CHS Japan 2AC Blocks

7/29/2019 CHS Japan 2AC Blocks

1/47

SDI 2010 Crowe-Schirmer-Hammond2AC Blocks- Wave Two

CHS 2AC Blocks- Wave 2CHS 2AC Blocks- Wave 2..........................................................................................................................................................................1=====Aff Section=====............................................................................................................................................................................2Topicality Substantial - 50% 2AC...............................................................................................................................................................3Guam Shift 2AC (1/2)..................................................................................................................................................................................4Guam Shift 2AC (2/2)..................................................................................................................................................................................5---1AR --- No Link.......................................................................................................................................................................................6

---1AR---- Big Impact Cal...........................................................................................................................................................................7---A2: Genocide = Bad 4 the Biznak...........................................................................................................................................................8---A2: Guam bad for the alliance.................................................................................................................................................................9---A2: Guam Shift does shit to the environment........................................................................................................................................10---Non-Unique............................................................................................................................................................................................11---No Link..................................................................................................................................................................................................12---Guam Supports US presence.................................................................................................................................................................13---Guam Shift Good-Hawaii .....................................................................................................................................................................14China DA 2AC...........................................................................................................................................................................................15---AT Okinawa key....................................................................................................................................................................................16----Containment Fails.................................................................................................................................................................................172AC Deterrence DA (1/2)..........................................................................................................................................................................182AC Deterrence DA (2/2)..........................................................................................................................................................................19

2AC Japan Object CP................................................................................................................................................................................20Consult CP Notes.......................................................................................................................................................................................212AC Consult NATO (1/2)..........................................................................................................................................................................222AC Consult NATO (2/2)..........................................................................................................................................................................23----Ext. Hege Turn.....................................................................................................................................................................................24Framework 2AC.........................................................................................................................................................................................25Hillman 2AC (1/3).....................................................................................................................................................................................26Hillman 2AC (2/3).....................................................................................................................................................................................27Hillman 2AC (3/3).....................................................................................................................................................................................29----Should Avoid Losing Wars..................................................................................................................................................................30----Wargaming Framework .......................................................................................................................................................................31----Ext: Wargaming Framing.....................................................................................................................................................................32----Realism Inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................33

----War Isnt Natural..................................................................................................................................................................................34Security K 2AC (1/3).................................................................................................................................................................................35Security K 2AC (2/3).................................................................................................................................................................................36Security K 2AC (3/3).................................................................................................................................................................................37Realism 2AC (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................................38Realism 2AC (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................................392AC Troop Withdrawal Good Alliance Advantage (1/2).......................................................................................................................402AC Troop Withdrawal Good Alliance Advantage (2/2).......................................................................................................................41----Ext. US Troops = Instability.................................................................................................................................................................42=====Politics Links- Bidirectional=====................................................................................................................................................43Afghan Withdrawal- Popular.....................................................................................................................................................................44Afghan Withdrawal Unpopular..................................................................................................................................................................45South Korea Withdrawal Popular..............................................................................................................................................................46Japan Withdrawal Popular.........................................................................................................................................................................47

1


2/47


=====Aff Section=====

2


3/47


Topicality Substantial - 50% 2AC

A. Counter - Interpretation a substantial reduction is 25% - military regulations prove.

Major Steven N. Tomanelli et al, has served as a Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force, Chief of Acquisition and Fiscal Law for t he Air Force s Air Mobility Command, and Senior DoD Counsel for theNational Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Army Lawyer, February 1994, Lexis Academic1. Regulatory Changes--Notification Requirements for Termination or Reduction of Defense Programs.--The DOD has issued an interim rule requiring military departmentsand defense agencies to notify contractors of a potential termination of, or substantial reduction in, a defense program. n581 Under the new rule, each military department anddefense agency must establish procedures for determining which defense programs are likely to be terminated or substantially reduced as a result of the submission of the President's budget or enactment of an appropriati ons

act. Within thirty days of such submission or enactment, agencies and military departments must notify affected contractors of the proposed termination or reduction. Affected contractors are thosewith a contract of $ 500,000 or more under a program identified as likely to be terminated or reduced by at least twenty-five percent . Within two weeks after receivingnotice from the government, contractors must notify, among others, their affected employees and subcontractors of the proposed termination or reduction.

B. Prefer our interpretation-

Fair limits our interpretation limits out small affs that tinker with missions, but at the same time doesntoverlimit the topic

Sources our interpretation cites actual military regulations, the military would know if they had a substantialpresence in Japan

Brightline our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is and is not topical

C. Lit checks the affirmative has on case arguments on the plan, so clearly they were prepared for the round

D. Reasonability competing interpretations create a race to the bottom, we only have to prove that we are

reasonably topical

3


4/47


Guam Shift 2AC (1/2)No link-

a) Their Kensei 10 card doesnt assume a zero-sum redeployment- not all troops from Japan will automatically goto Guam

b) Troops wont be transferred to Guam- its too expensive

Marchesseault, Jeff (anchor for Guam News Watch). 7/6/10. U.S. Asks Japan to Pay More for the Military Buildup on Guam. Guam News Watch. http://guamnewswatch.com/201007062437/Local-News/U.S.-Asks-Japan-to-Pay-More-for-the-Military-Buildup-on-Guam.html . DA: 7/25/10.

Japan will need to pay more for the military buildup on Guam and the Pentagon's reconsidering the mix of troops to be sent here. That'sthe word from independent news sources in Japan. Kyodo News reports that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is asking Tokyo to shoulder up to hundreds of millions ofdollars more for the transfer of marines from Okinawa to Guam because the U.S. reportedly claims infrastructure costs on Guam arehigher than expected. Japanese paper Yomiuri Shimbun reports a new proposal would change the makeup of Marines assigned from Okinawa to Guam. The alternate plan wouldkeep some of the 8,000 members of the third marine expeditionary force on Okinawa, while certain combat troops would be relocated instead.

c) Iraq troop withdrawal frees up more troops than the plan; if bases were fed by constant troop deployment,troops would already be in Guam, triggering the link

Associated Press, staff writer, 8/30/2009 "U.S. military packing up to leave Iraq," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32618785/ns/world_news-conflict_in_iraq/, da: 7/14The U.S. military is packing up to leave Iraq in what has been deemed the largest movement of manpower and equipment inmodern military history shipping out more than 1.5 million pieces of equipment from tanks to antennas along with a force thesize of a small city. The massive operation already under way a year ahead of the Aug. 31, 2010 deadline to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq shows the U.S. military has picked up t he pace of a plannedexit from Iraq that could cost billions. The goal is to withdraw tens of thousands of troops and about 60 percent of equipment out of Iraq by theend of next March, Brig. Gen. Heidi Brown, a deputy commander charged with overseeing the withdrawal, told The Associated Press in one of the first detailed accounts of how the U.S. military plans to leaveIraq.

Nowhere do they prove that they access physical genocide of the caliber their Card 3 card talks about. Their worstimpact is cultural genocide, meaning at worst, troops may infringe upon Chamorro culture.

Doublebind- US troops have been in Guam for 66 year. That means that either

a) troops currently in Guam practice cultural genocide and the DA is non-unique, orb) theres no brink to how many troops must be present to access the impact, which minimized their probability

and the risk of a link

Non-Unique: Cross- apply Gersen 10 from the 1AC- Japan withdrawal is inevitable

No impact- No cultural genocide- Guamanians affirm their liberty regardless of US military presencePartido, Jerry (staff writer at Variety News. 7/23/10. A different liberation.Marianas Variety: Guam. http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13342:-a-different-liberation&catid=33:island-stri-by-gerry-partido&Itemid=60 . DA:7/25/10.

