OU 1NC

Off
A. Violation. The Affirmative violates the term United States This is because the definition of IN is:
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (The Unabridged Edition) 1983. prep: 1.a. Within the confines of; inside.

The affirmative increases incentives for use of renewable energy in Indian Country which is not within the confines of the federation of states forming the nation of the United States. Native American Tribes are tantamount to foreign nations. American Indian Policy Center 2005 http://www.airpi.org/pubs/indinsov.html
American Indian tribal powers originate with the history of tribes managing their own affairs. Case law has established that tribes reserve the rights they had never given away. 1 American Indian Tribes Possess a "Nation-within-a-Nation" Status. Treaties formalize a nation-to-nation relationship between the federal government and the tribes. Trust Responsibility In treaties, Indians reliquished certain rights in exchange for promises from the federal government. Trust responsibility is the government's obligation to honor the trust inherent to these promises and to represent the best interests of the tribes and their members. The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments. It authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with "foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."2

B. FOCUSING ON THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES IS IMPORTANT

1. IT PREVENTS ABUSIVE AFFIRMATIVES If the affirmative could increase incentives for people outside of the United States-they could pick any of the 200 plus countries in the world claiming advantages from increasing alternative fuels. The negative could never prepare adequately. 2. IT GIVES MEANING TO "IN THE UNITED STATES" Focusing on those not within the confines of the federation of the United States obscures the meaning of the United States and confuses it with other places.

3. Infinitely Regressive no brightline to what constitutes domestic production justifies any place US has presence and allows Puerto Rico affs.
This is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and education.

Off
Text: The fifty states and all relevant United States territories should remove restrictions on tribal authority to trade tax credits and should authorize American Indian eligibility for Production Tax credits.
States have successfully provided energy tax credits to natives American Indian Law Review 2008 [Mark Shahinian, third-year law student at the University of
Michigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267. The idea of a tradable tax credit is not a new one, nor is it without precedent. A group advocating renewable energy development on Indian lands originally proposed the idea for tribes 72 and the Western Governors' Association has supported it. 73 In Oregon, the state's Business Energy Tax Credits allow renewable energy project owners to trade ("pass through" is the Oregon term) state renewable energy tax credits to taxable entities. Project owners can be non-profit organizations, tribes or
public entities that partner with Oregon businesses or residents with an Oregon tax liability. 74

CP doesnt link- Results in the plan when politically feasible Aulisi 2007 (Andrew Aulisi, director of the Markets and Enterprise Program, John Larsen, research
analyst, and Jonathan Pershing, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute, Paul Posner, director of the Public Administration Program at George Mason University, 2007, CLIMATE POLICY IN THE STATE LABORATORY: How States Influence Federal Regulation and the Implications for Climate Change Policy in the United States, World Resources Institute, http://pdf.wri.org/climate_policy_in_the_state_laboratory.pdf) Even though federal policymakers may work on issues concurrently with state policymakers, political gridlock, the dominance of a certain political ideology, and other macropolitical circumstances at the national level may prevent the federal governments adoption of state policies. Such circumstances increase the importance of state laboratories, as they can serve not only as a source of new policy ideas but also as holding tanks for policies that may not yet be politically feasible at the federal level. Indeed, it has been argued that states function as a policy
balance wheel, with the states acting as an outlet for positive policy ini- tiative during periods when the national government is either mired in gridlock or, with regard to particular issues, limited by the presence of an ideological policy regime. In

these cases, the nation itself retains the capacity for policy action through the federal system even when it cannot muster the requisite consensus or resolve problems at the national level (Nathan 2005). In the event that the political winds change, whether owing to a change of the party in power, a natural disaster, a national emergency, or some other exogenous event, the resulting policy windows can offer a rapid diffusion of policies that may have been active for years at the state level (Kingdon 1995).

Off
Obama will win by a narrow margin Enten, 9-20
Harry Enten, political science writer for the Guardian, 9-20-2012, Post-convention polling gives definitive view: Obama has consolidated his lead, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidateslead
Any individual national poll is confusing, but the aggregate is a fairly clear Obama edge. Nine pollsters have conducted a survey with a median field date at least a week after the Democratic National Convention. President Obama has led in all of their surveys except for Rasmussen's. National polls, 2012 The median result is Obama ahead by 4 percentage points. You might note that the Gallup and YouGov results are among registered voters. Even when we shave 2.5 points off of Obama's margin for a "likely voter" adjustment, the median result is still Obama, by 3 percentage points. For those who don't like doing the math, a 3-point lead is actually larger than the 1.5-point lead Obama had going into the conventions. The fact that I'm looking only at data one week (or later, for the RNC) after the conventions suggests to me that Obama didn't receive merely a momentary bump but may have gotten the campaign equivalent of a shot of cortisone that will last the rest of the campaign. The factors underlying this campaign have also not shifted in Romney's direction, but rather in Obama's. In May, I wrote that "the 2012 race comes down to Obama's approvals v Romney's favorables". Take a look at this chart of Romney's favorability ratings since 1 June. Favorables 2012 What you see is steadiness or even a slight dip in favorables since the conventions. The absolute numbers are skewed because of different sample populations (likely voters v registered voters v adults), yet the trend is undeniable. Mitt Romney's main electoral failing has been a lack of favorability, and the conventions did nothing to change this factor. Meanwhile, President Obama's achilles heel had been his low job approval rating . A chart of his approvals since the conventions shows a positive trend. Approvals 2012 For the first time in almost a year and a half, Obama's approval is reater than his disapproval in the HuffPollster approval chart. Remember that Obama managed to lead this race when his approval still trailed his disapproval in the HuffPollster chart. As you might expect, his lead has increased, given the rise in his approvals. The state level data is less clear, but we still ca make some keen observations. The baseline electoral college estimate looks like this: Electoral map 2012 There isn't an analyst in the world who thinks that Barack Obama isn't leading in Ohio right now. It is also fairly clear that Obama's Ohio lead is wider than his national margin . The weighted HuffPollster aggregate, which accounts for house effects and weights state level to regional and national estimates, has Obama running 1.3 points ahead of his national percentage in Ohio. Romney's own political director admits that it's not an "easy state". If Obama wins Ohio, he's at 255 electoral votes. A win in Florida puts him in the White House for a second term. Let's, for argument's sake, give Romney Florida, even though he trails there. We'll also afford him North Carolina, where he does hold a small advantage. Romney then must take Colorado and Iowa. Both are states where he seems to be running at least equal to his national numbers, if not somewhat ahead. Still, he is probably losing to Obama in both. Even after giving Romney all these states where he isn't ahead, he is still only at 250 electoral votes. His deficit in Virginia is almost certainly greater than his nationwide hole. A loss in Virginia means he's got to take New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wisconsin. The issue here is that there hasn't been a poll with Romney ahead in Nevada in the last year and a half. Likewise, Wisconsin also seems to be slipping from Romney's grip, with two polls out Wednesday pegging him down by at least 6 points. Only New Hampshire may be trending towards Romney. The bottom line is that the state level isn't any better than the national picture for Romney. In fact, you can argue that

