257 GT Impact Defense

Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
Impact Defense
A2: Econ – U.S. econ resilient...............................................................................................................................3
A2: Econ – U.S. not k/t global econ......................................................................................................................4
A2: Econ – global growth turn.............................................................................................................................7
A2: Terrorism – bio terror....................................................................................................................................8
A2: Terrorism – bio terror....................................................................................................................................9
A2: Terrorism – bio terror..................................................................................................................................10
A2: Terrorism – nuke terror inevitable..............................................................................................................11
A2: Terrorism – terror inevitable (general).......................................................................................................12
A2: Terrorism – no impact..................................................................................................................................13
A2: CCP collapse – inevitable.............................................................................................................................14
A2: CCP collapse – no impact.............................................................................................................................15
A2: Heg – unsustainable......................................................................................................................................16
A2: Heg – unsustainable .....................................................................................................................................17
A2: Heg – Bearden is a psycho............................................................................................................................20
A2: Heg – Bearden is a psycho............................................................................................................................21
A2: Iran strikes – no nuke capabilities..............................................................................................................22
A2: Iran strikes – no nuke capabilities..............................................................................................................23
A2: Iran strikes – no nuke program...................................................................................................................24
A2: Iran strikes – regional states can’t nuclearize............................................................................................25
A2: Iran strikes – regional states can’t nuclearize............................................................................................26
A2: Iran strikes – no Iranian retaliation............................................................................................................27
A2: Free trade – no impact.................................................................................................................................28
A2: Free trade – collapse inevitable...................................................................................................................29
A2: Free trade – collapse inevitable...................................................................................................................30
A2: Free trade – economy turn...........................................................................................................................31
A2: Free trade – disease turn..............................................................................................................................32
A2: Enviro leadership – plan not key.................................................................................................................33
1
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Enviro leadership – Bush kills it..................................................................................................................34

A2: Indo-Pak war – no impact............................................................................................................................35
A2: Indo-Pak war – no impact............................................................................................................................36
A2: Indo-Pak war – talks smooth over conflict.................................................................................................37
A2: Pakistani coup – no takeover.......................................................................................................................38
A2: Pakistani coup – extremism impossible......................................................................................................39
A2: Pakistani coup – no impact..........................................................................................................................40
A2: U.S.-Russia war – no spillover.....................................................................................................................42
A2: U.S.-Russia relations – no impact................................................................................................................43
A2: U.S.-Russia relations – no impact................................................................................................................44
A2: U.S.-Australia relations – resiliency............................................................................................................45
2
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Econ – U.S. econ resilient
U.S. economy resilient – economic adaptations during the Cold War ensure
continued flexibility
William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Issues in Science and
Technology, fall 2004-Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness
In the 1980s, when the United States faced significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry,
labor, and government worked out a series of competitiveness policies and approaches that helped pave the way for the
nation’s revitalized economic leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard
president John Young to head a bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach
designed to defuse ideological squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the
commission created a new focus on public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful
competition in trade rather than protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the building blocks
for the 1990s boom. The Young Commission was followed by Congress’s Competitiveness Policy Council through 1997.
These efforts were successful in redefining the economic debate in part because they built on the experiences, well-
remembered at the time, of industry and government collaboration that was so successful in World War II and in responding to
Sputnik. Those are much more distant memories in this new century, but we should revisit the Young Commission model. The
private sector Council on Competitiveness, originally led by Young, has assembled a group of leading industry, labor, and
academic leaders to prepare a National Innovation Initiative, which could provide a blueprint for action. Legislation has been
introduced in the Senate to establish a new bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the prestige and leverage to
stimulate government action. The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a
highly talented workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of
entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives
the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong
economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to
fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new
century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it.
3
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Econ – U.S. not k/t global econ
U.S. econ not key to global econ – other economies increasing trade
Daniel Gross, writer for the Moneybox column at Slate.com, 5/6/07, The New York Times, “Does It Even Matter if the U.S. Has a
Cold?”,
https://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4100124656&format=GNBF
I&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4100124670&cisb=22_T4100124669&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&
csi=6742&docNo=9
FOR the last several decades, the United States has functioned as the main engine of growth in a global economy that
has been moving with synchronicity. ''We're going through the longest stretch of concerted growth in decades,'' said Lakshman
Achuthan, managing director at the Economic Cycle Research Institute in New York. So you might think that a sharp
slowdown in growth in the United States -- the domestic economy grew at a measly 1.3 percent annual clip in the first
quarter this year, less than half the 2006 rate -- would mean trouble for the rest of the global economy. Right? Wrong. As
the domestic growth rate has declined sharply in recent quarters, the rest of the world is growing rapidly. India is
blowing the door off its hinges. China's economy is expanding at a double-digit pace. In the United States, the Federal Reserve
has held rates steady since last June, and its next move will most likely be a rate reduction to stimulate growth. The European
Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, meanwhile, have been raising rates -- lest their once-suffering economies overheat and
spawn inflation. ''The U.S. slump in the first quarter didn't pull down growth in Europe or Asia,'' said Brad Setser, senior
economist at Roubini Global Economics. The seemingly countervailing trends -- deceleration in America, full speed ahead
abroad -- have led some economists to wonder whether the United States and the rest of the global economy are going their
separate ways. Some even suggest -- shudder -- that changes in the global economy have made the United States a less-central
player. ''Four or five years ago, there was an important switch in the global economy,'' said Stephen King, an economist based
in London for HSBC. ''Since then, other parts of the world have really grabbed the growth baton from the U.S.'' Until
relatively recently, when the United States sneezed, the world caught a nasty cold. Today, Mr. King says, the United States has
sneezed, but the world has gone shopping. Mr. King notes that emerging markets like China, India, Central and Eastern
Europe and the Middle East are injecting life into the European and Japanese economies through their enormous
purchases of capital goods -- all those construction cranes in Dubai, bullet trains in China, oil rigs in Russia. ''Emerging
markets' share of global capital spending has risen from 20 percent in the late 1990s to about 37 percent today,'' he said.
Western Europe is benefiting from rising trade with Eastern Europe, Russia, Asia and the Middle East. As a result, the
euro zone, America's largest trading partner, is simply not as reliant on the United States as it used to be, Mr. Setser said.
''Europe is clearly no longer growing on the back of U.S. domestic demand growth,'' he said. As other economies
increasingly trade with one another, the United States plays a diminished role.
4
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val

U.S. not key to global econ – BRIC nations fill in
Robert Samuelson, contributing editor of Newsweek and the Washington post (writes about business and economic issues) 10/23/07,
“Globalization is a Reality – Deal With It”, Newsweek, http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278028687267492
The shrinking trade deficit reflects two realities. First, the dollar has depreciated. Since 2002, it's down 21 percent against a
basket of 26 currencies. That makes U.S. exports cheaper abroad and foreign imports more expensive here. Complementing
this is what economist Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs calls the "decoupling" of the U.S. and world economies.
For years, the U.S. economy was an engine of global economic growth. Americans were truly the shoppers of last resort.
Other countries boosted production and jobs by exporting to us. No more. In the second quarter, U.S. consumer spending
grew at a meager 1.4 percent annual rate. O'Neill asserts that the added spending of consumers in the so-called BRIC
countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) now contribute more to global economic growth than American consumers.
"At a time of subdued U.S. consumption," he writes, "the world is helping the U.S. economy." In a report last week, the
International Monetary Fund reinforced the point. It expects the world economy to grow 4.8 percent in 2008, more than double
the projected U.S. growth of 1.9 percent.
5
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
Global markets are insulated from the U.S. economy

South China Morning Post, 5/27/04, Lexis
Strong sales of existing homes were also taken as confirmation that growth in the US remains on track, while upbeat domestic
data around the region, including record imports in Japan and soaring manufacturing output in Singapore, lent further support
to stocks across the region.
Nymex July oil futures retreated to finish 58 US cents lower at $ 41.14 per barrel in New York on Tuesday, partly on hopes the
Energy Department would report a rise in petrol inventories for last week. The futures regained some strength in Asian trade
yesterday, hitting a high of $ 41.49, but in New York trade the contract was down nine cents at $ 41.05 at noon yesterday after
the department said inventories were unchanged.
Japan's Nikkei-225 Index added 1.72 per cent to 11,152.09 points, while Singapore's Straits Times Index edged up 0.58 per
cent.
All other markets in the region were higher except India's. Hong Kong and South Korea were closed for Buddha's birthday.
"Looking at the long term, the dynamics driving this region - especially domestic consumption - are very powerful and
to some extent insulated from what is happening in the US," said Alistair Thompson, deputy head of Asia Pacific ex-Japan
equities at CMG First State Investments.
"So irrespective of whether US interest rates go up or there is a collapse in the US economy, we are confident that Asian
markets will outperform most other asset classes," he said, adding that the recent volatility had resulted in a "number of
bargains" becoming available.
6
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Econ – global growth turn
Turn – a decline in U.S. economic leadership spurs global growth