But liberation doesn't have to be always considered in the context of a separation with the U.S. Guam can achieve its own kind ofliberation, even under the current relationship with the U.S. We can start by diversifying our economy and making it less dependent on the feds. Ourlocation is not just strategic militarily, it offers commercial opportunities as well and Guam can serve as a commercial bridge between east and west. If we cansuccessfully diversify our economy, we can show the world that we are not just dependent on federal dollars. In this sense we can be liberated to a degree from theU.S. We can hold our head high and answer back to any snotty mainlander who says Guam can't live without federal dollars. A more dynamic economy would also meanmore jobs and opportunities on island so that people no longer have to relocate to the mainland or join the military just to provide a

decent living for their families. In this sense, more residents would become economically liberated with more options to choose from. To achieve this, ourleaders must spearhead a major overhaul of our education system to ensure that future generations would have t he training to handle any new industries that Guam develops. Improvingeducation will result in a highly trained workforce, which would ensure that Guam would be less dependent on foreign labor andthat the island will have the human capital to sustain a highly diversified economy. More importantly, education itself is a tool of liberation. Through education, Guam can achieve a different kind ofliberation a liberation of the mind. Liberation is a state of mind and by inculcating the island's unique history and status to our children,future generations would be less shackled by Guam's past . Remember, people cannot be fettered if their minds are liberated, aware,and questioning.

4


5/47


Guam Shift 2AC (2/2)Case outweighs-a) Timeframe- Japans economy and East Asian tensions are on the brink. There is no brink to when cultural

genocide leads to extinction and it would take years anyway, while our nuclear war scenarios cause extinctionalmost immediately

b) Probability- econ collapse historically creates global war, which will be even worse in the nuclear era. North

Korea and China are already threatening to act. The US has been in Guam for 66 years with no impact, meaningeven if they win the link and impact, we outweigh

c) Magnitude- cultural genocide is historically non-unique. Extinction outweighs because theres no hope for

culture when were all dead. We solve for 3 global wars and an extinction scenario- extinction because of globalecosystem failure always outweighs cultural genocide

d) Case turns the DA: if we allow East Asian tensions to rise, Guam will become a war zone. There will be evenmore troops and possibly even combat there. Global war breeds genocide and kills culture, as does the loss of keyspecies.

5


6/47


---1AR --- No Link

A2 Natividad and Kirk:

this card says nothing about moving resources, but just shifting military priorities to the Pacific theater

A2 Schepers:

this card assumes the status quo move to Guam; nothing about free troops going to Guam

A2 Ogawa:

also assumes status quo; if marines stay in Okinawa, theyll get moved to Guam, if theyre sent home, they wontbe

The rest of this article talks about how even if there will be a shift, it would be less than half the 8,000 marines thatthe neg assumes- only 1,856 marines would not trigger the impactSatoshi Ogawa, Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent, 7/3/2010, "U.S. rethinks marine corps' shift to Guam / Wants to keep command unit in Okinawa," http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T100702004810.htm; da:7/25/10

The exact size of the combat unit to be relocated to Guam is yet to be determined, but according to an environmental impact assessment report unveiled bythe U.S. Navy in November on the construction of a base in Guam, about 1,856 personnel related to the 1st Marine Air Wing Headquarters were to be relocated.The combat unit is likely to have close to the same number of personnel.

A2 Goodman/Kuzar:

cross-apply the AP 9 card- Iraq troop shift would have already triggered the impact

6


7/47


---1AR---- Big Impact Cal

Case outweighs the disad because:

1) timeframe:

a) Japans economy is on the brink and US needs more money for econ recovery, even another year spent therewill trigger Mead 09

b) South Asian tensions are building as both NK and China build up their nukes, constant risk of a strike causes

global nuclear war

c) US has been stationed in Guam since post WWII and cultural genocide has yet to eradicate the population

2) probability:

a) econ collapse has led to fascist regimes and militarist control and global war in the past (i.e. WWII)- withtodays nuclear arsenals and ally system, global nuclear war as a result of extreme econ depression is likely

b) North Korea has been known to exercise their weapons arsenal, any more nuclear testing and East Asia could beset on fire- Kim Jong Il is a notable brinksman

c) China already stated that it considers bases and logistics support to Taiwan and surrounding area a threat, anda reason to retaliate (thats Strait Times 2k)- attack is highly probable if the US continues to overstretch itself in

East Asia

d)The probability of even troops flooding into Guam is sketchy and low; even if neg wins a link, cultural genocidenot likely because Guam likes US there and not enough troops to trigger the impact

3) magnitude:

a) the decimation of human life outweighs cultural genocide because cultural decay is non-unique; hundreds ofcultures have gone extinct due to globalization and modernization and no adverse effects

b) aff solves for a global nuclear war from econ collapse that could destroy the world as we know it

c) aff solves for global nuclear war from war with China that could destroy civilization- thats like thousands ofcultural genocides the aff prevents compared to the one that the neg prevents

d) aff solves a nuclear NK war that could encompass East Asia and maybe the rest of the world

e) not only do we solve for destructive global war three times over, but we also solve for extinction- the biggestgenocide impact of them all

f) even if theres a one percent risk that biodiversity in Okinawa and Futenma are key to global ecosystem,

extinction due to biodiversity loss is way more important than cultural genocide and you vote aff on that

7


8/47


---A2: Genocide = Bad 4 the Biznak

Turn- US base in Guam presents more job opportunitiesNadkarni 9/13/08[ Dev, journalist for the Pacific Business Online, US Base in Guam to Drive Regions Economy http: //www.pacificbusinessonline.com/article/35/us-base-guam-drive-regions-economy7/25/10]

That address was well timed to coincide with the first major steps in the relocation of the long established US military base on the Japanese island o f Okinawa to Guam in the western Pacific. The move is tippedto be one of the largest infrastructure projects the region has ever seen and is expected to cost US$15 billion over the next fiveyears. In the remaining months of this year alone some US$220 million will be spent on preparatory work.Guam is termed an unincorporated USterritory and has its own u nicameral legislature headed by a governor. It was an obviou s choice for the base because it is believed to be the best deepwater port in the region capable of harbouring a wide range of US navy

vessels. A new aircraft carrier purpose built for Pacific Ocean duties to be named Guam will be based there when ready.Guam is also a regional transportation and commercialhub, employs a US standard telecommunications network, uses US currency and is a major holiday attraction mostly forAmerican and Japanese tourists. The new base will see 55,000 people added to Guams population of 170,000 about 20,000 ofthese being workers. The US government has exempted Guam from H-visa caps (H-visa relates to employment) upto the year 2014 to facilitate employmentprocesses, opening a flood of work opportunities for people both of the Pacific rim countries and the Pacific islands. Late last year, a delegationof New Zealand businesspeople visited Guam to seek out opportunities. Since then a few New Zealand companies have already begun making headway in workingon projects there.The main business opportunities are in the infrastructure sector, especially in the construction of port facilities,roadways, public works and telecommunications. But as the build up progresses, new opportunities are expected to open up inthe services sector.

Alt causes: their Campbell 1 card says genocide is bad for the tourism industry- know what else is bad for the

tourism industry? Nuclear war in East Asia because of econ collapse or North Korea or China, oil spills, economicdownturns, lack of gay marriage, and dictatorships

If tourism is their internal link to the Guamanian economy, then our jobs internal link outweighs on the premiseof common sense

8


9/47


--- A2: Guam bad for the alliance

We have the key internal link to the Japan-US alliance:

cross-apply 1AC Bandow 10- anti-Americanism in Okinawa chips away at the alliance; washingtons occupationcontinues to put the pressure on Japan until they force us out, which is way worse for relations than US leaving on

their ownReducing US presence in Japan reduces tension, sustaining the alliance long-term

Bandow 8 [Doug, FPIF contributor & former Special Assistant to Reagan, Foreign Policy in Focus Institute, "Bring Them Home...from Asia", September 19, 2008 Accessed: 6-25-10,http://www.fpif.org/articles/bring_them_homefrom_asia]Finally, downplaying America's military role would improve overall U.S. relations with other countries. The continuingpresence of bases and troops creates endless local grievances. Part of that reflects nationalist frustrations with the foreign control that inevitablyaccompanies foreign garrisons. There are also the inevitableproblems that come from putting a large number of young American males in themiddle of a foreign countryand culture. The U.S. government has a particular image problem with young South Koreans, who tend for instance to view America as agreater threat than North Korea. But anger towards Washington extends well beyond universities; the recent protests against U.S. beef imports were directed at far more than thefear of consuming unsafe food. As a result, President George W. Bush received a less-than-friendly reception when he visited in early August. In Japan, the heavy concentration of

U.S. basesin Okinawa has spawned strong opposition to America's presence in that province . Without the presence of U.S. military forces, whichemphasize Washington's dominance, the bilateral relationships would be closer to ones of equals, with greater emphasis on

privateeconomic and cultural

ties ratherthan on government-to-government geopolitical relations.

