Afghanistan Stability (1/2)..............................................................................................................................................

2
Afghanistan Stability (2/2)..............................................................................................................................................3
Central Asia Conflict......................................................................................................................................................4
Central Asia Conflict......................................................................................................................................................5
China War.......................................................................................................................................................................6
Democracy......................................................................................................................................................................7
Dollar Hegemony Good..................................................................................................................................................8
Economy (1/3)................................................................................................................................................................9
Economy (2/3)..............................................................................................................................................................10
Economy (3/3)..............................................................................................................................................................11
Food Security................................................................................................................................................................13
Hegemony.....................................................................................................................................................................14
Israel-Iran Strike/War...................................................................................................................................................16
Kashmir War.................................................................................................................................................................17
Middle East War...........................................................................................................................................................18
NATO Alliance.............................................................................................................................................................19
Oil Shocks.....................................................................................................................................................................20
Pakistani Collapse.........................................................................................................................................................21
Proliferation..................................................................................................................................................................22
Racism...........................................................................................................................................................................23
Russian War..................................................................................................................................................................24
Soft Power.....................................................................................................................................................................25
Taiwan China War........................................................................................................................................................26
Terrorism Impact..........................................................................................................................................................27
Trade Good...................................................................................................................................................................28
US Russian War............................................................................................................................................................29
 Afghanistan Stability (1/2)
This instability spills over to Central Asia --- causes conflict that draws in Russia
Paul Goble 10, Georgian Daily, “Afghan Conflict Spreading into Central Asia, Russian Analyst Says”, 1-14,
http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16458&Itemid=65

Because NATO has chosen to supply its forces in Afghanistan via Central Asia and because its battles
against the Taliban in the northern part of that country have led to a dramatic increase in the number of
Tajiks and Uzbeks in that radical group, the conflict in Afghanistan is spreading into portions of Central Asia
itself.
Indeed, Moscow analyst Aleksandr Shustov argues in an essay posted online today, Central Asia now faces “the threat of
Afghanization,” something he implies both the leaders of the countries in that region and of Russia should take into consideration when
deciding how much to support the US-led effort south of the former Soviet border.
Shustov says that “the increase in the transportation and communication
role of the Central Asian republics for
the US and NATO is being accompanied by a threat to their military and political stability,” a trend
exacerbated by recent changes in the composition of the Taliban itself
(www.stoletie.ru/geopolitika/centralnaja_azija_ugroza_afganizacii_2010-01-14.htm).
In the course of the spring and fall of the past year, he continues, a wave of armed actions and clashes, connected by analysts
with the penetration of illegal armed formations from Afghanistan and Pakistan, has passed through the
three republics of ‘the conflict triangle’ of Central Asia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.”
“The majority of these incidents, Shustov says, “took place on the territory of the most explosive region of
Central Asia – the Fergana Valley,” which is the most densely populated of that area and which suffers from high rates of
unemployment and increasing problems with the supply of water and other government services.
Shustov provides a detailed chronology of these attacks, linking them not only to the desire of the Taliban to undermine
governments who are providing assistance to its opponents but also to an increase in the number of clashes
between the Taliban and NATO forces in the northern portion of Afghanistan.
Historically, the Moscow commentator says, the Taliban have been primarily a Pushtun organization, but in the north, a region
populated largely by Tajiks and Uzbeks, the radical Islamist group has sought to recruit from these two
groups whose co-nationals form the titular people of two of the most important Central Asian countries.
In the Kunduz province, Shustov continues, “approximately 20 percent of the Taliban formations already consist of
Tajiks and Uzbeks,” at least some of whom are engaged in crossborder activities such as drug trafficking and who have an
interest in undermining the Central Asian states that they believe are helping the opponents of the Taliban.
Moreover, as NATO military operations in northern Afghanistan have increased, there has been a rising tide of refugees into the
neighboring countries of Central Asia, people who “under the conditions of growing military-political
instability fear for their lives” and often support radical groups.
Many politicians and experts are concerned that Tajikistan, which in comparison with neighboring Uzbekistan has extremely limited military
possibilities also may be drawn into the Afghan conflict as a result.” If that happens, Shustov argues, then “inevitably”
Russia will be drawn in as well.

Afghani government collapse triggers regional conflagration and ignites US/Russia/China

tension.
Morgan ‘07
[Stephen John, Former Member of British Labour Party Executive Committee, “Better another Taliban Afghanistan,
than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?” http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639]
However events may prove him sorely wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war intensifies, he has no guarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon
into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say. Moreover, should the Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan, as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country,

the likely break up of Afghanistan along

then a Taliban Pashtun caliphate could be established which would act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan. Then,

ethnic lines, could, indeed, lead the way to the break up of Pakistan, as well. Strong centrifugal forces have always
bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new world situation , the country could be faced with
civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a military-fundamentalist coup d’état.
Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was “Osama” (not a Pakistani name) is
 Afghanistan Stability (2/2)

a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be
ripe for a coup d’état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers
would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions,

mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia
populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south

this would also spill over into India both with

Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly,

regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly

nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could no be ruled out. Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al
Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a “Pandora's box” for the region and the world.

With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan
nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons
secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic

plates of global relations. It could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US.
 Central Asia Conflict
Nuclear war.
Dr. M. Ehsan Ahrari, Professor of National Security and Strategy of the Joint and Combined Warfighting School
at the Armed Forces Staff College, 8/1/’1 (www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=112)

South and Central Asia constitute a part of the world where a well-designed American strategy might help
avoid crises or catastrophe. The U.S. military would provide only one component of such a strategy, and a
secondary one at that, but has an important role to play through engagement activities and regional confidence-
building. Insecurity has led the states of the region to seek weapons of mass destruction, missiles, and
conventional arms. It has also led them toward policies which undercut the security of their neighbors. If such
activities continue, the result could be increased terrorism, humanitarian disasters, continued low-level
conflict and potentially even major regional war or a thermonuclear exchange. A shift away from this pattern
could allow the states of the region to become solid economic and political partners for the United States, thus
representing a gain for all concerned.