Daniel Gross, writer for the Moneybox column at Slate.com, 5/6/07, The New York Times, “Does It Even Matter if the U.S. Has a
Cold?”,
https://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4100124656&format=GNBFI&s
ort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4100124670&cisb=22_T4100124669&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=67
42&docNo=9
''Unless you run a sawmill in Canada, international trade isn't directly affected by the decline in U.S. housing,'' Mr. Rosenberg
said. Martin N. Baily, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, says he thinks
that it's a good thing for the United States if it's no longer the leader. ''We have a huge imbalance in our trade, and we
need to be a little less of an engine of growth for the rest of the world, and let Europe and Japan, and hopefully China,
eventually, pick up the slack,'' he said. ''And right now it seems like they're doing so.''
7
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Terrorism – bio terror
Bioweapons won’t cause mass death

Dr. Graham S. Pearson, former director general of Chemical and Biological Defense Establishment at Porton Down and Professor
of International Security at the University of Bradford, 10/17/01, The Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/anthrax.uk
Chemical and biological weapons attack human beings or animals primarily by the dissemination of the agent into the
atmosphere and its carriage downwind to the target population. In the case of chemicals, sufficient has to be delivered to cause
harm to the victims and, for an effective attack, significant quantities - tons - need to be available and spread at the right time
and in the right way. With biological agents, enough to infect an individual has to be inhaled and quantities needed are
correspondingly less - typically kilograms. It is, however, misleading to hold up a bag of sugar and suggest that if this were
biological agent then it could kill everyone in the UK - the analogy is to a sharp sword which can kill a lot of people but the
sword has to be taken to each and every individual. There are significant technical problems with biological attacks - agent
has to be obtained, enough has to be grown, then it has to be disseminated and for effective infection the particle size
has not to be so large that they fall harmlessly to the ground or so small that they are inhaled and exhaled without being
retained in the lungs. As biological agents are living micro-organisms, they are fragile and may be killed through the
forces needed to disseminate them or the ensuing exposure to sunlight and the open air. Finally, local micrometeorology
determines whether dispersion into a turbulent atmosphere is such that the target population fails to receive enough to
be infected.
8
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
Chemical weapons won’t cause mass death – it would take 18 years to produce
enough gas to kill 10,000 people
Amy E. Smithson, senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, D.C., where she directs the Chemical and
Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project, 2002, http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?SN=CB2001121259
However, two factors stand in the way of manufacturing chemical agents for the purpose of mass casualty. First, the
chemical reactions involved with the production of agents are dangerous: precursor chemicals can be volatile and
corrosive, and minor misjudgments or mistakes in processing could easily result in the deaths of would-be weaponeers.
Second, this danger grows when the amount of agent that would be needed to successfully mount a mass casualty attack
is considered. Attempting to make sufficient quantities would require either a large, well-financed operation that would
increase the likelihood of discovery or, alternatively, a long, drawn-out process of making small amounts incrementally.
These small quantities would then need to be stored safely in a manner that would not weaken the agent's toxicity before being
released. It would take 18 years for a basement-sized operation to produce the more than two tons of sarin gas that the
Pentagon estimates would be necessary to kill 10,000 people, assuming the sarin was manufactured correctly at its top
lethality.
9
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
Biowarfare is a flawed concept – no diseases could be spread effectively to

ensure widespread death
Gary Novak, Professor and Chair of the Department of Psych at Cal State, 1/1998, http://nov55.com/athr.html
Biological warfare is a flawed concept. The only route usually considered is airborne, because bombs and missiles create
the delivery system. There is no disease in existence which is propagated in that manner. Even the airborne diseases
require close contact with the source. The reason is because wind disperses the agents too thinly, and gravity brings them
down too rapidly. Increasing the quantities massively will get a few persons, but only a few. And then, very few of the
diseases which are mentioned as biowarfare agents are suitable for airborne dissemination. Brucellosis is not. It is
disseminated through body fluids. Plague is not. It is carried by insects from the blood of one animal to another. The insects do
not pick it up from the ground.
10
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Terrorism – nuke terror inevitable
Terrorist WMD attack inevitable – recruitment has doubled

WorldNetDaily, 11/29/04, "Expert: Massive WMD Attack 'Inevitable,'"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41679
"All of the warnings we have today indicate that a major strike – something more horrible than anything we've seen
before – is all but inevitable," said Yossef Bodansky, former director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and
Unconventional Warfare, in an interview yesterday with the Jerusalem Post.Bodansky said "the primary option" for the next
al-Qaida attack on American soil would be to employ weapons of mass destruction."I do not have a crystal ball, but this is
what all the available evidence tells us; we will have a bang," Bodansky told the Post, adding al-Qaida is "tying up the
knots" for an attack.Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," and "The Secret History of
the Iraq War," said the jihadist movement is gaining strength as Osama bin Laden's call to arms draws an increasing number of
recruits throughout the Muslim world.Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bodansky said, the number of people trained and
willing to die has more than doubled to an estimated 500,000 to 750,000. Intelligences estimates say another 10 million are
willing to support them actively while another 50 million would provide financial assistance.Bodansky was in Israel for
the second annual Jerusalem Summit, an international gathering of conservative thinkers, the Post said.Al-Qaida has not
carried out a second major attack, Bodansky explained, because the first one sufficiently sent the message to the Islamic world
that the U.S. could be penetrated, and a second attack necessarily would have to be more grandiose.
11
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Terrorism – terror inevitable (general)
Terrorism inevitable – leaked tech and available nuclear energy

Des Stutchbury, The Gazette Online Staff Writer, 2/7/03, "Is Nuclear Terrorism Inevitable?"
http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2003/February/7/news1.htm
Another undisputed fact is that of capital flowing into the Middle East due to oil exports. The Energy Information Administration
reported the following dollar amounts (U.S.) for 2001: Iran $43 billion/year, Iraq $23 billion/year, Kuwait $28 billion/year, Saudi
Arabia $72 billion/year, and the United Arab Emirates $15 billion/year. From these facts, certain logical conclusions may be
drawn. The combination of power, oil and money, continued terrorist motivation against Israel and the West, and the
greater availability of nuclear weapons and technology, can only lead to the assumption that eventually someone with an
anti-Israeli or anti-West agenda will acquire a nuclear device. Currently, the United States is the only country to have used
nuclear weapons in an attack, with their bombing of Japan during WWII.John C. Thompson, president of the Mackenzie Institute,
a Canadian military think-tank, said he agrees that nuclear terrorism is eventual. A terrorist successfully hiding in a
container on a freighter, along with a nuclear device, would be a relatively easy feat for a single person or group,
Thompson explained. Consequently, if a suicide bomber was involved, all he or she would have to do is pull the trigger when the
ship reached port. This puts every ocean port city in the world in jeopardy, he explained.Any nuclear bomb-building team must
theoretically include a physicist, a mathematician, a chemist, an electronics specialist and a good demolitions expert. At present,
only grams of the fuel needed to create a nuclear weapon can conceivably be purchased on the black market, making it doubtful
that terrorists could achieve their goal without the support of a country's resources. Any country caught in such activity could
expect immediate and definite consequences, including a possible regime change, confirmed Paul Wilkinson, professor of
international relations and director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St.
Andrews, in Scotland.
12
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Terrorism – no impact
No risk of terror attack going nuclear

Lavoy, Assistant Professor, National Security, Naval Postgraduate School, SECURITY STUDIES, Summer 1995
Waltz does not dispute the ability of terrorists to gain control of a few nuclear explosives. He does doubt, however, that terrorists ever
would use them. This sanguine view derives from three assumptions. Waltz makes about the nature and aims of terrorist organizations.
First, because “secrecy is safety” for terrorists, waltz believes that they would not wish suddenly to enlarge their ranks through
the multiplication of “suppliers, transporters, technicians, and guardians” required to obtain and maintain nuclear weapons.
Second, terrorists are not well suited to carrying out the time-consuming negotiations needed to obtain the compliance of a
state placed under a terrorist nuclear threat. Third, terrorists favor tactics of disruption and harassment to threats of wholesale
death and destruction; nuclear weapons do not help terroists reach their long-term goals. If terrorists did seek to take many lives,
Waltz reasons that poison would be a better weapons.
13
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: CCP collapse – inevitable

CCP collapse inevitable – all other communist regimes have been spurned
The Epoch Times, 12/1/04, “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party”, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-1/24696.html
More than a decade after the fall of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European communist regimes, the
international communist movement has been spurned worldwide. The demise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is
only a matter of time.
Nevertheless, before its complete collapse, the CCP is trying to tie its fate to the Chinese nation, with its 5000 years of
civilization. This is a disaster for the Chinese people. The Chinese people must now face the impending questions of how to
view the CCP, how to evolve China into a society without the CCP, and how to pass on the Chinese heritage. The Epoch Times
is now publishing a special editorial series, Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party. Before the lid is laid on the coffin of
the CCP, we wish to pass a final judgment on it and on the international communist movement, which has been a scourge to
humanity for over a century.
14
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: CCP collapse – no impact
The CCP won’t strike the U.S. – wants to pursue development

