Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

SCFI Military Tradeoff DA by stariya

VIEWS: 25 PAGES: 38

									SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                                           Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                                  1

                                                                               Military Tradeoff DA

1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
UQ.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2NC Must-Read Link ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Links ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
I/L ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Xtn – BMD Stops Prolif ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Terrorism Impact ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Relations Impact..................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Relations Impact..................................................................................................................................................................... 11
XTN – Jasa Solves China ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Hege Impact ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Hege Impact ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Hege – AT Balancing/Collapse (Layne) ......................................................................................................................... 17
F-22 Module ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18
F-22 2NC I/L ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19
F-22 Key to Hege .................................................................................................................................................................... 20
AT BMD Cuts Now.................................................................................................................................................................. 21
AT UQ Overwhelms The Link ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Aff – UQ Overwhelms The Link......................................................................................................................................... 23
Aff – UQ Overwhelms The Link......................................................................................................................................... 24
Aff – Non-unique .................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Aff – No Cuts ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Aff – No Cuts ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Aff – No BMD Now ................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Aff – No Tech ............................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Aff – DOD Goes Red / I/L Takeout ................................................................................................................................... 30
Aff – RMA Fails ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Aff – F-22 Non-U ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Aff – F22 Bad ............................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Aff – Hege Not Good .............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Aff – Hege Bad ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Aff – Hege Bad Impact Frame ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Aff – AT Alliances = Hege Internal Link ......................................................................................................................... 37
Aff – BMD Bad ! Turn ............................................................................................................................................................ 38




                                       ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                    Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                           2

                                                                                   1NC
A. Uniqueness – Funding for the Military is on the rise.
Leo Shane, Stripes Central, May 7th 2009, http://blogs.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/breaking-winners-and-losers-dod-budget

Personnel – Overall, Pentagon military personnel funds will see nearly a 9 percent increase in funding. Along with at least a 2.9
percent pay raise, the budget includes a 6 percent raise in Basic Assistance for Housing, a 5 percent raise in Basic Allowance for Subsistence.
Special Ops – The budget adds more than 2,400 spots in the services special operations capabilities, and includes new
money for special forces aircraft.
Intell Ops -- They'll see a $2 billion increase in the base budget, which includes money for 50 Predator-class UAVs by 2011 and more
"experimental platforms" for surveillance and reconnaissance.
Combat helicopter pilots -- Along with more money for training, the Pentagon plans to add $500 million to repair aircraft in use in Iraq and
Afghanistan and add new ones.

B. Link – social service funding trades off with military budget
Tasini , executive director of labor research association ran for senate in NY, 8-13-„7 (Jonathan , “Guns Versus
Butter -- Our Real Economic Challenge” , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/guns-versus-butter-
our_b_60150.html)

Guns versus butter. It's the classic debate that really tells us a lot about our priorities that we set for the kind of society we can expect to live in -- how
much money a country spends on the military versus how much money is expended on non-military, domestic needs.
To perhaps explain the obvious, buying a gun (or missile defense or a sophisticated bomber) means you don't have those dollars
for butter (or a national health care plan or free college education). At some basic level, we all know that those
tradeoffs exist but, sometimes, numbers bring home the meaning of this equation in stunning fashion. What made me think of this is a set of revealing numbers that
jumped out at me the other day -- numbers that underscore why there is, in my opinion, something lacking in the message of most of the Democratic presidential candidates and
our party's leadership.


C. internal link – DOD budget is frayed now – additional reductions in pentagon budget will come out of
missile defense
John M. Doyle. Staff writer for Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. March 30, 2009 Monday. DOD Budget Cuts
Could Affect Missile Defense Testing Aerospace Daily & Defense Report News; Pg. 3 Vol. 229 No. 59
If Pentagon budget cuts come as expected, the reduced funding could spell less testing for the U.S. ballistic missile defense system,
despite outside criticism and congressional calls for even more, especially of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element. Most
observers believe the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will face cutbacks of as much as $2 billion, a fifth of the annual missile defense
portfolio, when President Barack Obama announces his fiscal 2010 defense budget. Obama told a White House press conference last
week his staff already has found $40 billion in long-term savings across the Defense Department and expects to find more. MDA has spent
$56 billion developing and fielding a ballistic missile defense system since 2002 and is expected to spend an additional $50 billion through
2013. But Peter Verga, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said March 23 he expects the entire defense establishment
«to be operating in a more fiscally constrained environment for some time.».




                                  ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         3


                                                                                                                                                                               1NC
D. Missile defense key to ally credibility and prolif deterrence
John McHugh , U.S. House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee ,3/23/2009 “MCHUGH: Cutting
Defense Too Deeply, ”American Chronicle, accessed online July 10, 2009
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/95655

Missile defense policy offers a good example. Many anticipate deep cuts into these programs, yet strategic deterrence is precisely what will be
required to bolster our allies and friends. A weakened global economy is unlikely to lead competitors and adversaries
to decrease their strategic capability as some may hope. In fact, the opposite is more plausible. Faced with fiscal
constraints, Iran will likely double down on its ballistic missile program, while Russian support in halting Iran's nuclear
and ballistic missile ambitions would run counter to its economic interests. Perceived reversal of U.S. commitment to
missile defense runs the risk of threatening our credibility with our allies and may encourage others to proliferate as
well.

E. Failure to deter prolif causes escalatory global nuclear war
Utgoff in „02
(Victor, Deputy Director for Strategy, Forces and Resources at the Institute for Defense Analyses, Survival, ―Proliferation, Missile Defense and
American Ambitions‖, Volume 44, Number 2, Summer, p. 87-90)

   the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain
First,
nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider
preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent's nuclear programme or defeat the
opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological
weapons.
Second,       as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over.                                                                                  Fifty or more
nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such
weapons falling into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storage activities.
Increased prospects for the occasional nuclear shootout
Worse still, in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons.                                                                                                                                                                                     And more frequent opportunities means shorter expected times
between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at any opportunity is actually zero. To be sure, some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in any confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero.' These theorists think that
such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely
wrong. History includes instances in which states known to possess nuclear weapons did engage in direct conventional conflict. China and Russia fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states without
nuclear weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them. Again, history provides counter-examples. Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the time. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and fought Britain's efforts to take them back, even though Britain had nuclear weapons.
Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking
nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide for his nation. But history provides unhappy examples
of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a 'victory or
destruction' policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat.' And Japan's war minister, during debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing, suggested 'Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?"
If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nuclear-armed nations, use of nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these weapons.
While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are
substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states .6 Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear,
or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently needs the confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover, leaders may not recognise clearly where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their citizens. Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to
think carefully. They can refuse to believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of simplistic analogies and play hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals should respond to insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger, fear, greed, ambition and pride
can all lead to bad decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action. We can almost hear the kinds of words that could flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war. 'These people are not willing to die for this interest'. 'No sane person would actually use such weapons'. 'Perhaps the
opponent will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use nuclear weapons'. 'If I don't hit them back really hard, I am going to be driven from office, if not killed'. Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from others, or silently from within, might resonate too readily with
a harried leader. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time, and we are fortunate it has not happened yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the
stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the
carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.' Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate
bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other's cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and
armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants beforehand.' Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us t0 impose on our opponents
whatever levels of violence are readily accessible.

In sum,widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial
probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the
American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all
gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.




                                                                        ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                 Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                        4

                                                                          UQ
The Department of Defense‟s budget has taken cuts but will recover soon.
Bettina H. Chavanne, Pentagon Reporter, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, October 23, 2008 Lexis Nexis

Despite a decline in the U.S. Defense Department‘s budget in the coming years, it will eventually level off at a much higher rate than just a
decade ago, according to a topline forecast from the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association (GEIA). The overall
budget will be bigger than the current, official multiyear budget forecast, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), but flat in real
terms. At the same time, it is unclear if, when and how ongoing counterinsurgency and counterterrorism requirements will be incorporated into
the DOD baseline budget, GEIA analyst Hugh Brady noted.


The Department of Defense budget is protected from cuts now but the threat is circulating.
Chris Bowers , Mon Feb 02 2009, “Defense Spending To Increase by 8% in 2010“
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11310

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel recently raised hopes of potentially deep defense spending cuts. However,
according to new budget estimates released today, those hopes appear to be dashed, at least for now. For fiscal year 2010, the
Obama administration is matching the 8% projected defense spending increase proposed by the Bush administration: The Obama
administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs , for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an official
with the White House's Office of Management and Budget said Monday. If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion
allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration

DOD budget is stable now
U.S. Department of Defense, No Author Given, May 07 2009
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652

President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $663.8 billion for fiscal 2010. The budget request for the
Department of Defense (DoD) includes $533.8 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $130 billion to support overseas
contingency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proposed DoD base budget represents an increase of $20.5 billion over the $513.3 billion
enacted for fiscal 2009. This is an increase of 4 percent, or 2.1 percent real growth after adjusting for inflation . The fiscal 2010
budget proposal will end the planned use of supplemental requests to fund overseas operations, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom. The inclusion of these expenses as a separate category in the department‘s annual budget request will ensure greater transparency and
accountability to Congress and the American people. The budget will also request funds in the base that were previously in supplementals for programs such
as those supporting our military families and providing long-term medical care to injured service members. ―This budget provides the balance
necessary to institutionalize and finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are
most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies ,‖
said Defense Secretary Robert Gates.




                              ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                          Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                 5

                                                                       2NC Must-Read Link
The hippies on the hill will capitalize on the plan – they‟ll negotiate cuts in the defense budget for social
services – and missile defense is first on the chopping block
The Hill 3/25/09 ("Liberals want more defense spending left behind", http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/left-
fires-back-on-budget-2009-03-25.html
President Obama is facing mounting pressure from his party‘s left flank to cut defense spending so more money can be spent on social programs. A
letter obtained by The Hill shows that liberal advocacy groups and lawmakers want Obama to seize a moment when Democrats control both Congress and
the White House and scrap costly weapons programs they say have drained domestic coffers. Hard economic times are intensifying pressure to choose
guns or butter, particularly as the Bush administration is criticized for sharply raising spending on both. The left‘s demands pose a looming problem for the president, who
traveled to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to build support for his budget, which has already drawn criticism from centrist Democrats for a 12 percent increase in
domestic discretionary spending. This further fractures the party, with liberals focused on Obama‘s call to hike defense spending by 4 percent. The push from
liberals comes at a time when Obama has pledged to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, and China and India have begun to emerge as major military and economic
powers. Embracing the idea while the country is still engaged in conflicts overseas would reaffirm the notion to those on the right and in the center that Obama is a classic liberal.
But turning away the request risks alienating key members of his base. The groups sent the letter to congressional Democratic leaders late Wednesday calling for
steep cuts to the Joint Strike Fighter Program and other futuristic weapons plagued by production delays and cost overruns, with the money
saved going to schools, healthcare and other social services. At the same time, a leading Senate liberal has questioned Obama‘s proposed spending
on defense while House Democrats tussle over how to publicly oppose the president‘s budget plan. ―The Department of Defense has laid the welcome
mat for rampant waste and excess,‖ wrote Brent Wilkes, of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Gary Flowers, of the Black Leadership Forum, in a letter
sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) late Wednesday. ―Billions of dollars are being squandered on costly,
faulty defense aircraft that may be outdated before they are ever flown, money that would be better spent in classrooms, emergency rooms
and veterans hospitals.‖ Other national liberal groups including the Hispanic Federation, the League of Rural Voters, the National Congress of Black Women and the
National Council of Negro Women also signed the letter. The letter follows criticism lobbed by Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa), a leading Senate liberal who gave the first hint of
frustration over defense spending levels after emerging from a Tuesday briefing with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). ―I have a question as to
whether we need defense spending to go up by as much as it is,‖ Harkin told reporters after lamenting that he would not have enough money
to fulfill his funding goals for health and education. Harkin chairs the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee. In past
years, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Black Caucus, two groups dominated by liberal House Democrats, have put forth their own budget
proposals to strike a sharp policy contrast with President George W. Bush. But now that Obama occupies the White House, some lawmakers in these groups have argued that
they should not clash publicly with the president in politically sensitive areas such as defense spending. This is the first year since 1994 that there has been a Democratic
president and Democratic-controlled Congress. Some liberal lawmakers believe they should work behind the scenes to influence the budget resolution crafted by Democratic
leaders. Publicly calling on Obama to cut defense spending at a time of war could unravel into a political mess. One Democratic lawmaker familiar with the internal debate said
that members of the Progressive andBlack caucuses are wrangling over the conundrum. (The House Progressive Caucus meets Thursday to discuss healthcare reform and
budget priorities.) Liberal groups argue that eliminating the Joint Strike Fighter program could make up the difference between their health and
education spending goals and Obama‘s budget. Niel Ritchie, executive director of the League of Rural Voters, said ―a few hundred billion dollars is a lot of
schools and a lot of healthcare.‖ ―There can‘t be business as usual on appropriations, and the defense budget is one thing that has gone up
and up, and that can‘t happen anymore,‖ he said. A report published last year by the Government Accountability Office found that 95 major weapons programs
exceeded their original budgets by $295 billion. The Joint Strike Fighter program could cost as much as $1 trillion over its lifetime. The argument by groups such as LULAC, the
Black Leadership Forum and the League of Rural Voters is gaining traction among liberal and black lawmakers. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, said defense spending is ―an area where we can make cuts and reinvest in important programs such as healthcare and
education.‖ Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), a member of the CBC, said: ―I agree 100 percent. ―Rather than planning for war, we ought to take a timeout and invest in peace,‖
said Watson. Watson said that the CBC would unveil a budget ―to ask that we decrease amounts of money going to the Pentagon and increase amounts for education and
health.‖ Watson said that Black Caucus members received a warm reception when they presented their proposal to Obama during a meeting at the White House late last month.
―When we finished he said, ‗Why are you preaching to the choir?‘‖ Two other members of the black caucus interviewed by The Hill said they did not remember those exact words
but did not dispute Watson‘s account. They characterized the meeting with Obama as very positive. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Black Caucus, declined to
discuss the details of the budget proposal it plans to unveil soon. During recent testimony before the House Budget Committee, Lee called for cuts to the Ballistic
Missile Defense Program. She told The Hill the savings should be spent on mental healthcare and cancer research for troops. She described
Obama as sympathetic to the group‘s foreign policy and domestic priorities. ―We have been the conscience of the Congress and we will fight for funding priorities to be
reprioritized,‖ said Lee at the hearing. ―The president was very responsive.‖