Central Asian war will draw in the U.S., Russia, Nato, Turkey, Iran and China and escalate globally

Peimani, 2 - Central Asia and Caucasus specialist at the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford
(Hooman, Failed Transition, Bleak Future: War and Instability in Central Asia and the Caucasus, p. 142-143)

The impact of war and instability in the Caucasus or Central Asia will not be confined to the countries immediately
affected. Any local conflict could escalate and expand to its neighboring countries, only to destabilize its entire
respective region. Furthermore, certain countries with stakes in the stability of Central Asia and/or the Caucasus
could well be dragged into such a conflict, intentionally or unintentionally. Regardless of the form or extent of their intervention in a
future major war, the sheer act of intervention could further escalate the war, increase the human suffering, and plant the seeds for its further
escalation. Needless to say, this could only further contribute to the devastation of all parties involved and especially of the "hosting" CA or
certain factors could even kindle a military confrontation between and among the five
Caucasian countries. In fact,
regional and non-regional states with long-term interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus. This scenario could
potentially destabilize large parts of Asia and Europe. The geographical location of the two regions as a link
between Asia and Europe--shared to different extents by Iran, Turkey, and Russia--creates a "natural" geographical
context for the expansion of any regional war involving those states to other parts of Asia and Europe. Added to this,
Iran, China, Turkey, Russia, and the United States all have ties and influence in parts of Asia and Europe. They are
also members of regional organizations such as the Economic Cooperation Organization (Iran and Turkey) or
military organizations such as NATO (Turkey and the United States). These geographical, political, economic and
military ties could help expand any conflict in which they are involved. For all the reasons mentioned, war and instability in the
countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia will be bad news for a great number of countries, near or far. It is therefore in the interest of all the
potential parties to any future military conflict in the two regions to avoid actions that could instigate it. They should also refrain from acts that
could unnecessarily escalate such conflicts should they occur. On the contrary, they should employ all their powers to contain and to end such
conflicts. Perhaps more importantly than any of these, they

should all contribute to the efforts of the Caucasian and CA countries to revitalize their economics and resolve their disputes with their
neighboring states or within their own national boundaries. One should hope that, for the sake of peace and stability, Iran, China, Turkey, Russia,
and the United States will find enough incentives to become contributing partners to a process of economic growth and peaceful resolution of
conflicts in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Otherwise, there is little doubt that the current pace of events in the two regions is heading toward a
This development will contain a
period of war and instability, with a devastating result for the exhausted Caucasian and CA countries.
great potential for escalation, with severe implications for the security of many other countries in Asia and Europe.
 Central Asia Conflict

Central Asia is the transit point for any possible terrorist attack with nuclear weapons-separates Russia and
Ukraine from Iran and Iraq

Butler 02-Research Associate at the NIS Nonproliferation Program (Kenley Butler, “Weapons of Mass Destruction
in Central Asia,” Center for Nonproliferation Studies, October 2002, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_19a.html)

Areas of Concern

Despite the tremendous strides made by the Central Asian states to secure WMD materials in the region, there are
still concerns that existing materials could be vulnerable to theft or diversion. These concerns intensified after the
events of September 11, 2001, in part due to the region’s proximity to states with suspected ties to terrorist
organizations as well as the presence of indigenous terrorist groups, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

Fissile material—HEU and plutonium—may be one target of those seeking to acquire WMD capabilities. The
region’s four operational nuclear research reactors and the shutdown breeder reactor in western Kazakhstan house
fissile material. All these facilities, however, have received security upgrades in recent years. In addition, there are
plans to transfer some of the excess fissile material out of the region or to more secure locations within the region.
Examples of material that has been or will be transferred include the transfer of spent HEU fuel from a reactor in
Uzbekistan to Russia and the proposed transfer of spent fuel from the Kazakhstani breeder reactor on the Caspian
Sea to a more secure location in northeast Kazakhstan.

More worrisome than the threat posed by WMD materials in the region is the possibility that Central Asia could be
used as a transit point for materials originating elsewhere. Central Asia is located between countries to the north
with significant amounts of WMD materials (Russia and Ukraine) and states to the south that actively seek to
acquire WMD (Iran and Iraq). Export and border control systems in the region lack funding, equipment, and trained
personnel to adequately monitor and control the movement of materials across the borders. To date, there have been
no confirmed incidents involving the illicit trafficking of fissile materials from or through Central Asia, although
there are numerous accounts involving radioactive materials. (See the NIS Nuclear Trafficking database for more
information.)
 China War
US–China war will ensure global annihilation
Straits Times, June 25 2000 “U.S.-China Relations”, Straits Times, Lexis-Nexis

The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If
Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war
becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors
-raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any
country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open
to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore.
If China were to retaliate, East Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic
powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine
Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south
Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new
and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew
Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army, which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time
thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean
War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen
Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of
nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability,
there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China
possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to
go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first
use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic
Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still
abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of
nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should
that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a
nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above
everything else.
 Democracy

Democracy solves environment – accountability, information flow and markets.

Li and Reuveny 7 [Quan, Professor of Political Science at Penn State and Rafael, Professor of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana, Vol. 24, No. 3, University http://cmp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/219]
KLS

Moving to the view that democracy reduces the level of environmental degradation, one set of considerations
focuses on the institutional qualities of democracy. The responsiveness argument is that democracies are more
responsive to the environmental needs of the public than are autocracies due to their very nature of taking
public interests into account (Kotov and Nikitina, 1995). It is also argued that democracies comply with
environmental agreements well, since they respect, and respond to, the rule of law (Weiss and Jacobsen,
1999). The freedom of information channel is offered by Schultz and Crockett (1990) and Payne (1995). They
theorize that political rights and greater freedom for information flows help2 to promote the cause of
environmental groups, raise public awareness of problems and potential solutions, and encourage
environmental legislation to curtail environmental degradation. Democracies also tend to have market
economies, which further promotes the flow of information as economic efficiency and profits requires full
information. Hence, unlike the above argument, this channel expects that profit-maximizing markets will promote
environmental quality (Berger, 1994).

