**CHINA DA **

1NC CHINA DA
US military presence in East Asia and its perceived signal is strong now --- 2010 Quadrennial defense review McDevitt, rear admiral, Director for CNA-Strategic Studies, at The CNA Corporation, 10 [March 15th, The 2010 QDR and Asia: Messages for the Region, http://csis.org/files/publication/pac1012.pdf] US friends and allies in Asia should be reassured that although prevailing in todays conflicts is central to US strategy, the QDR is also at
pains to recognize the central importance of the ... system of alliances, partnerships, and multinational institutions that our country has helped build and sustain for more than sixty years. The QDR is quite explicit in stating that the US possesses the military capability to

...deter, defend against and defeat aggression by potentially hostile nations-states. This capability is fundamental to the
nations ability to protect its interests and provide security in key regions.

This very explicit endorsement of the importance of US military presence in East Asia is a significant signal to Asia that the US has no intention of withdrawing from Asia in the face of growing Chinese military capability. Over the last 18 months or so, there have been a number of commentaries regarding Chinas off-shore military strategy for dealing with Taiwan or defending itself from attack by the sea. Termed anti-access or areadenial, the basic idea is for China to have adequate military capability to defeat US military power in East Asia and keep reinforcements at arms length in other words, to deny the US access to East Asia in case of conflict. The QDR addresses the anti-access problem head-on. It makes the point that Americas ability to deter conflict is directly related to its ability to be able to fight both ...limited and large scale conflicts in environments where antiaccess weaponry and tactics are used. In other words , the Department of Defense recognizes US credibility as a force for stability is
directly related to its ability to convincingly deal with attempts to deny the US military access. More specifically, the QDR specifically requires that US naval forces continue

to be capable of robust forward presence and power projection operations, even as they add capabilities and capacity for working with partner navies. In terms of airpower it says, Land-based and carrier-based aircraft will need greater average range, flexibility, and multi-mission versatility in order to deter and defeat adversaries that are fielding more potent anti-access capabilities. These QDR requirements are intended to guide the evolution of US military, and to this analyst are clear recognition that the US and China are engaged in a capabilities competition in East Asia. Quite simply, the region should understand that as Chinas anti-access capabilities improve, the US has every intention of maintaining its current advantages by staying ahead in the capabilities race.
Among the initiatives the QDR announces for dealing with this emerging problem is US Navy and US Air Force collaboration on something called a joint air-sea battle concept. One objective of this concept is to defeat adversaries equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial capabilities. The idea is to integrate capabilities in all the domains air, sea, land, space and cyberspace to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action. Again,

this should be seen as a reassuring signal to the region that the US intends to maintain a viable presence for the long term, and commentaries regarding the eclipse of US power in the region are misguided.

And, this military presence deters Chinese aggression towards Taiwan --- withdrawal upsets the precarious balances ensures Sino- Taiwan warfare Alagappa, Senior Fellow East-West Center PhD , International Affairs, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Tufts University 03 [Muthia, Asian security order: instrumental and normative features, p. google books] The United States has also intervened in the increasingly tense standoff between China and Taiwan. The U.S. goal has been to deter China from seeking a military solution (the Taiwan Relations Act of 1974 calls for the United States to come to
Taiwan's aid if it is attacked) and, in addition, to dissuade Taiwan from provocative acts of independence. In March 1996, China fired missiles close to Taiwan in anticipation of Taiwanese elections. This action was meant to intimidate Taiwan and had the temporary effect of stalling shipping in the Taiwan Straits. The United States responded by dispatching two aircraft carriers and some fourteen other warships to the area. Through its strategy of "calculated ambiguity" Washington meant to deter possible Chinese aggression and simultaneously to signal its willingness to maintain a cooperative relationship with China. Washington prepared to take similar steps early in 2000 as China once again escalated its rhetoric (this time without launching missiles) in anticipation of an- other Taiwanese election (Kaiser and Mufson 2000a), rourlh, U.S. hegemony has contributed to regional

order by helping to stave off in Asia the kind of nationalist economic competition (and attendant political friction) that plagued the world economy during the 1930s. The potential for beg- gar-thy-neighbor policies certainly emerged during the late 1990s.