                                    ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                         Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                6

                                                                                     Links
Trade off with social programs will push military advancement and defense aside.
Romney , Frmr Governor of Mass./Pres. candidate JD/MBA Harvard , 6-1-„09 ( Mitt, “The Care of Freedom” ,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/06/romney_to_fault.html)

The current leadership in Washington is hardly in a position to complain about the cost of the defense budget. Over the last few months, it has passed
measures that will add almost $4 trillion to the national debt in the short term and then over $3 trillion over the next ten years. None of that money
was spent on increasing the defense modernization budget—a failure that history will never understand or excuse. For a fraction of the money that was
spent on various domestic and social programs, Washington could have given our servicemen and women the tools they need to defend us for
a generation. After all, the first and highest duty of government is to provide for the common defense. Backing away from missile defense, and depleting the
defense budget to fund new social programs, particularly in the face of global turmoil, would put America and Americans at risk. We cannot allow the economic
crisis to conceal the very real threats to our nation's security. We cannot ignore the intentions of competitors who would replace America's leadership with their own, and set back
the cause of freedom. Providence has blessed us and trusted us to safeguard liberty; in a time of confusion at home and challenge abroad, let ours be the voice of clarity and
good sense—confident in our cause, and faithful in the care of freedom.


Obama is facing a tradeoff between social programs or defense spending.
Inside the Pentagon 2008 (“Tauscher Promises 'Severe Scrubbing' Of Mda Budget,” pg lexis//ef)
James Clay Moltz, an associate professor on the National Security Affairs faculty at the Naval Postgraduate School, said downward pressure on the Obama administration's
overall defense budget is likely to be significant, influenced by high deficit spending during the Bush era, the costs of the 2008 financial bailout and
the requirements of new Democratic social programs. "Missile defense spending will almost certainly be affected, but the Obama administration
will also be leery of appearing weak on defense or hurting programs with significant prior investment, capabilities, or perceived deterrent
value," he told IMD in an e-mail. "For these reasons, I think we can expect a continuation of Aegis, PAC-3, and domestic GMD spending (with some slippage in planned
numbers and deployment dates for new hardware), a slowdown of funding for proposed European defenses, and cuts for less-proven technologies (like the Airborne laser, the
[Multiple Kill Vehicle], the [Kinetic Energy Interceptor], and [Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense])." -- John Liang


The DOD has compromised now with some program cuts in exchange for steady budget growth – any new
budget pressure would force program cuts in key areas and restrict future military operations.
Marina Malenic, staff reporter for Defense Daily, April 9, 2009, “Gates To Push For Steady Cost Growth In DoD
Budget”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_7_242/ai_n31613970/
Despite unveiling dramatic recommendations on Monday for curbing and terminating several major weapon programs in the
fiscal 2010 budget, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also said he will advocate steady growth of the Pentagon's top line. "I
will be making the case that I don't think that the department can sustain the programs that we have with flat growth,"
Gates told a group of reporters at the Pentagon on April 7, "and therefore I believe that we need at least 2 percent real growth
going forward." Earlier in the week, the secretary laid out a "reform budget" in which he advocated ending or forgoing
production of several major programs, including the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, the V-71 Presidential Helicopter, the Air Force's
Combat Search-and-Rescue helicopter replacement program, the Transformational Satellite (TSAT) communications system
and the vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization effort (Defense Daily, April 7). The Obama
administration has announced plans to execute a $534 billion FY '10 Pentagon spending plan. Two-percent real growth in years
following FY '10-- which begins on Oct. 1--would be tallied as a two percent increase over that amount after inflation is
calculated. The White House plans to submit a detailed budget to Congress taking into account Gates' recommendations the
first week of May, Pentagon and administration sources say.




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                   Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                          7

                                                                                     I/L
Democrats want to cut missile defense for social services
AlaskanStandardOnline 2/3/2009 (“Liberals target Missile Defense,” pg online @
http://www.thealaskastandard.com/node/384 //ef)
It‘s begun. The Democratic Party controlling Congress and the White House is talking about cutting our defenses to make room for gigantic
increases in spending on domestic social programs. Missile defense is one of the easy targets for the pacifists controlling our country. Sen. Carl
Levin, a Michigan Democrat who serves as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters Friday that federal lawmakers will focus on the existing missile defense
program early this year. He said the program ―has problems‖ and needs to be put up against a more rigorous testing program that mimics real-world scenarios.




                                  ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                        Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                               8

                                                             Xtn – BMD Stops Prolif
Missile defenses key to deterrence of proliferating states
Alan Hicks, Admiral USN, July 1, 2008 “Seabased ballistic: missile defense.(FORUM),” Joint Forces Quarterly
accesed online July 10, 2009 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-35134683_ITM

The emerging missile threat from hostile states is fundamentally different from that of the Cold War and requires both a
different approach to deterrence and new tools for defense. Today's rogue leaders view WMD as weapons of choice,
not of last resort. These weapons are their means to compensate for U.S. conventional strength, allowing them to
pursue their objectives through coercion and intimidation. To deter such threats, the United States must devalue ballistic missiles as tools of
extortion and aggression by fielding defenses. Although missile defenses are not a replacement for an offensive response capability, such defenses are a critical
dimension of deterrence. Missile defenses will also help to assure U.S. allies and friends and to dissuade countries
from pursuing ballistic missiles by undermining their military value.




                               ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                                                                        9

                                                                                                   Terrorism Impact
Missile defense key to national security and preventing terrorism
Space & Missile Defense Report, June 22, 2009 (“Obama's Missile Defense Cuts Prevail In Both Senate Armed
Services Panel, And In Entire House”, lexis)
"The bill increases funding for the proven Aegis BMD and THAAD systems by $900 million over the Fiscal Year 2009 level," she said. "It also provides over $1 billion to continue
to researching, developing, testing and sustaining missile defense systems like the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and the Aegis Standard Missile-3 Block IIA
interceptor designed to counter long-range missiles. [The bill] dramatically improves the security of the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies." But Franks
                                                                                                                    "There has never
asked how Obama and congressional Democrats can think of cutting missile defense, just when the missile defense threat is soaring worldwide.
been a time in history when the correlation of ballistic missile proliferation, nuclear weapons programs, and jihadist
terrorism so imminently threatened the peace of the entire human family." Franks stated. "America faces a growing threat in
the rising belligerence, instability, and technological advancements of rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. Both
have made their resolute commitment to a long-range missile and nuclear capability, their hatred of the United States,
and their hostility toward our allies unmistakably clear." The missile defense funding cuts pose "potentially grave
consequences for America's national security," he warned. Other Republicans joined in excoriating the bill. "Considering the threat that
exists, it's ludicrous to me that we would cut funding for critical national defense capabilities," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon
(R-Calif.). "Iran and North Korea both have demonstrated the capability and intent to pursue intercontinental ballistic
missiles and nuclear weapon programs in the last year. It's critical for the United States to provide a comprehensive
missile defense system that protects the U.S. homeland, as well as our forward-deployed troops and allies. Are we so
confident in our diplomatic efforts with Iran and North Korea that we can afford a nearly 90 percent cut in European
Missile Defense and a 35 percent cut to our homeland missile defenses in Alaska and California?"

Impact is extinction
Alexander 03
(Yonah-, Prof. & Director @ Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, August 28, Washington Times, ―Terrorism Myths and Realities‖ )

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the    terrorist
threats to the very survival of civilization itself.
Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns.
It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers.
Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of
intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna].
Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"?
There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality,
weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare.
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact.
                                                   we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological,
The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear

nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation].
The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed.
The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should
be tolerated if not glorified.
This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of
societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right
of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state.
Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of
the Caliphs."
The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement
efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge.
Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks
                                           . The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for
In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy

short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of
Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation
in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror.
   it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the
Thus,

House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be:
For without victory, there is no survival."




                                                ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                          Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                 10

                                                            Relations Impact
Missile Defense is key to relations with Japan, Israel, and Poland.
The Washington Examiner, April 8, 2009. (“Obama/Gates defense cuts leave American Vulnerable”, The
Washingtn Examiner, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ObmaGates-defense-cuts-will-leave-
America-vulnerable-42657852.html)
Most dangerous of all is the Obama/Gates decision to slash funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $1.4 billion, or
nearly 15 percent, thus casting doubt on whether the U.S. will ever actually complete a credible multi-layered defense
against ballistic missile attacks. This decision comes despite multiple recent tests that demonstrated the effectiveness of the
ground and naval components of the system. Worse is cancellation of the highly promising Airborne Laser program just as it nears
tests expected to demonstrate the ability to destroy enemy missiles shortly after launch. Not only do these actions undermine
U.S. national security, such vacillation damages our relationships with key allies Japan, Israel and Poland, who are
counting on our anti-missile shield against rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. The age-old wisdom teaches that
it’s always better to be safe than sorry. It’s almost as if President Obama intends to punish America for its alleged arrogance
by making the nation more vulnerable

Weak US-Japan relationship prevents JASA from deterring conflict
Mochizuki „96
(Mike-, Sr. Fellow @ Brookings, Japan Quarterly, P. 10-11)

Bilateral cooperation is also essential in crises that do not involve military conflict. A state that engages in provocative behavior, such as
threatening military maneuvers or deployment, must be restrained before it escalates into an overt military attack. The international community
should send clear signals that the escalation of provocation will be resisted and military aggression will be punished. The United Nations
provides one forum to send such a message, but this organization has not always been an effective tool in forging an international response to
provocation or even aggression - especially when such a response is resisted by a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. As the
Persian Gulf crisis of 1990 demonstrated, even in cases of blatant aggression, American leadership was necessary to get the United Nations
to act. Similar U.S. leadership will be essential in mounting an effective response to a crisis in East Asia . But at a time when American
citizens are thinking about limiting their country‘s role in security problems far from home, the United States‘ ability to lead will increasingly
depend upon the willingness of its key allies such as Japan to actively support and participate in at international response to the
provocative behavior. This response may range from economic sanctions to military measures. In the context of East Asia, how closely
Japan is in step with the United States will be an important factor in the calculations of potential aggressors. Any signs that
these two powers are at odds during a crisis might tempt the provocative state to escalate tensions. This will increase the
possibility of miscalculation and war. In other words, the odds of peaceful resolution of crises will be greater when the United
States and Japan stand together.