Democracy solves environment – less war, famines and more repsonsiblity.

Li and Reuveny 7 [Quan, Professor of Political Science at Penn State and Rafael, Professor of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana, Vol. 24, No. 3, University http://cmp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/219]
KLS

A second set of considerations on the positive role of democracy on environmental quality focuses on the
effects of democracy on human life and crisis situations. The famines argument (Sen, 1994) observes that
famines tend to promote environmental degradation because they divert attention away from longer-term
environmental concerns. Since famines typically do not occur in democracies, argues Sen, environmental
quality is expected to be higher in democracies than in autocracies. The human life argument (Gleditsch &
Sverdlop, 2003) suggests that since democracies respect human life more than autocracies, they are more
responsive to life-threatening environmental degradation. A related argument, the war channel, reasons that to
the extent that democracies engage in fewer wars, they should also have a higher level of environmental
quality (Gleditsch & Sverdlop, 2003), since war often destroys the environment of the warring parties
(Lietzmann & Vest, 1999).
 Dollar Hegemony Good

Dollar heg key to the global economy.

Quanyi, 8 - associate professor at Zhejiang Wanli University in Ningbo, China, and a guest researcher at the Center for the Study of Non-
traditional Security and Peaceful Development at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou. His research interest revolves around the creation of a world
state [Dr. Zhang, UPI Asia, “US Financial Leadership Still Essential,”
http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2008/11/20/us_financial_leadership_still_essential/2975/, 11/20]

Indeed, responsible politicians in many countries as well as influential people in the media have endeavored to find remedies to the crisis. On the
other hand, some
analysts are suggesting it is time to replace the global leadership, particularly the role played by the
United States. This is both impracticable and dangerous, however. The crisis that began on Wall Street has caused the whole world
to panic, as the world economy is already deeply interconnected. The United States should be responsible for the bitter fruits of its excessive
borrowing and overspending. Yet this is not cause enough to replace the U.S. financial leadership. The
foremost reason this would not
be practical is the role played by the U.S. currency. The biggest share of foreign exchange in international financial institutions and
multinational companies is not the euro or the Japanese yen; the U.S. dollar still plays the key role in both investments and in
stabilizing currencies. The euro or other currencies can play a role in stabilizing world markets, but cannot replace the U.S.
dollar as the chief currency. Attempting to replace it would most likely further destabilize the world economy. Some
people have suggested that, given its huge foreign currency reserves, China should challenge U.S. financial leadership
and initiate a “Chinese renaissance.” Such thinking is naïve, however. China’s foreign currency reserves are mostly in U.S.
dollars, and the Chinese yuan is not yet even a convertible currency. Therefore it is premature to think of China replacing the
United States in this role. China is still a developing country, with a huge gap between its developed coastal areas and its western hinterlands.
And even though China has the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, it is still a relative newcomer with regard
to the international financial institutions. China still has much to learn before it can become a leader in the complex
world of international finance. It is counter to Chinese philosophy and to China’s current foreign policy for the country to take advantage
of this crisis to challenge the United States. There is a saying that one should not take advantage when someone is in danger. Any kind of
aggressive action on China’s part would legitimize the notion of the “China threat,” and also it would raise suspicions as to the country’s good
intentions. Another point is that the interdependent world has generated international mechanisms regulated by norms, rules and decision-making
procedures. Since
World War II, financial organizations such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO have served well in
managing the world economy, which can be attributed greatly to the stability of the U.S. dollar. Under these organizations
all states, and particularly the big-power states, are coordinators, cooperators and stakeholders in the world economy.
 Economy (1/3)
Economic leadership prevents economic collapse

Mandelbaum 2005 – Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins – 2005
[Michael, The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century, p.
192-195]
Although the spread of nuclear weapons, with the corresponding increase in the likelihood that a nuclear shot would be fired in anger somewhere in the world, counted as the most serious

In the previous period of American

potential consequence of the abandonment by the United States of its role as the world's government, it was not the only one.

international reticence, the 1920s and 1930s, the global economy suffered serious damage that a more active
American role might have mitigated. A twenty-first-century American retreat could have similarly adverse
international economic consequences. The economic collapse of the 1930s caused extensive hardship throughout the
world and led indirectly to World War II by paving the way for the people who started it to gain power in Germany
and Japan. In retrospect, the Great Depression is widely believed to have been caused by a series of errors in public policy that made an economic downturn far worse than it would have
been had governments responded to it in appropriate fashion. Since the 1930s, acting on the lessons drawn from that experience by professional economists, governments have taken steps that
have helped to prevent a recurrence of the disasters of that decade.' In the face of reduced demand, for example, governments have increased rather than cut spending. Fiscal and monetary crises
have evoked rescue efforts rather than a studied indifference based on the assumption that market forces will readily reestablish a desirable economic equilibrium. In contrast to the widespread
practice of the 1930s, political authorities now understand that putting up barriers to imports in an attempt to revive domestic production will in fact worsen economic conditions everywhere.

a serious, prolonged failure of the international economy, inflicting the kind of hardship the world experienced in
Still,

the 1930s (which some Asian countries also suffered as a result of their fiscal crises in the 1990s) does not lie
beyond the realm of possibility. Market economies remain subject to cyclical downturns, which public policy can
limit but has not found a way to eliminate entirely. Markets also have an inherent tendency to form bubbles,
excessive values for particular assets, whether seventeenth century Dutch tulips or twentieth century Japanese real
estate and Thai currency, that cause economic harm when the bubble bursts and prices plunge. In responding to
these events, governments can make errors. They can act too slowly, or fail to implement the proper policies, or implement improper ones. Moreover, the global
economy and the national economies that comprise it, like a living organism, change constantly and sometimes rapidly: Capital flows across sovereign borders, for instance, far more rapidly and
in much greater volume in the early twenty-first century than ever before. This means that measures that successfully address economic malfunctions at one time may have less effect at another,

since the Great

just as medical science must cope with the appearance of new strains of influenza against which existing vaccines are not effective. Most importantly,