Robert J. Lieber, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University, 2005, “The American Era: Power and
Strategy for the 21st Century”, p. 171
Despite the muscle flexing directed at Taiwan and Japan, the newer and more highly educated "fourth generation" Chinese
Communist Party leadership of Hu Jintao has tended to downplay great power confrontation with the United States in
order to continue to pursue development and modernization. China has an enormous stake in American trade and
investment, and a serious conflict would have drastic consequences at a time when the country continues to undergo a
wrenching transformation of its economy and society. China's trade (exports plus imports) with the United States in 2004
amounted to $179 billion,32 dwarfing the $20 billion in trade with Russia, and not surprisingly the Chinese have been reluctant to
jeopardize their relationship with America. Beijing thus has its own practical reasons for not seeking to challenge the pivotal U.S.
role in East Asia and for avoiding major disruptions in its external environment. While it is conceivable that an economically
powerful China could ultimately emerge as a revisionist power and seek to challenge the U.S. position of unipolar primacy, it is
also possible that China's economic development, social change, integration with the world economy, and own self-interest could
facilitate both a liberalizing political transition and sustained cooperative relations with the United States. 33
15
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Heg – unsustainable
Heg unsustainable – Europe and Japan gaining power

Kupchan, Professor of International Relations at Georgetown, 2002, “The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and the
Geopolitics of the 21st Century”, Alfred A. Knopf, New York
The problem is that America’s unipolar moment and the global stability that comes with it will not last. Europe now has a
single market, a single currency, and more frequently speaks with a single, self-confident voice. The aggregate wealth of
the European Union’s fifteen members already approaches that of the United States, and the coming entry of new
members, coupled with growth rates comparable to America’s, may eventually tilt the balance in Europe’s favor. The
EU has embarked on efforts to build a military force capable of operating without U.S. participation. These moves will
make Europe more autonomous and less willing to follow America’s lead. Along with an integrating Europe, Russia,
Japan, and China will gradually emerge as counterweights to American strength. The waning of U.S. primacy will
result not just from the rise of alternative centers of power, but also from an America that is tiring of the burdens of
global hegemony. The United States should not and will not pursue a foreign policy as ambitious as that of the Cold War now
that it lives in a world in which it faces no major adversary but instead confronts a terrorist threat that is better countered by
freezing bank accounts than by dropping bombs. As during earlier periods in American history, the absence of a commanding
threat will make the country considerably more reluctant to shoulder strategic commitments abroad. Americans and their
elected leaders are justifiably losing interest in playing the role of global guardian. At the same time, the United States is
drawing away from multilateral institutions in favor of a unilateralism that risks estranging alternative centers of power, raising
the chances that their ascent will lead to a new era of geopolitical rivalry. The rise of other powers and America’s waning
and unilateralist internationalism will combine to make America’s unipolar moment a fleeting one. As unipolarity gives
way to multipolarity the stability that follows naturally from the presence of an uncontested hegemon will be replaced by
global competition for position, influence, and status. As in the past, the world’s principal fault lines will fall where they have
fallen throughout the ages—between the world’s main centers of power. The disorder that comes with rivalry will soon replace
the order afforded by Pax Americana.
16
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
Heg unsustainable – Europe and China filling in

Parag Khanna, senior research fellow in the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation, 1/27/08, “Waving
Goodbye to Hegemony”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-
t.html?pagewanted=7&_r=1//Damien-sm)
The rise of China in the East and of the European Union within the West has fundamentally altered a globe that
recently appeared to have only an American gravity — pro or anti. As Europe’s and China’s spirits rise with every move
into new domains of influence, America’s spirit is weakened. The E.U. may uphold the principles of the United Nations that
America once dominated, but how much longer will it do so as its own social standards rise far above this lowest common
denominator? And why should China or other Asian countries become “responsible stakeholders,” in former Deputy Secretary
of State Robert Zoellick’s words, in an American-led international order when they had no seat at the table when the rules were
drafted? Even as America stumbles back toward multilateralism, others are walking away from the American game and playing
by their own rules. Would the world not be more stable if America could be reaccepted as its organizing principle and leader?
It’s very much too late to be asking, because the answer is unfolding before our eyes. Neither China nor the E.U. will replace
the U.S. as the world’s sole leader; rather all three will constantly struggle to gain influence on their own and balance
one another. Europe will promote its supranational integration model as a path to resolving Mideast disputes and
organizing Africa, while China will push a Beijing consensus based on respect for sovereignty and mutual economic
benefit. America must make itself irresistible to stay in the game.
17
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
US hegemony will decline -- economic dependence, overstretch, and inability

to sustain interventions
Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at New York University's Stern School of Business and Senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution, 2004, “A world without power,” Foreign Policy 143, p. 32-39, July-August
The clay feet of the U.S. colossus | Powerful though it may seem--in terms of economic output, military might, and "soft"
cultural power--the United States suffers from at least three structural deficits that will limit the effectiveness and
duration of its quasi-imperial role in the world. The first factor is the nation's growing dependence on foreign capital to
finance excessive private and public consumption. It is difficult to recall any past empire that long endured after
becoming so dependent on lending from abroad. The second deficit relates to troop levels: The United States is a net
importer of people and cannot, therefore, underpin its hegemonic aspirations with true colonization. At the same time, its
relatively small volunteer army is already spread very thin as a result of major and ongoing military interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Finally, and most critically, the United States suffers from what is best called an attention deficit.
Its republican institutions and political traditions make it difficult to establish a consensus for long-term nation-
building projects. With a few exceptions, most U.S. interventions in the past century have been relatively short lived. U.S.
troops have stayed in West Germany, Japan, and South Korea for more than 50 years; they did not linger so long in the
Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, or Vietnam, to say nothing of Lebanon and Somalia. Recent trends in public
opinion suggest that the U.S. electorate is even less ready to sacrifice blood and treasure in foreign fields than it was during the
Vietnam War.
18
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val

Global growth makes hegemony decline inevitable
Benjamin Schwarz, correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, 1996, “Why America thinks it has to run the world,” The Atlantic
Monthly, Vol.277, Iss. 6, pg. 92-100, June, Proquest]
Lenin argued seventy-eight years ago that international capitalism would be economically successful but, by growing in a
world of competitive states, would plant the seeds of its own destruction. Ironically, the worldwide economic system that the
United States has fostered has itself largely determined America's relative decline even as it has contributed to the
country's economic growth. Through trade, foreign investment, and the spread of technology and managerial expertise,
economic power has diffused from the United States to new centers of growth, thus undermining American hegemony
and ultimately jeopardizing the world economy. Nearly everyone applauds today's complex web of global trade, production,
and finance as the highest stage of capitalism. But international capitalism may be approaching a crisis just as it is reaching its
fullest flower. A genuinely interdependent world market is extraordinarily fragile. The emergent high-technology industries, for
instance, are the most powerful engines of world economic growth, but they require a level of specialization and a breadth of
markets that are possible only in an integrated global economy. As U.S. hegemony continues to weaken, renationalized foreign
and economic policies among the industrialized powers could fragment that economy. The future of a foreign policy designed
to strengthen what the United States must contain and, at the same time, to maintain an economic order that weakens the very
foundation of that order seems evident: it will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. The United States remains
caught in the dilemma Kennan discerned more than forty years ago: "To what end 'security'? For the continuation of our
economic expansion? But our economic expansion ... cannot proceed much further without ... creating new problems of
national security much more rapidly than we can ever hope to solve them." To escape this dilemma, Americans will have
to understand the foreign policy that is conducted in their name and re-examine the requirements for their own security and
prosperity.
19
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Heg – Bearden is a psycho
Bearden is off his rocker – none of his work is peer-reviewed – everything he

