We negate. Resolved: The United Nations should grant India ... · 2 Rao 19 (Nirupama Rao, former Indian foreign secretary and ambassador to the United States and China, is a global

5/10/2019 Con 2.1 India - Google Docs

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HJfjDZkSSHlLY8CzxYtNA9Um_PH3qkD0OAUHrdUcP-Q/edit 1/17

We negate. Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the

Security Council.

Contention 1 is the springboard to war

The Kashmir Initiative Group writes that currently, “ Both India and Pakistan have consistently

advocated for dialogue to resolve their differences over Kashmir ” Rao in 2019 corroborates, 1

after a small skirmish, “ Pakistan i Prime Minister Imran Khan sought moral high ground by calling for

peace and , in a clever diplomatic move, returned the captured pilot to India ” He concludes, “ Tensions

have since slowed ” In this way, there is currently no risk of war breaking out between the two 2

countries. However, peace is fragile as Aamir in 2019 explains, “ tension between India and

Pakistan has escalated so rapidly that the two countries are now at brink of a full‑scale war ” . 3

Granting India permanent membership on the Security Council would tip them over in two

ways.

First , emboldening India. Nawaz 2017 writes, “ The permanent seat in the UNSC will also give

India a formal status as a nuclear power with the greater legitimacy of initiatives ” Khan in

2015 corroborates, “ As a permanent member of the UNSC, India can influence favorable decisions

at the UNSC over Kashmir. Furthermore, India , due to its strong conventional military, can resort to the use

1 Kashmir Initiative Group (Kashmir Initiative Group, charity, “Background to the Kashmir conflict: challenges and opportunities” https://www.c‑r.org/downloads/KIG%20Background%20Paper.pdf DOA 4/1/19) MDS 2 Rao 19 (Nirupama Rao, former Indian foreign secretary and ambassador to the United States and China, is a global fellow at the Wilson Center and councilor at the World Refugee Council., 3112019, “How India And Pakistan Can Step Back From The Brink Of War,” Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/11/howindiapakistancanstepback brinkwar/?utm_term=.6ab14c69d992 DOA 3/31/19) MDS 3 Aamir 2019 (Adnan Aamir, journalist and columnist, 2 March 2019, South China Morning Post , "India and Pakistan are not going to war any time soon, but expect the bluster to continue", https:// www.scmp.com/comment/insight‑opinion/united‑states/article/2188233/india‑and‑pakistan‑are‑not‑going‑war‑any‑time, Accessed 03/04/2019) IW



of force on the pretext of pre‑emption or hot pursuit to coerce Pakistan to change its stance on

Kashmir in favor of India ” For this reason, he concludes, “ Giving a permanent seat to India at this

stage would likely raise the chances of serious armed conflicts in the region ”

Second , angering Pakistan. Khan in 2015 writes “ India’s entry into the elite club would greatly

upset Pakistan’s security and economic concerns and would create an imbalance in the region ”

Nawaz 2017 continues that because of this new power imbalance, “ the very existence of

Pakistan would be endangered since the division of the Subcontinent remains a sore point in

the Indian politics ” He concludes, Pakistan “ the prime minister made it clear upon the US president that permanent

slot for India at the UNSC will not be tolerated at any cost ” Giving India a seat would “ certainly have

a potential to destabilise the region by fueling regional confrontation and conflicts ”

The conflict would go nuclear for three reasons.

First is military superiority. Keck in 2019 writes, “ India’s conventional capabilities are vastly

superior to Pakistan’s ” Roblin 2019 continues, “ Pakistan , in turn, maintains it may use nuclear

weapons as a first‑strike weapon to counter‑balance India’s superior conventional forces ” The

Economic Times in 2019 concludes that “ Pakistan would not hesitate to use its nuclear arsenal

if it felt it was losing out against India in a conventional war ”

Second is miscalc. Miller in 2019 reports, “ New Delhi and Islamabad should immediately and

urgently revive the hotline between their Directors General for Military Operations, a crucial

mechanism to prevent unintended and inadvertent conflict escalation . There is little foreseeable prospect,

no matter how desirable, of the top Indian and Pakistani leaderships re‑establishing direct communication channels and bilateral dialogue.



