy. Now let's pretend that we start kicking out card after card after card--and that's what a mass extinction does, isn't it? It starts knocking out a species here, it

Not everything
knocks out a species there, but pretty soon lots of species are gone. And it's not just the disappearance of species now--the whole house of cards falls down."

died in the Permian extinction, however. Ward holds up the skull of a mammal-like reptile. He says that the few lineages that survived the
extinction "start evolving, because the world is empty, and empty worlds really begat [a]
tremendous amount of evolutionary diversifications." But how do empty worlds beget new species, exactly? Mass
extinction may be an important feature of the history of life; but the question is, how did living things diversify afterwards? That
is the question Darwin's theory is supposed to answer, but the fact of extinction doesn't help us. Species go extinct, and new ones take their

places. This may come as a surprise to people who believe that species never go extinct (if, in fact, there are such people); but how does it provide evidence for Darwinian evolution?
THE EARTH HAS OVERSHOT ITS CARRYING CAPACITY – TIME TO
WITHDRAW NOW
ZERKER, 2008
Sally F., professor emeritus and senior scholar at York University, National Post, “Malthus was right”, 7/11/08,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6891428671&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6891
428677&cisb=22_T6891428676&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10882&docNo=8, Accessed 7/3/09, CAF

It may be time to bring Thomas Malthus back from the dead -- intellectually
speaking. Believe it or not, the 18th-century thinker has a lot to say to us about problems
that are here and now: population increase and the food needed to deal with it. Malthus
saw the 18th-century phenomenon of continuous population increase as a threat to
human civilization. Left unchecked, be believed, populations would double themselves
every 25 years, a growth rate that would quickly outstrip the available food supply. This
Malthusian idea soon took on the mantra of certainty: Unlimited population growth
could only end in disastrous famines and starvation. This was a widely held belief
throughout the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century. Since the mid-
20th century, however, Malthus' theories have lost credibility because the world has
2
JMU Debate 2009-2010
Insert File Name Insert Your Last Name or Initials

experienced (seemingly) unchecked population growth without the dismal result he

predicted. Here we are in the first decade of the 21st century, with a world population of
6.6 billion --about six times what it was in Malthus' era -- and yet we're not starving.
Malthus must have been wrong. Or was he? Until now, technological improvements have
caused food supply to increase along with population growth -- something Malthus
admittedly did not foresee. But as demand bumps up against supply, the green
revolution may be over. In recent months, food prices have risen
dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%. The
cost of cooking oil, rice and other staples have doubled since January. For the
1.5-billion people who live on less than $2 a day, food typically accounts for almost all of
their meager budget. Soaring food prices represent a calamity for these people, which
explains At current inflated prices, we can expect outright starvation in the poorer
regions of the world why food riots have broken out across the globe. A significant
factor straining the food supply is the entry into the market of large middle-
class populations in China and India -- people who want to live (and eat) like North
Americans and Europeans. Higher incomes in these nations have resulted in
increased consumption of meat, chicken and other protein foods, all of
which strain grain supplies. (It takes four pounds of grain to make one pound of
meat.) The formerly poor are no longer content to eat rice, bread and lentils.
During the 20th century, food production generally was not a restrictive
factor on population growth. But that was during a period when only one-
sixth of the Earth's inhabitants had incomes high enough to make them
gluttons. This low ratio of rich to poor left enough of the pie for meager but sufficient
distribution to the rest of the world. In other words, the world seems to have
avoided Malthus' dismal outcome only because the vast majority of
humanity did not eat well. They were able to eat amounts sufficient to procreate and
have their offspring survive, but not enough to enjoy the health-giving effect of a high
protein diet. That global social division between rich and poor is undergoing a
shift, and it is one that has the potential for unleashing a massive
humanitarian crisis. Malthus may yet be vindicated