The Asian financial crisis was a profound shock that might well have led to closed markets, competitive devaluations, and a downward spiral of trade and growth. The management of this crisis was found in Washington rather than Tokyo or elsewhere in the region. During the crisis, the U.S. Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to assure global liquidity and maintain high growth in the United States. As the cri- sis eased, the United Stales spurred recovery by taking in the huge flood of ex- ports from emerging economies as well as from China and Japan.1' Washington's response to the crisis reflected its regional economic strategy of seeking to liber- alize the developmental capitalist markets of Japan and Southeast Asia while at the same time integrating China into the liberal world economy. It is important to recognize the limits of hegemony as a means to promote regional order. In essence, the U.S.

hegemonic project in the Asia Pacific is more a holding action than a progressive strategy for resolving security problems. It is an effort to stabilize a status quo that reflects U.S. dominance. Although Washington has worked hard to keep relations among major
powers in the region from deteriorating, it docs not seem to have a plan for resolving the long-standing ten sions in these relationships. In fact, since the United States does not want to en- courage a balancing coalition against its dominant position, it is not clear that it has a strategic interest in the full resolution of differences between, say, Japan and China or Russia and China. Some tension among these states reinforces their need

for a special relationship with the United States. Similarly, Washington has defused regional crises in Asia without any funda- mental resolution of the underlying disputes. The series of U.S.-initiated economic concessions to North Korea, for example, reflects
more an effort to buy time than a plan to transform the politics of the Korean peninsula. Korean unification, in fact, would be a mixed blessing for the United States in light of its hegemonic strategy. Unification, after all, would diminish the need for a U.S. military presence in Koreaa

presence U.S. officials believe is important not only to defend South Korea but also to stabilize relations elsewhere in East Asia. Not surprisingly, Washington sought to keep the issue of U.S. forward-deployed forces off the table as the two Koreas began their detente process in 2000 (Harrison 2001). Washington's diplomacy toward the China-Taiwan dispute proceeds in a similar spirit. Decisive steps by Taiwan toward independence would provoke China and raise the potential for military conflict. An aggressive attempt by China to incorporate Taiwan would force the United Stales either to defend Tai- wan or to appease Chinaboth of which are costly options. For the United Slates, an uneasy stalemate is preferable in current circumstances to any dramatic attempt at resolution. Washington has managed the conflict by trying to protect Taiwan without emboldening it and trying to deter China without isolating or provoking it. Global nuclear war Hunkovic, American Military University, 09 [Lee J, 2009, The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf] A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors
in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.

1NC/ 2NC ASIA MODULE

Removing forward deployed military presence in Asia sparks Asian prolif and a litany of other impacts Blumenthal, commissioner and former vice chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, American Enterprise Institute, 6/7/10 [ Daniel, Losing Asia?, http://www.aei.org/article/102121] After three decades of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific, it is tempting to dismiss the possibility of tension and conflict in that critical region. But the breaking down of the post-Vietnam war great power peace should be a legitimate worry for the U.S. government. America's military forces have an important role to play in Asia for the foreseeable future. The questions for our military leaders are what are the Asia missions, what forces are needed, and how will we fight alongside our allies? China could soon have the capability both to establish local air supremacy and to hit any surface ship coming its way from the Western Pacific. The remarkable economic growth of the "Asian tigers"--Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and, more recently, China--did not happen in a vacuum. Despite domestic political pressure, American presidents decided time and again to keep substantial military forces deployed in the region . This military presence, variously referred to as the "security umbrella" or the "oxygen," set the conditions for Asian elites to embark on the policies that led to economic growth and relatively peaceful relations. Without America as guarantor, those same Asian countries would likely have engaged in costly military competitions--perhaps even wars--and many would have tried to acquire nuclear weapons. America's forward deployment of forces and its network of alliances did the job, helping Asians set themselves on a course of 30 years of prosperity. Yet, today, there are a number of developments that threaten the region's stability. First, North Korea has conventional missiles that can destroy Seoul and gravely damage Japan. It also has a nuclear arsenal. The North's brutal dictatorship could, moreover, suddenly collapse: leaving South Korea,
Japan, the United States, and China scrambling to find and secure weapons of mass destruction while stabilizing the state. The allies and China have very different notions about what a secure Korean Peninsula means. China's pursuit of its own goals during a crisis is a recipe for trouble. Second,