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  11

                                                                                                                           Relations Impact
A strong JASA is key to deter Chinese aggression in Taiwan
Okamoto „02
(Yukio Spec Advisor to the Japanese Cabinet & Chairman of the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations, Spring,
Washington Quarterly, ―Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance‖, Vol. 25, No. 2; Pg. 59)
CHINA AND TAIWAN
Opinion is divided about the rise of China as a political, economic, and military power. Some view China's admission into the World Trade Organization, the emergence of a civil society in the country, and the decline of the Communist Party's revolutionary ideology as hints of a bright
future in which China will seek peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world while its political and human rights practices slowly evolve toward global norms. Others see echoes of the rise of the great imperial powers in the nineteenth century and foresee a fearful global struggle
against a vengeful, recidivist Chinese state. Recent events, including the Chinese government's quiet support of the U.S. war on terrorism and the absence of criticism of Japan's 2001 dispatch of the SDF, tend to support the first, more optimistic view.
Regardless of whether China's development takes the bright path or the fearful one, however, reason for concern exists on one issue: the resolution of the status of Taiwan. Chinese citizens from all walks of life have an attachment to the reunification of Taiwan and the mainland

that transcends reason. The U.S.-Japan alliance represents a significant hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem. Both Japan
and the United States have clearly stated that they oppose reunification by force. When China conducted provocative missile tests in the waters around Taiwan in 1996, the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups into nearby waters as a sign of its disapproval of China's belligerent

                                                                                             a strong and close tie between
act. Japan seconded the U.S. action, raising in Chinese minds the possibility that Japan might offer logistical and other support to its ally in the event of hostilities. Even though intervention is only a possibility,

Japanese and U.S. security interests guarantees that the Chinese leadership cannot afford to miscalculate the consequences of
an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. The alliance backs up Japan's basic stance that the two sides need to come to a negotiated
solution.

Cross-strait war causes extinction
Strait Times „00
(June 25, ―Regional Fallout: No one gains in war over Taiwan‖, Lexis)
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO
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 Armageddon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for
China puts sovereignty above everything else.




                                                           ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                                                                        12

                                                                                         XTN – Jasa Solves China

JASA key to deter war with China
McDevitt „01
(Michael-, Director @ C.S.I.S., CNA Corperation, Oct. 20, ―Implications of the Rise of China for the U.S.-Japan Alliance‖,
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/dc/track2/1st/mcdev.pdf;)

The Bush administration is clearly concerned about the rise of China. While they do not name China by name, the DOD report holds that Asia
is "...gradually emerging as a region susceptible to large-scale militate competition.'' The report goes on to conclude that maintaining a stable
balance in Asia will be a complex task, and, clearly implying China, holds that a "military competitor with a formidable resource base will
emerge.'' Aside from Japan, no other East Asian country but China fits this profile-and Japan, of course, is an ally not a competitor.
To address this issue and to preclude China, or anyone else for that matter, from dominating Northeast Asia or the East Asian littoral,
the QDR says U.S defense strategy will focus on promoting security cooperation with friends and allies in order to create a ―favorable
balance of military power" to improve deterrence and prevent aggression and coercion. In fact, a principle objective for ''security cooperation" (the term of art that
evidently replaces "engagement" as a way to characterize military-to-military contacts between the United States and the countries of East Asia) will be to ensure access, interoperability with allies and friends, and intelligence cooperation.
This is because there are so few U.S. bases in Asia and the distances are so vast. As a result, the report indicates, the United States will place a premium on securing additional access and infrastructure agreements in the region.
In practical tents, this guidance translates into sustaining the current continental-maritime military balance in East Asia. In other words insuring that a continentally dominant China does not develop, unchecked, the ability to project its
                                              . Given the fact that China needs to cross open ocean to bring its formidable army to
power off the continent into what the ODR terms Northeast Asia and littoral Asia

bear against Japan, or other allies and friends, including especially Taiwan- U.S. forces must be able to trump any attempts to do
so.


JASA is key to check hawkish foreign policy by both Japan and China, which overwhelms your internal link
Twomey „02
(Christopher P.-, Prof. @ the J.F.K. School of Gov. @ Harvard, March 29, ―The Dangers of Overreaching: International Relations Theory, the
U.S.-Japan Alliance, and China‖)

However, in this case, the evidence is mixed. While the Alliance contributes to spirals in some areas, it likely has a dampening effect in
other areas. In some cases, the Alliance‘s common policy is more dovish than the separate policies of one or the other Alliance member.
This is especially true when compared with what the nations‘ policies might be in the absence of the Alliance. It is important to
note that this effect of the Alliance—dampening the prospect of spirals restricting the hawkish policy that would have been
pursued by one or the other alliance partner on their own—advances the goal of engagement policies, albeit at a cost of increasing
the stakes of deterrence failure. The following examples help to clarify this logic.




                                                ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                      Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                             13

                                                                             Hege Impact
Missile defense key to U.S. alliances (1NC ev also says this)
Baker Spring Research Fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies September 25 2008 The Heritage Foundation, “Europe, Missile Defense, and the Future of
Extended Deterrence,” Accessed online July 10, 2009
http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/wm2080.cfm

The missile defense agreements between the U.S. and the Czech Republic and Poland represent a new basis for the traditional U.S. policy of extended deterrence.
The new approach will place less emphasis on U.S. retaliation for an attack and more emphasis on protecting and defending
the ally . It will also rely less on a single commitment to alliance security and more on concurrent commitments, for two reasons. First, the agreements with the Czech
Republic and Poland are focused on fielding missile defenses. These defensive systems are designed to protect both the U.S. and its
European allies against attack. During the Cold War, deploying U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe signaled to the Soviet Union that even a conventional attack in
Europe carried the prospect of a nuclear response by the U.S. Defensive measures were assumed to be incompatible with deterrence. In today's multi-polar world, the U.S.
and its allies are becoming less certain that unpredictable leaders will be deterred by the threat of retaliation. In today's
context, they see defensive measures as compatible with deterrence and reinforcing its effectiveness. Second, the U.S.
pursued its extended deterrence policy for Europe during the Cold War through NATO. (The only significant exception to this was the special relationship between the U.S. and
the United Kingdom.) Today's complex multi-polar world is driving the U.S. and its allies to adopt a more flexible system of concurrent and overlapping security commitments. The
Declaration of Strategic Cooperation between the U.S. and Poland in particular demonstrates that both nations will use NATO structures and a close bilateral relationship to
strengthen security. These changes are timely because a retaliation-based extended deterrence policy is prone to breakdowns in today's complex and multi-polar world. This is
why the agreements include steps for bilateral reinforcement of NATO commitments. The relative clarity of the bipolar world permitted carefully designed signals about which
                                                                    multi-polar world makes sending these signals much
actions by a potential aggressor would result in retaliatory and escalatory steps by the U.S. The
more difficult, because the signals must apply to multiple actors operating in different contexts and with different
perceptions of the U.S and its allies. The emerging structure is better able to handle multiple potential threats and
contribute to security in ways that go beyond the limited capabilities of the missile defense systems that they support.

Alliances and coalitions key to hegemony
Nye, Joseph, 2004, former assistant secretary of defense and president of Harvard's Kennedy school of
government, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, 2004, p. 5-6
Everyone is familiar with hard power. We know that military and economic might often get others to change their position. Hard power can rest
on inducements ("carrots") or threats ("sticks"). But sometimes you can get the outcomes you want without tangible threats or payoffs. The
indirect way to get what you want has some-times been called "the second face of power." A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in
world politics because other countries—admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness—want to
follow it. In this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract others in world politics, and not only to force them to change by
threatening military force or economic sanctions. This soft power—getting others to want the outcomes that you want—co-opts people rather
than coerces them.5
Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. At the personal level, we are all familiar with the power of attraction and
seduction. In a relationship or a marriage, power does not necessarily reside with the larger partner, but in the mysterious chemistry of
attraction. And in the business world, smart executives know that leadership is not just a matter of issuing commands, but also involves
leading by example and attracting others to do what you want. It is difficult to run a large organization by commands alone. You also need to
get others to buy in to your values. Similarly, contemporary practices of community-based policing rely on making the police sufficiently friendly
and attractive that a community wants to help them achieve shared objectives.6
Political leaders have long understood the power that comes from attraction. If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to
use carrots or sticks to make you do it. Whereas leaders in authoritarian countries can use coercion and issue commands, politicians in
democracies have to rely more on a combination of inducement and attraction. Soft power is a staple of daily democratic politics. The ability to
establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values and institutions,
and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority. If a leader represents values that others want to follow, it will cost less to
lead.




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                            Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                   14

                                                                Hege Impact
Hegemony is the ultimate awesome. This evidence is comparative against everything else. Solves all
scenarios for extinction.
Kagan 7 (Robert, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ―End of Dreams, Return of History‖, 7/19, web)

This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign
international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with
flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its
size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful
nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world ‘s powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting
themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to
any plausible alternative in the real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great
powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political
liberalism that Americans and many others value.
American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way of regression
toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world that looks like the
European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post-American world
will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington.
THE RETURN OF GREAT POWERS AND GREAT GAMES
If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national
ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to
jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid
bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough,
to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the
large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers are now
competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other.
National ambition drives China‘s foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening
as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as
the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is pass é; hence their now two-decades-long
military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that it is
better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and honor, and
not just wealth and security, are important for a nation.
Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power — with its pacifist constitution and low
defense spending — now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of
China and concerns about North Korea ‘s nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan‘s own national ambition to be a leader in East
Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or ―little brother‖ to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to
augment its own status and power and to prevent the other ‘s rise to predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as
an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a pawn between
the two powers, is once again worrying both about a ―greater China‖ and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg
commented, the East Asian future looks more like Europe ‘s past than its present. But it also looks like Asia‘s past.
Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical, and typically Russian,
blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order, the Russia of
Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the eu and nato, would not insist on predominant influence over its
―near abroad,‖ and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia ‘s international status
in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more
traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect.
Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from nato and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has
more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. 16 Russia‘s complaint today is not with
this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not
make insecurity less a factor in Russia ‘s relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more
difficult.



                             ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                          Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                 15
One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India ‘s regional ambitions are more
muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and
sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a
historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about
defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States.
Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world, and it has
become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction.
Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to
exercise moral authority, to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and
to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role.
Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam, including al Qaeda, do seek
to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national
movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect, including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been
molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same
powers. China had its ―century of humiliation.‖ Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel
has become the living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even
their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which
implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst.
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and
Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East;
the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and
since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not
retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its
position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia,
with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is
more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as
―No. 1‖ and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably
slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and
claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe.
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold
War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power,
influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global
predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other
nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation
but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is
that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make
them more catastrophic.
It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even
as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot
compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of
international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States
engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would
not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve
struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt
trade flows in a way that is now impossible.
Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power.
Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World
War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ‘s stability
depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous
development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war.
People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic
logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where
American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ‘s not the way it works.
International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today



                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                              Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                     16
reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of
power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order,
with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order
be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the
United States and Europe.
The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ‘s great powers.
Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan
and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies
to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does
conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States.
Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United
States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that
a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ‘s neighbors. But even
China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American
withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.
In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world‘s most powerful nation — could be
destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its
periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of
confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that
conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted
what some call a strategy of ―offshore balancing‖ — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near
neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.
It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive,
―offshore‖ role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in
keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope
for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more ―even-handed‖ policy toward Israel, which some see as the
magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ‘s aid if its security became
threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a
heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.
The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle
East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic
fundamentalism doesn ‘t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to
the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American
predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A
diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by
both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran,
to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of
power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ‘t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will
not return things to ―normal‖ or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back
in again.
The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of
burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements . Difficult
as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a
retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.