Their Tanaka/McCormack card provides no warrants as to why Japan hates the Guam shift- Bandow is specificabout the reasons Japan wants the US out

US shift to Guam will strengthen the alliance

AFP 7-15-09, [AFP publication, Japan-Guam troop shift good for US: official http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Japan-Guam+troop+shift+good+for+US%3A+official-a01611929345 7/25/10]

Redeployment of morethan 8,000Marines from Japan tothe US territory forGuam will help Washington by showing its stayingpower in the region, a US defense official said Wednesday. Japan's parliament earlier this y ear gave the green light for a multibill ion dollar plan to shi ft the troops by 2014 to Guam from Okinawa, where the

heavy US military presence has long been controversial. The shift shows "we have territory in the Western Pacific, we are a resident power and there isnot a question for us to pull back -- it is impossible for us to do so," said Scher, a deputy assistant secretary of defense. Scher,testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sai dthe move was "part of the continuing alliance with Japan and putting that alliance on theright footing."Okinawa, a small subtropical chain, is home to more than half of the over 40,000 US troops in Japan, creating frequent friction with residents who accuse troops of causing noise and crime.

Japan's conservative government has agreed to pay up to 2.8 billion dollars for infrastructure and other work to relocate 8,000Marines and their 9,000 dependents to Guam. The plan was criticized by the oppo sition, which questioned the t rue cost and pushed for the United States to completely remove one Marineairfield rather than moving it to reclaimed land off Okinawa. Washington has an alliance commitment to protect Japan, which has been officially pacifistsince World War II. The United States alsostations some 28,500 troops in nearby South Korea to defend against a potential attack by the communist North.

9


10/47


---A2: Guam Shift does shit to the environment

no internal link- the Natividad card simply wonders about trash from construction, but never says conclusively

there will be the biodiversity loss that Diner assumes

no impact- weve had bases on Guam for a really long time, and no key species have been eliminated, culminatingin human extinction

prefer our biodiversity scenario

a) more probable- 1AC McCormack 10 is conclusive about landfills overflowing Futenma and completely takingout the biodiversity of the turtles and dugongs and the seagrasses, if we move to Futenma, construction will

increase the risk of species extinction

b) our impact will be swift and decisive- with only 50 dugongs left, we cant afford to wait! Dugongs are on thebrink of extinction, not to mention the sea turtles fragile ecosystem- Natividad doesnt provide a brink

10


11/47


---Non-Unique

Non- unique: Chamorro culture declining in the status quo

Schepers, Emile (doctorate in cultural anthropology, researcher, civil and immigrant rights activist). 6/28/10. Guam: Proposed U.S. base expansion seen as threat. Peoples World. http://peoplesworld.org/guam-proposed-u-s-base-expansion-seen-as-threat/ . DA: 7/25/10.

As a result of the intensification of the U.S. military presence, major demographic, cultural and ecological changes have hit Guam. Today,only 37 percent of the population is indigenous Chamorro; the rest are of Filipino, United States and others. The Chamorro language is declining. The

local government has very limited powers, and the people of Guam , though U.S. citizens, neither have voting representation in Congress,nor the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections. Because the U.S. military has occupied 30 percent of the land, and because of thedomination of the island economy by the United States, Guam, which until World War II grew enough food to feed its own people plus the U.S. military, now imports90 percent of its food.

11


12/47


---No LinkTroops from Japan will be relocated to South Korea, not GuamHutchison, Kay Bailey (senior U.S. Senator from Texas, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation). Foundation of U.S. Military Should be Built on American Soil.Johnson City Record Courier.7/22/10. http://www.jcrecordcourier.com/news/article/32617 DA: 7/25/10.DOD is also planning to spend millions to build deployment facilities in South Korea. The Pentagon proposes expanding U.S.presence from 30,000 service personnel to approximately 84,000 including families. This will require substantial taxpayer funding to build adequate housing, schools,hospitals, childcare facilities, and commissaries. Investing these resources overseas makes no sense when we are already building up infrastructure and deployment capabilities at U.S. bases, where amenities to support

military families are well-established. Similarly, plans to shift Marines currently stationed in Japan to the tiny island of Guam are problematic. Thisproposal is fraught with environmental concerns, insufficient existing infrastructure, an implausible timeline and staggeringcosts (now estimated at $16 billion). With these considerable barriers , better basing alternatives should be explored.

Troops from Japan will be relocated to the USHutchison, Kay Bailey (senior U.S. Senator from Texas, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation). Foundation of U.S. Military Should be Built on American Soil.

Johnson City Record Courier.7/22/10. http://www.jcrecordcourier.com/news/article/32617 DA: 7/25/10.In 2005, the Overseas Basing Commission reaffirmed this strategy and lauded the Department of Defenses (DOD) efforts to transform the military and re-stationtens of thousands of military personnel in the United States. Congress has invested more than $14 billion to build housing,stationing, training, and deployment capacities at major military installations, such as Fort Bliss and Fort Hood. We have proven we can bestdeploy from the United States and we can do it more cost-effectively

12


13/47

SDI 2010 Crowe- Hammond- Schirmer2AC Blocks- Wave 2

---Guam Supports US presence

Guam is grateful to the US and wants continued presence

Partido, Jerry (staff writer at Variety News. 7/23/10. A different liberation.Marianas Variety: Guam. http://mvguam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13342:-a-different-liberation&catid=33:island-stri-by-gerry-partido&Itemid=60 . DA:7/25/10.

Guam will always be grateful to the U.S. for liberating the island from the tyranny of the Japanese during World War II. But at thesame time, there is resentment as Guam continues to be an unincorporated territory of the United States without the same rights as other states in the union. The U.S. has Guam exactly where it wants it to be. Our island issovereign American territory that the federal government can use without giving back any concessions, like statehood for instance. Through the years, calls have been made to change this unfair relationship. Statehood,

which is one of the opti ons that Guam continues to consi der, is not really viable since we are thousands of miles away from the U.S. mainland and we have a low population base. To mainland politicians and policy-makers,we might as well be on the moon. Independence is even less likely as the U.S. already has two major military bases on island which have grown even more vital with thecontinuing geo-political tensions in the region. Besides, what will happen to our economy if we gain independence? Aside from tourism, Guam is heavily dependent onmilitary spending and federal dollars. As for commonwealth, one only has to look at the current difficulties of our neighbor to the north to realize that being a commonwealth may not be the wayforward either. At any rate, the CNMI has technically ceased to be a commonwealth with the federalization of its immigration and labor functions.The truth is that Guam will have to live with the fact that the U.S.will always be here. This is not really so bad considering the many benefits that the island gets from the U.S. It is hypocritical to saythat the Guam-U.S. relationship is just one-sided. Guam, too, gets a lot in terms of economic assistance. Moreover, many islanders go tothe mainland to enjoy greener pastures, get a higher education, and even more join the U.S. military to further broaden theiropportunities. But liberation doesn't have to be always considered in the context of a separation with the U.S. Guam can achieve its own kind of liberation, even underthe current relationship with the U.S.