Southeast Asia suffers the scourge of radical Islam . The U.S. military may be called upon to help respond to terrorist attacks--as it has been doing, with a light footprint, for almost a decade in the Philippines. And then there is China, which has the greatest potential to undermine the Asia-Pacific peace. China has translated its economic resources into an impressive and growing military arsenal. Its Second Artillery ballistic and cruise missile forces pose a particular threat to U.S. and allied air supremacy in the "first island chain" (Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines). China's missiles could seriously damage and ground most U.S. air assets
at our most important Pacific base--Kadena in Japan. The Second Artillery is refining a land-based anti-ship ballistic missile. China could soon have the capability both to establish local air supremacy and to hit any surface ship coming its way from the Western Pacific. China has a growing fleet

of diesel and nuclear submarines. The diesel boats, which can stay longer undersea, carry arsenals sufficient to enforce a blockade of Taiwan and threaten surface ships in and around China's littorals. With a new base in Hainan Island , China's nuclear submarine force has easy access to the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait. Given historic Sino-Indian mistrust and America's reliance on the Indian
Ocean for its own energy trade, China's ability to cause mischief at critical Pacific and Indian Ocean chokepoints is a serious strategic development.

Some experts argue that just because China has developed these capabilities does not mean that it will use them to threaten America or its allies. India, too, the logic goes, is undertaking a military modernization program . This is simply what great powers do. But it is the character of a rising power that matters. Those who take comfort in the assertion that "all great powers do it" should consider China's revanchist claims, its troubling international activities, and its internal dynamics. Even with a government in Taiwan that has abandoned any claim to independence, China has not renounced its right to use force against the island. It continues the unrelenting military buildup of a force across the strait that was only supposed to "deter Taiwan's independence." The Chinese navy is increasing the frequency of its sojourns into disputed waters in the South and East China Seas . The Indians find themselves encircled by a network of
Chinese maritime facilities. U.S. Navy ships have been harassed by Chinese vessels during lawful missions in international waters. The Chinese military is interested in expanding control of its maritime periphery and keeping the United States out. U.S. Navy access to these waters has been a source of reassurance to our allies during Asia's 30-year peace. Beijing embarked on its military modernization program after the Cold War, a unique moment of peace and security in China's history. It did not choose to focus on homeland defense, on the threats posed by terrorism or nuclear proliferation, or on modest programs that would allow China to continue to grow in peace while guarding against potential attack. That is what the rest of the world was doing. Nor after the 9/11 attacks, and consequent threats to all non-Islamic nations, did China change its posture and contribute to global efforts to eradicate terrorist safe havens. Rather, it continued to invest in power projection capabilities. This decision was driven by a deep sense that China must right the wrongs of the past and recover from "a century of humiliation." Taiwan needs to be reclaimed, Japan rendered impotent, and U.S. access to China's periphery impeded. Nor can China bear the humiliation of relying on the United States to keep safe the

commons for Chinese trade. In the view of the hypernationalist leaders within the government, the rest of Asia must accept the country's rightful place at the top of the Asian political hierarchy. China, in short, seeks to frustrate our most basic aims in the Asia-Pacific: maintaining the political order that has helped produce a set of mostly democratic and free market economies in the region and assuring that they continue to develop free from domination by any other power. We have responded very modestly to the erosion of our favorable military position in Asia. During the