it is considerably worse. Some Romney supporters might argue that this election is still about the economy and the economy stinks bad for the incumbent. The truth is that while the economy may not be booming, it is almost certainly good enough to get an incumbent re-elected. Econometric models projecting the election have a 50:50 split. That should give Romney hope for a comeback, but it definitely doesn't guarantee
one. John Sides makes a powerful argument that the economy, in fact, favors Obama. That's probably why you've seen Obama catching up to Romney on the question of who can best manage the economy. But what about a game-changing event? Gaffes like Romney's 47% remarks have shown no ability to move the polls. Debates, as John Sides points out, have historically almost never made a difference. A foreign policy fiasco would almost certainly result in a rally around the leader effect, a la Carter in 1980, before the incumbent gets blamed. There isn't enough time for the "blame" part of the equation to occur before the election. That's why polls a few weeks after the conventions are usually quite accurate in predicting

the result. The economy is usually factored in by voters at this time, and there isn't a campaign event that can alter the playing field fast enough. Simply put, there hasn't been a single candidate to come back after trailing by 3 points this late in the campaign in the past 60 years. When I look the current polling data and put it into this historical context, I just don't see a Romney victory. It's not that it can't happen; it's just

that 3 points is a good lead in a race that has hasn't shifted easily. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's 3-point lead eventually shrank back to the pre-convention numbers that were so stable for so long. That would fit a historical pattern of tightening before an election. But this race is no toss-up: it now leans pretty hard in Obama's direction.

And, Reid will avoid all budget debates now Taylor 3-17 [Andrew, BusinessWeek, GOP preps for budget battle with Democrats, Obama;
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TIDUO80.htm] The annual budget debate is conducted under arcane rules. The main budget document, called a budget resolution, is a nonbinding measure that sets the parameters for follow-up legislation on spending and taxes. Even though its broader goals usually are not put into place, it is viewed as a statement of party principles. Democrats controlling the Senate do not want a budget debate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he will instead rely on language he inserted in a budget pact last year that allows for floor action on the annual spending bills without a budget resolution. By avoiding a budget debate, Reid protects several vulnerable incumbent Democrats from politically dangerous votes.

Plan circumvents this process undermines Obamas do nothing Congress message key to reelection Drucker 2-23 [Jacob, Harvard Political Review, A $1.3 Trillion Hole, http://hpronline.org/unitedstates/a-1-3-trillion-hole/] Geithner further admitted that Obamas budget, while stabilizing the debt to GDP ratio over the next 10 years, will actually cause the ratio to double within the ensuing 50 years, to the point where the debt equals over 200% of GDP. Aside from being insanely fiscally irresponsible, the budget was proposed for purely political purposes. Obama needs to paint the GOP as obstructionist in order to win reelection Harry Truman-styleby running against a do-nothing congress. And he can only do so if no budget passes, an event virtually guaranteed as the Democratic Senate will never approve a GOP-written House budget. (Obama has not signed a regular budget in over 1000 days.) For a president who seemed so eager to stay above the political fray, Obama has had no compunction playing politics with the nations budget.

Romney win causes China-bashing causes a trade war Gerstein 11

(Josh, writer @ Politico, The GOP's China syndrome, 11/22/12, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68952.html)
Mitt Romney

says America is at war with China a trade war over its undervalued currency. Theyre

stealing our jobs. And were gonna stand up to China, the former Massachusetts governor declared in a recent Republican presidential debate, arguing

that the United States should threaten to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. When Romney steps on stage tonight for another debate, this one devoted to foreign policy, that kind of China-bashing is likely to be a favorite theme . With a moribund economy and relatively little traction for other international issues, the threat posed by cheap Chinese imports
and Chinese purchases of U.S. debt is an irresistible target. The problem, China experts are quick to point out, is that those attacks often fly in the face of the business interests Republicans have traditionally represented, not to mention the record many of the candidates have either supporting trade with China or actively soliciting it. Just last year, for example, Romney slammed President Barack Obama for growth-killing protectionism after he put a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires because of a surge of cheap imports. And, Romney wrote in his book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Protectionism stifles productivity. And though Texas Gov. Rick Perry predicted a t a debate this month that the Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history if they do not change their virtues, a picture posted on the Internet shows a smiling Perry on a trade mission to Shanghai and Beijing posing with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi after presenting him with a pair of cowboy boots. Nor has Perry been shy about encouraging Chinese investments in Texas: In October 2010, he appeared at the announcement of a new U.S. headquarters for Huawei Technologies to be located in Plano, Texas, despite lingering concerns among U.S.

security officials that Huawei-made telecommunications equipment is designed to allow unauthorized access by the Chinese government. Theres the GOP

a certain pandering going on, said Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who adds that rhetoric is squarely at odds with the views of the U.S. establishment, which believes a showdown with China over the trade issue will make things worse, not better. Not all of the 2012 GOP
presidential hopefuls have taken to publicly pummeling Beijing. The only bona fide China expert in the group, former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, has criticized Romney for being cavalier and simplistic in his talk of tariffs. You can give applause lines, and you can kind of pander here and there. You start a trade war if you start slapping tariffs randomly on Chinese products based on currency manipulation, Huntsman said at a recent debate. That doesnt work. Former Sen. Rick Santorum also rejected the idea of slapping tariffs on Beijing if it wont buckle on the currency issue. That just taxes you. I dont want to tax you, Santorum said. Newt Gingrich says he