US presence in Guam boosts property market

Global Property Market, 3-15-10, Global Property Market, Military Expansion to Boost Guams Property Market, http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Guam/Price-History7/25/10

In 2009, Guams property market declined sharply, amid the global crisis. Demand from foreign investors fell especially sharply.The medianprice of single-family homes declined 7% in 2009 from a year earlier, according to the Captain Real Estate Group. When adjusted for inflation, the median price dropped by about 9%. Similarly, the median price of

condominium units fell by around 11% (-12% in real terms) over the same period .Guams housing market is expected to recover by the second half of 2010, as themilitary buildup starts. The planned military expansion in the island is the result of an agreement between the US and Japan torelocate around 8,000 US Marines and their dependants from Okinawa to Guam. In 2010, total real estate sales are expected toreach US$300 million, up from US$251 million in 2009. The islands real estate market saw overall sales dive last year, but bythe second half of this year, the industry will see things start to rebound, says Nick Captain of Captain Real Estate Group.In2009, the median price of single family homes was about US$200,000, down from US$215,000 in 2008. The median price ofcondominiums dropped to US$140,000, from US$125,000.

Military Expansion to Boost Guams Property Market

Global Property Market,3-15-10, Global Property Market, Military Expansion to Boost Guams Property Market, http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Guam/Price-History7/25/10]The military build-up, scheduled to start in mid-2010, is a result of an agreement between the US and Japan to relocate around 8,000 US Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. The relocation is projected to be

completed in 2014, and to cost over US$10 billion.The move should create significant construction and infrastructure opportunities. Guamspopulation is projected to increase by 20%, or by approximately 30,000 people, creating demand for additional housing. Two yearsago, foreign real estate investment rose sharply in anticipation of the military buildup.Military households make up about 13% of total households in Guam, but the military housing market is independent of the local housing

market.Nevertheless,the military presence does impact the local housing market, in the following ways: Some military personnel chooseto live off-base, Military dependents may have to live off-base, or choose to do so, Housing for construction workers, Housingfor civilian workers, The military buildup results in improved economic prospects for the island Though Japans newly-elected government has signaled

that it is no longer so sure it wants to comply with the US-Japan bilateral agreement , the U.S. has affirmed that the program will proceed as planned. In May 2010, Japan willannounce its decision.

13


14/47


---Guam Shift Good-Hawaii

Guam Shift means more jobs for Hawaii

Chiem 7/2/10[Linda, Pacific Business News journalist, Guam Boom Means more Jobs for Hawaii http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2010/07/05/story1.html?b=1278302400^3600071,7/25/10]Hawaii companies gearing up for the business boom on Guam already are facing hiring and recruiting challenges that will only

increase as the U.S. militarys multibillion-dollar buildup there takes shape.A number of Hawaii-based businesses,including general contractors and architectural and engineering firms, have landed lucrative multimillion-dollar contracts for

construction projects on Guam,which is preparing for the U.S. militarys transfer of 8,600 U.S. Marines and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa by 2014.Theambitious project, estimated to cost between $10 billion and $15 billion, will generate an estimated 20,000 new jobs, many ofwhich could go to Hawaii residents.But recruiters and employers say getting workers to go to Hagatna, Guams capital, a 3,800-mile and seven-hour flight fromHonolulu, has been difficult given the heat, humidity and relative isolation often associated with the island.As a result, local companies are eyeing incentives andsubsidies and even paying higher prevailing wages, depending on the job, to get workers to Guam .(The prevailing wage for the most commonconstruction jobs on Guam, including carpenters, electricians, plumbers and welders, averages between $25,000 and $30,000 a year, according to the Guam Department of Labor.)Its coming up and Im stashing peopleaway, especially those who say theyre willing to go there, for when things really start picking up, said Sandra Ohara, director of corporate accounts and government contracts for Adecco in Hawaii. Its difficult gettinglocal people to go to Guam because they dont want to commit to t he standard two years there thats typical for government work The biggest challenge is the remoteness and the overall climate. Companies will belooking to recruit workers from the Philip pines, American Samoa, Southeast Asia and even the U.S. Mainland processes made easier by the federal governments easing of visa restrictions for h iring foreign

workers.Meantime, the Hawaii companies that already have workers on the ground in Guam have adapted to the worker shortfall byoffering job incentives and subsidies.

14


15/47


China DA 2ACNo Link

Their link card is specific to navy forces and their being seen as a strong defensive mechanism. We only removeMarines.

We only remove the offensive forces that provoke China. There will still be the defensive presence necessary to

deter.

Cross Apply Preble in 6 from the Alliance advantage that says that Japan can uniquely deter China absent a U.Spresence. Case turns the DA.

Navy and Airforce checks China

Gates 9 ( Robert, Secretary of Defense for the United States. Submitted Statement on DoD challenges to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Department of Defense.http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx? SpeechID=1337. 1/27. July 26, 2010.

As we know, China is modernizing across the whole of its armed forces. The areas of greatest concern are Chinese investments and growingcapabilities in cyber-and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles.Modernization in these areas could threaten Americas primary means of projecting power and helping allies in the Pacific: ourbases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. We have seen some improvement in the U.S.-Chinese security relationship recently. Last year, I inaugurated a direct telephone link with the Chinese defense

ministry. Military to military exchanges continue, and we have begun a strategic dialogue to help us understand each others intentions and avoid potentially dangerous miscalculations. As Ive said before, the U.S.

military must be able to dissuade, deter, and, if necessary, respond to challenges across the spectrum including the armedforces of other nations. On account of Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be hard pressed at this time to launch another major ground operation. But elsewhere in the world, the United States hasample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any adversary that committed an actof aggression whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula, or in the Taiwan Strait. The risk from these types of scenarios cannot be ignored,but it is a manageable one in the short- to mid-term.

4. Their disad is applicable to both South Korea and Japan. Leaving troops in South Korea solves the advantage

5. No internal link their Bandow evidence assumes a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Even then, it does not decisivelysay the U.S will be implicated

15


16/47


---AT Okinawa keyTheir evidence is flaweda) It doesnt assume China war. No where in the card does it say that 20,000 marines can stop Chinas army of 5

million

b) It talks largely about humanitarian aid, which is not the same as fighting China

c) It says that a visible military presence is key, but we leave behind the same airforce fly overs that the cardadvocates

d) US Marines are useless in Japan they dont help deterrence and they wouldnt be used in conflict

Doug Bandow2010, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Vice President of Policy for Citizen Outreach, June 18th, 2010 [Get Out of Japan, National Interest Online, June 18th, 2010, available online athttp://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23592, accessed June 28, 2010]The claim is oft-made that the presence of American forces also help promote regional stability beyond Japan. How never seems to be explained. Bruce Klingner of the Heritage Foundation contends: the Marines on

Okinawa are an indispensable and irreplaceable element of any U.S. response to an Asian crisis. But the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), while packing a potent military punch, actually haslittle to do. The MEF isnt necessary to support manpower-rich South Korea, which is capable of deterring a North Koreanattack. The Marines wouldnt be useful in a war against China, unless the Pentagon is planning a surprise landing in TiananmenSquare to seize Mao Zedongs mausoleum . If conflict breaks out over Taiwan or various contested islands, America would rely on air andnaval units. Where real instability might arise on the ground, only a fool would introduce U.S. troopsinsurgency in Indonesia, civil strife in theSolomon Islands or Fiji, border skirmishes between Thailand and Burma or Cambodia. General Ronald Fogleman, a former Air Force Chief of Staff, argued that the Marines serve no military function. They dont

need to be in Okinawa to meet any time line in any war plan . Id bring them back to California. The reason they dont want to brin g them back to California is that everyone wouldlook at them and say, Why do you need these twenty thousand?

16


17/47


----Containment FailsChinese containment policy fails in the status quoMaginnis 10 (Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army, China's High Seas Aggression,05/20/2010,http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37081)

Chinas aggressive actions on the high seas, its rapidly expanding navy and its new global strategy suggest Beijingsmotivations are as much about geopolitical power as economics. Thats why the U.S. either accommodates its soon-to-be naval peer competitor or face the risk of militaryconflicts with the emerging superpower. Japans foreign minister expressed concern last week about Chinas growing military aggression. I wouldnt use the word threat but we certainly will need to watch very carefullythe nuclear arsenal and naval capabilities of China, Katsuya Okada told the Wall Street Journal. Okada filed a protest with Beijing earlier this month over obstructive behavior by a Chinese survey ship in the East China

Sea. Okada complained the Chinese ship chased a Japanese coast guard vessel that Tokyo said was conducting marine surveys within Japans economic zone. That was the third Chinese provocation over the past month.