These have been frozen since the 2016 terror attacks ” Hannah in 2018 corroborates, “ There is 4

currently no communications link between nuclear apparatuses and the hotline between India n and Pakistan i foreign

secretaries has been moribund since it was agreed to in 2005.6 Consequently, nuclear risks in South Asia are

increasing as both countries pursue destabilizing weapons such as battlefield nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense7 and both

countries pursue aggressive policies against each other , including support for cross‑border militancy and short‑war

contingencies (aka “Cold Start”). 8 ” 5

Third is a satellite strike. Reuters writes that on March 25, “ India shot down one of its own

satellites in low‑Earth orbit with a ground‑to‑space missile on Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, hailing his

country's first test of such weaponry as a breakthrough establishing it as a military space power ” With this

power, Oberhaus 19 finds that in a conflict, “ India can knock out Pakistan’s very few satellites ”

Unfortunately, Oberhaus continues, “ if an anti‑satellite missile is deployed during a conflict

with a nuclear‑armed nation . If that were the case, Kimball adds, the anti‑satellite missile would be seen as an

“ extremely provocative step, because it could potentially mean that one side is trying to blind the other

from detecting a nuclear attack ” He concludes that, “ This could , in theory, escalate the conflict

toward nuclear war ”

There are two impacts.

First, casualties. Roblin 2019 quantifies “ An earlier study estimated a hundred 15‑kiloton nuclear detonations

could kill twenty‑six million in India and eighteen million in Pakistan —and concluded that escalating to

4 Miller 19 (Laurel Miller "Calming India and Pakistan’s Tit‑for‑Tat Escalation," . 2‑28‑2019, International Crisis Group, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south‑asia/kashmir/calming‑india‑and‑pakistans‑tit‑tat‑escalation DoA 4/5/19 ) JJ 5 https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/A%20Hotline%20between%20NCAs%20%20Hannah.pdf



using 100‑kiloton warheads, which have greater blast radius and overpressure waves that can shatter hardened structures, would multiply death

tolls four‑fold. ”

Second, the global food supply. Mosher in 2019 explains, “ Mills helped model the outcome of an

India‑Pakistan nuclear war in a 2014 study. In that scenario, each country exchanges 50 weapons, less than half of its arsenal.

Each of those weapons is capable of triggering a Hiroshima‑size explosion, or about 15 kilotons' worth of TNT. The model suggested those

explosions would release about 5 million tons of smoke into the air , triggering a decades‑long nuclear winter. ” 6

Outrider concludes “ Crops would suffer as smoke blocked the sunlight and growing seasons

became shorter ” “ Their best estimate is that more than 2 billion people would be at risk of starvation ”

Thus, we negate.

6 https://www.businessinsider.com/indiapakistankashmirnuclearweaponsclimatecooling20192



Peace is fragile

Kashmir Initiative Group (Kashmir Initiative Group, charity, “Background to the Kashmir conflict:

challenges and opportunities”

https://www.c‑r.org/downloads/KIG%20Background%20Paper.pdf DOA 4/1/19) MDS

Efforts to peacefully resolve the long‑standing dispute between India and Pakistan over

Kashmir have so far been unsuccessful . The dispute resulted in an armed rebellion in Kashmir in 1989, and tens of

thousands of lives have been affected by this protracted conflict. Tensions over the region have also led the two countries to three fully fledged

and one low scale war, and continue to threaten peace and security in South Asia. Both India and Pakistan have

consistently advocated for dialogue to resolve their differences over Kashmir, as well as other

outstanding issues. Several attempts at bilateral talks over the years have been disrupted

each time for varying reasons. While the leaderships of both countries agree that negotiations should be “uninterrupted” and

“insulated”, terror attacks in India, minor infringements across the Line of Control (LoC), India’s

domestic politics and persistent instability in Pakistan, have cast a shadow over the peace

process . Furthermore, Kashmiris have been overlooked as major stakeholders in the issue and their exclusion froam dialogue exercises has

led to growing disenchantment among the population. While it is common to hear about the ‘trust deficit’ between Delhi and Islamabad, the

trust deficit that has developed in Jammu and Kashmir over the years is seldom discussed. Although there has been a notable

decrease in violence and a shift to non‑violent protest in recent years in Kashmir, little effort

has been made to seize the opportunity to hold meaningful dialogue ‑ at either the