                             ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                                                                           17

                                                                         Hege – AT Balancing/Collapse (Layne)
No counterbalancing – Evidence only supports minor annoyance, countries are tightening alliances with the
US, and competitors haven‟t joined against the US
Lieber in „05
(Robert, Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University, “The American Era:
Power and Strategy for the 21st Century”, p. 199-202)

Does anti-Americanism signal a hostile world? Does it suggest that lesser powers are beginning to ally with one another in order
to counterbalance American power? Those most alarmed by the evidence of anti-Americanism often argue that this is the case. They, along with a number of prominent international relations scholars in the
realist tradition, warn of a growing mood of foreign hostility, the dangers it may pose to the United States, and the likelihood that American primacy will be short-lived. As evidence they cite adverse foreign public opinion, opposition in the
United Nations Security Council where France led a bloc of countries in opposition to U.S. Iraq policy, and the expansion and deepening of the European Union as a counterweight to the United States.55
Yet in contrast to these arguments, there is considerable evidence that balancing is not really taking place .56 Elsewhere, Gerard
Alexander and Keir Lieber have shown that despite claims to the contrary, there is little sign of true balancing behavior.57
Notwithstanding foreign and domestic rhetoric, the two key indicators of balancing - serious increases in foreign defense spending
and the creation of new alliances - are not evident. Moreover, it is not at all clear that acrimonious criticism of the United States,
especially by allies, is of an order of magnitude greater than during the periodic disputes that erupted during the past half-century.
As additional evidence that real counterbalancing has not been taking place, consider the following.
- The countries of the European Union have not sought to align themselves against the United States, because of both
overwhelming American preponderance and their own long-term military weakness as well as the persistence of national
sovereignty in obstructing the development of a true European common defense. Though France and Germany did oppose the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and
European public opinion was generally hostile to the use of force, the majority of European governments expressed support.58 And subsequent to the Bush reelection and then the holding of free elections in Iraq, the intensity of opposition
visibly lessened.
- The American-led coalition war in Iraq to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein and the violent insurgency that has followed did
not trigger an upheaval in the region nor lead to the collapse of friendly governments. To the contrary, countries such as Libya and
Syria have acted to reduce confrontation.
- Far from disintegrating, as Kenneth Waltz, the foremost realist critic, had predicted,59 the American-led NATO alliance has continued to
flourish and expand because it provides a hedge against potential long-term security dangers in a world of nation-states. Its existence offers a
security umbrella for the countries of Europe,60 and its assumption of responsibility for peace-keeping in Afghanistan provides clear evidence
of its ongoing importance.61
- Among major powers elsewhere, China, India, and Russia have not sought to join with each other or with France and Germany
in balancing against the United States. Instead, each has taken steps to maintain viable and even close working relationships
with Washington.
- Allied countries in other regions, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, have maintained or enhanced cooperation with the United
States, as have the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and (more tenuously) Pakistan.
In sum, despite a very real climate of critical opinion abroad, assessments of actual counterbalancing appear quite overstated .
Steven Peter Rosen has noted, "A surprising number of major states are not now engaging in the self-help that Waltz says is at the heart of
inter-state relations, but are relying instead on the United States for their security."62 Note that one explanation may be that while Waltz's well-
known description of the organizing principle of the international system as anarchical is widely accepted by other realist authors and even a
number of more practical neo-liberals, there are elements of the cur-rent international system that, because of American primacy, are actually
hierarchical. Authors such as Rosen and John Owen have made this point, and Owen has explained the absence of counterbalancing against
the United States by Europe and Japan by observing that the extent to which a state counterbalances against American is a function of how
liberal that state is, because liberal states treat each other benignly. Insight into why this is the case can be found in the remark of a leading
member of the governing German Social Democratic Party. In his words, "There are a lot of people who don't like the American policeman, but
they are happy there is one." 63




                                                ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                      Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                             18

                                                                             F-22 Module
Further cuts mean Obama can negotiate to slash the F-22
Andrew Taylor, staff writer for the Washington Associated Press, June 23, 2009 Congress largely ignoring
Obama budget cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats in Congress crafting spending bills are largely rejecting the roster of program eliminations and budget cuts wanted
by President Barack Obama. Obama proposed the cuts last month after what he promised would be a line-by-line scrub of the federal budget to counter Republican charges that
he's spending the country into too much debt. The House already has rejected his effort to kill a $400 million program that helps states with the cost of incarcerating criminal
illegal immigrants. And a homeland security spending bill up for a House vote this week keeps in place the World War II-era LORAN-C maritime navigation system that Obama
wanted to ax, even though it's been rendered obsolete by the modern global positioning system. The homeland security measure also preserves $12 million in security grants for
bus systems and $40 million in grants to local governments for emergency operations centers — both programs that Obama had proposed killing.
All told, lawmakers in both parties — California Republicans were a driving force in preserving the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program that subsidizes the cost of keeping
criminal illegal immigrants in jail — have combined to preserve more than $750 million worth of cuts suggested by Obama.
Some 75 of the Obama cuts, totaling $11.5 billion, would come from agency operating budgets passed by Congress during its annual appropriations process. That process is just
gearing up, with floor action intensifying in the House and Senate this week.
Lawmakers have yet to deal with Obama's most controversial proposed cuts — including plans by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to terminate the F-22
fighter program to save $2.9 billion in 2010, end production of C-17 cargo planes and kill a presidential helicopter program that is over budget.
Congress already has provided $2.2 billion this year for eight C-17s and a House defense policy panel narrowly rejected Obama's proposal to end production
of F-22 fighters, which critics say are too expensive and are better suited to the Cold War than fighting terrorists.

F22 key to jobs and the economy.
David Robertson, Staff Writer, April 8, 2008, (“Pentagon cutbacks pose threat to jobs at Westland”, The London
Times)

Among other projects that Mr Gates wants to scrap are the F22, the world's most sophisticated fighter jet, and
the C17, a transport aircraft. The Pentagon's Future Combat Systems (FCS) project, an electronic warfare platform for
armoured vehicles and troops, would also be curtailed.Lockheed Martin, the American defence giant, said that
scrapping the F22 would result in up to 95,000 job losses. The cuts are also potentially bad for British
defence companies, which supply components to a number of these projects.

[insert econ impact from spending file or back of this one]




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                          Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                 19

                                                                               F-22 2NC I/L
Obama will choose to cut military spending on F-22s which will create economic down turn
Tony Capaccio, Military reporter and jurnolist of the Bloomberg News and the Los Angeles Times Last Updated: April 6, 2009, “Defense Spending Cuts
May Pose Risk to Boeing, Lockheed Weapons”, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVvHsMfAVWr4 00:42 EDT

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates will propose cuts or delays in weapons programs in an effort to rein in defense spending that has
risen 72 percent since 2000.Gates‘s announcement at 1:30 p.m. Washington time today may be the easy part. The hard part will come in selling to Congress the fiscal
2010 plan that would begin in October, analysts say. Lockheed Martin Corp.‘s F-22 fighter jet and Boeing Co.‘s Future Combat Systems are among programs at
risk as the administration begins to close what Gates calls the ―spigot of defense spending,‖ which may reach $654.1 billion in the budget year ending in
September. While analysts are mixed about whether President Barack Obama will suffer any long-term loss of political capital in Washington or states affected by potential
program reductions, the administration will have a challenge in gaining support for the cuts from some lawmakers. ―Every defense lobbyist is going to be on high
alert,‖ said Stan Collender, a former House and Senate Budget Committee analyst. ―The danger for Obama is he‘s going to make some major changes in
defense spending in programs that‘ll probably affect‖ every district. As a result, some lawmakers who supported the budget resolution last week, may conclude ―I‘m
not going to vote for a final budget resolution unless I get assurance that whatever is back in.‖ Congress is expected to vote on a final budget resolution later this month after it
returns from a two-week recess. White House spokesman Bill Burton declined to comment. Decisions for Gates Gates will decide whether to keep buying Lockheed F-22s while
waiting for its F-35 to reach full production, military analysts said. Lockheed‘s new VH-71 presidential helicopter, a procurement program that Obama said has ―gone amok,‖ may
also be under scrutiny, along with the Littoral Combat Ship made by Lockheed and General Dynamics Corp. Programs under review also include Boeing‘s ground-based and
airborne-laser missile defense programs and aircraft carriers built Northrop Grumman Corp.
Boeing‘s Future Combat Systems -- manned and unmanned Army vehicles joined by a wireless network -- has a ―target on its back‖ and the presidential helicopter ―is in trouble,‖
James McIlree, a New York-based analyst with Collins Stewart LLC, said in an interview. Both have had cost increases. The F-22 has a ―reasonable chance‖ of more orders, he
said. The political gamble for Obama is that the cuts will be felt around the time of the 2010 mid-term elections, said Loren Thompson, a defense
analyst with the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Virginia-based defense analysis research group.
―Any major cuts are likely to hurt Obama more than help him because the only people who will pay close attention to them are people with jobs
canceled,‖ Thompson said in an interview. Those potential job cuts may be in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Thompson said. Parts of the
Future Combat Systems may be made in Lima, Ohio. Still, Obama, 47, paid no political price for reducing a draft Bush-era 2010 defense budget of
$580.4 billion to $533.7 billion, said Gordon Adams, professor of national security at American University in Washington. ―There will be political blowback. Will it hurt him
long- term? Absolutely not,‖ Adams said in a telephone interview. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Congress thus far hasn‘t been involved in the process but Gates will
be calling key lawmakers before his announcement to preview his decisions. Obama has embraced Gates‘s ―unorthodox,‖ closely-held process for making and
unveiling the budget decisions ―but that should not be construed as approval of the recommendations,‖ Morrell said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Asked what kind of congressional pushback Gates expected, Morrell said: ―Any time you make this many dramatic changes in how we do business, it will
invariably cause concern in some quarters.‖ Still, with support for Obama strong, analysts say this might be the right moment to push through
program changes. ―There is no better time to suggest cuts. He‘s at the peak of his popularity. He‘s got a Republican defense secretary and
mid-term elections are 20 months away. He doesn‘t have to pay any political price until then,‖ said Adams, a former Office of Management and
Budget national security director under President Bill Clinton. Kept on the Job Gates, who was hired by President George W. Bush and kept on the job by
Obama, in January said the ―spigot of defense spending that opened on 9/11 is closing.‖ The Standard & Poor‘s Aerospace & Defense Index had risen 82 percent by the seventh
anniversary of the attacks in 2008. Lockheed shares tripled in that time, making it the biggest gainer among the five largest contractors. Among options the Pentagon
considered in its review of the 2010 defense budget is a White House suggestion to target $21.7 billion in cuts, including the cancellation of
Boeing‘s airborne laser and postponing a new competition for the U.S. Air Force‘s refueling tanker program, according to a Jan. 29 proposal from the
Office of Management and Budget. The defense secretary‘s plan to announce his decisions in a news conference before sending details of the 2010 budget to Congress
some time early next month may help insulate Obama from a political backlash about cutting weapons, analysts said. Any changes to the
weapons budget must be approved by Congress, against the backdrop of a recession that has claimed 5.1 million jobs since it started in
December 2007. Deflecting Attention The ―maneuver could deflect attention from the Obama administration,‖ Heidi Wood, an analyst at Morgan Stanley in New York, wrote
in an April 2 note to clients. If Gates seeks to curtail or cancel major weapons programs, he has ―to explain why he‘s making those decisions, the strategy for the future, and how
it fits in that context,‖ William Cohen, a Clinton administration defense secretary, said in an interview. Cuts in one program may affect the need for others. For
example, reducing the number of planned aircraft carriers from 11 by one or two ships may shrink the carrier-based airplane fleet while increasing the need for land-launched
planes such as Lockheed‘s F-22. Gates‘s review may be eying delays to the newest carrier program, the Gerald R. Ford class CVN-21 in early design and production by Northrop
Grumman with Raytheon Co. F-22 Jobs Lockheed and Boeing have campaigned to save major programs by tying them to jobs. Curtailing F-22 production beyond the
183 on order would jeopardize 95,000 workers in 1,000 companies across 44 states, Lockheed says. The aircraft is the most expensive fighter jet
at $354 million each in inflation-adjusted dollars that amortize 20 years of research and development. ―We‘re looking forward to the release of budget
decisions on F-22 and all other national security and defense programs,‖ Lockheed spokesman Jeff Adams said. The Future Combat Systems program is managed by Boeing
and Science Applications International Corp. It supports 91,000 jobs at about 900 suppliers in 43 states, Boeing spokesman Matthew Billingsley said in an e-mail
while declining to comment on the budget deliberations. At an estimated $159 billion, it is the second most expensive Pentagon program after Lockheed‘s
$298 billion F-35 program.