On April 10 and 21, a flotilla from Chinas East Sea Fleet sailed through Japans Miyako Strait, a mineral-rich area disputedbetween the two Asian powers. During each passage Chinese helicopters circled near Japanese destroyers. These incidents irked the Japaneseand they happened just days after warships from Chinas North Sea Fleet returned from what the Chinese called confrontation exercises in the South China Sea, according to Stratfor, an American intelligence group. TheU.S. Navy has been a victim of Chinese confrontation. In 2001, Chinese fighters intercepted and crashed into a U.S. Navy P-3 Orion aircraft and then forced it to land at a Chinese military airfield. In late 2007, a ChineseSong class submarine surfaced dangerously close to the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, an aircraft carrier, during a Pacific exercise. Last year, Chinese vessels aggressively maneuvered within 25 feet of the USNS Impreccable, anunarmed ocean surveillance ship, in the South China Sea. These aggressive actions suggest Chinas navy is taking on a new and dangerous character. Chinas aggressive naval behavior accompanies the regimes growing andseemingly insatiable appetite for natural resources and the movement of its products to sustain a fast-growing economy. That means Beijing must depend o n sea routes for transporting goods, which has become a factor

shaping its strategic naval behavior. Beijings motive for a large navy is more complex than trade. There is a rising tide of Chinese nationalismaimed at Japan and the U.S., Chinas long-time naval rivals. A larger navy feeds Chinese national pride at its rivals expense and gives Beijing the tools to eventually reuni fy therenegade province of Taiwan by force if necessary. And it hel ps to control contested island groups off Chinas coasts, which form a new ou ter-defense security belt. This multi-faceted motivation prompts Chinas strategicmilitary transformation. The Pentagons 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines t hat transformation: Chinas military has begun to develop new roles, missions, and capabilities in support of its growing regional andglobal interests. We are going from coastal defense to far-sea defense, Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet told Xinhua, the state news agency. Adm. Huachen explained, With the

expansion of the countrys economic interests, the navy wants to better protect the coun trys transportation routes and the safety of our major sea lanes. An April editorial in the Global Times, aChinese state owned newspaper, tried to dispel concern about its growing navy. China does not hold an intention to challengethe U.S. in the central Pacific or engage in a military clash with Japan in close waters, the Times wrote. But that statement

radically expands Chinas previously defined core interests to now include the South China Sea and the entire WesternPacific. The editorial then warns its ti me for the U.S. and Japan to "adjust their viewpoint when considering Chinas moves. The time when dominant powers enjoyed unshared spheres o f influence around the worldis over. Then it concluded: A growing Chinese navy is a symbol o f Chinas peaceful rise. But that view is contradicted by Chinas assertive behavior and its lust for a large, offensively-capable navy. Two decades ofdouble-digit spending increases have radically grown Chinas navy. The 225,000-man Peoples Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) is organized into three fleets and equipped with 260 vessels including 75 principalcombatants and over 60 submarines. The U.S. Navy has 286 battle-force ships though the American fleet is qualitatively superior to the Chinese navy. In March, Adm. Robert Willard, the leader of the U.S. PacificCommand, testified Chinese naval developments were pretty dramatic. Of particular concern is that elements of Chinas military modernization appear designed to challenge our freedom of action in the region, the

admiral said. Beijings pretty dramatic developments include plans to deploy two aircraft carriers by 2015. It already acquired four retired aircraftcarriers: one from Australia and three ex-Soviet carriers. On March 21, the ex-Soviet carrier Varyag left the dry dock in Dalian, China, after refurbishment and now is undergoing the installation of electronics and weapons. A

2009 Pentagon report indicates China is training 50 navy pilots to operate Sukhoi SU-33s (navalized Flankers) for aircraft carrier operations. Chinas navy uses a growing internationalnetwork of ports known as the pearl necklace. Those permanent Chinese bases are along the shores of the Indian Ocean andthe maritime routes to the strategic Strait of Malacca: Maldives, Burma, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Seychelles and Pakistan.Beijing is actively negotiating with a number of African countries for permanent ports as well. Chinese naval units are also going on missions to newlocations. Since 2008, the PLA-N has maintained t hree ships in the Gulf of Aden to conduct counter-piracy patrols and this March two Chinese warships docked in Abu Dhabi, the first time the modern Chinese navy made aport visit in the Middle East. China is also negotiating for a new base in Iran. Chinas expansive t rade interests coupled with its new naval strategy and an offensively capable navy requires Washington to make some toughdecisions. Should the U.S. remain engaged in Asia to protect its economic and security interests? It appears the Obama Administration plans to maintain a credible force in the region for now. Recently, it transferred severalnuclear submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific to help keep tabs on Chinas submarine force. But keeping our navy right-sized to meet the Chinese and other global challenges may not be President Obamas priority. Last

week U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned, The gusher [military spending] has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time. Gates asked, Does the number of

warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 naviescombined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? That statement doesnt make sense based on the Pentagons 2009 reporton Chinas military power which indicates Beijing has 260 ships (and growing) compared to Americas 286. We can also trainand equip regional allies like Japan. But most Asian allies can ill afford to deploy ocean-going ships to defend their vitalinterests from Chinas superpower fleet. Finally, the U.S. ought to engage with China to remove its veil of secrecy about military programs and geopolitical intent ions. Security cooperationprograms joint exercises, exchanges can reduce some tension and maneuver-space agreements can help avoid needless confrontations. China is a rapidly growing naval power that will soon become Americas peer

competitor. Washington should engage Beijing at every opportunity to promote transparency and cooperation while maintaining acredible deterrent in Asia. Otherwise our economic and security interests will inevitably collide and we could easily land in a new cold war o r worse.

17
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37081http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37081http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37081http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37081


18/47


2AC Deterrence DA (1/2)Non Unique Deterrence of North Korea failing nowSeung Taek Kim, former director of ROK Ministry of National Defenses U.S. Policy Division, Office of the Korea Chair at CSIS in January 2010, primarily focuses on the U.S.-ROK Alliance, specifically regarding

strategic flexibility, extended deterrence, and the future of USFK, July 2, 2010, Rethinking Extended Deterrence, http://csis.org/files/publication/100702_Rethinking_Extended_Deterrence-english.pdfThe Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States are allies that signed the Mutual Defense Treaty. The primary mission of the Mutual Defense Treaty is to prevent war and maintain

peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.The experience from the past sixty years shows that this security alliance has successfully served itspurpose. For the U.S., it has effectively dissuaded and deterred North Korea from taking overt military actions on the Korean Peninsula by providing the ROK with extended deterrence,including the nuclear umbrella and displaying its overwhelming military force and political will to defend its ally from the Norths aggression. The ROK, confident in U.S. extended deterrence and security commitment to itsdefense, has also been assured of its security and has believed that the deterrence would hold effective. Such belief has been affirmed as the relative peace and status quo on the Korean Peninsula has lasted over the past sixty

years. However, the Cheonan incident revealed both the limit and vulnerability of the U.S .extended deterrence. It may have been able toprevent North Korea from launching a full scale attack on South Korea, but it has not been nearly as effective in preventing suchlimited local provocation as the Cheonan incident . Since the current extended deterrence policy can only be invoked to authorize punitive measures to be taken in response to a military offense , itis almost impossible to invoke the extended deterrence to a limited local provocation like the Cheonan that is a small-scale, one-time incident. It appears as ifNorth Korea has discovered this loopholeand successfully used it to its advantage. After all, there is yet to be a case in which the United States responded forcefully to suchprovocations, despite the fact that a number of similar incidences preceded the Cheonan that resulted in skirmishes between the South and North Korean n avies near the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea. A reevaluation of

the extended deterrence policy is necessary. Just as Americas nuclear arsenal consisting of thousands of warheads have failed to dissuade and deter Al-Qaeda fromcommitting acts of terrorism, so too has the extended deterrence policy of the United States been ineffectual in deterring North Korea from engaging inlimited local provocations and escalating tensions on the peninsula. What is more concerning is that the probability of a full-scale war between North andSouth Korea may essentially be nil today, but the frequency of local provocations can be expected to surge in the coming years.