wants to bring a world of

hurt down on Beijing for alleged Chinese cyberattacks on the U.S. and theft of intellectual property, though hes vague about how. Were going to have to find ways to dramatically raise the pain level for the Chinese cheating, the
former house speaker declares. And Herman Cain talks of a threat from China, but says the answer is to promote growth in the U.S. Chinas economic dominance would represent a national security threat to the USA, and possibly to the rest of the world, Cain wrote in May in the Daily Caller. We can outgrow China because the USA is not a loser nation. We just need a winner in the White House. Romneys

rhetoric has been particularly harsh. Its predatory pricing, its killing jobs in America, he declared at the CNBC debate earlier this month, promising to make a formal complaint to the W orld T rade O rganization about Chinas currency manipulation. I would apply, if necessary, tariffs to make sure that they understand we are willing to play at a level playing field. The
Romney campaign insists those tariffs are entirely distinguishable from the tire duties Obama imposed in 2009. The distinction between Obamas tire action and what Gov. Romney is proposing is simple, said a Romney aide who did not want to be named. President Obama

is

not getting tough with China or pushing them unilaterally, he is handing out political favors to union allies. *Romneys+ policy
focuses on fostering competition by keeping markets open and the playing field level. Romney, who helped set up investment bank Bain Capital, has long been a favorite of Wall Street, so his stridency on the China trade issue has taken some traditional conservatives for whom

Romneys move risk*ed+ a trade war with China and was a remarkably bad idea. In fact, many business leaders give Obama good marks for his China policy. What the Obama administration has done in not labeling China as a currency manipulator is correct, said one U.S. business lobbyist who closely follows U.S.-China trade issues and asked not to be named. Were very leery of a titfree trade is a fundamental tenet by surprise. National Review said for-tat situation, he added, while acknowledging that the anti-China rhetoric is good politics.

That goes nuclear

Taaffe 5
(Peter Taaffe, general secretary of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, China, A New Superpower?, Socialist Alternative.org, Nov 1, 2005, pg. http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=30)
While this conflict is unresolved, the shadow of a trade war looms. Some commentators, like Henry C.K. Liu in the Asia Times, go further and warn that " trade

wars can lead to shooting wars ." China is not the Japan of the 21st century. Japan in the 1980s relied on the U.S. military and particularly its nuclear umbrella against China, and was therefore subject to the pressure
and blackmail of the U.S. ruling class. The fear of the U.S., and the capitalists of the "first world" as a whole, is that China may in time "outcompete" the advanced nations for hi-tech jobs while holding on to the stranglehold it now seems to have in labor-intensive industries. As the OECD commented recently: "In the five-year period to 2003, the number of students joining higher education courses has risen by three and a half times, with a strong emphasis on technical subjects." The number of patents and engineers produced by China has also significantly grown. At the same time, an increasingly capitalist China - most wealth is now produced in the private sector but the majority of the urban labor force is still in state industries - and the urgency for greater energy resources in particular to maintain its spectacular growth rate has brought it into collision on a world scale with other imperialist powers, particularly the U.S.

In a new worldwide version of the "Great

Game" - the clash for control of central Asia's resources in the nineteenth century - the U.S. and China have increasingly come up against and buffeted one another. Up to now, the U.S. has held sway worldwide due to its economic dominance
buttressed by a colossal war machine accounting for 47% of total world arms spending. But Iraq has dramatically shown the limits of this: "A country that cannot control Iraq can hardly remake the globe on its own." (Financial Times) But no privileged group disappears from the scene of history without a struggle. Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. defense secretary, has stated: "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: why this growing [arms] investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" China could ask the same question of the U.S. In

order to maintain its position, the U.S. keeps six nuclear battle fleets permanently at sea, supported by an unparalleled network of bases. As Will Hutton in The Observer has commented, this is not because of "irrational chauvinism or the needs of the militaryindustrial complex, but because

of the pressure they place on upstart countries like China." In turn, the Chinese elite has responded in kind. For instance, in the continuing clash over Taiwan, a major-general in the People's Liberation Army baldly stated that if China was attacked "by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan... I think we would have to respond with nuclear weapons." He added: "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans would have to be prepared that hundreds... of cities would be destroyed by the Chinese." This bellicose nuclear arms rattling shows the contempt of the so-called great powers for the ordinary working-class and peasant peoples of China and the people of the U.S. when their interests are at stake.

Off
A. Uniqueness - The political winds in America are changing. A revolution is emerging. Reject this revolution at your peril. Farrell 10/4 marketwatch, the burning platform (A new Lost Decade is leading to revolution.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=22549 Unfortunately, the new one gets worse: Why? The coming Lost Decade is a backdrop for a wave of class warfare destined to trigger a historic revolution in American politics, bigger than the 29 Crash and Great Depression. Initially
inspired by the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street is a virus spreading rapidly as Occupy Everything, a reform movement that will overshadow the GOP/Tea Party as the voice of the people, leading to an Occupy America. Investors, listen closely: First, well summarize fiv e major signs of Americas new Lost Decade 2011-2021. Then, we summarize seven diverse examples of rebellions across the world adding fuel to Americas accelerating Occupy Wall Street revolution. Why is this crucial for investors? Because these

class wars are guaranteed to deepen Americas market and economic problems during the coming Lost Decade. So listen closely investors: 1. Decade of debt stagnation till 2021 Barrons Gene Epstein warns that Obamas latest is Too Little, Too Late. Even if the president gets everything he asked for in his new proposals, it wont reduce our growing public debt. And he wont get it all. So Americas debt will remain around 80% of GDP for a decade, levels not seen since the 1940s. Thats right, debt will remain dangerously high at least through 2021. And it wont matter who is president. Class warfare will accelerate this job-killing debt cycle. 2. Investors lose faith, bailing out Over at the Wall Street Journal Tom Lauricella warns Investors lose faith in stocks in a historic retreat, investors world-wide during the three months through August pulled some $92 billion out of stock funds in the developed markets, more than reversing the total put into those funds since stocks bottomed in 2009. Worse, theres a widening belief that the mess left behind by the housing bubble and financial crisis will be a morass to contend with for years. Yes, many years. 3. Fed surrenders, cannot fix economy In a Cleveland speech last week Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that with 45% of the unemployed out more than six months, long-term unemployment is now a national crisis the Fed cannot fix. Unheard of this has never happened in the post-war period. Theyre losing the skills they had, they are losing their connections, their attachment to the labor force. But a job-killing Congress wont act. 4. Wall Street still doesnt get it In a recent
Foreign Policy article, William Cohan, a former J. P. Morgan Chase managing director and author of Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World, warns