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                  Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                         20

                                                 F-22 Key to Hege

F-22 is key to air dominance and countering worldwide threats
John Pike, editor, GlobalSecurity.org January 21, 2008, accessed online July 10, 2009
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22.htm

The F-22 program is developing the next-generation air superiority fighter for the United States Air Force to counter
emerging worldwide threats. The F-22 Raptor is designed to ensure that America's armed forces retain air dominance.
This means complete control of the airspace over an area of conflict, thereby allowing freedom to attack and freedom
from attack at all times and places for the full spectrum of military operations. Air dominance provides the ability to
defend our forces from enemy attack and to attack adversary forces without hindrance from enemy aircraft.

[insert kagan from this file]




                         ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                      Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                             21

                                                         AT BMD Cuts Now
Budget is still adequate; only further cuts trigger the link
Global Security Newswire , no author given, “Gates Counters Criticism of Missile Defense Spending
Reduction” Thursday, May 21, 2009 accessed online at http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090521_3082.php
The Obama administration's missile defense budget includes adequate funding to strengthen countermeasures against long-range missiles
despite significant spending reductions, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday (see GSN, May 14). The Defense Department's
fiscal 2010 budget request would reduce funding for the the Missile Defense Agency by $1.2 billion, eliminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle and
Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs, and halt plans for a second aircraft carrying Airborne Laser technology. However, the plan includes $700
million in new funds for the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system and the Standard Missile 3 program. While the United States has
made "great technological progress on missile defense" in the past 20 years, Washington must reconcile competing demands to develop new
missile defense capabilities and to acquire equipment for established programs, Gates said in testimony before the House Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee, according to Reuters. Gates' testimony occurred in the day that Iran announced the successful flight of a new missile
(see related GSN story, today). Some lawmakers cited the test-launch in questioning the budget cut.




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                    Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                           22

                                                            AT UQ Overwhelms The Link
The DoD can rebound, but stable funding is key.
Sandra I. Erwin, editor of National Defense Magazine, a source of news and analysis on military programs, technology, policy National Defense; “Scholars Give
Defense Department Failing Grade” Nov 2008, Vol. 93 Issue 660, p30-31, 2p (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=8&hid=2&sid=f14371bd-a8bd-44da-bfda-
f4a698414494%40sessionmgr8)

"The Defense Department is not effective in coordinating and overseeing the basic research program and funding across the department." An
alarming trend has been the decoupling of the Pentagon's office that oversees defense research and engineering from the "cash flow" of the yearly budget process, he noted. As
a result, science funding decisions largely are made by the individual military services or by members of Congress. "In some cases, the services have been able to
redefine, or effectively eliminate, basic research activities within a single budget cycle," said the Jasons' report. A case in point is the Office of Naval
Research, said McMorrow. "During the past decade, ONR has shifted its basic research toward a short-term focus." Further, the bureaucracy associated with defense research
has "grown to consume ever more time and has diverted program managers into administrative formalities at the expense of scientific program oversight," he added. The .Jasons
made a case that successful research requires steady commitment and funding. "Stable funding is more productive than more funding," said
McMorrow. To the chagrin of many scientists, the Defense Department operates under a "war of the month" mentality that discourages long-term focus.




                                  ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                        Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                               23

                                                            Aff – UQ Overwhelms The Link
The deficit is huge – social services and defense programs will both get slashed no matter what
Ivan Eland, (Senior and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty, M.B.A. in applied economics and a Ph.D. in
Public Policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato
Institute,) July 10, 2009, “To Mitigate Economic Armageddon: Slash the Defense
Budget”
The U.S. government is deeper in debt than it has been since just after World War II. When Bill Clinton, who actually reduced the federal deficit as a portion of GDP, left office,
the Congressional Budget Office projected an $800 billion dollar yearly budget surplus for the years 2009 to 2012. Now CBO projects an annual budget deficit of a whopping $1.2
trillion. Although Republicans are blaming Barack Obama for this gargantuan budget gap, George W. Bush is responsible for 53 percent of the total, according to the New York
Times. Another 37 percent is due to the recession of the early part of the decade and the global meltdown that began in late 2007. Obama is responsible for only 10 percent of
the total. Yet the reason that Obama‘s portion is so small is because George W. Bush, a big-government Republican, was in office for eight years, and Obama has been in office
less than six months. Obama has been spending at a phenomenal rate — on a pork-filled stimulus bill and an expansive domestic agenda. Thus, Obama is guilty of making
Bush‘s legacy of massive red ink even worse. Obama‘s budget would double the projected deficit over the next 10 years. By 2019, federal spending is projected to be an eye-
popping quarter of the nation‘s GDP. By contrast, for four decades federal taxation has averaged about 18 percent of GDP. These massive deficits, accumulating as a
monstrous national debt, could cause hyperinflation and the prolonged economic stagnation (stagflation) that would make the 1970s look like
an economic picnic. Yet a liberal Democratic president and Congress seem determined to pass an ambitious domestic program, including
expanded health care coverage — even after two costly wars and an irresponsible expansion of Medicare under Bush have already led the nation into financial ruin. The
big entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, will eventually have to be cut, but politicians are too scared to do so now. The biggest chunk of
the non-entitlement budget is defense spending — sucking up almost $700 billion a year, including the cost of the two wars. Thus, defense spending must be
slashed. Although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has altered defense priorities, he has not proposed massive defense budget cuts — unlike Congressman Barney
Frank, who has courageously proposed a 50 percent cut in Pentagon funding. The two main obstacles to significantly slashing the defense budget are vested
interests that support unneeded or Cold War-era weapons and the persistence in grandiose and interventionist objectives by the American elite when shaping U.S. foreign policy,
even in the face of economic cataclysm.


Impact is inevitable. Obama plans to cut DoD spending regardless of social services.
U.S. SENATE DOCUMENTS, No author given, “American People Deserve Fiscal Responsibility, Not Photo
Ops”;
Senate Judiciary Committee News Release, April 21, 2009, accessed online July 9, 2009 at LexisNexis.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Finance and Budget Committees, released the following statement regarding President Obama's first
meeting with Cabinet officials, where he discussed reducing funding in each agency's budget. "President Obama's call for fiscal restraint
is more than welcomed by me and my Republican colleagues in the United States Senate . Unfortunately, it is 90 days late
and trillions of dollars short. Since taking office, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have gone on an unprecedented spending spree.
Between Inauguration Day and Tax Day, Congress has spent more than we have for Iraq, Afghanistan, and in response to Hurricane Katrina -
combined. Now, the President is asking his Cabinet to cut $100 million over the next 90 days? To put this in perspective, the federal government
currently spends $100 million every 13.5 minutes. The American people deserve more leadership and action on fiscal
responsibility than this dog-and-pony show. "To date, President Obama has targeted only one cabinet agency for significant
spending cuts - the Department of Defense."I hope the Obama administration will take real action to rein in its out-of-
control spending. If the President is truly serious about the task at hand, he should focus on cutting hundreds of billions of dollars instead of
calling for a one-time reduction."


Defense cuts inevitable because of economic recession.
John Kerin Fellow, Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering Fellow, Australian Institute of
Agricultural Science and Technology The Australian Financial Review Turmoil puts weapons spending in cross-
hairs October 9, 2008 Thursday accessed online at LexisNexis
The financial crisis in the US could force deep cuts in US defence spending. This would have a flow-on effect to Australian military spending,
because Australia buys much of its military hardware and technology from the US. The US Government is facing huge financial strain as it
bails out crumbling banks. The following companies were referenced in the original article UNITED STATES. DEPT OF DEFENSE,
AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE LIMITED, AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY.




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                         Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                24

                                                 Aff – UQ Overwhelms The Link
Obama hates the military; he already slashed it to free up funding – link is terminally non-unique
David M. Dickson, staff writer, May 8, 2009 Friday, “Obama budget cuts target military funding; But Pentagon
outlays will rise”, The Washington Times, LexisNexis
President Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next
year's budget for discretionary programs. In its "Terminations, Reductions and Savings" booklet, which the administration
released Thursday, the White House highlighted the results of the president's line-by-line scrubbing of the federal budget. The
administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year. The Defense
Department will take a $9.4 billion hit, constituting 82 percent of the cuts. Defense accounts for 49 percent of spending on
discretionary programs, which Congress must fund each year. The White House identified a total of $17 billion in spending
cuts, including cuts in mandatory programs that mostly involve entitlements. "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do
not matter and waste is not our problem," Mr. Obama said. "These savings, large and small, add up," the president said. "None
of this will be easy." The $17 billion in total cuts represents less than one-half of 1 percent of the $3.6 trillion 2010 budget the
president proposed in February, and it is less than 1 percent of this year's budget deficit. While defense spending accounts for 19
percent of the federal budget, it would absorb 55 percent of $17 billion in total cuts. The defense cuts send "a very clear signal
that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration. I think that's
pretty clear," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican. White House Budget Director Peter R. Orszag rejected the
notion that defense was asked to absorb a disproportionate share of the cuts. "Defense spending will increase by 4 percent in
2010," Mr. Orszag said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, whom Mr. Obama retained from President Bush's Cabinet, "has
said the defense budget needs reform," Mr. Orszag added. "But that doesn't answer why the president did not use the same
diligence in cutting spending for the rest of the budget" that he used to cut defense, said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the
conservative Heritage Foundation. Mr. Riedl noted that the total savings of $17 billion, even in the unlikely event that Congress
approved the cuts, "would not reduce spending at all. Because of budget rules, all savings would be re-shifted to other
programs."

Specifically, Obama will slash the military in half now
Dave Ahearn, staff writer, February 19, 2009 Thursday, “Experts See Deep Cuts Coming In Defense
Procurement, Myriad Programs At Risk”, Defense Daily, SECTION: Vol. 241 No. 30, LexisNexis

After years of soaring defense outlays that roughly doubled since 2001, the outlook for defense programs is bleak, and no one should be
fooled by estimates that President Obama may go for a total defense budget of $535 billion to $545 billion in the next fiscal year ending Sept.
30, 2010, a hold-steady pace, experts warned. There likely will be billions of dollars of cuts in weapons acquisitions programs, not just in
fiscal 2010, but even more in 2011 and later years, the experts predicted. Military outlays will be crushed by huge pressures from multiple
directions, they said, including forces within the Department of Defense such as soaring costs of adding more military personnel ($126,000 for
each active duty person, on average, every year, excluding medical care), spiraling health care expenses, exploding outlays for maintaining
aging and tattered planes, tanks, and ships, and more. Then there are competing external pressures to crush funding for defense
procurement, including a bad economy savaging government revenues even as spending on the unemployed skyrockets, rising medical costs
throughout the nation, retirements of millions of baby boomers, and worse, experts said. Over the next six to 10 years, defense spending
outlays could plunge by 25 to 40 percent, Goure estimated. Cuts total roughly $150 billion in typical defense downturns, he explained. But this
one may entail a far larger loss. The Department of Defense faces "a very rough ride," where defense procurement programs "are likely to see
a down cycle" in financial support. "It's just beginning," he said. "It's going to get much worse." At issue here: whether the United States will
continue to be a superpower, he said. But you get what you pay for, so the cuts will translate into "a smaller force, an older force and a less
capable force" to defend what still is the wealthiest nation on Earth, despite these bad times.




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                         Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                25

                                                           Aff – Non-unique
Non-unique: Obama has already made budget cuts with more to come and the military is on his side.