India‑Pakistan or New Delhi‑Srinagar level . Despite the relative calm in recent years, the mood in Kashmir is

still highly charged; there is a growing danger that the increasingly disillusioned youth and the

sporadic militant activity may become more mobilised. Many in the region fear that there

may be a resurgence of violence in the absence of a genuine political initiative. There is therefore an

urgent need not only to resume the composite dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad but also for serious political engagement at the level



of New Delhi and Srinagar. The withdrawal of NATOled forces, ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), from Afghanistan in 2014 could

present further challenges, and any potential fallout should be considered and managed by India and Pakistan.

Tensions have cooled between India and Pakistan as Pakistan is trying to be friendly

Rao 19 (Nirupama Rao, former Indian foreign secretary and ambassador to the United States

and China, is a global fellow at the Wilson Center and councilor at the World Refugee Council.,

3‑11‑2019, "How India And Pakistan Can Step Back From The Brink Of War," Washington Post,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/11/how‑india‑pakistan‑can‑step‑back‑bri

nk‑war/?utm_term=.6ab14c69d992 DOA 3/31/19) MDS

Last month, a suicide bombing in Pulwama, Kashmir, left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead. The Pakistani terror group Jaish‑e‑Muhammad

soon claimed responsibility. Less than two weeks later, the Indian Air Force launched a retaliatory strike deep inside Pakistani territory against a

terrorist training camp in Balakot. The Indian foreign office called this “non‑military preemptive” action. Pakistan responded by sending its Air

Force planes across the Line of Control. In a subsequent dogfight, an Indian aircraft was shot down and its pilot captured, while India claimed it

shot down a Pakistani F‑16. This engagement elicited international calls for restraint. Pakistani Prime

Minister Imran Khan sought moral high ground by calling for peace and, in a clever diplomatic

move, returned the captured pilot to India. Tensions have since slowed, though small‑scale

skirmishes have continued on the border. But in truth, there was darkness in the relationship between the two countries

long before the recent escalation — darkness that will remain as we begin to look ahead. The relationship between India and Pakistan is defined

by distrust, mutual suspicion and enmity. Today, an India‑obsessed deep state in Pakistan is chagrined to see its neighbor substantively moving

ahead in the development race and fast becoming a frontrunner in the global economy.

Indian permanent membership would change power dynamics and increase the chance of war

Khan 2015 (Aamir Hussain Khan, has masters in Strategic Studies from Naval

Postgraudate School, former Lieutenant in the Pakistani Army, “UNSC’S EXPANSION:

PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REGIONS AND THE WORLD”,



Naval Postgraduate School , December 2015,

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a632266.pdf. DOA: March 7 th 2019) TG

India’s entry into the elite club would greatly upset Pakistan’s security and economic concerns

and would create an imbalance in the region. India’s permanent membership of the UNSC would

cause further proliferation of disputes in the region, especially between India and Pakistan . To

qualify for the permanent membership of the UNSC, India must solve main disputes such as Kashmir, Siachen, and Sir Creek. Pakistan, as a key

regional country, must continue to work closely with members of the Ufc group to argue in favor of increase of non‑permanent and

non‑permanent membership of the UNSC to block India’s entry as a permanent member. Pakistan and the Ufc members must try to capitalize on

the differences between the G4 and the AU to prevent G4 states from achieving the required two‑thirds majority at the UNGA.

India would use permanent membership to gain the upper hand in Kashmir






Kashmir is the major dispute between Pakistan and India. Pakistan wants a just resolution of the Kashmir dispute in

accordance with the spirit of UNSC resolutions—the UNSC resolution maintained the issue of

Jammu and Kashmir be determined through plebiscite as per the wishes of the people of

Kashmir. The U.N. HLP report also refers to the Kashmir dispute as one of the “oldest and

unresolved disputes on the UNSC agenda .”216 To silence the popular demand of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, India

has deployed a huge military contingent, which is involved in the worst kind of human right violations. According to Noorani, “Indian Security

Forces have systematically, and with impunity, perpetrated outrageous violations of human rights in the [Kashmir] valley.”217 Today,