Wall Street not only learned nothing after the 2008 meltdown, theyre aggressively lobbying to kill all reforms that might break this dangerous cycle in which bankers and traders get
very rich while the rest of us suffer from their mistakes. Wall Street is deaf, blind and myopic, wants no limits on all manner of bets on the market, even at the risk of a U.S. recession. Only

a catastrophe will wake Wall Street. 5. Yes, Americas second Lost Decade just began In a Money interview, Are We the Next Japan? Nomura Research economist Richard Koo sees striking similarities between our current malaise and Japans Lost Decade. Their stimulus did work, but then the Japanese made a horrendous mistake in 1997. The IMF told Japan youre running a huge fiscal deficit with an aging population reduce your deficit. So Japan cut spending and raised taxes and the whole economy came crashing down. Sure sounds familiar. Wall Street protest spread. Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York, some 100 people gathered Sunday outside the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago to protest inequities in the nations financial system . Warning: to Wall Street CEOs, the Super Rich, the top 1% who think they own our government the partys over. No matter who gets elected in 2012 and 2016, the new Lost Decade 2011-2021 will make life miserable for the president and Congress, as with Japan earlier. Worse, this Lost Decade will make life miserable for everybody: corporations, investors, consumers, workers, small
businesses and all our families, with the kind of economic suffering experienced in the painfully long Great Depression era. Yes, big shock dead ahead. The class wars like Arab Spring are accelerating across America. Occupy Wall Street is going viral, spreading through Occupy Together, expanding in dozens of cities across America and the world, growing bigger in commitment, in mission, in boldness a resistance movement waging war against our democracy-killing Super Rich. Next, expect many more class wars, regional rebellions, uprisings against the wealthy yes, this

is the second American Revolution.

Link - Modern forms of development ignore traditional ways of life and force Native
Americans to assimilate into the western Capitalist system, leading down a road to cultural ruin. Duffy and Stubben, 98 (Diane, assistant professor of political science at Iowa State University, and
Jerry, adjunct associate professor in the Professional Studies Department at ISU, former chair of the American Indian Studies Program at ISU, Studies in Comparative International Development, v32, issue 4, Winter) As with other theories of underdevelopment, the assumptions of the Neoclassical Counter Revolution do not
stand up: competitive markets do not always exist; consumers are rarely sovereign; and markets are usually fragmented and often nonmonetized. To people who live on reservations--indeed, to people who live in rural settings in general--the fallacy of these assumptions are immediately apparent, as is the Western industrial bias. Further, this approach ignores culture and existing societal and institutional structures that support a different, more communal way of living. As Pommersheim (1984) rightly points out, development

discourse inevitably involves the presumption that economic growth and increased income are valuable because they lead to increased purchasing power and the ability to acquire material things. But, he argues, "It is this very presumption that disturbs many people in Indian country because it seems to mean a further walk down that non-Indian road that leads to assimilation and 'civilisation.' In other words, to many Indians it is to cultural ruin" (213). Specifically, the Western concept of economic transfer restricts/constricts the Indian sense of "exchange" and strips it of its psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions.

B. Impact - Globalization makes extinction inevitable- social and environmental factors build positive feedbacks that create a cascade of destruction - only massive social reorganization of society can produce sustainable change and save the planet Ehrenfeld 5, (David, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources @ Rutgers University, The
Environmental Limits to Globalization, Conservation Biology Vol. 19 No. 2 April 2005) The known effects of globalization on the environment are numerous and highly significant. Many others are undoubtedly unknown. Given these circumstances, the first question that suggests itself is: Will globalization, as we see it now, remain a permanent state of affairs (Rees 2002; Ehrenfeld 2003a)? The principal environmental side effects of globalizationclimate change, resource exhaustion (particularly cheap energy), damage to agroecosystems, and the spread of exotic species, including pathogens (plant, animal, and human)are sufficient to make this economic system unstable and short-lived. The socioeconomic consequences of globalization are likely to do the same. In my book The Arrogance of Humanism (1981), I claimed that our ability to manage global systems, which depends on our being able to predict the results of the things we do, or even to understand the systems we have created, has been greatly exaggerated. Much of our alleged control is science fiction; it doesn't work because of theoretical limits that we ignore at our peril. We live in a dream world in which reality testing is something we
must never, never do, lest we awake. In 1984 Charles Perrow explored the reasons why we have trouble predicting what so many of our own created systems will do, and why they surprise us so unpleasantly while we think we are managing them. In his book Normal Accidents, which does not concern globalization, he listed the critical characteristics of some of today's

complex systems. They are highly interlinked, so a change in one part can affect many others, even those that seem quite distant. Results of some processes feed back on themselves in unexpected ways. The controls of the system often interact with each other unpredictably.
We have only indirect ways of finding out what is happening inside the system. And we have an incomplete understanding of some of the system's processes. His example of such a system is a nuclear power plant, and this, he explained, is why system-wide accidents in nuclear plants cannot be predicted or eliminated by system design. I would argue that globalization

is a similar system, also subject to catastrophic accidents, many of them environmentalevents that we cannot define until after they have occurred, and perhaps not even then. The comparatively few commentators who have predicted the collapse of globalization have generally given social reasons to support their arguments. These deserve some consideration here, if only because the environmental

and social consequences of globalization interact so strongly with each other. In 1998, the British political economist
John Gray, giving scant attention to environmental factors, nevertheless came to the conclusion that globalization is unstable and will be shortlived. He said, There

is nothing in today's global market that buffers it against the social strains arising from highly uneven economic development within and between the world's diverse societies. The result, Gray states, is that The combination of [an] unceasing stream of new technologies, unfettered market competition and weak or fractured social institutions has weakened both sovereign states and multinational corporations in their ability to control important events. Note that Gray claims that not only nations but also
multinational corporations, which are widely touted as controlling the world, are being weakened by globalization. This idea may come as a surprise, considering the growth of multinationals in the past few decades, but I believe it is true. Neither