Clinton years, we upgraded our relations with Japan and began talks with the Indians that led to a strategic breakthrough in the next administration.Under Bush, we also transferred maritime and aerospace assets into the Pacific. But no significant steps have been taken toward building

a more robust deterrent in the Pacific, one that can face down Chinese intransigence. There are numerous instances of American negligence in this regard. Our attack submarine program is unstable--with the numbers appearing to be shrinking. We cancelled the tactical air program--the F-22--that could have operated most effectively against China's sophisticated air defenses. We have not done the basic work of hardening and securing our present land bases or diversifying them. Our surface ship programs are shrinking and are not optimized for undersea warfare. Our most promising defense against Chinese missiles--directed energy--is not being properly funded. Our tanker fleet, needed to refuel attack aircraft in a region with very long logistical lines, remains depleted and old. New and promising programs that are in their experimental phases--such as naval-based unmanned aerial vehicles and longrange strike assets--should have been funded a decade ago. In addition, we have only paid lip service to our partnerships. With the advanced economies and militaries in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, and India, real alliances require exporting high-technology equipment and systems. We have not taken the basic step of reforming export controls so that we can more easily sell our allies the weapons they need and then train with them on the common systems. (One particularly jarring consequence is that the French or the Russians may end up selling fighters to India, even though our airmen are more likely to one day fight alongside them.) All of these countries are investing in submarines, anti-submarine surface ships, cruise missiles, and tactical aircraft that can engage in maritime strike missions. We are missing a strategic opportunity to build a region-wide network of allies around common security concerns. Our strategic requirements necessitate more military investment in the Asia-Pacific on an expedited schedule, as well as creative strategic thinking about building alliances with countries that are already funding their own military modernization programs. Investing properly in air supremacy, undersea warfare, and missile defenses will be costly. But the cost is nowhere near the price we will pay if

the region--which has enjoyed a long run of peace, stability, and prosperity--descends into chaos or conflict. East asian prolif causes a global nuclear war Cirincione, 2k Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Spring 2000, Joseph, Foreign
Policy, The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain, JStor) The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world.

If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile
defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's

actions can trigger reactions throughout the region , which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945. <insert asia econ impact/china Taiwan impact/ south china sea module, you choose>

2NC UNIQUENESS DEBATE

US military presence in Asia is containing China now --- the 2010 quadrennial defense review sent a signal that reassured Asian allies and demonstrated the breadth of US commitment to the region. --- Thats Mc Devitt Prefer our evidence Mc Devitt assumes the most recent change to US military doctrine which changes the way our allies perceive our commitment to the region. And, a robust forward deployed presence is deterring Chinese invasion of Taiwan now Smith & Khoo, 10 - *Reader in War Studies in the Department of War Studies at King's College at the University of London, **Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University (6/18/10, A Concert of Asia?, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7060) Yet the main reason for NATOs success and longevity is precisely that it is characterized by the dominance , both in decision making and military presence, of one single great power the United States that is, uniquely, external to the
continent. Therefore, if one suggests that schemes for a concert have proved relatively short-lived in Europe, often foundering on the rocks of political and national difference, then they are even less likely to be efficacious in a much more geographically disparate and heterogeneous continent like Asia. Moreover, if one can fairly criticize analysts for failing to fully appreciate the rarity and ephemeral nature of concert systems in European history, the same analysts seem also not to apprehend that Asia has even less experience of multipolarity. The only example of a multipolar system in Asia in modern times has been a negative one, covering the period of chaos, war, and colonialism from 1839 to 1945. There has been nothing resembling a concert in Asia. Instead, regional unipolarity has been the rule, reflected in the preponderance of Chinese power until the start

of the Opium Wars in 1839 and, after a period of great turbulence, U.S. dominance in the post-1945 period . The reality of American hegemony The fact that a tradition of unipolarity has supplied stability in the region somewhat undermines the
starting point of Concert of Asia advocates who believe that because the area is a hotbed of tension and rivalries, it needs to be managed through a multilateral framework. It does not. Currently, a benign American hegemony prevails in the Asia-Pacific and remains