writes is nonsensical
Phact.org, May 2003, “Tom Bearden: A Critical Examination of his Claims”, http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm
Tom Bearden is today known as the self styled expert on over-unity physics. That is to say, electrical systems that put more energy out
than goes in. However, this position of pre-eminence, has been achieved not by the conventional means of publishing papers in
peer reviewed journals, attending mainstream scientific conferences, or even providing working demonstrations, but rather by
playing to the crank fringe audience on the internet, with a sustained and substantial publicity effort that now exceeds 10
years in duration. What has made the rise of Mr Bearden possible, has been the general absence of critical discussion of his
methods and concepts. This is not surprising, since Mr Bearden has consistently kept away from those who are qualified to
evaluate his claims, and prefers instead to keep company only with those who are uncritical in accepting his statements of knowledge.
Hence, the purpose of this document, is for the first time, to undertake a critical evaluation of the claims made by T.E. Bearden, to
place them in a context, and evaluate whether there is any intrinsic value in any of the work undertaken by Mr Bearden.I want to state
the amount of nonsensical material Mr Bearden has produced over the years is simply too enormous to possibly be covered,
and I have had to leave out gems such as claims Tom Bearden has provided a physical mechanism for re-incarnation, among
numerous other absurdities. The Beginnings of the Bearden’s Over-Unity CareerTom Bearden’s over-unity ‘career’ as such, seems
to have begun in the late 1960s, when he apparently learned that the control circuitry in the Minuteman missile was over-unity.
Supposedly the engineers had been told to pull out all the stops and produce the most efficient possible circuit, and eventually derived
one that produced an excess of electrical energy. This excess energy was then removed from the circuit for the production version, and
quietly covered up. There is no independent collaboration for this claim. Another aspect of military research that appears to have
sparked Tom’s fertile imagination, was the opinion popular among a certain segment of the CIA analysts in the late 1960s and early
1970s, that the Soviets had developed exotic particle bean weaponry based in part upon concepts and ideas Tesla had put forward later
in his life. This appears to have led Tom towards the historical enigma of Nikola Tesla, as an avenue to over-unity, from which he
developed the opinion that electromagnetic waves in fact have a ‘longitudinal’ transmission, the same as sound waves. This opinion is
of course contrary to accepted scientific wisdom for the last 100 years. Over this period, Tom appears to have put together a corpus of
ideas and concepts about over-unity, many of them taken from friends and colleagues, and brought them together to form a new
literature. The launch of this new literature began in the mid 1980s, with Tom doing one off small conferences, and trying to lecture
and consult on his alleged expertise. At this time he was President and CEO of CTEC, Inc., supposedly a private R&D corporation,
supposedly engaged in research on free energy devices, and the mechanisms for interaction of EM fields and radiation with biological
systems.The above formed the basis for what happened in the mid to late 1980s, that is to say Mr Bearden having assembled a body of
information and concepts he considered to be of some inherent value, started trying to launch this material upon the world, trying to
‘get the message out.’ To this end, Tom quickly realized his best response, was always through the use of the alternative internet
discussion groups that began to spring up in this period, as he was assured of star treatment from such organizations.
20
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Heg – Bearden is a psycho
Homeboy bought his PhD through a website

Phact.org, May 2003, “Tom Bearden: A Critical Examination of his Claims”, http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm
Based on his own e-mail and the time frame (around 1999 to 2000) when he began claiming a Ph.D., Tom Bearden apparently
received (or more accurately purchased) his bogus Ph.D. degree from Trinity College and university in the U.K. Until April
2000, you could find this diploma mill at http://www.trinityuni.org, after which it vanished from the web. Fortunately, the Wayback
Machine web archive (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.trinityuni.org) still contains the old web pages from Trinity College
and University.Looking at the home page on the Sept. 1, 1999 archive you can plainly see the statement "Degrees awarded based on
prior experience and learning" for www.trinityuni.org. Clicking on the "Contact Us" button brings you to a page pointing to phone
numbers and addresses in the U.K.After April 10, 2000, Trinity College and University apparently "vanished" from the U.K. However,
for more than a year afterwards the old web site redirected visitors to www.internetuniversity.cc, a site that sells pre-packaged e-
learning courses under the name of Degree Consultants, Inc.Now it gets interesting. Who is the registrant for internetuniversity.cc? It
turns out to be:Albert Wainright2601 S. Minnesota AveSuite 105-103Sioux Falls, SD 57105US605-330-8622Email:
albert@predacon.comAnd just where is Mr. Wainright's address in Sioux Fall, SD? It turns out to be Mail Boxes, Etc., Store #2125
(www.mbe.com).Apparently Mr. Wainright has decided to concentrate his current efforts in the U.S., because in 1999 a "new" version
of Trinity College and University appeared at www.trinity-college.edu. Again, this new "university" promises "college credit for what
you know." And who is the registrant for www.trinity-college.edu?Registrant:Trinity College & University2601 S. Minnesota Ave.
Suite 105-103Sioux Falls, SD 57105UNITED STATES(That's one busy Mail Boxes, Etc., isn't it?)Administrative Contact:Albert
WainrightPrivatePO Box 7743Delray Beach, FL 33482UNITED STATES(561) 736-2963albert@predacon.comNote that the "new"
Trinity College and University has branches (i.e. P.O. boxes) in Pakistan, Venezuela, the Netherlands, Vietnam, Jordan, and Lebanon.
Apparently they do a booming business selling fake degrees to people throughout the world. According to sources I've read, the
U.K. address was just another P.O. box placed in Great Britain in order to take advantage of possible confusion between their diploma
mill and Cambridge University's Trinity College.Below are a few other web sites that discuss famous diploma mills, and cite Trinity
College and University as a classic example.www.degree.net (An authoritative web site on distance education. You can find all sorts of
gems about Trinity College and University here.)www.degreefinders.com/news.html (There's a link to a Trinity "graduate" who posted
his 4,224 word doctoral dissertation on the web. Unfortunately, the dissertation now seems to be
gone.)http://www.adn.com/24hour/nation/story/600189p-4642228c.htmlhttp://courses.dsu.edu/cet749/unit3.htm (This story tells how
South Dakota became a haven for diploma mills, and how Trinity College and University created its own accreditation agency to make
itself look more legitimate.)http://www.thisismoney.com/20011125/si40887.html (This article discusses the original Trinity College
and University in the U.K. before it was shut down.)Finally, it's important to note that many legitimate universities have the word
"Trinity" in their names. Legitimate Ph.D. degrees granted by such institutions require actual graduate course credits, at least one year
of residency at the university itself, and an oral defense of a dissertation in front of a qualified faculty examination committee. On the
other hand, there isn't a legitimate university in the U.S. or the U.K. that will give a person a doctorate based on "lifetime
achievement" and the submission of a dissertation by mail, particularly when that person doesn't even live in the same
country!
21
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Iran strikes – no nuke capabilities
No escalation – Iran doesn’t have the nuclear capabilities and fears a crushing
attack from the U.S.
Barry Posen, Professor of Political Science at MIT, 2006, Century Foundation Report, "A Nuclear Armed Iran: A Difficult but
not Impossible Policy Problem"
Analysts of nuclear weapons organizations, however, fairly point to the fact that states do not always base their nuclear
weapons in reasonable ways. And they do not necessarily confine their objectives to basic deterrence. Iran may decide that it
wants a first-strike capability versus its neighbors, such as Israel. Such a dream is probably unachievable, but Iran might
attempt to develop such a capability. This would set up an unstable strategic relationship between the two countries, and any
crises would include an element of great risk, as one or the other became tempted to preempt. In the U.S.-Soviet case, these
problems ultimately lead the two sides to ensure that some piece of their nuclear forces would likely survive an exchange to
visit a horrible retaliation, and thus deter the other’s first-strike temptations. These risks also led them to become quite cautious
in their political competition, but there were hair-raising episodes along the way, and there is no reason to rule out similar
events in the case of Iran. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible for Iran to achieve a first-strike capability versus the
United States. Any risks that Iran took in its basing mode and alert posture to get ready for a first strike against Israel
could easily make it more vulnerable to a first strike from the United States. Spending its nuclear forces on Israel would
leave Iran politically and militarily vulnerable to a huge U.S. retaliation. By striking first, it would have legitimated a
U.S. nuclear attack, while simultaneously weakening its own deterrent with the weapons it had expended. The United
States is the greater threat to Iran because it is much more powerful than Israel, and has actual strategic objectives in
the Gulf. It is strategically reasonable for Iran to focus its deterrent energies on the United States, which it can only
influence with a secure retaliatory force, capable of threatening U.S. forces and interests in the region.
22
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Iran strikes – no nuke capabilities
No escalation – Iran doesn’t have nukes – even if they did, they wouldn’t
retaliate
Kenneth Waltz, Prof. at UC Berkeley & Genius, 2007, Journal of International Affairs, "A Nuclear Iran: Promoting Stability or
Courting Disaster”,
First, nuclear proliferation is not a problem because nuclear weapons have not proliferated. "Proliferation" means to
spread like wildfire. We have had nuclear military capability for over fifty years, and we have a total of nine militarily
capable nuclear states. That's hardly proliferation; that is, indeed, glacial spread. If another country gets nuclear
weapons, and if it does so for good reasons, then that isn't an object of great worry. Every once in a while, some prominent
person says something that's obviously true. Recently, Jacques Chirac [president of France] said that if Iran had one or two
nuclear weapons, it would not pose a danger. Well, he was right. Of course, he had to quickly retract it and say, "Oh no, that
slipped out, I didn't know the microphone was on!" Second, it doesn't matter who has nuclear weapons. Conversely, the
spread of conventional weapons makes a great deal of difference. For instance, if a Hitler-type begins to establish
conventional superiority, it becomes very difficult to contain and deter him. But, with nuclear weapons, it's been proven
without exception that whoever gets nuclear weapons behaves with caution and moderation. Every country--whether
they are countries we trust and think of as being highly responsible, like Britain, or countries that we distrust greatly, and
for very good reasons, like China during the Cultural Revolution--behaves with such caution.
23
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Iran strikes – no nuke program
Iran has no nuclear weapons program now
The New York Times, 12/3/ 07, “U.S. says Iran ended atomic arms work”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its
nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago
that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb. The conclusions of the new assessment are
likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a
cornerstone of its foreign policy.
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy
agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence
agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for
civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material
to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from
previous estimates.
But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to
transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high
confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and
pressure.”
24
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Iran strikes – regional states can’t nuclearize
Other countries own’t get drawn in – regional states wouldn’t be able to weaponize
Barry Posen, Professor of Political Science at MIT, New York Times, "We Can live with a Nuclear Iran", Feb. 27, 2006,
A Middle Eastern arms race is a frightening thought, but it is improbable. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, among its
neighbors, only Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey could conceivably muster the resources to follow suit. Israel is
already a nuclear power. Iranian weapons might coax the Israelis to go public with their arsenal and to draw up plans for the
use of such weapons in the event of an Iranian military threat. And if Israel disclosed its nuclear status, Egypt might find it
diplomatically difficult to forswear acquiring nuclear weapons, too. But Cairo depends on foreign assistance, which
would make Egypt vulnerable to the enormous international pressure it would most likely face to refrain from joining an
arms race. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has the money to acquire nuclear weapons and technology on the black market, but
possible suppliers are few and very closely watched. To develop the domestic scientific, engineering and industrial base
necessary to build a self-sustaining nuclear program would take Saudi Arabia years. In the interim, the Saudis would need
nuclear security guarantees from the United States or Europe, which would in turn apply intense pressure on Riyadh
not to develop its own arms. Finally, Turkey may have the resources to build a nuclear weapon, but as a member of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it relied on American nuclear guarantees against the mighty Soviet Union throughout
the Cold War. There's no obvious reason to presume that American guarantees would seem insufficient relative to Iran.
So it seems that while Iranian nuclear weapons might cause considerable disquiet among Iran's neighbors, the United
States and other interested parties have many cards to play to limit regional proliferation. But what about the notion that
such weapons will facilitate Iranian aggression?
25
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Iran strikes – regional states can’t nuclearize
No escalation – regional states can’t nuclearize