governments nor giant corporations are even remotely capable of controlling the environmental or social forces released by globalization, without first controlling globalization itself. Two of the social critics of globalization with the most dire predictions about its
doom are themselves masters of the process. The late Sir James Goldsmith, billionaire financier, wrote in 1994, It must surely be a mistake to adopt an economic policy which makes you rich if you eliminate your national workforce and transfer production abroad, and which bankrupts you if you continue to employ your own people. It is the poor in the rich countries who will subsidize the rich in the poor countries. This will have a serious impact on the social cohesion of nations. Another free-trade billionaire, George Soros, said much the same thing in 1995: The collapse of the global marketplace would be a traumatic event with unimaginable consequences. Yet I find it easier to imagine than the continuation of the present regime. How much more powerful these statements are if we factor in the environment! As

globalization

collapses, what will happen to people, biodiversity, and ecosystems? With respect to people, the gift of prophecy is not required to answer this question. What will happen depends on where you are and how you live. Many citizens of the Third World are still comparatively self-sufficient; an unknown number of these will survive the breakdown of globalization and its attendant chaos. In
the developed world, there are also people with resources of self-sufficiency and a growing understanding of the nature of our social and environmental problems, which may help them bridge the years of crisis. Some species are adaptable; some are not. For the nonhuman residents of Earth, not all news will be bad. Who would have predicted that wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), one of the wiliest and most evasive of woodland birds, extinct in New Jersey 50 years ago, would now be found in every county of this the most densely populated state, and even, occasionally, in adjacent Manhattan? Who would have predicted that black bears (Ursus americanus), also virtually extinct in the state in the mid-twentieth century, would now number in the thousands (Ehrenfeld 2001)? Of course these recoveries are unusualrare bright spots in a darker landscape. Finally, a

few ecological systems may survive in a comparatively undamaged state; most will be stressed to the breaking point, directly or indirectly, by many environmental and social factors interacting unpredictably. Lady Luck, as always, will have much to say. In his book The Collapse of Complex Societies, the archaeologist Joseph Tainter (1988) notes that collapse, which has happened to all past empires, inevitably results in human systems of lower complexity and less specialization, less centralized control, lower economic activity, less information
flow, lower population levels, less trade, and less redistribution of resources. All of these changes are inimical to globalization. This lesscomplex, less-globalized condition is probably what human societies will be like when the dust settles. I do not think, however, that we can make such specific predictions about the ultimate state of the environment after globalization, because we anything like this this situation. The end of the current economic system and the

have never experienced

exceptionally rapid, global environmental damage before. History and science have little to tell us in transition to a postglobalized state is and will be accompanied by a desperate last raid on resources and a chaotic flurry of environmental destruction
whose results cannot possibly be told in advance. All one can say is that the surviving species, ecosystems, and resources will be greatly impoverished compared with what we have now, and our descendants will not thank us for having adopted, however briefly, an economic system that consumed their inheritance and damaged their planet so wantonly. Environment is a true bottom lineconcern for its condition must

trump all purely economic growth strategies if both the developed and developing nations are to survive and prosper. Awareness of the environmental limits that globalized industrial society denies or ignores should
not, however, bring us to an extreme position of environmental determinism. Those whose preoccupations with modern civilization's very real social problems cause them to reject or minimize the environmental constraints discussed here (Hollander 2003) are guilty of seeing only half the picture. Environmental scientists sometimes fall into the same error. It

is tempting to see the salvation of civilization and environment solely in terms of technological improvements in efficiency of energy extraction and use, control of pollution, conservation of water, and regulation of environmentally harmful activities. But such needed developments will not be sufficientor may not even occurwithout corresponding social change, including an end to human population growth and the glorification of consumption, along with the elimination of economic mechanisms that increase the gap between rich and poor. The environmental and social problems inherent in globalization are completely interrelatedany attempt to treat them as separate entities is unlikely to succeed in easing the transition to a postglobalized world. Integrated change that combines environmental awareness, technological

innovation, and an altered world view is the only answer to the life-threatening problems exacerbated by globalization (Ehrenfeld 2003b). If such integrated change occurs in time, it will likely happen partly by our own
design and partly as an unplanned response to the constraints imposed by social unrest, disease, and the economics of scarcity. With respect to the planned component of change, we

are facing, as eloquently described by Rees (2002), the ultimate challenge to human intelligence and self-awareness, those vital qualities we humans claim as uniquely our own. Homo sapiens will eitherbecome fully human or wink out ignominiously, a guttering candle in a violent storm of our own making. If change does not come quickly, our global civilization will join Tainter's (1988) list as the latest and most dramatic example of collapsed complex societies. Is there anything that could slow globalization quickly, before it collapses disastrously of its own environmental and social weight? It is still not too late to curtail the use of energy, reinvigorate local and regional communities while restoring a culture of concern for each other, reduce nonessential global trade and especially global finance (Daly & Cobb 1989), do more to control introductions of exotic species (including pathogens), and accelerate the growth of sustainable agriculture.
Many of the needed technologies are already in place. It is true that some of the damage to our environmentspecies extinctions, loss of crop and domestic animal varieties, many exotic species introductions, and some climatic changewill be beyond repair. Nevertheless, the opportunity to help our society move past globalization in an orderly way, while there is time, is worth our most creative and passionate efforts. The citizens of the United States and other nations have to understand that our

global economic system has placed both our environment and our society in peril, a peril as great as that posed by any war of the twentieth century. This understanding, and the actions that follow, must come not only from enlightened leadership, but also from grassroots consciousness raising. It is still possible to reclaim the planet from a self-destructive economic system that is bringing us all down together, and this can be a task that bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals. The crisis is here, now. What we have to do has become obvious. Globalization can be scaled back to manageable proportions only in the context of an altered world view that rejects materialism even as it restores a sense of communal obligation. In this way, alone, can we achieve real homeland security, not just in the United
States, but also in other nations, whose fates have become so thoroughly entwined with ours within the global environment we share.