Depression, an active American international economic role has been crucial both in fortifying the conditions for
global economic well-being and in coping with the problems that have occurred, especially periodic recessions and
currency crises, by applying the lessons of the past. The absence of such a role could weaken those conditions and
aggravate those problems. The overall American role in the world since World War II therefore has something in common with the theme of the Frank Capra film It's a
Wonderful Life, in which the angel Clarence, played by Henry Travers, shows James Stewart, playing the bank clerk George Bailey, who believes his existence to have been worthless, how life
in his small town of Bedford Falls would have unfolded had he never been born. George Bailey learns that people he knows and loves turn out to be far worse off without him. So it is with the
United States and its role as the world's government. Without that role, the world very likely would have been in the past, and would become in the future, a less secure and less prosperous place.

The abdication by the United States of some or all of the responsibilities for international security that it had come to
bear in the first decade of the twenty-first century would deprive the international system of one of its principal
safety features, which keeps countries from smashing into each other, as they are historically prone to do. In this
sense, a world without America would be the equivalent of a freeway full of cars without brakes. Similarly, should the
American government abandon some or all of the ways in which it had, at the dawn of the new century, come to support global economic activity, the world
economy would function less effectively and might even suffer a severe and costly breakdown. A world without the
United States would in this way resemble a fleet of cars without gasoline.
 Economy (2/3)
That goes nuclear without economic leadership

Mandelbaum 2005 – Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins – 2005
[Michael, The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century, p.
224]

At best, an American withdrawal would bring with it some of the political anxiety typical during the Cold War and a
measure of the economic uncertainty that characterized the years before World War II. At worst, the retreat of
American power could lead to a repetition of the great global economic failure and the bloody international conflicts
the world experienced in the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed, the potential for economic calamity and wartime destruction
is greater at the outset of the new century than it was in the first half of the preceding one because of the greater
extent of international economic interdependence and the higher levels of prosperity—there is more to lose now than
there was then—and because of the presence, in large numbers, of nuclear weapons.

Economic collapse leads to extinction

Mead 9 (Walter Russell, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)

The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the current crisis might end China's growth miracle.
In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international economy will plunge China into a major economic
downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad. Millions
or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social safety net. The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and
property markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest--
and a bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both Nazi and communist
politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle, as nervous investors moved their
money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid
economic growth, China has so far been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody
knows what will happen if the growth stops. India's future is also a question. Support for global integration is a fairly recent development in
India, and many serious Indians remain skeptical of it. While India's 60-year-old democratic system has resisted many shocks, a deep
economic recession in a country where mass poverty and even hunger are still major concerns could undermine
political order, long-term growth, and India's attitude toward the United States and global economic integration. The
violent Naxalite insurrection plaguing a significant swath of the country could get worse; religious extremism
among both Hindus and Muslims could further polarize Indian politics; and India's economic miracle could be
nipped in the bud. If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great
Depression in the list of economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short
and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries escape or at least
weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to
For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge
limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years.
from this crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to their well-being or that it had profited from
their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush. It's
not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face
new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S.
protection. Success in Iraq--however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in
oil prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi.
Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in
its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and
Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade opportunities) have become more attractive.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use
diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic
crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there
seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early
modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and
sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow
swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They
typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast
social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the
ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have
done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive
market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case.
On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism
and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even
 Economy (3/3)
as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an
unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes,
they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in
a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and
Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the
world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons.
Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier
societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as,
inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means
that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as
If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under
well.
the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven
Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is
almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place
in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current
crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New
Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we
may still have to fight.
 Economy
Economic collapse leads to nuclear war

Friedberg and Schoenfeld ‘8 (Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR – Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, and Gabriel,
Senior Editor of Commentary and Visiting Scholar – Witherspoon Institute, Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a
Diminished America”, 10-21, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html)

Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades
now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar,
and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we
counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible
in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and
Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths,
while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's
seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will
leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to
Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be
placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a
halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose
up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to
become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks
of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock
us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic
performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more
fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now
be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy
rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these
countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.
 Food Security

Food insecurity leads to societal collapse

Brown 2010 (Lester, agricultural scientist, author of “Who Will Feed China?”, “Grain Pains”, August 26, Foreign
Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/26/grain_pains?page=0,3)

Probably the one area where my thinking has changed somewhat is that I've always before been reluctant in thinking
about things in a very broad sort of historical sweep. But we know that when earlier civilizations declined and
collapsed, it was most often because of a shrinkage of their food supply. In the Sumerians it was rising salt levels in
the soil, with the Mayans it was soil erosion associated with deforestation and over-plowing.