Link non-unique Asian extended deterrence is hollowNorth Korea prolifHayes, Melbourne University IR Professor, Nautilus Institute Executive Director, December 10, 2009[Peter, "Extended Nuclear Deterrence, Global Abolition and Korea," http://www.globalcollab.org/ Nautilus/australia/apsnet/reports/2009/hayes-deterrence.pdf/view, 12/29/09]

Henceforth, the credibility of US END with allies in this region was tied up directly with the United States ability to stop andreverse (not merely contain by deterrence) the DPRKs acquisition of nuclear weapons and use of nuclear threat to compel the United States and others tonegotiate with itwhat I term the DPRKs stalker strategy.5 As a result of nearly two decades of slow motion nuclear wrestling with the DPRK culminating in 2009 in the latters second, this timesuccessful, nuclear test, the credibility of US END has fallen to an all-time low. Since 2008, US nuclear hegemony based on END inEast Asia has begun to unravel due to the havoc wrought by the North Korean nuclear breakout on the NPT-IAEA system as a whole, by its rejectionof the authority of the UNSC as enforcer of the NPT-IAEA system, as a spoiler state for cooperative security institution building in the region, and by its direct challenge to US hegemony in its alliance relationships. Of

course, all the nuclear weapons states are responsible for the parlous state of the NPT-IAEA system. But in the case of the DPRK, the United States as a direct antagonist and primaryplayer in the Peninsula is by far the state held most accountable for these dismal outcomes.

No link a) U.S. presence is not key to deterrence. Japan themselves can deter. Extend Preble 6 card which discusses how

Japan can deter China. Also, in the Meyer 9 card it outlines that U.S. bases cause North Korea to target missilesat Japan. So rather than insuring deterrence, it is prevented.

b) No spillover. Their Hakan Tunc 8 card only talks out of crisis and theater of war, but we are not doing that, we

are simply withdrawing troops that have no purpose in Japan.

No impact deterrence theory is non-falsifiable and counter-productive unless applied to specific scenariosGray, Ph.D., Reading University International Politics and Strategic Studies Professor, Former Advisor to US and British Gov't, National Institute for Public Policy Founder, Former Reagan President's GeneralAdvisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament Advisor, Former Hudson Institute and International Institute for Strategic Studies Fellow, 8/1/2003 [Colin, "Maintaining Effective Deterrence,"http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=211, da: 7/26/10]

Develop a more empirical theory of deterrence. In its immediate form, deterrence is always specific . It is about persuading a particular leader or leaders, at aparticular time, not to take particular actions. The details will be all important, not be marginal. A body of nonspecific general

theory on deterrence is likely to prove not merely unhelpful, but positively misleading. It is improbable that broad generalprecepts from the canon lore of American Cold War deterrence theory could yield much useful advice for the guidance of U.S. policy today. What the United States requires is detailed,culturally empathetic, understanding of its new adversaries. That understanding should include some grasp of the psychology of key decisionmakers, as well as knowledge of how decisions tend to be made. Readers shouldrecall the words of Keith Payne quoted earlier. He said that if we could make the convenient assumption that rationality alone fostered reasonable behavior, then we could predict adversary behavior simply by askingourselves what we would deem to be reasonable were we in their circumstances. If we can predict the reasoning of our enemies reliably enough, because of the general authority of our theory of deterrence, the hard workof attempting to understand the opponents particular beliefs and thought can be avoided. The fact that the Cold War did not conclude with World War III is not proof that Payne is wrong. It may well be that our strategy odeterrence was not severely tried. There may never have been a moment when the Soviet leadership posed the question, Are we deterred? Given the weight of the general stakes in the superpower contest, notwithstandingthe blessed shortage of direct issues in contention, and the transcultural grasp of the horrors of nuclear war, it was probably the case that the success or otherwise of deterrence did not depend upon ine-grained strategiccalculation or knowledge. Of course, one can write that with much more conidence today than one could during the decades when responsible oficials were obliged to assume that deterrence could be fragile. However, if

the United States now aspires to deter the leaders of culturally mysterious and apparently roguish states, the convenient assumption that one size its all with the (American) preceptsof deterrence, is likely to fail badly. It is bad news for those among us who are not regional or local specialists, but to improve the prospects for deterrence of such polities as North Korea, Iran,Syria, and the rest, there is no intelligent alternative to undertaking empirical research to understand those whom we strive to inluence. It will not sufice either simply to reach for the classics of American strategic thought,or to assume that the posing of a yet more decisive military threat must carry a message that speaks convincingly in all languages.

18
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=211http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=211http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=211


19/47


2AC Deterrence DA (2/2)Impact Turn -Hegemony causes global warGabriel Kolko, historian of modern warfare, THE AGE OF WAR: THE UNITED STATES CONFRONTS THE WORLD, 2006, p. 173-6At the beginning of the twenty-first century, onlythe United States has the will to maintain a global foreign policy and to intervene everywhere itbelieves necessary. Today and in the near future, the United States will make the decisions that will lead to war or peace, and the fate of much of the world is largely in its hands. It possesses the arms and aspectrum of military strategies all predicated on a triumphant activist role for itself. It believes that its economy can afford interventionism and that the American public will support whatever actions necessary to set theaffairs of some country or region on the political path it deems essential. This grandiose ambition is bipartisan, and details notwithstanding, both parties have always shared a consensus on it. The obsession with power and theconviction that armies can produce the political outcome a nation's leaders desire is by n o means an exclusively American illusion. It is a notion that goes back many centuries and has produced the main wars of modern

times. The rule of force has been with humankind a very long time, and the assumptions behind it have plagued its history for centuries. But unlike the leaders of most European nationsor Japan, US leaders have not gained insight from the calamities that have so seared modern history. Folly is scarcely a US monopoly, but resistanceto learning when grave errors have been committed is almost proportionate to the resources available to repeat them. The Germans learned their lesson after two defeats, the Japanese after World War II, and both nationsfound wars too ehausting and po litically dangerous. The United States still believes that if firepower fails to master a situation, the solution i s to use it more precisely and much more of it. In this regard it is exceptionalpast

failures have not made it any wiser. Wars are at least as likely today as any time over the past century. Of great importance is the end of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europeand Moscow's restraining influence elsewhere. But the proliferation of nuclear technology and other means of mass destruction have also made largeparts of the world far more dangerous. Deadly local wars with conventional weapons in Africa, the Balkans, Middle East, andelsewhere have multiplied since the 1960s.Europe, especially Germany, and Japan, are far stronger and more independent than at any time since 1945, and China's rapidly expanding economyhas given it a vastly more important role in Asia. Ideologically, communism's demise means that t he simplified bipolarism that Washington u sed to explain the world ceased after 1990 to have any value. With i t, the alliancescreated nominally to resist communism have either been abolished or are a shadow of their original selv es; they have no reason for existence. The crisis in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), essentially, reflectsthis diffusion of all forms of power and the diminution of US hegemony. Economically, the capitalist nations have resumed their rivalries, and they have become more intense with the growth of their economies and thedecline in the dollarwhich by 2004 was as weak as it has been in over fifty years. These states have a great deal in common ideologically, but concretely they are increasingly rivals. The virtual monopoly of nuclearweapons that existed about a quarter-century ago has ended with proliferation.?, Whether it is called a "multipolar" world, to use French p resident Jacques Chirac's expression in November 2004, in whi ch Europe, China,India, and even eventually South America follow their own interests, or something else, the direction is clear. There may or may not be "a fundamental restructuring of the global order," as the chairman of the CentralIntelligence Agency's (CIA's) National Intelligence Council presciently reflected in April 2003, but the conclusion was unavoidable "that we are facing a more fluid and complicated set of alignments than anything we have

seen since the formation of the Atlantic alliance in 1949." Terrorism and the global economy have defied overwhelming US military power: "Our smart