C. Alternative - The alternative is to do nothing this solves the inevitability of capitalism Zizek 08Senior Research @ Institute for Social Studies-Ljubljana [Slavoj, Violence, p. 207-217
While the parallel holds, the concluding characterisation seems to fall short: the

unsettling message of Seeing is not so much the indissolubility of both people and government as much the compulsive nature of democratic rituals of freedom. What happens is that by abstaining from voting, people effectively dissolve the government-not only in the limited sense of overthrowing the existing government, but more radically. Why is the government thrown into such a panic by the voters' abstention? It is compelled to confront the fact that it exists, that it exerts power, only insofar as it is accepted as such by its subjects-accepted even in the mode of rejection. The voters' abstention goes further than the intra-political negation, the vote of no confidence: it rejects the very frame of decision. In psychoanalytic terms, the voters' abstention is something like the
psychotic Verwerfung (foreclosure, rejection/repudiation), which is a more radical move than repression (Verdrangung). According to Freud,

the repressed is intellectually accepted by the subject, since it is named, and at the same time is negated because the subject refuses to recognise it, refuses to recognise him or herself in it. In contrast to
this, foreclosure rejects the term from the symbolic tout court. To circumscribe the contours of this radical rejection, one is tempted to evoke Badiou's provocative thesis: "It is better

to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that which Empire already recognizes as existent.''6 Better to do nothing than to engage in localised acts the ultimate function of which is to make the system run more smoothly (acts such as providing space for the multitude of new subjectivities). The threat today is not passivity, but pseudoactivity, the urge to "be active," to "participate," to mask the nothingness of what goes on. People intervene all the time, "do something"; academics participate in meaningless debates, and so on. The truly difficult thing is to step back, to withdraw . Those in power often prefer even a "critical" participation, a dialogue, to silence-just to engage us in "dialogue," to make sure our ominous passivity is broken. The voters' abstention is thus a true political act: it forcefully confronts us with the vacuity of today's democracies.If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and

tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that they were not violent enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.

Framing
Interpretation: You should evaluate the soundness of the policy based on the consequences of the plan.

First, Objections to the personal practice of Utilitarianism are irrelevant. Utilitarianism is public policy which requires that leaders take the action which is in the best interest of their people.*****
William H.

Shaw. PhD. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. P. 171-2. 1999

Utilitarianism ties right and wrong to the promotion of well-being, but it is not only a personal ethic or a guide to individual conduct. It is also a "public philosophy"' - that is, a normative basis for
public policy and the structuring of our social, legal, and political institutions. Indeed, it was just this aspect of utilitarianism that primarily engaged Bentham, John Stuart Mill, his father James, and their friends and votaries. For them utilitarianism

was, first and foremost, a social and political philosophy and only secondarily a private or personal moral code. In particular, they saw utilitarianism as providing the yardstick by which to measure, assess, and, where necessary, reform government social and economic policy and the judicial institutions of their day. In the public realm, utilitarianism is especially compelling. Because of its consequentialist character, a utilitarian approach to public policy requires officials to base their actions, procedures, and programs on the most accurate and detailed understanding they can obtain of the circumstances in which they are operating and the likely results of the alternatives open to them. Realism and empiricism are the hallmarks of a utilitarian orientation, not customary practice, unverified abstractions, or wishful thinking. Promotion of the well-being of all seems to be the appropriate, indeed the only sensible, touchstone for assessing public policies and institutions, and the standard objections to utilitarianism as a personal morality carry little or no weight against it when viewed as a public philosophy.

(2) Moral absolutism results in paralysis and tragedy. Only Utilitarianism can resolve these moral conflicts.
Gerard Elfstrom. Ethics for a Shrinking World 1990. p. 21-22.

Utilitarianism has a bad name, and rights theories have strong rhetorical advantages. In recent history the language of rights has continually
But if utilitarianism and rights-based theories are similar, why choose the utilitarian? been used to press the claims of the oppressed and needy. Following the horrors of the Second World War, it was natural for the United Nations to formulate its highest goals and values in terms of rights. It has long been recognized that those who wish to press their claims in the strongest possible fashion will cloak them in the language of rights. There

are, nonetheless, several good reasons for returning to embattled yet perennial utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism has parsimony on its side for one thing. It need not rely on difficult ideas of autonomy, personhood, or human
dignity. It can get essentially the same results without them. A related advantage is that utilitarian theories do not drift off on ideas like autonomy, freedom, or democracy without asking why anyone should care about them.

It is useful for

demythologizing obscure ideas. Does `freedom' mean, for example, anything more than the ability to choose and act on one's choices? If not, why should anyone worry about it?Another abstract and obscure concept important for rights theorists is that of autonomy. They construct various arguments founded on claims that people are autonomous and that autonomy should be respected. The difficulty is that people display varying levels of autonomy, and it is stretching things to claim that some people in some situations are autonomous at all. The degree of autonomy enjoyed by the common soldier in the heat of
battle and the experienced physician is totally different. The physician has expertise, is used to making judgments and acting upon them, can gain some detachment from his or her situation, and enjoys the respect and deference of others. The physician comes close to exemplifying what philosophers have in mind when they talk about autonomous being. The common soldier enjoys none of these qualities. Most people are arranged between the physician and the soldier in their possession of them.

When analyzing moral responsibility, it is unrealistic at best to argue blandly that human beings are autonomous and to proceed from there. Moral responsibility is better served if it is asked in concrete terms what people can be expected to do and what kinds of institutions can he constructed to support a sense of responsibility. Utilitarianism is more amenable to bringing moral concepts down to earth and giving them concrete meaning than are rights theories. The other practical advantages of utilitarianism are more widely appreciated. It is very difficult for rights-based theories to explain what must be done when rights conflict or must be overridden . There is no room for compromise or negotiation when rights are at stake. Rights theorists are prone to think of this inflexibility as a benefit, a safeguard against the loss of rights. In real-world conflicts where opposing claims are at stake, however, conflict can easily harden into protracted, bitter struggle if there is common insistence on rights. Where opposing parties are convinced they have immutable rights, they are unlikely to compromise and likely to insist on their due to the bitter end. Utilitarian theories can accommodate these conflicts in ways very difficult for rights theories to match.