I sort of assumed that in our modern world, food could not be the weak link. I now think not only that it could be,
but that it probably will be the weak link. And if I were to do a scenario that would take us from failing states to a
failing global civilization, one of them would be the one I just described -- a Moscow-type heat wave centered in
Chicago that would decimate the U.S. grain harvest. Another would be a heat wave of similar magnitude near
Beijing.
 Hegemony
American primacy is vital to accessing every major impact—the only threat to world peace is if we allow it to
collapse

Thayer, 6 - professor of security studies at Missouri State (Bradley, The National Interest, “In Defense of Primacy”,
November/December, p. 32-37)

A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power-the diplomatic, economic
and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power
to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into
the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and
called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign
military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want
a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on
airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a
strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American
security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand
strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military,
economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military
capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the
case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the
desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action but they fall to realize
what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are
not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global
interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes
flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because
they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy
based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United
States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats
will exist no matter what role America chooses
to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are
terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going
home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will
respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal
kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of
international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic
military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a
strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from .American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack
terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States
itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry
Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global common"--the oceans, the world's airspace and
outer space-allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a
consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional
and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased.' This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about
international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align
themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the
power of the United States for their own purposes, their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with
America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements-and they include almost all of the major
economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8
to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many
allies. U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect-has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing
the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's
ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Pro-
liferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the where it can be stymied by opponents.
American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any
military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the
A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one
hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezeula. Of course, countries
like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to
Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the
most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly
challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including
asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be
confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because
China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three
of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba-it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically
anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations.

THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the
United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.
Everything we think of when we consider the current international order-free trade, a robust monetary regime,
increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents
seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need
Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The
to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons:
Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the
liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Rai Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is
important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world.

American primacy helps keep a

The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today,

number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan,
India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur
where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood,
particularly war's worst form: great power wars.

Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the
countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy.

once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not
In addition,

because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and
more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for
their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread
democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why
democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course,
whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question.
Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought
democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though
remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States
that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now
even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made
in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive.

Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With
its allies,
the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and
commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and
prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third
World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This
economic
order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well
because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military
technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a
former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of
post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the
only way to bring relief to desperately
poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which
are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest
academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides.
 Israel-Iran Strike/War
Extinction
Ivashov ‘7 [Leonid. Analyst at the Strategic Culture Foundation. “Iran: The Threat of Nuclear War” The AP, 21
April 07. Lexis//MGW-JV]

What might cause the force major event of the required scale? Everything seems to indicate that Israel will be sacrificed. Its
involvement in a war with Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is bound to trigger a global catastrophe. The
statehoods of Israel and Iran are based on the countries' official religions. A military conflict between Israel and Iran
will immediately evolve into a religious one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Due to the presence of
numerous Jewish and Muslim populations in the developed countries, this would make a global bloodbath
inevitable. All of the active forces of most of the countries of the world would end up fighting, with almost
no room for neutrality left. Judging by the increasingly massive acquisitions of the residential housing for the Israeli citizens,
especially in Russia and Ukraine , a lot of people already have an idea of what the future holds. However, it is hard to imagine a quiet
heaven where one might hide from the coming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distribution of the fighting, the quantities and
the efficiency of the armaments involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the conflict and the severity of the religious strife
all leave no doubt that this clash will be in all respects much more nightmarish than WWII.
 Kashmir War
South Asian conflict leads to global nuclear war
Fai ‘01
(Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington Times, 7-8)

The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned
with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is
Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable
India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could
trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary.
This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense Department, and world experts generally
place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and
advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has
initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile
Material/Cut-off Convention. The boiling witches' brew in Kashmir should propel the United States to assertive
facilitation or mediation of Kashmir negotiations. The impending July 14-16 summit in New Delhi between President
Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee featuring Kashmir on the agenda does not justify complacency.
 Middle East War
That goes nuclear.
John Steinbach, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Committee, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, March 2002,
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of
"Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire
nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns,
missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong
probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said " The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will
not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of
Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite
in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral
possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if
the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict
could trigger a world conflagration.
 NATO Alliance
Preserving NATO is key to avert multiple scenarios of nuclear war.
Duffield 94
(John, Assistant Prof Government and Foreign Affairs – U Virginia, Political Science Quarterly, “NATO’S
Functions After the Cold War”, Vol. 109, No. 5)

Initial analyses of NATO’s future prospects overlooked at least three important factors that have helped to ensure the alliance’s enduring
relevance. First, they underestimated the extent to which external threats sufficient to help justify the preservation of the
alliance would continue to exist. In fact, NATO still serves to secure its members against a number of actual or potential dangers emanating
from outside their territory. These include not only the residual threat posed by Russian military power, but also the relatively
new concerns raised by conflicts in neighboring regions. Second, the pessimists failed to consider NATO’s capacity for
institutional adaptation. Since the end of the cold war, the alliance has begun to develop two important new functions. NATO is
increasingly seen as having a significant role to play in containing and controlling militarized conflicts in Central and Eastern
Europe. And, at a deeper level, it works to prevent such conflicts from arising at all by actively promoting stability within the
former Soviet bloc. Above all, NATO pessimists overlooked the valuable intra-alliance functions that the alliance has always performed and that
remain relevant after the cold war. Most importantly, NATO has helped stabilize Western Europe, whose states had often been bitter rivals in the
NATO
past. By damping the security dilemma and providing an institutional mechanism for the development of common security policies,
has contributed to making the use of force in relations among the countries of the region virtually inconceivable. In all
these ways, NATO clearly serves the interests of its European members. But even the United States has a significant stake in preserving a
peaceful and prosperous Europe. In addition to strong transatlantic historical and cultural ties, American economic interests in Europe - as a
leading market for U.S. products, as a source of valuable imports, and as the host for considerable direct foreign investment by American
companies - remain substantial. If history is any guide, moreover, the
United States could easily be drawn into a future major
war in Europe, the consequences of which would likely be even more devastating than those of the past, given
the existence of nuclear weapons.
 Oil Shocks
Oil shocks lead to economic collapse and extinction
Lindorff 8 (David Lindorff, Award-winning investigative reporter, “Oil, Israel, Iran, America and the High Cost of a Single War-Like Remark”,
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/4062-oil-israel-iran-america-and-the-high-cost-of-a-single-war-like-remark.html)