Pakistan and India are nuclear power; even small conflict may conflagrate to nuclear exchange



which will devastate the entire South Asian region. Without settlement of the Kashmir dispute,

use of force cannot be ruled out. Noorani contends that, “It is reasonable to conclude that relations between India and Pakistan

will never be normal until the Kashmir dispute is settled.”218 Without resolution of the Kashmir dispute, India does not qualify to be a member

of the UNSC. India has refused to implement the resolutions of the UNSC over settlement of the Kashmir dispute. It would be unjust to award

membership of the council to a country that has violated its resolution. As a permanent member of the UNSC, India can

influence favorable decisions at the UNSC over Kashmir. Furthermore, India, due to its strong

conventional military, can resort to the use of force on the pretext of pre‑emption or hot pursuit

to coerce Pakistan to change its stance on Kashmir in favor of India. India has been able to draw

out the issue of Kashmir for over 68 years, intending to wait for the opportune moment to

accrue maximum benefit. The permanent seat at the Council is one such moment through which India can extract a favorable

outcome. The UNSC Resolution 38219 is the oldest resolution of the UNSC, which is still waiting for its final and just disposal. India has rejected

the role of the international community and considers the Kashmir dispute to be a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Unfortunately,

however, the bilateralism has failed because of India’s brinkmanship and failure to accept Kashmir as a disputed territory

India doesn’t fulfill its obligation as a regional power, and would abuse its power as a permanent

member and increase the chance of conflict






Both India and Pakistan have failed to resolve their disputes peacefully and have fought four

major wars over these disputes since 1947. As an influential regional state, India has failed to

play the required leadership role to amicably solve its problems with its small neighbors. India,



however, considers that its neighbours are its enemies and regards them as subordinate states.

Thus, India’s permanent membership of the UNSC will have serious implications for the South

Asian region. India will pursue its own interest and objectives and will not pay any heed to

regional issues, involving smaller regional states . In the past, India has violated UNSC’s resolution and is not likely to

respect these resolutions in the future as well. India can isolate and intimidate smaller regional states through economic strangulation and by

involving them in political problems and disputes. India can politically and militarily interfere in the internal

affairs of smaller regional countries on various pretexts, and at the same time can prevent U.N.

intervention through India’s influence as a permanent member . Giving a permanent seat to

India at this stage would likely raise the chances of serious armed conflicts in the region .

UNSC presence would give India legitimate position as a nuclear power and could lead to instability

Nawaz 2017 (Shamsa Nawaz, Research Fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies

Islamabad, “Violation of the UN Resolutions on Kashmir: India’s Quest for UNSC

Permanent Membership”, Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad , July 11 th 2017,

http://issi.org.pk/wp‑content/uploads/2018/04/10‑SS_Shamsa_Nawaz_No‑1_2018.pdf.

DOA: March 10 th 2019) TG

In order to echo its significance as a major power of South Asia, India desires for permanent

membership of the UNSC . It is willing to let go of the veto power as well initially. So far, it has a support of 122 members out of 193

countries in the UN including the US.32 It has been blocked by China and Pakistan till now. The emerging strategic partnership between India

and the US has the potential to change the course of events in Asia. The significance that the US assigns to India is primarily due to its

burgeoning economy and trade‑driven foreign policy. By the convergence of interests, both India and the US have

evolved a strategic partnership since 2004, with the signing of civil‑nuclear deal. It would help

India in expanding its footprints in the region and the world to eventually get her a permanent



seat in the UNSC. The permanent seat in the UNSC will also give India a formal status as a

nuclear power with the greater legitimacy of initiatives, whether wrong or right. This would

certainly have a potential to destabilise the region by fuelling regional confrontation and

conflicts. Even the very existence of Pakistan would be endangered since the division of the

Subcontinent remains a sore point in the Indian politi cs. The UNSC still upholds legitimacy for a worldwide action. It is

crucial in maintaining the international order while looking after the super powers interests. However, it is difficult to see the role of the UN in

such a world order more than a rubber‑stamp. For example, the UN was emasculated when Iraq was invaded and Afghanistan was attacked.

Pakistan will not tolerate giving India a permanent seat on UNSC.