Ernest Istook Distinguished Fellow, Government Relations , Obama: „Yes‟ to Bailouts, But „No‟ to Defense?
06/08/2009 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32169
President Obama is not a totally profligate spender. But his selectively-parsimonious approach disturbs many who want to maintain a strong
national defense. Almost half of Obama‘s budget cuts are to defense. All are then plowed back into spending increases elsewhere. This is
the first wartime ―peace dividend.‖ And the cuts are being imposed without any analytical support. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said,
―[We] finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead.‖ But what are
those scenarios? Congress requires a ―Quadrennial Defense Review‖ to answer that question with precision, and demands the Defense
Department base its budgets on the QDR results. But the 2009 QDR hasn‘t been done yet. It‘s not safe to be cutting and slashing in the dark.
Recent nuclear and missile tests in North Korea and Iran show we need the very systems that are being cut. Obama‘s focus is on fighting
insurgents such as in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than conflicts with regular armies or against modern missiles. Obama‘s initial cuts to 50
defense programs would grow progressively worse year-by-year. As Defense News reported May 11, ―the Office of Management and Budget
has signaled the department should prepare for budgets that grow only 1% a year to adjust for inflation.‖ Of course, inflation far exceeds 1%.
For less than the cost of a major bailout, Obama and the Congress could assure proper funding of America‘s military and defense. According
to Heritage Foundation defense analyst Mackenzie Eaglen, a $27 billion increase in FY2010 defense spending would meet the minimum
necessary benchmark -- bringing defense spending back to 4% of the national GDP. To go beyond the minimum and keep modernizing our
military, former Sen. Jim Talent (R,-M.), wrote in National Review that we must close a $50 billion gap. Either way, it‘s less than what
Washington has spent in less than a year on automaker bailouts. President Obama claims his reductions aren‘t risky, but so did President Bill
Clinton when he consistently sought to underfund the military. Both then and now, the Pentagon saluted their commander-in-chief and publicly
supported his numbers. The then-Republican Congress repeatedly boosted Clinton‘s requests. Today, with liberals such as House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in charge, it will take bipartisan effort to undo Obama‘s cuts.

Department of Defense‟s demand already outweighs the Future Years Defense Program budget
Bettina H. Chavanne, Pentagon Reporter, 2008, DOD Budget Will Level Off After 2009, Aerospace Daily &
Defense Report, Pg. 5 Vol. 228 No. 17

Internal DOD needs make the FYDP unrealistic, he said, ―We think the FYDP is broken.‖ After this fiscal year, the current FYDP
does not keep pace with inflation. According to GEIA‘s (Government Electronics and Information Technology Association) numbers, the
FYDP ‘09 base budget (excluding supplemental appropriations) is $36 billion, or 7.5 percent, more than in FYDP ‘08. Topline
budget numbers – base and supplemental – also decline, from $678 billion for the fiscal year that just ended to $530 billion in FY ‘15.




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                       Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                              26

                                                                            Aff – No Cuts
Obama‟s defense spending is bigger than any president in history – no chance of cuts.
Winslow T. Wheeler, Center for Defense Information 6/17/09 "How Obama will outspend Reagan on defense",
http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler06172009.html)
On Jan. 27, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Congress, "The spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing." Right after Gates' defense budget was released
on May 7, the Pentagon's comptroller, Robert Hale, confirmed to the press: "The spigot is starting to close." A closing spigot implies less money, but the new
2010 defense budget shows quite clearly that the spigot is not closing; it's stuck - full on. Not counting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
Pentagon's annual appropriations for 2009 were $514 billion. For 2010, Gates is requesting $534 billion. The flow is to increase by $20 billion.
Comptroller Hale also told the press, "We don't have a plan be yond 2010." He said there would not be one until after the Defense Department completes its review of strategy,
programs and policy - the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Actually, there is a plan for the out-years "beyond 2010." It's in the budget that President
Barack Obama approved and sent to Congress that same May 7. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) materials on the budget show a flood of numbers
for DoD's outyears. They are all available to the public in Table 26-1 of OMB's 415 page tome for the 2010 budget, "Analytical Perspectives." It projects DoD spending all the way
out to 2019. Not counting money projected for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the presidentially approved budget plan would continue increasing the
Pentagon's budget: by another $8.1 billion in 2011 (up 1.5 percent), another $9 billion in 2012 (up 1.6 percent), and $10.4 billion in 2013 (up1.8 percent),
and so on all the way out to 2019. If we add in the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year - 2009 -
exceeds any year since the end of World War II, including the spending peaks for the Korean and Vietnam wars. President Obama's plan is to
increase that lead. Obama also will outspend Ronald Reagan on defense. Obama plans to spend $2.47 tril lion on the Pentagon for the years 2010 to
2013. If he makes it into a second term, he plans to spend an other $2.58 trillion for the years 2014 to 2017. Put together for the eight years, 2010 to 2017,
Obama plans to spend $5.05 trillion. In his first four years, Reagan spent, in inflation-adjusted dollars, $2.1 trillion. In his second four years, he spent $2.11 trillion, for an
eight-year total of $4.21 trillion. Obama will out-spend Reagan in his first four years by $369 billion. Over eight years, Obama will exceed Reagan by
$840 billion. Many Republicans are trying to accuse Obama of cutting the defense budget. They seem to have confused their plus and minus signs. According to their logic,
the near-sainted Ronald Reagan was a defense budget slasher. And what of Hale and his implied assertion that none of these numbers will mean anything until the Pentagon
completes its much touted QDR? The Pentagon has been conducting these reviews since early in the Clinton administration. Each one has been greatly ballyhooed and cited as
the essential precursor of big decisions to come. Each one has come and gone and done nothing to change whatever trajectory the Pentagon's leadership has pre-decided; it
functions as little more than a review by the department bureaucracy of itself. Just as the 50 program and policy decisions that Gates announced to the press on April 6
held some dramatic news, such as canceling the Air Force's F-22 fighter, the new QDR will probably contain some newsworthy decisions when it is finished
later this year. Notably, however, Gates' 50 decisions were budget neutral (the 2010 budget was set at $534 billion both before and after them). We can expect the QDR to be the
same. Or, we can expect the numbers to climb a little. On May 14, Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that sustaining the Pentagon's current program will require 2
percent annual growth in the department's budget. That's just a little more than Obama has now in his plan.
Breathlessly, some will protest that we must wait for the results of the QDR and the big changes everyone knows are needed. However, based on Obama's performance on
national security issues so far, it clearly is not going to happen. With his decisions on Afghanistan, extra-judicial military com mission trials of suspected terrorists,
the public release of recorded prisoner abuse and other matters, Obama has already shown he has no stomach for major departures from conventional
wisdom and the "moderate" - i.e., politically safe - thing to do on questions of national defense. Similarly, we can expect Obama's first QDR Pentagon
exercise to land on safe territory, certainly not on the stormy seas of actual reductions - or the uncharted waters of real and meaningful Pentagon reform. The spigot is pretty
much stuck where it is. It would take real change for it to be otherwise.


Claims of DoD not having enough money are ridiculous, they not only have a 134 billion dollar budget but
have 860 million dollar excess.
States News Service JOHNSON-CRAFTED MILCON/VA SPENDING BILL PASSES COMMITTEE INCLUDES
$26.94 MILLION IN JOHNSON-SECURED FUNDING FOR SOUTH DAKOTA July 7, 2009 Tuesday accessed
online July 9, 2009 at LexisNexis.
SENATE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES. FY 2010 APPROPRIATIONS BILL. Overview. Total
funding for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies is $133.927 billion, including $76.7 billion in discretionary
funding, $1.4 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations, and $55.8 billion in mandatory funding. Discretionary funding is $439.1
million over the Presidents budget request. The bill provides $23.2 billion for military construction and family housing,
$286 million over the budget request; $53.2 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, an
increase of $150 million over the budget request; and $279 million for related agencies, a $3 million increase over the
request. The bill also provides $1.4 billion to fund Overseas Contingency Operations in Afghanistan.




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                          Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                 27

                                                              Aff – No Cuts
Not a chance. The DoD budget for 2010 was approved and both sides of congress agreed. They won‟t let
Obama trade-off.
The American Chronicle, No Author Given, June 30, 2009 (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/108269)

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010. Ranking Member Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA) and the Republican members of the Committee praised the legislation for the
support it provides to America´s military personnel and their families. The comprehensive defense policy bill authorizes $550.4 billion in budget
authority for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. Additionally, the legislation
authorizes $130 billion in funding to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorism for Fiscal Year
2010. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), Ranking Member: "As the new Ranking Member of the committee and someone who came to
Congress to work on defense issues, I am pleased with the overall quality of the defense authorization bill and am proud that so members from
both sides of the aisle voted to support it. At the end of the day, the chief duty of this body is to support the millions of men and women within
the America´s military family, and I believe the final product provides them with that support.

The DoD has money in the bank, can absorb a cut
Rebekah Manning, February 26,2009. http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/federal-budget-broken-down/

The Department of Defense receives the lion‘s share of the Federal Budget to be used both internally and externally. $533.7 billion is
requested for specific programs with another $50-100 billion earmarked should the Department of Defense need it. The budget will cover the
drawdown of US troops from Iraq, the aid of struggling states like Pakistan and the funding of programs that help to monitor cyber, biological
and nuclear threats. Overall, a large amount of funds are not detailed.

The DoD‟s budget was increased by 2% over inflation - panic over budget cuts is created solely by the media,
their link story is false.
Stan Collender, April 13 2009 (University of California Berkeley, worked on the federal budget and
                           th


congressional budget process, including stints on the staff of the House and Senate Budget Committees;)
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/853/about-4-increase-military-spending

I know I'm coming a little late to this party, but the topic deserves some additional discussion. John Stewart was right last week when he asked
"On what planet is a 4.1 percent increase a cut?"…First...here are the numbers: The DOD budget submitted by the White House to Congress
on February 26 does indeed propose that top line military spending increase by a little more than 4 percent from 2009 to 2010. That's
incontrovertible. Second, even relative to inflation, which the White House, Congressional Budget Office, and Blue Chip forecasts all show at
less than 2 percent, the proposed DOD budget is still an increase. So how did this increase suddenly get labeled as a cut by some
congressional Republicans and a number of folks in the media? The answer is "cleverly," "brazenly," and "embarrassingly." The clever part
was simple: the administration's critics focused on the fact that DOD Secretary Gates talked mostly about program cuts in his press
conference last week instead of on total spending. To the communities and companies that will be hurt by these changes, the top line is far
less important than how they will be affected. To them, the military budget is being reduced. That was the local headline and impact, and the
overall 4 percent increase simply was unimportant. So, in a stunt that was worthy of Karl Rove or Lee Atwater, the administration's critics used
that aspect of the proposal to get headlines. The brazen part was also extremely cynical: the administration's critics assumed that few in the
media would do much more than repeat what they said and that by the time the reports started to focus on the top line and realize that the
critics had no clothes on, the damage would have been done and they would have achieved their objective. The embarrassingly part was the
way the story was, in fact, reported. The story should have been about the proposed reductions in certain DOD programs rather than in cuts in
the military budget. In fact, the focus should have been on "changes" rather than on reductions; that was both more accurate and far less
judgmental. But the almost immediate follow-up story should have been on the attempts by the administration's critics to mischaracterize the
changes. That was left to John Stewart several days later. One other embarrassing note was the way the White House handled this
announcement. As I noted last Monday, by itself the Gates announcement was unusual. But once the White House agreed to let Gates go
ahead, it had an obligation to support the effort so that its message was clearer and better received and to prevent the type of
mischaracterization that occurred. That didn't happen.