Most analysts say an actual attack on Iran would send oil almost immediately to past $300 per barrel—a level that would strangle economies worldwide
and send the world into an economic collapse not since the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs kicked off the Great Depression. The
repercussions of that would be staggering. America, which runs on oil, would grind to a halt. Gasoline and home heating oil would double or
triple in price, leading to desperation in the coming winter for those living north of the Mason-Dixon line, and to a mass exodus of the elderly from
Florida and Arizona, where air-conditioning would no longer be affordable. In China, an economy almost wholly dependent upon the manufacture of goods for sale to American consumers,
hundreds of millions of workers would suddenly find themselves unemployed. With their remittances to their
peasant relatives halted, half the country would be kicked back to the pre-capitalist era, only without guaranteed wages, homes, food and
healthcare. It is likely that unrest unprecedented since the Cultural Revolution would erupt. The Middle East would explode. In
Iraq, Shia fighters would rise up in solidarity with their Shia neighbor, Iran, and begin attacking American forces in Iraq in earnest, probably
making the Tet Offensive in 1968 Vietnam look like a picnic. Where the US had half a million troops in Vietnam in that offensive, the military is
already stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, with supply lines barely defended.
 Pakistani Collapse
Pakistan collapse causes global nuclear conflict – draws in China, India and Russia

Pitt, 9- a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know"
and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." (5/8/09, William, “Unstable Pakistan Threatens the World,”
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=commentary&article=2183)

But a suicide bomber in Pakistan rammed a car packed with explosives into a jeep filled with troops today, killing five and wounding as many as 21, including several children who were waiting for a ride to school. Residents of the
region where the attack took place are fleeing in terror as gunfire rings out around them, and government forces have been unable to quell the violence. Two regional government officials were beheaded by militants in retaliation for

. It is part of another
the killing of other militants by government forces. As familiar as this sounds, it did not take place where we have come to expect such terrible events. This, unfortunately, is a whole new ballgame

conflict that is brewing, one which puts what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan in deep shade, and which represents a grave and growing
Pakistan is now trembling on the edge of violent chaos, and is doing so with nuclear weapons in its hip pocket,
threat to us all.
right in the middle of one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world. The situation in brief: Pakistan for years has been a
nation in turmoil, run by a shaky government supported by a corrupted system, dominated by a blatantly criminal security service, and threatened
by a large fundamentalist Islamic population with deep ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan. All this is piled atop an ongoing standoff with
The fact that Pakistan, and India,
neighboring India that has been the center of political gravity in the region for more than half a century.
and Russia, and China all possess nuclear weapons and share the same space means any ongoing or escalating
violence over there has the real potential to crack open the very gates of Hell itself.

Recently, the Taliban made a military push into the northwest Pakistani region around the Swat Valley. According to a recent
Reuters report: The (Pakistani) army deployed troops in Swat in October 2007 and used artillery and gunship helicopters to reassert control. But insecurity mounted after a civilian government came to power last year and tried to
reach a negotiated settlement. A peace accord fell apart in May 2008. After that, hundreds — including soldiers, militants and civilians — died in battles. Militants unleashed a reign of terror, killing and beheading politicians, singers,
soldiers and opponents. They banned female education and destroyed nearly 200 girls' schools. About 1,200 people were killed since late 2007 and 250,000 to 500,000 fled, leaving the militants in virtual control. Pakistan offered on
February 16 to introduce Islamic law in the Swat valley and neighboring areas in a bid to take the steam out of the insurgency. The militants announced an indefinite cease-fire after the army said it was halting operations in the region.

he
President Asif Ali Zardari signed a regulation imposing sharia in the area last month. But the Taliban refused to give up their guns and pushed into Buner and another district adjacent to Swat, intent on spreading their rule. T

United States, already embroiled in a war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, must now face the possibility that
Pakistan could collapse under the mounting threat of Taliban forces there. Military and diplomatic advisers to President Obama, uncertain how
best to proceed, now face one of the great nightmare scenarios of our time. "Recent militant gains in Pakistan," reported The New York Times on Monday, "have so alarmed the White House that
the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, described the situation as 'one of the very most serious problems we face.'" "Security was deteriorating rapidly," reported The Washington Post
on Monday, "particularly in the mountains along the Afghan border that harbor al-Qaeda and the Taliban, intelligence chiefs reported, and there were signs that those groups were working with
indigenous extremists in Pakistan's populous Punjabi heartland. The Pakistani government was mired in political bickering. The army, still fixated on its historical adversary India, remained ill-
equipped and unwilling to throw its full weight into the counterinsurgency fight. But despite the threat the intelligence conveyed, Obama has only limited options for dealing with it. Anti-
American feeling in Pakistan is high, and a U.S. combat presence is prohibited. The United States is fighting Pakistan-based extremists by proxy, through an army over which it has little control,

Pakistan is currently in possession of between 60 and 100 nuclear

in alliance with a government in which it has little confidence." It is believed

weapons. Because Pakistan's stability is threatened by the wide swath of its population that shares ethnic, cultural and religious connections to
the fundamentalist Islamic populace of Afghanistan, fears over what could happen to those nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government collapses
are very real. "As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan," reported the Times last week, "senior American
officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, including the
potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production
facilities. In public, the administration has only hinted at those concerns, repeating the formulation that the Bush administration used: that it has faith in the Pakistani Army. But that cooperation, according to officials who
would not speak for attribution because of the sensitivity surrounding the exchanges between Washington and Islamabad, has been sharply limited when the subject has turned to the vulnerabilities in the Pakistani nuclear
The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear
infrastructure." "

weapons," reported Time Magazine last month. "Pakistan is thought to possess about 100 — the U.S. isn't sure of the total, and may not know
where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S. military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those weapons as it can,
according to U.S. officials. Pakistani officials insist their personnel safeguards are stringent, but a sleeper cell could cause big trouble, U.S.
officials say." In other words, a shaky Pakistan spells trouble for everyone, especially if America loses the footrace to secure those weapons in the
event of the worst-case scenario. If Pakistani militants ever succeed in toppling the government, several very dangerous events
could happen at once. Nuclear-armed India could be galvanized into military action of some kind, as could nuclear-armed China
or nuclear-armed Russia. If the Pakistani government does fall, and all those Pakistani nukes are not immediately accounted for and secured,
the specter (or reality) of loose nukes falling into the hands of terrorist organizations could place the entire world on a
collision course with unimaginable disaster. We have all been paying a great deal of attention to Iraq and Afghanistan, and rightly
so. The developing situation in Pakistan, however, needs to be placed immediately on the front burner. The Obama administration appears to be
gravely serious about addressing the situation. So should we all.
 Proliferation