Christopher Layne, Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M, 4/10/06, The American Conservative
The same architects of illusion who fulminated for war with Iraq say that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, three bad things
could happen: it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; it might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists; and
Tehran could use its nuclear weapons to blackmail other states in the region or to engage in aggression. Each of these
scenarios, however, is improbable in the extreme. During the early 1960s, American policymakers had similar fears that
China’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would trigger a proliferation stampede, but these fears did not materialize, and a
nuclear Iran is no more likely to start a proliferation snowball in the Middle East. Israel, of course, already is a nuclear
power. The other three states that might be tempted to seek nuclear-weapons capability are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and
Turkey. But as MIT professor Barry Posen points out, each of these three states would be under strong pressure not do to
so. Egypt is particularly vulnerable to outside pressure to refrain from going nuclear because its shaky economy depends
on foreign—especially U.S.—economic assistance. Saudi Arabia would find it hard to purchase nuclear weapons or
material on the black market, which is closely watched by the United States, and, Posen notes, it would take the Saudis
years to develop the industrial and engineering capabilities to develop nuclear weapons indigenously.
26
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Iran strikes – no Iranian retaliation
Iran wouldn’t retaliate – too fearful of an Israeli counterattack

Thomas C. Schelling, Nobel Laureate for Economics, Nobel Laureates Plus, 10/27/05, "Iranian Use of Nuclear Weapon on
Israel would be Suicide Bomb"
SCHELLING: I don’t think the ayatollahs or anyone else in Iran wants their own nation wiped off the map. They know
that Israel has enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to utterly destroy Iran in retaliation for any attack on
Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. This would deter them. To hit Israel would be suicide.
GARDELS: And suicide bombing is not a tactic that works for nations or cultures.
SCHELLING: Absolutely. The Iranians are not stupid. I’m sure they are studying the history of the past six decades, and
of the Indian and Pakistan bombs, to see what nuclear weapons are good for — defense and deterrence — and what they
are not — actual use.
27
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Free trade – no impact

Trade wars don’t escalate – empirically proven
Gunnar Sjöstedt, senior research assistant at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, no date, “Trade Wars”,
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/zart/ch8.htm
The explanation is not that world economic relations have remained harmonious and non-conflictual. In spite of the free trade
objectives of the international trade regime, many governments have pursued policies of managed trade that have
generated a multitude of inter-state disputes.(1) Several waves of neo-protectionism have occurred during the last decades
(Tumlir, 1985; Baldwin, 1986; Ray, 1989). Governments have also intervened to monitor trade flows for security reasons. For
example, control of trade flows was employed as a political weapon by CoCom against the Soviet Union and its allies during
the Cold War, by Arab states against Israel, and by the United Nations against Iraq after the 1991 desert war (Forland, 1991;
Simons, 1996). A row of episodes of economic sanctions involving various countries have occurred since the end of World War
II (Hufbauer et al., 1990; Cortright & Lopez, 1995; Doxey, 1996). The media have also reported about so-called trade wars
involving one or more of the present world economic great powers, the European Union (EU), Japan and the United States
(US).
When such conflicts have transpired commentators have often been quick to make comparisons with the great world economic
crisis of the 1930´s. However, on no occasion after World War II has a trade conflict involving one or more of the economic
great powers escalated out of control. Escalation in trade wars has occurred but only under such conditions that the
conflict has remained carefully managed by the parties involved, or one of them. The chief issue of this chapter is what
circumstances and actions have contributed to preventing so-called trade wars occurring after World War II from escalating into
a situation similar to the great economic crisis of the 1930´s.
Recall that preventive diplomacy is given a wide interpretation in this project; it means either that an emerging
confrontation is forestalled or that escalation in an on-going conflict is discontinued (see chapter 1). Due to the practical
difficulties of identifying trade conflicts that would have occurred unless preventive measures had been undertaken, the study
of actual cases is primarily focused on the prevention of further escalation of a dispute.(2) The analysis of the prevention of the
occurrence of trade wars has been carried out in more general terms without reference to particular cases. The perspective on
preventive diplomacy is partly open-ended in the sense that it does not stipulate a priori what kinds of state action might
represent preventive diplomacy associated with trade war.
28
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Free trade – collapse inevitable
Free trade is unsustainable – it will destroy the world economy by 2010

Ernest H. Preeg senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington and holds a Ph.D. in economics from the New School for
Social Research, member of U.S. delegations to the Kennedy and Uruguay Rounds of GATT trade negotiations, 2K, “The Trade
Deficit, the Dollar, and the U.S. National Interest”, Hudson Institute, p. 96-7
This is a more elusive question, and the answer depends to a large extent on economic performance within the U.S. and other
major economies, and on policy actions by governments directly influencing trade and investment flows. The dominant current
assessment is nevertheless that a very large current account deficit is sustainable for somewhat longer, at least another year or
two, and that a major downward adjustment in the deficit with all that that implies for the U.S. and global economies is at
most a threatening cloud somewhere beyond the short-term horizon. The ubiquitous stock market analysts allude to the
longer-term unsustainability of the external deficit and the broad implications of a downward adjustment, but they tend to
limit their specific projections to how relatively small changes in the trade balance impact on the short term domestic outlook
with respect to labor markets, interest rates, and whether the Federal Reserve Board will raise or lower interest rates by a quarter
of a percent at its next meeting. The most thorough examination of this question is by Catherine Mann in her book, Is the U.S.
Trade Deficit Sustainable?,' and her conclusions are refreshingly specific : The deficit is sustain able for another two or three
years in view of "robust domestic demand" in the U.S. economy and the special status of the United States in international
financial markets, but "the economic forces leading to a narrowing of the trade imbalance are likely to build within and
beyond that time frame," and her 2005 and 2010 projections under alternative scenarios, including a 25 percent devaluation
of the dollar, leads to the time zone of unsustainability. Key sustainability benchmarks that are breached are the ratio of the
foreign debt to GDP (27-39 percent in 2005 and 39-64 percent in 2010, depending on the scenario projected), and the sheer size
of the foreign debt ($3.2-$4.4 trillion dollars in 2005 a
29
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Free trade – collapse inevitable