the key to managing change in a fluid economic and strategic environment. Moreover, there are solid theoretical and empirical bases on which to believe that this is a desirable state of affairs. From a theoretical perspective, U.S. military preponderance reduces the intensity of the security dilemma in the region. The term refers to a vicious cycle in which defensive actions taken to maintain a states security are perceived as offensive threats and lead other states to take actions that reduce the first states security. It is a theory that has particular resonance in the Asia-Pacific, characterized as it is by traditional rivalries, most notably between China and Japan . In essence, a robust forward U.S. military presence mitigates the likelihood that the myriad of potentially explosive territorial and sovereignty disputes will be resolved in a manner that disrupts regional security . To cite but one example, it has been the U.S. commitment to Taiwan since 1950 that has prevented Beijing from launching a full-fledged invasion to reclaim the island . Decision makers in Beijing, who view Taiwan as part of their sovereign territory, have been deterred by the U.S. military presence in East Asia from taking what they see as defensive actions to recover Taiwan. From an empirical perspective, American hegemony generally finds tacit and widespread support across the region, particularly among the ASEAN states that see the U.S. presence as necessary to counteract possible Chinese irredentism or a revival of Japanese militarism. For example, Singaporean Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew has been quoted as saying that the golden rule for Asia-Pacific security is that of using the American presence in the region to forestall the excessive growth and influence of either China or Japan. In recent years, such
rhetoric has been backed up by Singapores extension of naval and air force facilities to the United States. Arguably, even the Chinese themselves, although they would prefer not to see the United States prevail in the long run, discreetly defer to American power, not least by tacitly recognizing Americas role in helping to check any prospective Japanese or Russian adventurism. Finally, it may be added that the best way to keep the United States firmly anchored in the Asia-Pacific region is to accept rather than challenge its de facto hegemony. Notions of hegemony are not very consistent with United States self-perceptions, and a continued demonstration by the Asia-Pacific region that the American role is appreciated will go a long way in ensuring that there is no inadvertent scaling down of that presence. One need only consider the counterproductive 1992 decision by the Philippines to close down American bases at Clark Field and Subic Bay to appreciate the fact that American decision makers know when they are not welcome.

And, US defense posture in Asia is strong now ---- continued forward deployed military presence is key Banusiewicz American Forces Press Service, 6/5/10 [Gates Describes U.S. Approach to Deterrence in Asia, John D, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/06/mil-100605-afps01.htm] SINGAPORE, June 5, 2010 A U.S. defense posture in Asia that is more geographically distributed, operationally resilient and politically sustainable is necessary in deterring conflict in todays world, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today. Gates addressed the
first plenary session of the ninth annual Shangri-La Dialogue, an Asia security summit organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Conventional military bases, Gates said, are not the sole yardstick for measuring the U.S. presence in the region and its associated impact and influence.

Rather, he said, we must think about U.S. presence in the broader sense of what we achieve in the region: the connections made, the results accomplished. This, he explained, includes the work of medical teams and engineers, as well as partner militaries that are more professional and capable of contributing to international efforts to deal with the most vexing challenges the United States and its Asian partners face. These kinds of activities reflect a priority of the overall United States security strategy: to prevent and deter conflict by better [employing] and integrating all elements of our national power and international cooperation, the secretary said. As we have learned, military capabilities are critically important, but by themselves, [they] do not deter conflict. Sustained diplomatic, economic and cultural ties also play vital roles in maintaining stability and improving relationships. The history of the past 60 years in this part of the world, he continued, has proven that historic tensions can be overcome, instability can be avoided, and strategic rivalries are not inevitable. The U.S. approach to its policy in Asia and its overall defense posture

has been shaped by a series of strategy reviews over the past year, Gates said. These reviews were shaped by a bracing dose of realism,
and in a very sober and clear-eyed way assessed risks, set priorities, made tradeoffs, and identified requirements based on plausible real-world threats, scenarios and potential adversaries. An effective and affordable U.S. defense posture, the secretary explained, requires a broad