Further spread of nukes collapse the international order and alliance

relationships – deterrence will break-down because no one will
know who is responsible for deterring who

Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, 11/8/04, Newsweek, p. lexis

While militant Islam is the most immediate and obvious challenge to international order, nuclear proliferation is the most long-range and
insidious threat to global survival. Heretofore nuclear weapons have spread relatively slowly and remained in the
possession of countries with everything to lose and nothing to gain from assaulting the international order. But the
international system is now confronted by the imminent spread of nuclear weapons into the hands of two countries
with a worrisome agenda: the odd, isolated regime in North Korea, which is responsible for multiple assassinations and kidnappings and
meets every definition of a rogue regime; and Iran, whose current regime started by holding American diplomats as hostages
and has since supported a variety of terrorist groups in the Middle East and continues to declare America its principal enemy. The
possession of nuclear weapons by these countries would constitute a momentous step towards stripping the international
order of the remaining restraints of the Westphalian system. Deterrence will lose its traditional meaning even with
respect to state-to-state relations. With such a variety of nuclear powers, it will no longer be clear who is responsible for deterring
whom and by what means. Second-order issues can escalate into nuclear conflict. The possibilities of miscalculation
grow. Even if the new nuclear countries do not use their weapons, they can become a shield behind which to step up terrorist challenges.
Finally, the experience with the so-called "private" distribution of Pakistan's nuclear technology to other countries shows that this may be the last
moment to keep proliferation from spinning out of control. North Korea is so short of foreign exchange that its diplomats often revert to
counterfeit currency; it might find the temptation to trade nuclear material for foreign exchange irresistible. In Iran, extremist elements have
frequently demonstrated their ability to find specious Islamic justification for unconscionable acts in support of terrorism.

The impact is global nuclear war.

Taylor ‘1 (Theodore, Chairman of NOVA, Former Nuclear Weapons Designer, Recipient of the US Atomic Energy
Commission’s 1965 Lawrence Memorial Award and former Deputy Dir. of Defense Nuclear Agency, “Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons”, in “Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking”, http://www-
ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html)

Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale
that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of
irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders
of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a
global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be
constructed. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into
major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation,"
finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in
desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests
are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war.
 Racism

EVEN IF WE CAN’T SOLVE ALL RACISM, WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO BEGIN THE FIGHT.

BARNDT, 91 (Joseph, former director of Crossroads Ministry – Chicago, “Dismantling Racism: The Continuing
Challenge to White America,” p. 155-6)

To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences and limitations, ghettos and prisons. The
prison of racism confines us all , people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the
victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other; in our separate prisons
we are all prevented from achieving the human potential that God intends for us. The limitations imposed on
people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust; the effects of
uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison will inevitably destroy us
as well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an
inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the
prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join
the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all, the walls of racism. The danger of self-
destruction seems to be drawing ever more near. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest
and colonization, of military buildups and violent aggression, of overconsumption and environmental
destruction may be reaching the point of no return. A small and predominantly white minority of global
population derives its power and privilege from sufferings of the vast majority of peoples of color. For the sake of
the world and ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.
 Russian War
Extinction – most probable scenario.
Helfand and Pastore 9 [Ira Helfand, M.D., and John O. Pastore, M.D., are past presidents of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
March 31, 2009, “U.S.-Russia nuclear war still a threat”, http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pastoreline_03-31-09_EODSCAO_v15.bbdf23.html]

President Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev are scheduled to Wednesday in London during the G-20 summit. They must not let the current economic crisis keep
them from focusing on one of the greatest threats confronting humanity: the danger of nuclear war. Since the end of the Cold
There remain in the world more than 20,000 nuclear
War, many have acted as though the danger of nuclear war has ended. It has not.
weapons. Alarmingly, more than 2,000 of these weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals remain on ready-
alert status, commonly known as hair-trigger alert. They can be fired within five minutes and reach targets in the other country
30 minutes later. Just one of these weapons can destroy a city. A war involving a substantial number would cause
devastation on a scale unprecedented in human history. A study conducted by Physicians for Social Responsibility in 2002 showed that if
only 500 of the Russian weapons on high alert exploded over our cities, 100 million Americans would die in the first 30 minutes. An
attack of this magnitude also would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which we all
depend. Those who survived the initial attack would inhabit a nightmare landscape with huge swaths of the country blanketed
with radioactive fallout and epidemic diseases rampant. They would have no food, no fuel, no electricity, no medicine, and certainly no
organized health care. In the following months it is likely the vast majority of the U.S. population would die. Recent studies by the eminent climatologists Toon and Robock
If all of the warheads in the U.S. and Russian
have shown that such a war would have a huge and immediate impact on climate world wide.
strategic arsenals were drawn into the conflict, the firestorms they caused would loft 180 million tons of soot and
debris into the upper atmosphere — blotting out the sun. Temperatures across the globe would fall an average
of 18 degrees Fahrenheit to levels not seen on earth since the depth of the last ice age, 18,000 years ago. Agriculture would
stop, eco-systems would collapse, and many species, including perhaps our own, would become extinct. It is
common to discuss nuclear war as a low-probabillity event. But is this true? We know of five occcasions during the last 30 years when
either the U.S. or Russia believed it was under attack and prepared a counter-attack. The most recent of these near
misses occurred after the end of the Cold War on Jan. 25, 1995, when the Russians mistook a U.S. weather rocket launched from Norway for a possible attack. Jan. 25, 1995,
was an ordinary day with no major crisis involving the U.S. and Russia. But, unknown to almost every inhabitant on the planet, a misunderstanding led to the potential for a
nuclear war. The ready alert status of nuclear weapons that existed in 1995 remains in place today.
 Soft Power
Soft Power key to solve global conflict
Reiffel 5 (Lex, Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center The Brookings Institution, Reaching Out: Americans Serving Overseas, 12-27-2005,
www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20051207rieffel.pdf)