Dawn.com 2015 (Dawn.com, most widely read English newspaper based in Pakistan that

covers news from around the world, 12 February 2015, “Pakistan will not accept India as

a permanent member: Nawaz,

https://www.dawn.com/news/1163163/pakistan‑will‑not‑accept‑india‑as‑unsc‑perman

ent‑member‑nawaz , DOA: 12 March 2019) AMS

The prime minister said India cannot become a UNSC permanent member due to its

non‑compliance of all the resolutions passed by UN regarding Kashmir , added the spokesman. The US

president called Nawaz in the evening where both the leaders discussed issues of mutual interest and those related to regional stability and

peace for over half‑an‑hour, said the statement. The spokesman said the prime minister made it clear upon the US president

that permanent slot for India at the UNSC will not be tolerated at any cost as India has not

fulfilled any resolution passed by UN aimed at assuring the right of self determination for the

people of Kashmir. “ During his visit to India last month, Obama had lent his support to India’s

bid for UN Security Council’s membership which was seen in Pakistan as contempt of

democracy and human rights. India is by no means eligible to become a permanent member



of UN,” the prime minister was quoted as saying. Nawaz also conveyed Pakistan’s desire to

become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Pakistan intends to go to nuclear war with India since they are copying past situations

Keck, 2019 (Zachary Keck is the Wohlstetter Public Affairs Fellow at the Nonproliferation Policy

Education Center. Before that, he was a researcher at the Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs. Previously, he was the managing editor of The National Interest. Keck has

also been the managing editor of The Diplomat. February 15 th , 2019. “Billions Dead: That's What

Could Happen if India and Pakistan Wage a Nuclear War.” The National Interest.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/billions‑dead‑thats‑what‑could‑happen‑if‑india‑and‑paki

stan‑wage‑nuclear‑war‑44682 DOA 03/13/19) GSH

At the heart of this conflict, of course, is the territorial dispute over the northern Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the latter part of which Pakistan lays claim to. Also key to the

nuclear dimension of the conflict is the fact that India’s conventional capabilities are vastly

superior to Pakistan’s. Consequently, Islamabad has adopted a nuclear doctrine of using tactical

nuclear weapons against Indian forces to offset the latter’s conventional superiority. If this situation sounds

similar, that is because this is the same strategy the U.S.‑led NATO forces adopted against the Soviet Union

during the Cold War. In the face of a numerically superior Soviet military, the United States , starting

with the Eisenhower administration , turned to nuclear weapons to defend Western Europe from a Soviet attack .

Although nearly every U.S. president, as well as countless European leaders, were uncomfortable with this escalatory strategy, they were unable to escape the military realities undergirding it

until at least the Reagan administration. At an event at the Stimson Center in Washington this week, Feroz Khan, a former brigadier in the Pakistan Army

and author of one of the best books on the country’s nuclear program, said that Pakistani military leaders explicitly based their

nuclear doctrine on NATO’s Cold War strategy.



Pakistan will use its nuclear arsenal out of desperation if they are losing a war with India

The Economic Times March 4 (The Economic Times, India Daily Newspaper and the

second most read newspaper in the world after the Wall Street Journal, March 4 2019,

“Pakistan will not hesitate to go nuclear in war with India: Amarinder Singh”

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics‑and‑nation/pakistan‑will‑not‑hesitate‑to‑

go‑nuclear‑in‑war‑with‑india‑amarinder‑singh/articleshow/68257747.cms DOA: March 5

2019) SP

AMRITSAR: Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh on Monday warned that Pakistan would not hesitate to use its nuclear

arsenal if it felt it was losing out against India in a conventional war. Pointing out that both India and

Pakistan were nuclear power s, he said it was not in either country's interest to use the weapons of

mass destruction but Islamabad could indulge in such a misadventure, if faced with defeat in

other battles . In an informal chat with reporters here, Amarinder Singh said that the Indian Air Force air strikes had proven India's resolve

to deal with the problem in the wake of the Pulwama attack on a CRPF convoy, but refused to comment on the number of terrorists killed in the

strikes. "Whether it was one killed or 100, the message has gone out loud and clear that India will not let the killing of its soldiers and citizens go

unpunished," he said. Pointing out that Pakistan was in a huge economic mess and had been going around

with a begging bowl and surviving on doles from other Islamic nations , Amarinder Singh said they could

ill‑afford a full‑fledged war with India . And though both were nuke powered countries, Pakistan could act out of

desperation to use its nuclear weapons if they found themselves cornered , he warned. On the Aam Aadmi

Party's decision to ally with the Shiromani Akali Dal‑Taksali for the Lok Sabha polls in Punjab, the Chief Minister said it was their prerogative, but

as far as the Congress was concerned, it did not need any alliance. Dismissing the AAP‑SAD‑Taksali coalition as of no consequence, he said the

Congress in the state was fully ready for the polls and was well placed to win on its own.