and versatile portfolio of military capabilities across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. With regard to Asia, he said, the United States is increasing its deterrent capabilities in the region. First, we are taking serious steps to
enhance our missile defenses with the intent to develop capabilities in Asia that are flexible and deployable tailored to the unique needs of our allies and partners and able to counter the clear and growing ballistic missile threats in the region, he said . The United States is renewing its

commitment to a strong and effective deterrence that guarantees the safety of the American people and the defense
of its allies and partners, Gates said. President Barack Obama is committed to reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the quest for a world without them, he noted. But as long as these weapons exist, he added, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. The forward

presence of substantial U.S. forces is another example of the strong U.S. commitment and deterrent power in the region, as has been the case for six decades, Gates said, though a global posture review scheduled to be completed by the years end already has made one general trend clear. The U.S. defense posture in Asia is shifting to one that is more geographically distributed, operationally resilient and politically sustainable, he said. The buildup on Guam is part of this shift, as well as the agreement reached on basing with Japan an agreement that fittingly comes during the 50th anniversary of our mutual security alliance and transcends any individual policymaker. Plans call for more than 8,000 U.S. Marines to move to Guam from the Japanese island of Okinawa by 2014, and for a U.S. Marine air base on Okinawa to relocate on the island. Gates noted that the economic growth and political development the Asia-Pacific region has enjoyed over the last several decades was not a foregone conclusion. Rather, he said, it was enabled by clear choices about the enduring principles that we all believe are essential to peace, prosperity and stability. Those principles, he said, include: -- Free and open commerce; -- A just international order that emphasizes rights and responsibilities of nations and fidelity to the rule of law; -- Open access by all to the global commons of sea, air, space, and now, cyberspace; and -- The principle of resolving conflict without the use of force. Simply put, he said, pursuing our common interests has increased our common security. Today, the Asia-Pacific region is contending with new and evolving challenges, from rising powers and failing states to the proliferation of nuclear and ballistic missiles, extremist violence and new technologies that have the ability to disrupt the foundations of trade and commerce on which Asias economic stability depends. And, China is pursuing aggressive policies towards Taiwan and the South China Sea --- a withdrawal of US military presence prevents containment Blumenthal, commissioner and former vice chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, American Enterprise Institute, 10 [Daniel, April, China's grand strategy, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/29/china_s_grand_strategy According to Kaplan, as China looks to the seas along its eastern seaboard, it feels contained. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia are all, to varying degrees, U.S. allies unwilling to acquiesce in a Chinese breakout into the Pacific Ocean . China is trying to get out of this box by building up its submarine fleet and conventional cruise and ballistic missile force. In the end, according to Kaplan, Taiwan is the key to China's naval breakout. Control of Taiwan would allow China to project power beyond the "first island" chain. To its south, China strives for control of the South China Sea, both because it is a
gateway to the Indian Ocean and because it is rich in natural resources. To that end, China has built a major naval base on Hainan Island in the South China Sea. Hainan Island could allow the Chinese navy unimpeded access to the seas' major chokepoints. While Kaplan's assessment of China's

sounds about right to me, it has also done its job in provoking some thoughts. I will offer three thoughts: First, I do not agree that China can accomplish its continental consolidation through demographic efforts -- populating Tibet, Xinjiang,
geostrategy the Russian Far East -- or commercial relations alone. To do what Kaplan argues Beijing is trying -- consolidate its land borders, extend its reach in Central Asia and Burma and Korea -- China will also need to develop expeditionary land forces. Why? To respond to terrorist attacks, to prepare for a possible border war with India, and to advance its goals on the Korean peninsula in case of collapse and chaos in the North. Second, Kaplan seems

to endorse the "Garret plan" that is making its way around the Pentagon, a plan which, in the context of America's regional political objectives, seems wrongheaded. The basic idea is to "do away with master bases" in Japan and South Korea
and instead strengthen the U.S. presence in Oceania -- on Guam and the Caroline, Northern Mariana, Solomon, and Marshal islands -- while at the same time vastly expanding America's naval presence in the Indian Ocean. This strategy would require Washington to upgrade defense relations with India-to use some of its outer islands-well as with Brunei, Malaysia, and Singapore. The U.S. navy would still cooperate with the Japanese maritime self-defense force as well. This plan, according to Kaplan, would be less provocative to China while at the same time still allow the United States to play something more than the role of offshore balancer. There are a number of problems with this plan. It is not clear that some of the countries that we would need for the plan to work would cooperate, especially after we pulled out of Japan and South Korea .