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                              Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                     28

                                                                          Aff – No BMD Now
Budget cuts are already being made in the defense budget including missile defense.
George Landrith, President of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, April 19, 2009 Sunday, “What Did Obama
Give Away in Europe?”
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6941525585
&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6941525588&cisb=22_T6941525587&tr
eeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=312240&docNo=1

What do missile defense budget cuts and unprecedented presidential bows to foreign monarchs have in
common? They both show a startling naiveté and an alarming propensity to misunderstand the world around us and underestimate the risks
it poses. While traveling in Europe, President Obama made headlines when he bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and then denied what
the video obviously showed. While no U.S. president (other than perhaps Bill Clinton) has bowed to the head of another state since George
Washington established the important tradition over 200 years ago, there are even more serious concerns about Obama's recent overseas
travel.It is no secret that Obama's proposed budget cuts deep into the defense budget -- including missile
defense. What is not known is how much of America's defensive capability did Obama give away while in
Europe. We already know that Obama's budget cuts in missile defense exceed $1.4 billion. Why slash
missile defense now? Do our enemies see us as stronger or weaker as a result? Just like Obama 's bow to
the Saudi king, his cuts to missile defense and other important defense matters show the world that he
wants to be liked more than he wants to be respected, that he is weak, and he is not resolute. The big question --
which foreign leaders have the answer to but Americans do not -- is what did Obama give away while he traveled abroad? Did he further slash
our ability to defend against nuclear ballistic missile attack? Some reports suggest that he signaled to European allies that missile defense will
be further cut from his list of priorities. The United States had agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to install missile interceptors
and the advanced radar needed to better detect, track and shoot down ballistic missiles. This agreement would protect Europe and the United
States from missile attack and strengthen our diplomatic efforts -- as our allies will more readily see the world from our vantage point if we can
protect them from the threats of dangerous rogue nations. That means stronger defense and better diplomacy. With budget cuts already
reducing our ability to defend against missile attack, what else did Obama give away when he was not
bowing to foreign monarchs? Did he tell our European allies that the United States has changed its mind
about defending the U.S. and Europe from missile attack? We need to know. Obama promised candid,
open and honest government. Obama has already announced dramatic cuts to missile defense and other
important weapon systems such as the F-22 fighter jet. We live in a dangerous world and our fighting men
and women deserve every advantage in their effort to keep America safe. We cannot delay the new air refueling tankers or the
Future Combat Systems. We cannot postpone increasing troop levels and training. Obama's claim that we all must tighten our belt in tough times rings hollow when all the belt-
tightening he imposes is on us, not on our adversaries. Obama's claim that he will project strength and toughness also rings hollow when he cuts from the budget the technology and
equipment needed by our fighting men and women to defend this nation while at the same time he is bowing to foreign monarchs and then denying the obvious bow. President Obama
precisely that. Sadly, presidents who played politics with national security were failed presidents. President Obama is at a cross roads. He has taken several steps down the wrong path
towards failure. But it is not too late. He must retrace his steps and get back on the right path. He can start by renewing America's commitment to missile defense and by showing the
world that defense will always be a top priority. This is not merely symbolism -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il, among others, are watching and taking note. Republicans
should demand that Obama come clean. Did he compromise European missile defense? Americans are entitled to know.


Obama will cut MD now
Caroline B. Glick, Editor or Jerusalem Post, July 7, 2009, (“Avoiding an American ambush”, The Jerusalem
Post. )
On Monday Obama arrived in Moscow for a round of disarmament talks with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.
According to most accounts, while in Moscow Obama
plans to abandon US allies Ukraine and Georgia and agree to deep cuts in US missile defense programs. In exchange,
Moscow is expected to consider joining Washington in cutting back on its nuclear arsenal just as the likes of Iran and North Korea
build up theirs.




                                    ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                     Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                            29

                                                                           Aff – No Tech
The Department of Defense is failing as technological innovators and is no good at research either.
Sandra I. Erwin, editor of National Defense Magazine, a source of news and analysis on military programs, technology, policy National Defense; “Scholars Give
Defense Department Failing Grade” Nov 2008, Vol. 93 Issue 660, p30-31, 2p (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=8&hid=2&sid=f14371bd-a8bd-44da-bfda-
f4a698414494%40sessionmgr8)

The Pentagon's science advisors confirmed in a recent study what other experts have been saying for a long time: The Defense Department has lost its
luster as a technological innovator and has done a poor job managing research programs. The scathing critique comes from an independent group of
scientists from the nation's top universities, including Nobel Prize winners, known as the Jasons. At the request of the Pentagon's research and engineering office, the Jasons
focused their summer 2008 report on the department's science and technology programs. A particularly weak spot for the Pentagon is its declining prestige
as a sponsor of leading-edge science and technology, said the report. The panel concluded that many scientists are souring on defense work as they
see military research becoming far less influential to society. By comparison, during the Cold War and the heyday of the U.S. space program, military patronage
helped to create many modern scientific disciplines.




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                         Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                30

                                               Aff – DOD Goes Red / I/L Takeout
No internal link and the impact is non-unique – the DOD will just go over their budget if it gets cut
Carl M. Levin, Michigan Senator, March 6, 2009 Friday, REFORMS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE , States
News Service,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6941498441
&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=101&resultsUrlKey=29_T6941498446&cisb=22_T6941498445
&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8058&docNo=121
American taxpayers deserve to have their money well-spent. But last year the Government Accountability Office reported
that the Department of Defense's 95 largest acquisition programs are an average of two years behind
schedule and have exceeded their original budgets by an average of 30 percent. Our military personnel deserve to
have dependable timetables for weapons systems upgrades, and with the federal budget under immense strain as a result of the economic crisis,
we simply cannot afford this kind of inefficiency.    That's why I recently introduced, along with Senator John McCain,the Weapons Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. This legislation will require the Department of Defense to take the steps needed to put defense acquisition
programs on a sound footing from the outset. Acquisition problems have plagued some of our armed services most promising weapons
systems, including the Air Force tanker, the Osprey, and the Joint Strike Fighter. It is clear that these problems are not the exception; rather,
they are the result of systemic flaws in Department of Defense acquisition procedures.       The department too often relies on
unreasonable cost and schedule estimates that cannot be met. It establishes unrealistic performance expectations that increase costs and
cause further delays. It has insisted on the use of immature technologies in cases where it is unknown if they can be achieved. And it has time
and again required costly changes to program requirements and production quantities once a project is already well underway




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                      Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                             31

                                                                   Aff – RMA Fails
Funding advancements in military is a mistake!
Center for Security Policy – 7-18-2005 (“An army of none? Congress should build, not impede, the transformational 'future combat systems'”
Decision Brief No. 05-D 35 2005-07-18, www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=05-D_35)

Some in Congress contend that it is not possible to fully fund the Future Combat Systems while spending for ongoing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Such a trade-off mentality is a recipe for disaster. In the interest of alleviating a present budget crunch, it would compound the spending bow-
wave problem already afflicting the Pentagon's planned modernization programs. The result would be to deny the Army the ability to bring to bear
critical technologies needed to maintain America's preeminence on the battlefield, and, therefore, possibly its success there. In light of the fact that the
defense budget is still at a relatively low percentage of the Nation's GDP when compared to past allocations, it would be undesirable - if not actually
recklessly irresponsible - to run such risks, especially in light of recently announced increases in federal revenues.

Congress wants to split the FCS programs which will inevitably end the programs agenda
Center for Security Policy – 7-18-2005 (“An army of none? Congress should build, not impede, the transformational 'future combat systems'”
Decision Brief No. 05-D 35 2005-07-18, www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=05-D_35)

Particularly troubling is the proposal being advanced by some in Congress that the various Future Combat Systems components be split up into separate
development tracks. Doing so would only serve to damage the strategic underpinnings of the entire program - i.e., its emphasis on integrated
command and control. Without this critical central feature, the Pentagon could be left with a class of vehicles and weapons that would be disconnected
from each other and unable decisively and successfully to confront heavier enemy forces. Were such a recommendation to be followed, it may well lead to
a FCS program unable to fulfill its main objective of a more lethal yet lighter and more readily deployable ground force.




                                   ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                       Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                              32

                                                                  Aff – F-22 Non-U
It‟ll get sent to Japan
Washington, Staff, 2009, U.S. Move May Allow F-22 Exports to Japan, The Daily Yomiuri,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6941649559&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE
&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T6941638841&cisb=22_T6941657733&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=145202&docNo=27 Accessed 07/10/09

        congressional committee added an amendment to the fiscal 2010 defense budget to require the
A key U.S.
Defense Department to explore the possibility of exporting the F-22 jet fighter to Japan, the nation's preferred choice
as its next-generation mainstay fighter.

The amendment requires the U.S. Defense Department [DOD] to submit reports on the F-22 within 30 days after the bill is
enacted. The broader spending bill passed the committee Tuesday. Among other things, the reports are required to include:


Obama will veto it either way
Naftali Bendavid, Chief of Chicago Tribune, And Christopher Conkey , Staff Writer, June 27,2009, “Obama,
Democrats in Congress Clash on Spending “ The Wall Street Journal)
As pressure grows on Mr. Obama to show he is working to curb deficits, he has made his first formal veto threat, opposing a pair of military
fighter jets. The president said this past week that the administration "strongly objects" to Congress's desire to spend $369 million for new F-
22s because officials say the aircraft aren't suited for the guerilla warfare being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration also objects to the $603
million Congress wants to spend for a new second engine for the F-35.




                                ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                    Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                           33

                                                                   Aff – F22 Bad
F-22 takes money from education and infustructure, and results in more job loss that it creates.
William D. Hartung, Director Arms and Security Initiative New America Foundation, February 25, 2009,
(“MILITARY SPENDING AND EMPLOYMENT: The Case of the F-22 A New America Foundation Issue Brief”,
http://www.peaceactionme.org/military-spending-and-employment-case-f-22-new-america-foundation-issue-
brief)
Using two different estimating techniques (elaborated below), F-22 expenditures generate jobs in the range of 35,000 to 37,000 per year — less than
40% of the levels claimed by Lockheed Martin. In addition, Lockheed Martin‘s advertisements and fact sheets on this issue fail to stress the fact that any
job losses that do occur as a result of ending the F-22 program will be stretched out over two and half years or more, suggesting that many of them may occur
after the end of the current recession. Finally, to the extent that additional funding for the F-22 program comes at the expense of public
investments in areas such as education, infrastructure, and building weatherization, extending the F-22 program could result in a net job loss
in the range of 9,300 to 47,000 jobs per year.




                               ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                         Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                34

                                                        Aff – Hege Not Good
You have no offense, hege doesn‟t have an impact – realism indicates that power cannot overcome the
security dilemma, and hegemonic expansion causes economic implosion and balancing which short-circuit
your solvency
Layne 06 (Christopher, Associate Professor of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, ―The Peace of Illusions‖ p. 16)
The distribution of power in the international system can be unipolar (a single, hegemonic great power), bipolar (two great powers), or
multipolar (three or more great powers). Because they believe that a more or less equal diffusion of power among two or more great powers is
more conducive to peace and stability than the concentration of power in the hands of a single power, defensive realists argue that states
should not seek to maximize their power but only to maximize their security. Great powers should avoid expansionist, and
hegemony-seeking, grand strategies. As Stephen Van Evera claims, great powers are not constrained to be hegemony seekers, because
the ―structure of power is benign‖ in international politics and therefore ―provides more disincentives than incentives for aggression.‖
Defensive realists believe that security usually is plentiful in the international system, because the security dilemma is modulated by certain
―structural modifiers,‖ especially the ―offense/defense balance‖ of great power military capabilities (which, in turn, is a function of geography
and military technology). Defensive realists assert that the advantage usually favors the defense, which means that great powers should be
pretty confident that others won‘t attack them. When defense has the upper hand, great powers are very secure, and thus they can forego
expansion and offensive military postures and focus on mutually beneficial cooperation. Defensive realists argue that great power expansion
is doubly misguided: not only is there no systemic imperative for great powers to expand but such behavior is self-defeating.
Defensive realists claim that great powers that adopt power-maximizing grand strategies end up being less, not more, secure.
For defensive realists, there are two main reasons that power-maximizing strategies cause insecurity for the great powers that adopt them.
First, because costs mount over time, and even ―successful‖ expansion inexorably leads to strategic overstretch. The pursuit of
security through expansion weakens the domestic economic base on which great powers‘ security ultimately rests. Second, the
ironclad rule in international politics is that instead of aligning with a would-be hegemon (―bandwagoning‖), other great powers join
forces to defeat it (―balancing‖) by building up their own military capabilities and/or entering into counterhegemonic alliances. As
Barry Posen states, not only does balance-of-power theory suggest that ―expanding hegemons will be opposed and stopped‖ but there is
―ample historical evidence that this is the case.‖ However, the historical record raises and important conundrum: If structural imperatives
only rarely cause great powers to pursue expansion, and if power-maximizing behavior is self-defeating, why have successive great powers
made bids for hegemony?