I. Introduction: Overseas Service as a Soft Instrument of Power The United States is struggling to define a new role for itself in the post-Cold War world that protects its vital
self interests without making the rest of the world uncomfortable. In retrospect, the decade of the 1990s was a cakewalk. Together with its Cold War allies Americans focused
on helping the transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union build functioning democratic political systems and growing market economies.
The USA met this immense challenge successfully, by and large, and it gained friends in the process. By contrast, the first five years of the new millennium have been mostly
downhill for the USA. The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 changed the national mood in a matter of hours from gloating to a level of fear unknown since the Depression of the
the feeling of global solidarity
1930s. They also pushed sympathy for the USA among people in the rest of the world to new heights. However,
quickly dissipated after the military intervention in Iraq by a narrow US-led coalition. A major poll measuring the
attitudes of foreigners toward the USA found a sharp shift in opinion in the negative direction between 2002 and 2003, which has only partially recovered since then.1 The
devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005 was another blow to American self-confidence as well as to its image in the rest of the world. It
cracked the veneer of the society reflected in the American movies and TV programs that flood the world. It exposed weaknesses in government institutions that had been
promoted for decades as models for other countries. Internal pressure to turn America’s back on the rest of the world is likely
to intensify as the country focuses attention on domestic problems such as the growing number of Americans without health
insurance, educational performance that is declining relative to other countries, deteriorating infrastructure, and increased dependence on foreign supplies of oil and gas. A
more isolationist sentiment would reduce the ability of the USA to use its overwhelming military power
to promote peaceful change in the developing countries that hold two-thirds of the world’s population and
pose the gravest threats to global stability. Isolationism might heighten the sense of security in the short run, but it would put
the USA at the mercy of external forces in the long run. Accordingly, one of the great challenges for the
USA today is to build a broad coalition of like-minded nations and a set of international institutions
capable of maintaining order and addressing global problems such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics like
HIV/AIDS and avian flu, failed states like Somalia and Myanmar, and environmental degradation. The costs of acting alone or in small coalitions are now more clearly seen to
The limitations of “hard” instruments of foreign policy have been amply demonstrated in Iraq.
be unsustainable.
Military power can dislodge a tyrant with great efficiency but cannot build stable and prosperous nations. Appropriately, the appointment
of Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs suggests that the Bush Administration is gearing up to rely more on “soft” instruments.2
 Taiwan China War
Global nuclear war

Hunkovic, American Military University, 09 [Lee J, 2009, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict

Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-
method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf]

A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a
third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including
Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other
countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most
dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to
attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India,
which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any
case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be
economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions
will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.
 Terrorism Impact
Nuclear terrorism causes extinction

Morgan, 9 - Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea (Dennis, Futures, November, “World on fire: two
scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race,” Science Direct)

In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out
what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that
the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all
that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either
Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would
be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United
States’’ [10].

Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a
nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal ‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli
Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would
retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the
Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing
death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years,
taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well.

And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any
accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of
a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid
escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each
country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be
interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war.

In other words, once

Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for
anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however,
‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate
factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear
weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their
oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time
before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once
even just one is used, it is very likely
that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of
human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of
unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.
 Trade Good
Trade key to prevent war-empirical evidence, decade-long studies, and economic freedom index proves

Boudreaux 06-chairman of the economics department at George Mason University (Donald J. Bourdreaux, “Want
Word Peace? Support free trade.” Christian Science Monitor, 11/20/06,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p09s02-coop.html)

These activities employ workers here at home and raise their wages. Mountainsof empirical evidence show that protectionism is
economically destructive. The facts also show that protectionism is inconsistent with a desire for peace – a desire admirably expressed by
many Democrats during the recent campaigns.

Back in 1748, Baron de Montesquieu observed that "Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become
reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual
necessities."

If Mr. Montesquieu is correct that trade promotes peace, then protectionism – a retreat from open trade – raises the chances of war.

Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade does indeed promote peace.

During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State University of New York at Binghamton, has
researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of
Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on trade, war, and peace.

They find that "the

overwhelming evidence indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign investment. The greater
the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or the more that Americans invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of
war between America and those countries with which it has investment relationships.

Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that, "The policy implication of our finding is that further international cooperation in
reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world."

Columbia University political scientist Erik Gartzke reaches a similar but more general conclusion: Peace is fostered by
economic freedom. Economic freedom certainly includes, but is broader than, the freedom of ordinary people to trade internationally. It
includes also low and transparent rates of taxation, the easy ability of entrepreneurs to start new businesses, the lightness of regulations on labor,
product, and credit markets, ready access to sound money, and other factors that encourage the allocation of resources by markets rather than by
government officials.

Professor Gartzke ranks countries on an economic-freedom index from 1 to 10, with 1 being very unfree and 10 being very free. He then
examines military conflicts from 1816 through 2000. His findings are powerful: Countries
that rank lowest on an economic-freedom
index – with scores of 2 or less – are 14 times more likely to be involved in military conflicts than are countries
whose people enjoy significant economic freedom (that is, countries with scores of 8 or higher).
 US Russian War
Extinction – most probable scenario.
Nick Bostrum, PhD Philosophy – Oxford U., Existential Risks, 2002,
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-
out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have
been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with
the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our
species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that
could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states
may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and
Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential
permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted.
Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the
existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.