Era of free trade is over for good
David E. Sanger, White House correspondent for The New York Times, 8/3/08, “Beyond the Trade Pact Collapse”, The New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/weekinreview/03sanger.html?ref=world
It is not that the Chinese think the great era of globalization is over. Far from it. The glistening Beijing of today was built on
dollars, yen and Euros earned around the world, and now being lent back to the United States.
But the era in which free trade is organized around rules set in the West — with developing nations following along —
definitely appears over, and few are mourning its demise. Even in America, where for years free trade advocates assumed
their own country would be the biggest winner, advocates of the system are on the defensive.
Only eight years after Bill Clinton left the White House talking about how free trade played to America’s every strength —
particularly its knack for innovation — Senator Barack Obama has been trying to win back the White House for the Democrats
by talking about renegotiating Clinton’s trade deals, starting with Nafta.
The system is being rethought, as well, in China and India and other countries that spent the 1990s trying to become
integrated into the global trading system by accepting the West’s rules. They applied to join the World Trade Organization,
using its mandates to speed up reforms at home and pump out cheap exports. But now they are done with that phase.
When the Chinese finally took the so-called Doha round of trade talks off of life support last week, teaming up with India to
say they would not stop protecting farmers in order to get tariffs reduced on their expanding industrial exports, it was no
surprise.
30
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Free trade – economy turn
An expansion of the trade deficit causes foreign investors to abandon the

dollar, cause interest rate hikes, and cause economic disaster
Frank Shostak, Scholar at the Mises Institute, 2/2/06,“Does the widening US trade deficit post a threat to the economy?”,
http://www.mises.org/story/2029
Most economists are extremely alarmed about the effect of the expanding deficit on the current account. In 2004 the deficit
stood at $668 billion, or 5.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). For 2005 we have estimated that the deficit was around
$788 billion, or 6.3% of GDP. As a result of the ballooning deficit, the value of US net external liabilities, expressed at
historical cost, jumped to $5.1 trillion in 2005 from $4.3 trillion in 2004. As a percentage of GDP, net external liabilities
climbed to 41% in 2005 from 37% in the previous year and 4.9% in 1980. It is held that this increase in foreign debt cannot
go on forever. If the Americans do not begin reducing their trade deficit, there will come a time when foreigners will
become less willing to hold dollar denominated assets. This in turn will weaken the US dollar. Consequently, once this
happens the United States will be forced to increase interest rates (maybe sharply) to continue to attract foreign
investments. Higher interest rates in turn will plunge the economy into recession. In short, given the size of the current
account deficit it is held that the US dollar has to plunge in a big way against most currencies, and it is not possible to avoid a
painful adjustment as a result of this. It would appear that the trade deficit is a major economic problem that must be
urgently addressed in order to avoid serious economic disaster.
31
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Free trade – disease turn
A. Free trade spreads diseases
NPR, 3/12/01, www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/mar/010309.disease.html

More travel, more trade — globalization certainly has its benefits. But it has its victims too, and the results can be deadly.
As the global economy knits countries closer together, it becomes easier for diseases to spread through states, over
borders and across oceans — and to do serious damage to vulnerable human and animal populations. American
RadioWorks and NPR News present a series on this lethal side effect of globalization.
B. Disease causes extinction – new diseases are emerging while old ones
mutate
John D. Steinbruner, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 1998, “Biological Weapons: A Plague Upon All Houses,”
FOREIGN POLICY n. 109, Winter 1997/1998, pp. 85-96
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have
not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical
barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet
even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and
adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale.
An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in
the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized
appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIV virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million
people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera - once thought to be under control - are now
making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread
contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across
international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens
are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of
infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.
32
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Enviro leadership – plan not key
One issue can’t shore up environmental leadership

Norbert Walter, writer for the New York Times, 8/29/02, International Herald Tribune, http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-
texte/g-w/n/norbertwalter.htm
The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policy-making: necessary, perhaps
inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to
acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues. No one could expect the United
States to provide any quick fixes, but one would like to see America make a credible and sustained effort, along with other
countries, to address global environmental problems.
33
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Enviro leadership – Bush kills it

Bush destroys environmental leadership
Gregg Mosson, acclaimed author, 9/2003, “Bush’s Environmental Record”, Z magazine,
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Bush'sEnvironmentalRecord.html
The Bush administration began its term in office by appointing industry officials and legal allies to the U.S.
government's top environmental protection offices. Since then it has pursued a strategy of opening public property to
development. Current Interior Secretary Gale Norton once worked for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a think tank
promoting commercial development of public lands.
Agriculture Deputy Undersecretary Mark Rey-who overseas the U.S. Forest Service's 100 million-plus acres of public forest-
worked for timber industry trade groups for 18 years, from 1976-1994. Interior Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles most recently
was the president of his own lobbying firm where clients included "utility, coal and oil interests...Sun Co, Pennsylvania Power
and Light, Occidental Petroleum, National Mining Sun Co, Pennsylvania Power and Light, Occidental Petroleum, National
Mining Association, Edison Electric, and the Aluminum Association," reports research group CLEAR. Both President Bush
and Vice-President Dick Cheney have worked for resource companies and, once in office, this Administration set its tone by
disavowing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming and by announcing an intention to drill for oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and across public lands.
The Bush administration's energy plan, which to date remains stalled in Congress, calls for altering laws to boost oil and gas
development, mining, and spur the creation of more nuclear power plants. Yet how this plan was drafted under Vice President
Dick Cheney's leadership remains obfuscated because the White House has fought to hide internal records and memos from
public view. In Spring 2002, the Bush administration was court-ordered to release some internal records. The National
Resource Defense Council reviewed these documents and reported that the energy plan was developed with direct input from
the National Coal Council, Chevron, General Motors, and the National Mining Council, among other companies and industry
groups. Congressperson Henry Waxman (D-CA) has charged that Cheney's proposed energy plan includes 17 provisions
matching requests by the now-bankrupt Texas company, Enron; Enron was President Bush's largest political donor up to
January 2002, reports the Associated Press.
During the last three years, the Bush administration fought to reduce a scheduled tightening of arsenic standards in
drinking water, but was unable to halt it. In October 2001, the Interior Department relaxed mining rules on public lands to
weaken water safety standards in mining operations and to make it harder for government officials to deny a proposed mine
even if the mine would cause "substantial irreparable harm." In January 2002, Bush loosened guidelines for how private-
sector developers preserve wetlands when developing commercial and residential projects. In March 2003, Bush moved
to double logging levels on 10 million acres of public forest in the Sierra Nevada region of California in disregard of a stricter
2001 management plan that took a decade of consultation and study to forge. The list of deregulation goes on.
This past summer, the Environmental Protection Agency's annual State of the Environment report excluded comments on
global warming because the White House ordered these comments deleted. The President's Clear Skies air quality initiative,
currently being considered by Congress, excludes regulation of a central gas linked to global warming-carbon dioxide-from
industrial exhaust. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wants Congress to exempt the U.S. military from all U.S.
environmental laws, including laws dealing with hazardous waste, air quality, endangered species, and ocean species, even
though the military can already seek case-by-case waivers under existing law by just offering a justification.
Furthermore, during the last three years industry groups have been challenging U.S. environmental laws in court and winning
from this Administration very generous court settlements that weaken environmental protections-before any judge rules-a
pattern that has prompted environmental advocates, and even CBS News Online (April 19, 2003, "Lawsuits, Not Lawmakers,
Make Policy") to wonder if Bush and company are using the settlement process to enshrine new law while avoiding the
checks-and-balances of Congress and federal rule-making.
Recently, the League of Conservation Voters awarded Bush an "F" for Environmental protection, and the group's president,
Deb Callahan, summed ~t up by saying, "Under the Bush administration, corporate polluters have been allowed to write the
laws." With the public focused on war, Bush administration officials are pushing an unannounced developmental agenda to
reshape the American landscape.
34
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Indo-Pak war – no impact

India-Pakistan nuclear war doesn’t escalate
The Hamilton Spectator, 5/24/2002, http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?3091
For those who do not live in the subcontinent, the most important fact is that the damage would be largely confined to the
region. The Cold War is over, the strategic understandings that once tied India and Pakistan to the rival alliance systems
have all been cancelled, and no outside powers would be drawn into the fighting. The detonation of a hundred or so
relatively small nuclear weapons over India and Pakistan would not cause grave harm to the wider world from fallout.
People over 40 have already lived through a period when the great powers conducted hundreds of nuclear tests in the
atmosphere, and they are mostly still here. Bangladesh and Burma would see a big rise in radiation-related deaths over the next
decade, but the damage elsewhere would be slight.
35
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Indo-Pak war – no impact

South Asian war won’t escalate – the last 3 wars prove
Business Today, 2/3/02, http://archives.digitaltoday.in/businesstoday/20020203/features2.html
Will a full-blown war end in a nuclear scenario? K. Santhanam, the director of IDSA, believes that both countries will be
reluctant to exercise the nuclear option. ''In the last three wars, both India and Pakistan have restricted their attacks to
the forward areas,'' points out Singh. 'But if India makes the first move,'' says Munesh Khanna, the country head of
Andersen's corporate finance practice, then, ''it could find it difficult to project itself as a victim of terrorism.'' The war will
definitely impact India's credit-rating-downgraded to stable from positive this July by Moody's. ''If the (Indian) economy
spirals out of control because of a war, we will definitely make an adjustment in India's credit-rating,'' says Kristin Lindow, the
lead India analyst at Moody's.
A2: Indo-Pak war – talks smooth over
36
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Indo-Pak war – talks smooth over conflict
Kashmir talks smooth over conflict – both sides agree