Pakistan has a worse space program than India so India can wipe out all of Pakistan’s space assets



Oberhaus 19 (Daniel Oberhaus, staff writer at WIRED, covering new space, energy, and machine

learning. He is the author of 'Extraterrestrial Languages' (MIT Press, 2019) and was previously the

news editor at Motherboard, 3‑27‑2019, "India’s Anti‑Satellite Test Wasn’t Really About Satellites,"

WIRED, https://www.wired.com/story/india‑anti‑satellite‑test‑space‑debris/ DOA 3/31/19) MDS

This is precisely why experts like Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at MIT, think that

India’s anti‑satellite test probably didn’t have much to do with satellites. From India’s perspective, its

two greatest military adversaries are Pakistan and China —both of which have nuclear weapons, but only China has a

robust military presence in space. Thus, Narang says, India’s anti‑satellite test is difficult to make sense of because it

is “both more dependent on satellites than Pakistan and it’s also less capable in a relative sense than

China.” “If Pakistan starts hitting Indian satellites, India can knock out Pakistan’s very few satellites,”

notes Narang. “China can knock out all of India’s satellites whereas India cannot do the same to China. So it’s kind of a weird balance for

India if it’s interested in getting into the anti‑satellite deterrence game, [because] it doesn’t really have an advantage in either of its dyads.”

Shooting down a satellite leads to nuke war

Oberhaus 19 (Daniel Oberhaus, staff writer at WIRED, covering new space, energy, and machine

learning. He is the author of 'Extraterrestrial Languages' (MIT Press, 2019) and was previously

the news editor at Motherboard, 3‑27‑2019, "India’s Anti‑Satellite Test Wasn’t Really About

Satellites," WIRED, https://www.wired.com/story/india‑anti‑satellite‑test‑space‑debris/ DOA

3/31/19) MDS

Anti‑satellite missiles are generally touted as a deterrence mechanism, rather than a primary attack vector. The idea is basically to send a

message to other space‑faring nations: "If you destroy our space assets, we’ll destroy yours." The problem, of course, is that the debris

created by a missile ramming into an adversary’s satellite makes operating in space more



dangerous for everyone, including the country that launched the missile. In this sense, every

successful anti‑satellite missile attack is a Pyrrhic victory. “One thing to keep in mind about

knocking out satellites with military weapons is that it creates a debris field that all

commercial and military satellites of every country will have to avoid for years to come, ” says

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association. Things are even worse if an anti‑satellite missile

is deployed during a conflict with a nuclear‑armed nation. If that were the case , Kimball adds, the

anti‑satellite missile would be seen as an “extremely provocative step, because it could

potentially mean that one side is trying to blind the other from detecting a nuclear attack.”

This could , in theory, escalate the conflict toward nuclear war.

12 million dead and 7 million injured

Shanker 2002 (Thom Shanker, assistant Washington editor for The Times, joining the editing ranks in

2014 after serving for 13 years as a correspondent covering the Pentagon, the military and national

security, May 27 2002, "12 Million Could Die at Once in an India‑Pakistan Nuclear War”,

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/27/world/12‑million‑could‑die‑at‑once‑in‑an‑india‑pakistan‑nucl

ear‑war.html, Accessed 03/04/2019) IW

An American intelligence assessment, completed this week as tensions between India and Pakistan intensified, warns that a

full‑scale nuclear exchange between the two rivals could kill up to 12 million people immediately and

injure up to 7 million , Pentagon officials say. Even a ''more limited'' nuclear war ‑‑ as measured in number of warheads ‑‑ would have

cataclysmic results, overwhelming hospitals across Asia and requiring vast foreign assistance, particularly from the United States, to battle

radioactive contamination, famine and disease, officials said. ''The humanitarian crisis that would result would be so

great that every medical facility in the Middle East and Southwest Asia would be quickly



overwhelmed ,'' one Defense Department official said. ''The American military would have no choice but go in and help with the victims

and to clean up.'' American estimates of the number of warheads in the Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals, and their capacity, remain

classified. But Pentagon and administration officials, speaking in general terms, said Pakistan has ''a couple of dozen'' nuclear

warheads and India ''several dozen.''