A withdrawal from the "master bases" would be seen as a waning U.S. commitment to its allies . And, while it is true that the "first island chain" is becoming less defensible, it is not too late to take prudent steps to reverse this dangerous

trend. We have not yet hardened air bases in Japan, stepped up efforts at missile defense, or sought better options for countering China's missile force
(How about the deployment by Japan of cruise and ballistic missiles along the Ryukus to target Chinese launchers?). Third, Kaplan's emphasis on the importance of Taiwan for geostrategy, rather than for geopolitics, is debatable. Taiwan would provide China with modern ports and China could extend its maritime surveillance capabilities. But unless we develop adequate defenses, China's missiles forces will render U.S. military activity in the first island chain too costly whether China possesses Taiwan or not. While Mahanians in and out of China would argue that acquiring more territory would extend China's maritime reach, analysts focused on China's missile forces would disagree. With better precision guided capability and longer ranges, China missile force may, over time, give the People's Liberation Army air superiority over the first island chain, as well as allow it to target any surface ship approaching China from the Western Pacific. We still could take steps (hardening bases, seeking new bases, deploying better missile defenses, investing in more submarines and stealthy long range fighter-aircraft and bombers) that would make operations in the first island chain less risky, but if current trends continue, China will not need Taiwan to project power into the Pacific. From a geostrategic perspective, Taiwan would only be important if we decided to use it to counter China's missile or submarine force. But we are not doing that now nor are we likely to in the future. Since we are decidedly not using Taiwan as our "unsinkable aircraft carrier," China does not need to consider it a barrier to its current military planning. Taiwan's geographic importance to China may be overstated. That brings me back to broad U.S. objectives. Taiwan's importance is the same as the importance of our Japanese, South Korean, and Philippine allies -- more geopolitical than geostrategic. These countries have embraced the international system that the United States created and defended after World War II. They are democratic states with free market economies that all want to be part of what used to be called the "West," the worldwide club of modern, advanced industrial democracies. Washington's interests are better served when economically vibrant democracies are free from the control of other great powers - this better ensures that the international system remains hospitable to us. In my opinion ,

for geopolitical as well as geostrategic reasons, the United States military should maintain a (more defendable) presence on the territory of as many U.S. Asian allies as welcome it, at least until all can be assured that China will be a responsible and democratic great power, uninterested in creating its own exclusive economic or military spheres. That means we need to work harder to help our allies build capabilities that help frustrate China's military plans rather than pulling back and relying mostly on offshore bases .

Forward deployed ground troops in Asia are critical to deter Chinese expansionism and attempts at seizing Taiwan. The plan collapses the efficacy of the signal sent by US presence --this precipitates Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Thats Alagappa And, Military presence is the critical balancing force --- preventing Chinese aggression Goh, 5 - Assistant Professor at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Singapore (Evelyn, Meeting the China Challenge: The U.S. in Southeast Asian Regional Security Strategies, http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/3509/3/PS016.pdf.txt) Traditional friends and allies of the United States in East Asia acknowledge that a key determinant of stability in the region has been the U.S. presence and its role as a security guarantor. In the post-Cold War period, regional uncertainties about the potential dangers attending a rising China have led some analysts to conclude that almost all Southeast Asian states now see the United States as the critical balancing force, both in the military and political-economic spheres. The existing literature on this Southeast Asia U.S.-China security dynamic tends to assume that Chinas rise is leading to a systemic power transition scenario in which the region will have to choose between a rising challenger and the incumbent power. The de facto expectation is that these countries will want to balance against China on the basis that a rising China is threatening. Thus, they will flock toward the United States as the lead balancer . Yet, most key states in the region face complex
pressures with regard to Chinas growing role and do not perceive themselves as having the stark choices of either balancing against or bandwagoning with this powerful neighbor.