Reuters, 6/27/04, “India, Pakistan Say Good Start to Kashmir Talks”,
http://www.greatnewsnetwork.org/index.php/news/article/india_pakistan_say_good_start_to_kashmir_talks/
India and Pakistan said on Sunday they had made a positive start in talks aimed at resolving a dispute over the Kashmir
region between the two nuclear-armed powers.
The two-day talks between Indian Foreign Secretary Shashank, who uses only one name, and his Pakistani counterpart, Riaz
Khokhar -- diplomats heading the respective foreign ministries -- are the first on Kashmir since a failed 2001 summit between
leaders of the two countries.
Foreign ministry spokesmen of both countries said day one of the talks were focused on stepIs to boost mutual trust
between the neighbors, who teetered on the brink of a third war over Kashmir in 2002.
“The talks have been held in a very constructive and positive atmosphere and this will continue tomorrow,” Indian foreign
ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told reporters. Pakistani spokesman Masood Khan echoed these comments.
37
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Pakistani coup – no takeover
No coup, even if Musharraf fails

Helene Cooper, diplomatic correspondent for the New York Times specializing in trade, politics and foreign policy, 11/15/07, “U.S. is
Looking Past Musharraf in Case He Falls”, http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2007111612.html
While remote areas in northwestern Pakistan remain a haven for Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants, senior officials at the
White House, the State Department and the Pentagon now say they recognize that the Pakistani Army remains a
powerful force for stability in Pakistan, and that there is little prospect of an Islamic takeover if General Musharraf
should fall.
If General Musharraf is forced from power, they say, it would most likely be in a gentle push by fellow officers, who
would try to install a civilian president and push for parliamentary elections to produce the next prime minister, perhaps
even Ms. Bhutto, despite past strains between her and the military.
Many Western diplomats in Islamabad said they believed that even a flawed arrangement like that one was ultimately better
than an oppressive and unpopular military dictatorship under General Musharraf.
38
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Pakistani coup – extremism impossible
Extremism impossible, no matter what happens to Musharraf

Time Magazine, 11/8/07, “Pakistan’s State of Emergency”, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1682292-2,00.html
But there's little real danger of extremists coming to power, no matter what happens to Musharraf. The Pakistani army
is still largely secular. The main political parties--Bhutto's PPP and Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League--are moderate. But
continued U.S. support for an unpopular Musharraf may complicate Washington's relations with any future civilian
government. Pakistanis see Musharraf as America's man and regard U.S. calls for democracy as insincere. "Musharraf is an
enemy of Pakistan," says Akhtar Qazi, a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher with anger to match her brightly hennaed hair. "We
sacrificed our lives for Pakistan, and he wants to sell it to the Americans." Like many Pakistanis, Qazi figures the U.S. wants
Musharraf in power no matter what he does. There are even growing rumbles of discontent within the Pakistani military; some
officers worry that increasing public anger at Musharraf may rub off on them. "Over the last few months, morale has folded
like a tent," says retired Lieut. General Talat Masood. "[The troops] are not trained for this insurgency, they don't have the
equipment, and they don't have the support of the populace."
39
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: Pakistani coup – no impact
No risk from coup – prefer our evidence – Musharraf has the incentive to make
a coup seem awful
Douglas Frantz, former managing editor at the Los Angeles Times, former business reporter for the New York Times, 10/1/01, “U.S.
and Pakistan Discuss Nuclear Security”, New York Times,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E4D7153DF932A35753C1A9679C8B63
The focus of the discussions last week was on how to protect weapons and create a new layer of restrictions on personnel
handling them. The fear is that if there is a sustained Western attack on Afghanistan, unrest could boil over in Pakistan. Those
strains would be reflected in the Pakistan Army, experts say, and there is a threat that Afghan-sympathizers in the military
might seize control of nuclear weapons in Pakistan.Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, said today that he was
confident the country's nuclear weapons were secure and that there was no risk of them falling into the wrong
hands.''The army is certainly the most disciplined army in the world, and there is no chance of any extremism coming
into the army,'' General Pervez said in an interview with CNN. ''I don't see this doomsday scenario ever appearing.''Brig.
Gen. Kevin Chilton of the Air Force led the delegation, which included representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency
and Federal Bureau of Investigation. They held three days of talks before leaving on Thursday for the United States. A
spokesman for the American Embassy in Islamabad refused to comment on any aspect of the delegation's visit.
40
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: U.S.-Russia War – bilateral treaties
No war between U.S. and Russia – bilateral treaties ensure peace and
continued reduction of nuclear arsenals
Therese Delpech, acclaimed author and thinker on international security, winter 1998-99, “Nuclear Weapons and the ‘New World
Order’: Early Warning from Asia?”, vol. 40, No. 4, p. 57-76
The signing of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987 opened the way for the elimination of a whole
category of delivery systems: ground-based missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,5000 kilometres for both conventional
and nuclear warheads. Since then, a drastic reduction of Europe-based nuclear forces has continued. The INF Treaty
started a new era of bilateral treaties between Washington and Moscow, and was also the forerunner of unilateral initiatives
by the four nuclear powers with forces and commitments in Europe. As a result of START I and II, US and Russian initiatives on
tactical nuclear weapons and unilateral French and British moves, deployed nuclear forces in Europe have been cut by
approximately 70% since the beginning of the 1980s. The UK in July and 1998 announced that, with the withdrawal of the last
Royal Air Force (RAF) WE 177 bombs in March 1998, Trident had become the country’s only nuclear weapon, with fewer than
200 operational warheads. When the decisions announced by President Jacques Chirac in February 1996 have been implemented,
France will have some 350 operational nuclear warheads and will rely on only two components of the nuclear-delivery triad,
submarine and airborne. US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe are down to just a few hundred from their peak of 7,000
in the late 1960s. Finally, the strategic component of Russia’s arsenal is being dismantled at an estimated rate of between
1,500 and 2,000 warheads a year.
41
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: U.S.-Russia war – no spillover

U.S.-Russo war wouldn’t engulf the rest of the world
Seth Cropsey, professor at the University of Chicago with an M.A. from Boston College, March/April 1994, “The Only Credible
Deterrent”, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19940301facomment5092/seth-cropsey/the-only-credible-deterrent.html
Only the third option offers a credible strategy that adheres to American interests. Since the end of the Cold War, the idea that
the United States will use nuclear weapons to defend allies in peripheral regions has lost credibility and cannot protect
either the United States or its allies from attacks by rogue states. Yet this is a danger, and a responsibility, that the United States
cannot shun. As long as it remains the world's greatest economic and military power, America will be a prime target of ambitious
tyrants with malignant designs.
Crossing the nuclear threshold no longer raises the prospect of engulfing the world in re as it did when the U.S. and Soviet
arsenals faced one another. But a lesser catastrophe, such as the obliteration of a single population center, is now far more
likely. This new risk arises both because of the spread of nuclear weapons and also the vulnerability of powerful nations to attack
by smaller ones. U.S. policymakers must assume that at least one of the 20 countries now possessing or trying to build nuclear
weapons will use them. When this happens, the international strategic landscape will be irrevocably transformed.
The United States must shift its policy focus from nonproliferation to deterring or, if necessary, punishing a lesser nations use of
nuclear weapons. But in a proliferated world, it is important that this aim be achieved without using the very force that America
rightfully seeks to contain. While the means of deterrence must change, the idea of it does not. Foremost, America must have a
credible strategy one that guarantees that the United States will inflict so much pain on an enemy that the certain disadvantages
offering a single nuclear weapon against America or its allies far outweigh the possible benefits.
42
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: U.S.-Russia relations – no impact
Despite disagreements with the U.S., Russia will avoid confrontation

Robert J. Lieber , Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University, 2005, “The American Era: Power
and Strategy for the 21st Century”, p. 18
Russia, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is a shadow of its former self. While it continues to possess strategic nuclear
forces that could strike the United States with devastating effect, its conventional forces are in utter disarray and it is mired
in an endless war in Chechnya. Russia's population is declining and is just half that of the United States, and it faces severe
long-term demographic problems. As evidence of its economic limitations, Russia's GDP is less than that of Italy. Strong export
revenues from oil and natural gas sustain Russia's economy, but a chaotic legal system, cronyism, corruption, lack of
transparency, and erosion of political freedoms continue to act as brakes on sustained economic modernization and
investment. As a result, Russia's economic transformation has been halting and will take a very long time under even the best
of circumstances. And despite a number of important policy disagreements with Washington, Russia under President
Putin seems inclined to avoid overt confrontation.
43
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: U.S.-Russia relations – no impact
Zero chance of war with Russia
Noah Shachtman, writer for national security online network database, June 9, 2008, “Moseley: Gates was Right; ‘Zero Chance’ of
War with China or Russia”, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/moseley-gates-w.html
Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Air Force Chief of Staff General "Buzz" Moseley after repeatedly accusing the service
of being unable to focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a fascinating interview with Air Force Times , conducted
right after his removal, Moseley said the critiques were dead-on. It's an eye-opening admission. For years, Moseley's
generals have been warning about the dangers of China and a resurgent Russia -- and downplaying today's
counterinsurgency conflicts. Now, Moseley is saying there is "an almost zero chance we will fight a nation-state" like
Russia or China. Which makes you wonder why the Air Force has been so preoccupied with these countries.
44
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
A2: U.S.-Australia relations – resiliency