Turn – hegemony creates the greatest risk of power transition wars
Eland 02 Ivan, DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES AT THE CATO INSTITUTE,
NOVEMBER 26, ( POLICY ANALYSIS, THE EMPIRE STRIKES OUT: THE ―NEW
IMPERIALISM‖ AND ITS FATAL FLAWS, HTTP://WWW.CIAONET.ORG/WPS/ELI05/ELI05.PDF)

It will also increase the likelihood of war. That’s because the doctrine of prevention or preemption is
predicated on the ―ideology of the offensive,” which says that striking early is less difficult than striking later. The Bush
administration’s National Security Strategy boldly asserts that ―our best defense is a good offense.”96 Consequently, offense-
minded states are apt to be war-prone because they believe the prospects for victory are very favorable to them. What’s more,
offense-minded states have a tendency to incite security dilemmas, whereby the efforts of weaker states to increase their relative
security undermines, or appears to undermine, the security of the offense-minded state, thus triggering a spiral of security
competition that can culminate in confrontation or war.97 For example, as China’s economy grows, it may want more ability to
control its security environment within East Asia. The expansion of Chinese influence in that region may run afoul of a United
States, which has a defense perimeter that is far forward and a military doctrine that is very preventive or preemptive.




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                       Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                              35

                                                            Aff – Hege Bad
Hege tanks the economy – kills trade partner confidence
Greider 03 (William, ―Military Globalism, march 13, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030331/greider

The threat to globalization is not the wasted American dollars but Washington's readiness to mix US commercial interests with its
self-appointed role as global protector. At a time when the US economy must borrow from abroad to sustain its own domestic
consumption, this move is sure to deepen distrust among trading partners and foreign creditors--suspicions that will permeate
every forum of the trading system. Americans who imagine that their government will manage Iraqi oil to insure cheap gasoline may
be disillusioned too. As overseer of Iraq, the United States would doubtless act like other OPEC members, managing production to insure
stable oil prices at around $26 a barrel. Anything less threatens oil-producing countries--and oil companies. The Bush White House, if it has
any sense, will quickly pass off this role to some sort of international agency. Otherwise, it is going to be caught between the interests of
US consumers and its buddies in the oil industry.

Impact is extinction
Bearden 00
(Tom-, Retired Lieutenant-Colonel, ―The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve it Quickly,‖
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.html
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have
increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed
by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons
upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-
range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved
in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for
decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are
then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin
that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-
emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible.
As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be
unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and
perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.




                            ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                                                                                                          36

                                                                                     Aff – Hege Bad Impact Frame
The impact debate goes one way only – globalization means that a unipolar power can only spread conflict,
not contain it
Weber 07 Steven, Director of the Institute for International Studies, Berkeley, Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb., p. 48
That's nice work if you can get it. But the United States almost certainly cannot. Not only because other countries won't let it, but, more profoundly, because that line of thinking is faulty. The predominance of American power has many
benefits, but the management of globalization is not one of them. The mobility of ideas, capital, technology, and people is hardly new. But the rapid advance of globalization's evils is. Most of that advance has taken place since 1990. Why?
                                                      For the first time in modern history, globalization was superimposed onto a
Because what changed profoundly in the 1990s was the polarity of the international system.

world with a single superpower. What we have discovered in the past 15 years is that it is a dangerous mixture. The negative effects of
globalization since 1990 are not the result of globalization itself. They are the dark side of American predominance. THE DANGERS OF
UNIPOLARIT A straightforward piece of logic from market economics helps explain why unipolarity and globalization don't mix. Monopolies, regardless of who holds them, are almost always bad for both the market and the monopolist. We
                                                                                            Above a certain threshold of power, the rate at which new global problems
propose three simple axioms of "globalization under unipolarity" that reveal these dangers. Axiom 1:

are generated will exceed the rate at which old problems are fixed Power does two things in international politics: It enhances the
capability of a state to do things, but it also increases the number of things that a state must worry about. At a certain point, the latter
starts to overtake the former. It's the familiar law of diminishing returns. Because powerful states have large spheres of influence and
their security and economic interests touch every region of the world, they are threatened by the risk of things going wrong-
anywhere. That is particularly true for the United States, which leverages its ability to go anywhere and do anything through massive debt. No one knows exactly when the law of
diminishing returns will kick in. But, historically, it starts to happen long before a single great power dominates the entire globe, which is why large empires from Byzantium to Rome have always reached a point of
unsustainability. That may already be happening to the United States today, on issues ranging from oil dependency and nuclear proliferation

to pandemics and global warming. What Axiom 1 tells you is that more U.S. power is not the answer; it's actually part of the problem. A multipolar world
would almost certainly manage the globe's pressing problems more effectively. The larger the number of great powers in the global system, the greater the chance that at least one of them would exercise some control over a
given combination of space, other actors, and problems. Such reasoning doesn't rest on hopeful notions that the great powers will work together. They might do so. But even if they don't, the result is distributed governance, where some
great power is interested in most every part of the world through productive competition Axiom 2: In an increasingly networked world, places that fall between the networks are very dangerous places-and there will be more ungoverned
zones when there is only one network to join The second axiom acknowledges that highly connected networks can be efficient, robust, and resilient to shocks. But in a highly connected world, the pieces that fall between the networks are
increasingly shut off from the benefits of connectivity. These problems fester in the form of failed states, mutate like pathogenic bacteria, and, in some cases, reconnect in subterranean networks such as al Qaeda. The truly dangerous
places are the points where the subterranean networks touch the mainstream of global politics and economics. What made Afghanistan so dangerous under the Taliban was not that it was a failed state. It wasn't. It was a partially failed
and partially connected state that worked the interstices of globalization through the drug trade, counterfeiting, and terrorism Can any single superpower monitor all the seams and back alleys of globalization? Hardly. In fact, a lone
hegemon is unlikely to look closely at these problems, because more pressing issues are happening elsewhere, in places where trade and technology are growing. By contrast, a world of several great powers is a more interest-rich
environment in
which nations must look in less obvious places to find new sources of advantage. In such a system, it's harder for
troublemakers to spring up, because the cracks and seams of globalization are held together by stronger ties Axiom 3: Without a real chance to find useful allies to counter a superpower, opponents will try to neutralize power, by going
underground, going nuclear, or going "bad. Axiom 3 is a story about the preferred strategies of the weak. It's a basic insight of international relations that states try to balance power. They protect themselves by joining groups that can hold
                                                                                     every nation from Venezuela to North Korea is looking for a way to constrain
a hegemonic threat at bay. But what if there is no viable group to join? In today's unipolar world,

American power. But in the unipolar world, it's harder for states to join together to do that. So they turn to other means. They play
a different game. Hamas, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela are not going to become allies anytime soon. Each is better off
finding other ways to make life more difficult for Washington. Going nuclear is one way. Counterfeiting U.S. currency is another. Raising uncertainty about oil supplies is

perhaps the most obvious method of all. Here's the important downside of unipolar globalization. In a world with multiple great powers, many of

these threats would be less troublesome. The relatively weak states would have a choice among potential partners with which to
ally, enhancing their influence. Without that more attractive choice, facilitating the dark side of globalization becomes the most effective means of
constraining American power The world is paying a heavy price for the instability created by the combination of globalization and unipolarity, and the United States is bearing most of the burden. Consider the case
of nuclear proliferation. There's effectively a market out there for proliferation, with its own supply (states willing to share nuclear technology) and demand (states that badly want a nuclear weapon). The overlap of unipolarity with
globalization ratchets up both the supply and demand, to the detriment of U.S. national security.




                                                ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                          Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                 37

                                           Aff – AT Alliances = Hege Internal Link
Hegemony tanks devastates alliances– it generates too much international resentment. Other states
intentionally short-circuit diplomacy with us as a method of “soft balancing,” which none of your authors
assume. Your internal link scenario is circular and defeats itself
Layne 06 (Christopher, Associate Professor of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, ―The Peace of Illusions‖ p. 144)

Soft balancing is a concession to the disparity in military power between the United States and other major states in today‘s
international system. Soft balancing relies on diplomacy – conducted through international institutions – and, rather than challenging
U.S. hegemony directly, it seeks to constraint he United States and limit Washington‘s ability to impose its policy preferences on
others. The key idea underlying soft balancing is that by coordinating their diplomacy and lending one another mutual support, soft
balancers can gain outcomes vis-á-vis the United States that they could not obtain by acting separately. To date, soft balancing has taken
two forms. First, the second-tier major powers have cooperated – either through informal ententes or by creating organizational structures
– to rein in America‘s exercise of hegemonic power. Examples include periodic summit meetings (Sino-Russian, Franco-Russian,
Sino-Indian-Russian) that pledge cooperation to restore multipolarity, and the Shanghai Cooperation Council, created by Moscow
and Beijing to coordinate efforts to resist the intrusion of U.S. power into Central Asia. The second-tier major powers also engage in
―binding‖ strategies that seek to enmesh the United States in international institutions, to ensure that it is restrained by international law and
norms of permissible great power behavior. However, as the combined efforts of France, Germany, and Russia to use the United Nations to
prevent the March 2003 U.S> invasion of Iraq demonstrate, binding is an ineffective means of constraining U.S> hegemony (although perhaps
marginally more successful as a means of delegitimizing U.S. unilateral actions)> This does not mean, however, that soft balancing is
unimportant. After all, grand strategy is about utilizing the key instruments of a state‘s power – military, economic, and diplomatic – to
advance its interests and to gain security. Diplomacy invariably is an integral component of counterbalancing strategies. Thus,
soft balancing‘s real significance is that, if states learn that they can work together diplomatically in standing up to the United
States,t he groundwork may be laid for future coalitions that will be able to engage effectively in hard balancing, or semi-hard balancing,
against the United States.




                             ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖
SCFI 08-09                                                                                                                                       Scholars
Tradeoff                                                                                                                                              38

                                                              Aff – BMD Bad ! Turn
Dumping Missile Defense is key to renewing START
Luke Harding, The Guardian‟s Moscow correspondent, and Julian Borger, The Guardian‟s Diplomatic Editor,
July 10, 2009, (“US and Russia agree disarmament road map”, The Guardian,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T69411452
65&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6941145253&cisb=22_T6941145252&t
reeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138620&docNo=1)


But it was unclear whether negotiations between the US and Russia would actually yield a new treaty - or whether both sides could bury their
differences over the former's missile defence plans. The Kremlin has made it clear that a deal is impossible if the US administration goes
ahead with its missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic Obama said that a review of that shield would be completed as early as this
summer. But he gave no indication whether he was willing to dump it - instead merely predicting that the positions of the two nations on the shield "could
be reconciled".

Talk about START are shaky now due to the U.S. Missile Defense program. Russia disagrees with it.
BBC Worldwide Monitoring, July 8, 2009, (“Missile defence issue blocks progress toward new START treaty”,
BBC Worldwide Monitoring)
In addition, they agreed that each side will independently determine the composition and structure of its own strategic offensive arms. This is
very important for us, for Russia's main grouping of strategic missiles is on the land, while the United States' is at sea. In the document there is also, for
example, a provision on the influence on strategic stability of ICBM's and SLBM's without nuclear warheads. The point is that the United States was planning
to use the ballistic missiles without nuclear warheads that are being taken out of the arsenal for strikes against terrorists' bases. As for the statement about
missile defence (it contains just three paragraphs), it states that Russia and the United States "plan to continue the discussion regarding the
establishment of cooperation in reacting to the challenges of the proliferation of ballistic missiles." At the same time they are "activating the
search for the optimum ways to strengthen strategic relations on the basis of mutual respect and common interests." In fact, all of this is
entrusted to experts to do.
"The main reason why the sides have essentially made no progress in preparing a legally binding new treaty on strategic offensive arms is the
unresolved question of missile defence," Vladimir Dvorkin is certain. "The statement made on missile defence attests only to extremely
insignificant steps towards each other in this sphere."


[insert start impacts]




                               ―What did one poor person say to the other poor person?‖ ―Who cares?‖

								
To top