(3) There is no plausible alternative to Utilitarianism that does not result in mass murder.**** Wasserman and Strudler 2003 Philosophy and Public Affairs 31.1
We have argued that there is not

yet an adequate nonconsequentialist account of the abiding conviction that it is wrong to save the lesser rather than the greater number. Such an account must not only explain the core intuition that the numbers count, but it must also plausibly accommodate, or explain why one should reject, another robust intuition about numbers: That failing to save the larger group is a greater wrong the larger the disparity in numbers; that it is

a greater wrong to save one person rather than a thousand than to save one person rather than two. A consequentialist offers an easy explanation of this intuition in terms of the greater waste of lives in the former
case, but the intuition is less easily explained by an account that faults the rescuer for failing to adopt a decision procedure that respects the equality of the imperiled lives. On such an account, the rescuer who chooses an inappropriate procedure, such as a coin toss or a proportional lottery, commits a single moral er- ror. Although his erroneous choice may wrong more or fewer people, de- pending on the number of people in the larger group (or the total num- ber of imperiled people), it is not obvious why that choice is worse if it wrongs more people; the coin-tossing rescuer is not like a recidivist who commits serial wrongs. Moreover, even

if his choice were regarded as morally worse the greater the number of people it wronged, this would not explain the intuition that the wrongfulness of his choice depends on the disparity in numbers between the two sides. It is only if, per Kavka, the rescuer is seen as
disregarding the lives of the excess members of the larger group that the wrong can be seen as greater the larger the ex-

in treating the failure to save the greater number as tantamount to wasting or neglecting lives. It may be that a nonconsequentialist account will have to plausibly reject the intuition that links the disparity in numbers with the magnitude of the wrong if it is to overcome the stubborn appeal of consequentialism in forced choices among lives.
cess. But we have argued that that account is vulnerable to the same criticism as consequentialist accounts,

(4) We dont have to win that there alternative system of ethics is bad. Utilitarianism does not require one to forsake all other moral codes. *****
William H. Shaw. PhD. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. P. 170. 1999.

Although the principle of utility remains the final standard for assessing actions, it is a selflimiting principle. First, the utilitarian principle determines whether, when, and to what degree praise or blame is
appropriate. In particular, it will often be wrong on utilitarian grounds to criticize someone for failing to maximize well-being.

Second, utilitarians will want to encourage in themselves and in others commitments,

motivations, dispositions, and character traits that, while generally conducive to the good, occasionally or even frequently lead one to act in ways that do not maximize happiness. There are good utilitarian reasons for one to be, or try to become, the kind of person who cares about things other than maximizing general utility. Third, and related, utilitarians will seek to teach, promote, and internalize in themselves dispositions to act in accord with certain moral rules and principles, general adherence to which will be utility maximizing. The benefits that flow from people being committed to such principles and knowing that others are, too, is of the greatest importance, but people's accepting these moral principles precludes, in all but the most unusual circumstances, their putting them aside in an effort to boost utility.

Self Determination
Self- Determination isnt modeled- Governments are empirically unwilling to negotiate with secessionist groups Walter, 2003.(Barbara F., Associate Professor Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at
University of California, San Diego, December, REPUTATION AND WAR: Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict, International Studies Revie w. Vol. 5, no. 4., http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/wab04/wab04.pdf ) The most intractable civil wars in the last half of the twentieth century were not ethnic civil wars or ideological civil wars. The most intractable conflicts were those fought over territory. Between 1940 and 1996,

combatants fighting territorial civil wars were 70 percent less likely to initiate peace negotiations than combatants fighting any other type of civil war.1 And once begun, these negotiations rarely brought peace. In only 17 percent of the cases where a government faced rebels who sought independence or greater regional autonomy did the government agree to accommodate the rebels in any way. This pattern was confirmed in studies of inter-state disputes. Luard (1986), Holsti (1991),
Goertz and Diehl (1992), and Vasquez(1993) each found that territorial issues are one of the most frequent sources of war, and that competing governments are less likely to resolve disagreements over territory than any other issue. And Hensel (1996) found that territorial disputes are more likely to

escalate, to produce a greater number of fatalities, and be more conflictual than non-territorial confrontations. Unlike most other issues, governments show a surprising unwillingness to negotiate over land in order to avoid or end otherwise costly conflicts. Why do governments so often refuse to
negotiate over territory, and under what conditions will they agree to negotiate and make some accommodation for greater autonomy or independence?

Self-Determination cannot be attained via the state- it must be created by the Native Americans themselves Peter d'Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst. October 24, 1997
*American Indian Sovereignty: Now you see it, Now you dont, http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html]
Ultimately, it is land -- and a people's relationship to land -- that is at issue in "indigenous sovereignty" struggles. To know that "sovereignty" is a legal-theological concept allows us to understand these struggles as spiritual projects, involving questions about who "we" are as beings among beings, peoples among peoples. Sovereignty arises from within a people as their unique expression of themselves as a

people. It is not produced by court decrees or government grants, but by the actual ability of a people to sustain themselves in a place. This is self-determination. Self-determination of indigenous peoples will be attained "through means other than those provided by a conqueror's rule of law and its discourses of conquest." [Williams, 327.] The "anachronistic premises" [Id.] of the current system of international law -- "discovery" and "state sovereignty" -- must be discarded in order to understand self-determination clearly and see a way to manifest it. This is the real struggle of indigenous peoples: "to redefine radically the conceptions of their rights and status.... to articulat[e] and defin[e] [their] own vision within the global community." [328.] On the plus side for
all of us, this struggle has the "potential for broadening perspectives on our human condition." [ Id.] As Phillip Deere said, "It is a mistake to talk about an American Indian way of life. We are talking about a human being way of life." [Deere.]

The international community is currently blocking independence aspirations of the Kurds of northern Iraq Bose, May 22.(Sumantra, Professor of International and Comparative Politics at the London School of

Economics and Political Science, Kosovo to Kashmir: the self-determination dilemma, 2008. http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/kosovo-to-kashmir-autonomy-secession-and-democracy) This status-quo proclivity of the international system is not surprising. The most influential memberstates of the international system have an obvious interest in not rocking the boat, and this is reflected in the behaviour of international institutions. The international system is apprehensive of encouraging, or seeming to encourage, instability and fractiousness. It is alive to the sensitivities and clout of major states, such as India or China, that contain groups seeking self-determination. It is acutely conscious of the risk of regional destabilisation - the blocked independence aspirations of the Kurds of northern Iraq are a case in point. And it is reluctant to admit new members to the club of sovereign states except in instances of a fait accompli on the ground - such as Bangladesh, Eritrea in the early 1990s, the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the "velvet divorce" of the Czechs and Slovaks.

U.S. support for self-determination destroys U.S.-Turkey relations Newsweek, 1/28/2002

Turkey's nightmare is not that an invasion of Iraq will produce an independent Kurdish state on its southern border. "That's not an option," a senior source close to the military explained. The nightmare is that the Army would be forced to preclude that option by occupying northern Iraq. (With 12 percent of its population Kurdish and having battled a terrorist movement for decades, Turkey believes that Kurdish selfdetermination even across the border would mean the end of the nation's unitary existence.) There are already contingency plans for such an operation in Ankara. "If there is an American intervention," this source told me, "we would have to watch and see whether the Kurds began rising up in northern Iraq--and they likely will. We would be forced to make sure that once the war ends we are in a military position to affect the political settlement that follows. It's a last resort, but we have to be masters of our own fate."