Australia would never turn on the U.S. – good relations are the “ultimate
insurance policy”
Peter Layton, author on the War on Terror, 5/10/06, “Time to strengthen ANZUS. It is weaker than we think!”,
http://cpd.org.au/article/time-strengthen-anzus.-it-weaker-we-think!
For the realist-based right of Australian politics deepening the relationship with the hyper-power US is intrinsically
desirable, especially given growing nuclear proliferation concerns. The left wing though wishes Australia would display
greater independence from US foreign and defence policy positions. The left's goal however will remain stillborn while it
ignores the reality that reciprocity presently frames the alliance debate. Independence, in terms of being less compelled to
support the US in any circumstance, is not sensible for pragmatic Australian governments while US support in crisis
situations remains so conditional. Australia felt strongly obliged to support the US in invading Iraq; arguably the doctrine of
reciprocity was the compelling factor. By comparison NATO alliance partners France and Germany, being confident of US
support in a conflict involving them, could realistically adopt more independent policies. Paradoxically, the left needs a
stronger, more certain treaty with the US to give future Australian governments the option to be as independent as the left
would wish.
Australia already considers the US alliance the ultimate insurance policy, the time is ripe to make it actually so. An
enhanced NATO-like treaty in reducing the fear of abandonment by our superpower ally would allow Australia to be more
independent in policy making if it so choose. The Australia-US treaty needs to be made as high-quality and as robust as the
NATO treaty: no more, but no less; Australia and Latvia should be equal. Such an achievement could represent the Howard
Government's greatest long-term legacy to Australian security.
45
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
ANZUS alliance ensures resilient relations, despite unpopular U.S. policies

Bruce Vaughn, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade, 8/8/07, Federation of American Scientists,
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33010.pdf
Australia’s commitment to military operations in Iraq may be curtailed, especially if the opposition Labor Party succeeds in
ousting Prime Minister Howard in elections which many believe are likely to be held by the end of the year. The Australian
Left is increasingly disillusioned with the war in Iraq and has perceived the United States as pursuing an increasingly unilateral
foreign policy. U.S. Policies on Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, have negatively affected segments of the
Australian public’s perceptions of American power. Despite this, support for the ANZUS alliance with the United States
remains strong among most Australians.
46
Impact Defense
DDI 2008 GT
Val
Relations resilient – both countries benefit from their mutual security policy
AFP, 2/23/08, Global News Agency, “Australia, US reaffirm security talks”,
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Australia_US_reaffirm_security_talk_02232008.html
Australia reaffirmed its close security relations with the United States Saturday but said it has no plans to add more troops
to its force in Afghanistan. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte met
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon for the first annual review of relations under the new
Labor government. "Both sides underlined that Australia and the United States benefit from substantial coverage in
their strategic and security policy," they said in a joint statement. Gates praised Australia's "global leadership" and said
the United States has "no better ally." "Above all it is clear we agree on the challenges we face together and the
solutions we must forge together," he said. Among other things, they discussed the way forward in Afghanistan for Australia,
which has nearly 1,000 troops serving in the violence-ridden southern part of the country, the ministers said. "We have no
proposal to increase the 1,000 or so troops we have in Afghanistan," said Smith at a news conference. He said Australia was
looking to shift its efforts toward non-military assistance in the form of police trainers, and work aimed at increasing the
Afghan government's capacity to provide for its people. But, he said, "When it comes to Afghanistan, I wouldn't be quite so
underwhelming about our contributions to Afghanistan: over a thousand troops in one of the toughest areas. "There are other
nation states whose contributions are not nearly as profound, in not nearly as hard-fought areas, and in addition to that we are
certainly not contemplating a drawdown," he said. The United States is sending in an additional 3,200 marines in anticipation
of a possible Taliban offensive in the spring, and has been pressing NATO allies to fill shortfalls in troops and equipment under
the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's centre-left government confirmed this
week that it would honour an election pledge to pull 550 combat troops out of southern Iraq by the middle of the year. Australia
will still have about 1,000 military personnel in and around Iraq, including a 110-strong security detachment in Baghdad and
personnel for aircraft and a warship based outside Iraq. The two sides also discussed China, and shared views on developments
in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands. Smith said Australia's growing economic ties with China were "win-win," with no
adverse impact on its relationship with the United States. "Australia's economic engagement with China is only beaten by the
United States economic engagement with China," he said. The pair are the most senior US officials to visit Australia since
Rudd won office in November and Gates said he looked forward to an ongoing high-level dialogue to see where the new
government in Canberra was headed. "We anticipate there will be a great deal of continuity. We have a lot of common
interests," he told reporters on Friday. "Continuity doesn't mean there won't be change to tactics or approaches to certain
problems," Gates said. "What I was referring to was continuity in the close relationship between the United States and
Australia, and vice versa, for a long time." Australia has long been the United States' closest ally in the region, one whose
previous conservative government provided troops and staunch political backing to US-led operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq. The Rudd government's new tack on Iraq comes as the United States is wrestling with how quickly and deeply to
draw down the 155,000-strong US force deployed there. The top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is
expected to make recommendations as early as next month on whether further cuts can be made to forces after a drawdown of
five combat brigades, about 20,000 troops, by July. Gates said Petraeus and his commanders had persuaded him that a brief
pause would be needed to consolidate and assess the situation in July. "My hope still is that we will be able to further draw
down our troops in Iraq over the course of the next 10 to 12 months," Gates said.
47

257 GT Impact Defense

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

257 GT Impact Defense

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Impact Defense

A2: Enviro leadership – Bush kills it..................................................................................................................34

A2: Econ – U.S. econ resilient

A2: Econ – U.S. not k/t global econ

A2: Econ – U.S. not k/t global econ

A2: Econ – U.S. not k/t global econ

Global markets are insulated from the U.S. economy

A2: Econ – global growth turn

Turn – a decline in U.S. economic leadership spurs global growth

A2: Terrorism – bio terror

Bioweapons won’t cause mass death

A2: Terrorism – bio terror

A2: Terrorism – bio terror

Biowarfare is a flawed concept – no diseases could be spread effectively to

A2: Terrorism – nuke terror inevitable

Terrorist WMD attack inevitable – recruitment has doubled

A2: Terrorism – terror inevitable (general)

Terrorism inevitable – leaked tech and available nuclear energy

A2: Terrorism – no impact

No risk of terror attack going nuclear

A2: CCP collapse – inevitable

A2: CCP collapse – no impact

The CCP won’t strike the U.S. – wants to pursue development

A2: Heg – unsustainable

Heg unsustainable – Europe and Japan gaining power

A2: Heg – unsustainable

Heg unsustainable – Europe and China filling in

A2: Heg – unsustainable

US hegemony will decline -- economic dependence, overstretch, and inability

A2: Heg – unsustainable

A2: Heg – Bearden is a psycho

Bearden is off his rocker – none of his work is peer-reviewed – everything he

A2: Heg – Bearden is a psycho

Homeboy bought his PhD through a website

A2: Iran strikes – no nuke capabilities

A2: Iran strikes – no nuke capabilities

A2: Iran strikes – no nuke program

Iran has no nuclear weapons program now

A2: Iran strikes – regional states can’t nuclearize

A2: Iran strikes – regional states can’t nuclearize

No escalation – regional states can’t nuclearize

A2: Iran strikes – no Iranian retaliation

Iran wouldn’t retaliate – too fearful of an Israeli counterattack

A2: Free trade – no impact

A2: Free trade – collapse inevitable

Free trade is unsustainable – it will destroy the world economy by 2010

A2: Free trade – collapse inevitable

A2: Free trade – economy turn

An expansion of the trade deficit causes foreign investors to abandon the

A2: Free trade – disease turn

A. Free trade spreads diseases

NPR, 3/12/01, www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/mar/010309.disease.html

A2: Enviro leadership – plan not key

One issue can’t shore up environmental leadership

A2: Enviro leadership – Bush kills it

A2: Indo-Pak war – no impact

A2: Indo-Pak war – no impact

A2: Indo-Pak war – talks smooth over conflict

Kashmir talks smooth over conflict – both sides agree

A2: Pakistani coup – no takeover

No coup, even if Musharraf fails

A2: Pakistani coup – extremism impossible

Extremism impossible, no matter what happens to Musharraf

A2: Pakistani coup – no impact