bombs aren't that smart."' Wars, whether civil or between states, remain the principal (but scarcely the only) challengeconfronting humanity in the twenty-first century. Ecological disasters relentlessly affecting all dimensions of the environment are also insidious because of the unwillingness of t he crucialnationsabove all the United Statesto adopt measures essential for reversing their damage. The challenges facing humanity have never been so complex andthreatening, and the end of the Cold War, although one precondition of progress, is scarcely reason for complaceriby or optimism. The problems the world confronts far transcend the communist-capitalist tensions,many of which were mainly symptoms of the far greater intellectual, political, and economic problems that plagued the world before 1917and still exist. Whatever the original intention, US interventionscan lead to open-ended commitments in both duration and effort. They may last a short time, and usually do, but unforeseen events can cause t he United States to spend farmore resources than it originally anticipated, causing it in the name of its credibility, or some other doctrine, to get into disastrous situations that in the end defeat the United States. Vietnam is the leading example of this

tendency, but Iraq, however different in degree, is the same in kind. Should the United States confront even some of the forty or more nations that now haveterrorist networks, then it will in one manner or another intervene everywhere, but especially in Africa and the Middle East.Theconsequences of such commitments will be unpredictable. The United States has more determined and probably more numerous enemies today than at any time, and many of those who hate it are ready and able to inflictdestruction on its shores. Its interventions often triumphed in the p urely military sense, which is all the Pentagon worries about, but in all too many cases they have been pol itical failures and eventually led to greater US

military and political involvement. Its virtually instinctive activist mentality has caused it to get into situations where it often had no interests,much less durable solutions to a nation's problems, repeatedly creating disasters and enduring enmities. The United States haspower without wisdom and cannot, despite its repeated experiences, recognize the limits of its ultrasophisticated military

technology. The result has been folly and hatred, which is a recipe for disasters.September 11 confirmed that, and war has come to its shores. That theUnited States end its self-appointed global mission of regulating all problems, wherever, whenever, or however it wishes to doso, is an essential precondition of stemming, much less reversing, the accumulated deterioration of world affairs and wars. Weshould not ignore the countless ethical and other reasons it has no more right or capacity to do so than any state over the past century, whatever justifications they evoked. The problems, as the history of the past centuryshows, are much greater than the US role in the world: but at the present time its actions are decisive, and whether there is War or peace will be decided far more often in Washington than any other place. Ultimately, there

will not be peace in the world unless all nations relinqui sh war as an instrument of policy, not only because of ethical or moral reasoning but because wars have become deadlier and more destructive of social institutions. Aprecondition of peace is for nations not to attempt to impose their visions on others,adjudicate their differences, and never to assume that their need for theeconomic or strategic resources of another country warrants interference of any sort in its internal affairs.But September 11 proved that after a half-century of interventionsthe United States has managed to provoke increasing hatred. It has failed abysmally to bring peace and security to the world. Itsrole as a rogue superpower and its p romiscuous, cynical interventionism has been spectacularly unsuccessful, even on its own terms. It is squandering vast economic resources, and it has now endangered the physical securityof Americans at home. To end the damage the United States causes abroad is also to fulfill the responsibilities that US politicians have to their own people. But there is not the slightest sign at this point that voters will callthem to account, and neither the AMerican population nor its political leaders are likely to agree to Rich far-reaching changes in foreign policy. The issues are far too grave to wai t for US attitudes and its political process to

be transformed.The world will be safer to the extent that US alliances are dissolved and it is isolated,and that is happening for many reasons, ranging from theunilateralism, hubris, and preemptory style of the Bush administration to the fact that since the demise of communism, the world's political alignments have changed dramatically. Communism and fascism were bothoutcomes of the fatal errors in the international order and affairs of states that World War I spawned. In part, the Soviet system's disintegration was the result of t he fact it was the aberrant consequence of a destructive andabnormal war, 11,);t at least as important was its leaders' loss of confidence in socialism. And suicidal Muslims are, to a great extent, the outcome of a half-century of US interference in the Middle East and Islamic world,which radicalized so many young men and women ready t o die for faith. Just as the wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 created Bolsheviks, the repeated grave errors of the United States, h owever different the context or times

have produced their own abnormal, negative reactions. The twenty- first century has begun very badly because t he United States continues with its aggressive policies. They are far more dangerous than t hose of the twentiethcentury. The destructive potential of weaponry has increased exponentially, and many more people and nations have access to it. What would once h ave been considered relatively minor foreign policy problems no w havepotentially far greater consequences. It all augurs very badly. The world has reached the most dangerous p oint in recent, or perhaps all of, history. There are threats of war and instabili ty unlike anything that prevailed when aSoviet-led bloc existed. Even if the United States abstains from interference and tailors its actions to fit this troubled reality, there will be serious problems throughout much of the world. Internecine civil conflicts willcontinue, as well as wars between nations armed with an increasing variety of much more destructive weapons available from outside powers, of which the United States remains, by far, the most important source. Many ofthese conflicts have independent roots, and both principles and experiences justify the United States staying out of t hem and leaving the world alone. Both the American people and those involved directly will be far better off

without foreign interference, whatever nation attempts it. US leaders are not creating peace or security at home or stability abroad. The reverse is thecase: its interventions have been counterproductive, and its foreign policy is a disaster.Americans and those people who are the objects of successiveadministrations' efforts would be far better off if the United States did nothing, closed its bases overseas and withdrew its fleets everywhere, and allowed the rest of world to find its own way. Communism is dead, and Europeand Japan are powerful and both can and will take care of their own interests. The United States must adapt to these facts. But if it continues as it has over the past half-century, attempting to satisfy its vainglorious but

irrational ambition to run the world, then there will be even deeper crises and it will inflict wars and turmoil on many nations as well as on its own people. And it will fail yet again, forall states that havegone to war over the past centuries have not achieved the objectives for which they sacrificed so much blood, passion, andresources. They have only produced endless misery and upheavals of every kind

19


20/47


2AC Japan Object CP1. Perm do both- Solves the Link to the DA and solves the aff- No new base is built and troops are removed

2. Doesnt even come close to solving the aff- Its a Disad to the CP

a) TROOPS is the key internal link to stability in Asia- thats the 1AC AP and Bandow Evidence

b) The presence of the Futenma base tanks the Japanese Economy that collapses the globe causes extinction

c) Cant solve North Korea talks- they wont come to the table unless the US withdraws from Japan- thats Layne,Auslin and Meyer

c) Doesnt solve Bio D- presence of troops collapses biodiversity- it comes first- causes the Extinction of all Life onEarth- thats Diner

Fourth is theory

International fiat voter for fairness and education

1. Aff Groundthere are an unmanageable number of countriesits impossible to research how every one couldpotentially solve the aff advantages

2. Educationthe topic focus is US troop presencethe CP shifts the debate to other actorsthats an incoherent

model of decision-making because no policymaker could choose between the advocaciesdecision-making is key toeducation and should be the filter for neg ground

3. Justifies Object Fiat--The object of the advantage includes lack of international solutionsthe CP fiats out of

thisthat justifies CPs that fiat out of any advantage impact and utopian counterplans to avoid global problemsthat kills aff ground

And Condo is a voter

Offense:---Timeskew skews 2AC time allocation because we cant predict what the 2NR will go for

---Strat Skew skews our offense forces us to make our worse arguments because theyre shorter the neg

becomes a moving target which kills clash

---Multiple Worlds Bad forces the aff to contradict themselves which destroys education

---Interpretation read the cp dispo gives the aff the strategic option of the straight turn and it limits the numberof options the neg can read

Defense:---Infinitely Regressive nothing to constrain the neg from reading four counterplans in the 1NC

---Depth Over breath good to have in depth education about an argument than a shallow education

---Not Reciprocal the aff is stuck with one policy option so the neg should be too.

---Reject the team not the argument conditionality is a punitive measure kicking the counterplan doesnt

punish the neg

20


21/47


Consult CP Notes

During CX ask:

If Japan decides to accept the plan initially, do they get the chance to change their mind?

If they say no:

It is not genuine consultation that they claim is necessary

If they say yes:

The perm will solve.