Regional nuclear war in south asia will threaten a billion people and the world’s food supply

Robock and Toon 12 (Alan Robock and Owen Toon, American climatologist . He is currently

Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University ,

New Jersey . [1] He advocates nuclear disarmament and has met with Fidel Castro during a

lecture trip to Cuba discuss the dangers of nuclear weapons . [2] [3] Alan Robock was a 2007 IPCC

author, a member of the organisation when it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize , 2012,

“Self‑assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war”

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSAD.pdf DOA 4/1/19) MDS

The United States and Russia are not the only countries capable of wreaking worldwide climate havoc. All of the nuclear states

except North Korea, with its relatively small arsenal if involved in a nuclear war, have the

destructive power needed to alter the Figure 2. Global precipitation and temperature changes as

a function of smoke emitted Sources: Robock et al. (2007a, 2007b); Toon et al. (2008) Robock and Toon 69 global environment

(Robock et al., 2007b). It is not correct to assume that the effects of a regional war would be

contained within a limited zone. For example, consider a nuclear war in South Asia involving the use

of 100 Hiroshima‑size weapons. In these simulations, more than five million tons of smoke is

lofted to high altitude, where it absorbs sunlight before the light can reach the lower

atmosphere (Toon et al., 2007b). As a result, surface temperatures fall and precipitation declines (Robock et



al., 2007b). The calculated results show a 10 percent global drop in precipitation, with the largest

losses in the low latitudes due to failure of the monsoons. Our climate model also shows

global average temperatures colder than any experienced on Earth in the past 1,000 years and

growing seasons shortened by two to three weeks in the main midlatitude agricultural areas

of both hemispheres . These effects persist for several years, which would threaten a

significant fraction of the worldÕs food supply, perhaps jeopardizing a billion people who are

now only marginally fed as it is (Helfand, 2012). New simulations of the effects of these climate changes on crop production

predict reductions of soybean and corn production in the US Midwest, and of rice production in China, of 20 percent for several years and 10

percent even after a decade (O¬zdogùan et al., 2012; Xia and Robock, 2012). These impacts could be felt even in a

warming world. Imagine the disruption in world food trade with such heavy losses of

production. The smoke would also heat the upper atmosphere by as much as 50 degrees

Celsius for several years. As a consequence, ozone levels over the mid‑latitudes of both

hemispheres would be reduced to values now found only in the Antarctic ozone hole (Mills et

al., 2008).

20 million dead, 2 billion at risk of starvation

Outrider 2017 (Outrider, international journalism potral, August 2017, "Will India and Pakistan’s

Conflict Go Nuclear?”,

https://outrider.org/nuclear‑weapons/articles/will‑india‑and‑pakistans‑conflict‑go‑nuclear/,

Accessed 03/04/2019) IW

What if the unthinkable happened? If 100 Hiroshima‑sized nuclear bombs were dropped on cities in India and

Pakistan , 20 million people would die instantly from the bomb blasts and ensuing fires and radiation.

Firestorms would erupt, releasing massive amounts of smoke into the upper atmosphere. This would cause a 10% reduction



in global precipitation and a sudden drop in temperature. Crops would suffer as smoke

blocked the sunlight and growing seasons became shorter. The climate would be impacted for at least a decade,

perhaps longer. Reports from International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility estimate the

effects of a limited nuclear war on the earth's climate and agriculture. The results are alarming. The physicians initially estimated that one billion

people worldwide could die from starvation. However, additional research by environmental and agricultural experts from Rutgers suggests that

the number may be much larger. Their best estimate is that more than 2 billion people would be at risk of

starvation.

Documents

We negate. Resolved: The United Nations should grant India ... · 2 Rao 19 (Nirupama Rao, former Indian foreign secretary and ambassador to the United States and China, is a global