Washington has told Ankara that it supports the principle that Iraq should remain one nation. Many Turkish generals don't believe it. They think that once the war begins, all bets are off. The Iraqi Kurds have been the chief opposition to Saddam Hussein for a decade. Were they to declare
independence, the United States would not crush them. We're for self-determination, remember? As a result,

Turkey wants assurances that no Afghan-style operation--bombing plus reliance on local forces-will be attempted. (In such a scenario, the Kurds would play the role of the Northern Alliance and thus
would become the victors.) A senior military officer observed that if 500,000 American troops were required to evict Saddam from Kuwait, then surely the much larger task of occupying Iraq would require at least as many American troops.

Kurds will turn partial self-determination into a bid for their own statenow is the key time for the US to stabilize the crisis Martin Chulov, November 6, 2006 *Middle East correspondent for The Austrailian* (LexisNexis)
In Baghdad, the dream of national unity appears to be slipping away, with little that the new Shia-led Government can do to stop it. The Shi'ites have willing benefactors across the border in Iran. And the Kurds will not take a lot of convincing to turn their partial self-determination into an outright bid for a state of their own. Iraq is now at its most delicate phase since Saddam fell. Baghdad and Washington need his sentence to build confidence in a deeply fragmented society, but they know peace requires more than the slaying of a monster. TURKEY'S current military offensive inside northern Iraq has touched off a crisis - one to which several other players in the region have contributed. Although the ultimate responsibility for ending this crisis falls on Turkey, all of the others, including the United States, must do their part to prevent a larger regional conflagration. Turkey's ostensible reason for sending 10,000 troops into the mountainous north of Iraq is to punish the separatist guerrilla group known as the PKK for its terrorist operations and attacks on Turkish soldiers inside Turkey. However, the Kurdish Regional Government in the north of Iraq has charged that Turkey has an ulterior motive: to destabilize that relatively peaceful and prosperous area.

Western oriented Turkey is key to check Russian imperialism Zbigniew Brzezinski, Professor of American Foreign Policy at John Hopkins University, 1997, The
Grand Chessboard, p. 149-150 In this region, America shares a common interest not only with a stable, pro-Western Turkey but also with Iran and China. A gradual improvement in American-Iranian relations would greatly increase global access to the region and, more specifically, reduce the more immediate threat to Azerbaijans survival. Chinas growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the areas independence are also congruent with Americas interests. Chinas backing of Pakistans efforts in Afghanistan is also a positive factor, for closer Pakistani-Afghan relations would make international access to Turkmenistan more feasible, thereby helping to reinforce both that state and Uzbekistan (in the event that Kazakstan were to falter). Turkeys evolution and orientation are likely to be especially decisive for the future of the Caucasian states. If Turkey sustains its path to Europeand if Europe does not close its doors to Turkeythe states of the Caucasus are also likely to gravitate into the European orbit, a prospect they fervently desire. But if Turkeys Europeanization grinds to a halt, for either internal or external reasons, then Georgia and Armenia will have no choice but to adapt to Russias inclinations. Their future will then become a function of Russias own evolving relationship with the expanding Europe, for good or ill.

Russian nationalism leads to global war Ariel Cohen, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 1/25/1996, Heritage Foundation Reports
Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $ 6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult.

Deterrence prevents India/Pakistan conflict Tepperman 2009 (Jonathan Tepperman, Deputy Editor at Newsweek Magazine and former Deputy
Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, September 14, 2009, Newsweek, September 14, 2009, Lexis Academic) The record since then shows the same pattern repeating: nuclear-armed enemies slide toward war, then pull back, always for the same reasons. The best recent example is India and Pakistan, which fought three bloody wars after independence before acquiring their own nukes in 1998. Getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction didn't do anything to lessen their animosity. But it did dramatically mellow their behavior. Since acquiring atomic

weapons, the two sides have never fought another war, despite severe provocations (like Pakistani-based terrorist attacks on India in 2001 and 2008). They have skirmished once. But during that flare-up, in Kashmir in 1999, both countries were careful to keep the fighting limited and to avoid threatening the other's vital interests. Sumit Ganguly, an Indiana University professor and coauthor of the forthcoming India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, has found that on

both sides, officials' thinking was strikingly similar to that of the Russians and Americans in 1962. The prospect of war brought Delhi and Islamabad face to face with a nuclear holocaust, and leaders in each country did what they had to do to avoid it.

Native American Econ

No impact to this advantage literally no nuclear waste has been dumped on Indian reservations USFG asked them to do it in the 80s but declined.
The aff cant solve poverty- colonialism has undermined attempts to modernize and develop. Anders, 81 (Gary C., professor of economics and Native studies, University of Alaska, The American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 40, Number 3, July, Page Lexis) In many ways the present underdevelopment of other Native Americans is a direct result of their experiences with White colonialism and the structures of dominance and dependence it imposes. The reason for this is that "by its very nature colonialism produces a fundamental transformation of the colonial society, its institutions, and its entire social fabric" (20). The impact of the political, legal, and economic aspects of colonialism undermined tribal structures, and in the Cherokee case lead to what Frank calls "the development of underdevelopment" (21). Historical data show that the Cherokees once possessed the ability to innovate new technologies and adopt them as a means of bringing about their social and economic development. Once the Cherokees had their own government, schools, courts, and other public institutions. The Cherokees demonstrated a remarkable capacity to modernize dramatically, but by government fiat the Cherokee Nation (as were other Indian Nations) was abolished so that Whites could take their lands and establish their own State. Consider the data in Table 1.

Native American poverty is rooted in history and continues to hamper any attempts at development. Anders, 81 (Gary C., professor of economics and Native studies, University of Alaska, The American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 40, Number 3, July, Page Lexis) THE PURPOSE of this discussion has been to examine, through a representative case study, the connections between Native American underdevelopment and historical factors that influenced their potential development. My basic argument can be summarized as follows: Native American poverty and underdevelopment are direct products of historical consequences, and the adverse effects of the Indians' trust relationship with the Federal Government will continue to be felt in ways that condition, inhibit and handicap their potential for future economic development.