To extend perm do the plan and consult over enforcement in the plan in 1AR:

If it is genuine consultation, Japan should be able to change their mind. Then the perm solves the net benefit. If Japan cannot changetheir mind, the consultation is not genuine, so they dont solve the net benefit.

21


22/47


2AC Consult NATO (1/2)1. Perm Do Both

2. Non-binding consultation can solve the net benefit and our turnsDaily Oklahoman - 6-12-2001WITH his arrival in Spain this morning, President Bush begins a five-day trip t o European countries, many of whose leaders are eager to lecture him on missile defense, global warming and - following the execution of

Timothy McVeigh - the death penalty. We hope the president will listen politely but stay the course. The United States always should consult with its allies. But

consultation doesn't mean conformity with a raft of liberal-to-socialist views now popular in a number of European capitals. "You can go through themotions of consulting as long as you don't ask and do tell," Kenneth Adelman, a veteran of the Reagan administration, told the New York Times. "You can ask opinions, but thefact is Europeans don't like change and Americans like change." Bush represents change - change from the arms-control dogma of t he 1970s and '80s that remains gospel in Europe and change from reactionary

environmentalism that mostly ignores the livelihoods of everyday people. We're not under any illusion that Bush can change minds while he visits Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Polandand Slovenia. But perhaps he can convince our friends that America's positions are principled and well-reasoned while dispelling thestereotype that the U.S. selfishly shoots from the hip. In fact, there's a fine line between the "unilateralism" of which the U.S. i s accused by Europe and get-out-front leadership fromwhich the world's lone remaining superpower should not shrink. Missile defense and global warming are excellent examples. Bush and his administration think mutually assured destruction as a deterrent to nuclear war isoutdated and illogical. Mutual vulnerability to annihilation doesn't give terrorist or rogue states a moment's pause, nor does it leave options in the event of an accidental launch. This message Bush will deliver to Russia'sVladimir Putin near the end of the t rip. On global warming, Bush accurately reflects the 97-0 sentiment of the U.S. Senate, which opposes the Kyoto treaty's unfair and unrealistic guidelines on the use of fossil fuels. The

administration is working on rational responses to a warming planet, trying t o determine the real effect of human activity. Bush wi ns if he can convince the Europeans to cool down their rhetoric until more is known. Thepresident also wins if he can,on an overall level, help Europe understand who he is and how,in his governance, he will protect America and its sovereignty as a first course.Americans do care what Europeans think, but in the end they and their president must be prepared to lead even at the risk of ruffling some feathers along the way.

3. Consult Counterplans are a voting issue

A. They fiat a moving targets-the outcome of the counterplan is never a stable advocacy and prevents us fromgenerating offense against the result

B. They aren't predictable-there are an infinite number of actors that can be consulted-there are over 500individual tribes, tribal governments, Congress, the President, and every random foreign country in the world

C. They rely on time-frame fiat, which is no different from delay counterplans, no affirmative could win a debate

D. Permute-do the counterplan, and then do the plan-its legitimate-the counterplan relies on time frame fiat which

means the permutation is reciprocal and it solves the net benefit if they say yes; if they say no, the counterplan getsthe case as a disad

4. CP takes too longGordon 86 NATO Indecisiveness Delays Arms Projects http://www.aviationnow.comThe inability of North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries to make firm budget commitments has delayed implementation ofcooperative weapons development projects with the U.S.,according to William H. Taft, 4th deput y Defense secretary. The Defense Dept. already has legislative and bu dget authorityto start the programs, and officials are disappointed by European governments' failure to move more rapidly,Taft said here. Taft recently returned from a visit tourge European and Midd le Eastern allies to complete action on joint projects. Defense officials hope that allied officials will sign several agreements when the independent European planning group (IEPG) holds its nextmeeting in Madrid in January. The deputy secretary visited government officials and industrial failities in France, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Israel and Egypt. Despite U.S. efforts to negotiate satisfactoryagreements to implement programs identified earlier this year by NATO armaments directors, only one memorandum of understanding, on the standoff airborne radar demonstration system, has been signed, Taft said(AW&ST June 23, p. 26). Three other memoranda have been signed on programs proposed under U.S. cooperative projects legislation originally sponsored by Sen. Sam Nunn (D.-Ga.). NATO officials have been receptive tothe idea of cooperative projects, even in Spain and the Netherlands where the balance of defense procurement is very much in favor of the U.S. "They've seen o ver five or six years that the U.S. has made a real effort, even ifit is not paying off for them," Taft said. The U.S. has an approximate balance with the United Kingdom and a deficit with France. Modernization Burden The Defense Dept. has been con cerned about the role the SouthernEuropean allies -- Portugal, Spain, Greece and Turkey -- might play in the initiative, because of their relative lack of development, industrial advancement and available research and development funds. These nations nowdepend on U.S. security assistance for defense modernization, but Defense Dept. officials hope to shift that burden partly onto the countries' local industry through the mechanism of arms cooperation, he said.

Reduction of an ally's dependence on U.S. security assistance can benefit both countries.

5. Germanys support doesnt prove consensus. Germany is only one country of many and there must be a

unanimous vote.

22
http://www.aviationnow.com/http://www.aviationnow.com/http://www.aviationnow.com/


23/47


2AC Consult NATO (2/2)

6. Perm Do the plan and consult over enforcement of plan

7. Perm Consult and do the plan no mater what

8. Perm Do the Plan and Consult over Afghanistan Policy- That solves, NATO ONLY CARES ABOUT

AFGHANISTAN

7. NATO decline happening now

Hendrickson 7.Choice. MiddletownVol. 44, Iss. 7; pg. 1242, 1 pgs NATO after 9/11: an alliance in continuing declineRupp (Purdue Univ., Calumet) examines the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's evolution since the Cold War's end. Usi ng an array of journalistic evidence, coupled with interviews with NATO officials, the author

maintains that NATO is clearly in decline. While this military alliance will continue to survive, Rupp argues that its relevance in modern security affairs isincreasingly in question. He points to a number of political factors to reach this conclusion, noting the wide military capabilitiesgap between the US and the rest of the allies, the unilateral tendencies of American foreign policy under President George W. Bush, theongoing challenges in NATO's mission in Afghanistan, and the strong diplomatic differences between the US and Europe overIraq. Much of Rupp's argument is based upon the general theme produced by Robert Kagan, who claims that the NATO allies share no perceived unifying threat topromote cooperative solutions. This book is well researched and provides much for NATO optimists to consi der. Summing Up: Recommended Upper-division undergraduates through practitioners.-R.C. Hendrickson, Eastern Illinois University

8. No impact- The U.S. will maintain beneficial relations with key allies even if NATO collapsesMichael Gallagher, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Winter 2003 Houston Journal of International LawNATOs supporters argue that ending NATO will destabilize Europe. Ending NATO, they claim, will destroy the transatlantic link between the United States and Europe,and isolate the United States from Europe. The ties of history, however, prevent this outcome. The United States has long enjoyed a specialrelationship with the United Kingdom. The United States also has strong relations with such nations as Italy, Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, andNorway. Some claim that NATO is the foremost expression of U.S. commitment to Europe. The United States, however, aided Europe in two world wars, and stood firmly by Europes side during the Cold War thiscommitment surpasses diplomatic formalities. The United States will not isolate itself from Europe merely because NATO disbands. Additionally,European nations do not need a formal security link to the United States. Even with NATO gone, there is still plenty of life in, andneed for, [the United States-Europe security] partnership.

9. Turn- Consultation Destroys US LeadershipCarroll 9 (James FF, Notes & Comments Editor Emory International Law Review, J.D. with Honors Emory University School of Law, Back to the Future: Redefining the Foreign Investment and NationalSecurity Act's Conception of National Security, Emory International Law Review, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 167, Lexis DA 7/16/10)

n221. See Thomas Friedman, Op-Ed., 9/11 is Over, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2007, 4, at 12. This does not mean, however, that foreign countries should hold a veto overU.S. foreign or domestic policies, particularly policies that are not directly related to their national survival.Allowing foreigncountr

Documents

CHS Japan 2AC Blocks