2NC LINK DEBATE

And, it sends an equally important signal -- demonstrates the costs of conflict Goh, 5 - Assistant Professor at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Singapore (Evelyn, Meeting the China Challenge: The U.S. in Southeast Asian Regional Security Strategies, http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/3509/3/PS016.pdf.txt) Southeast Asian states are not looking so much to contain China as to socialize it while hedging against the possibility of aggression or domination by it. This approach to growing Chinese power hinges on three elements. First is the successful playing of triangular politicsthe use of bilateral relations with one major power as leverage to make advances in improving relations with another . This is seen, for instance, in Thailands strategy vis--vis China and the United States. Second is a strong expectation of deterrence the harnessing of superior U.S. force in the region to persuade Beijing that any aggressive action would be too costly and unlikely to succeed. These
two elements together are usually construed to represent balancing policies. The third element that is at least equally emphasized, however, is engagementthe meaningful integration and socialization of China into the regional system, cultivating it as a responsible, constructive, status quo regional power.

And, military presence prevents China from launching an attack on Taiwan --- senior military officers confirm CP, 04[China Post,] (U.S. PRESENCE IN THE PACIFIC DETERRING PRC, U.S. NAVY SAYS, April 2, Lexis) The U.S. military presence in the Western Pacific continues to deter mainland China from launching an attack against Taiwan, according to the Pentagon's most senior naval officer responsible for U.S. forces in the region. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander U.S. Pacific Command, noted that the U.S. "ability to dissuade and deter China ... is really very good." While the
conflicts in Southwest Asia, the War on Terror and confronting a belligerent North Korea are the immediate focus for the U.S. military, relations between India and Pakistan and the risk of miscalculation across the Taiwan Strait continue to "worry" Adm. Fargo. "The

Taiwan issue remains the largest friction point in the relationship between China and the United States," he told
the committee. President Bush has stated the U.S. "support for the 'one China' policy and the three communiques," according to Fargo, but he added, "it should also be equally clear that our national leadership and the Pacific Command are prepared to commit and committed to meet our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act." The U.S. maintains "a force posture and readiness and an ability to respond to contingencies that will ensure that should the president ask, we can meet those responsibilities under the TRA," he said. Washington continues to watch developments following Taiwan's presidential election "closely" and has seen "no indication of an imminent military crisis," said the admiral. Though the mainland's military intent is "impossible" to assess, the U.S. remains conscious that "China in the future is going to have a very modern and capable military," he said.

And, troop presence is the lynchpin of stability LeBlanc, Lieutenant Colonel United States Army, 04 [Lee D, May , 21ST CENTURY UNITED STATES MILITARY STRATEGY FOR EAST ASIA: COUNTERING AN EMERGING CHINA, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc? Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424084] A last factor that is likely to require some consideration for a U.S. forward presence is the size of the armies for countries in this region. For instance, the six largest armies of the world are in the Asian region, namely: (1) Peoples Republic of China, (2) United States, (3) Russia, 10 (4) India, (5) North Korea, and (6) South Korea.46 Such an array of military capability

in one region suggests that a U.S. military presence is vital to stability. In conclusion, the extensive U.S. military strategy for the Asian region, and for China, appears to support NSS objectives. Comprehensive U.S. engagement in the region serves in part as a deterrent to China and provides regional stability. The future impact of transformation on the U.S. military strategy in the Asian region is unknown . Regional stability suggests that the U.S. military strategy enables the U.S. to maintain its regional interests. And, China views US military presence as containment --- this precludes their adventurist objectives Medeiros & Yuan, 01 Senior research associates on the East Asia Non-Proliferation Programme at the Monterey Institute Center for Non-Proliferation Studies (6/2/2001, Evan S and Jin-Dong, A US military presence in Asia: offshore balancer or local sheriff?, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/eanp/sheriff.pdf) China and the US China generally opposes the current US military presence in Asia and has characterised the US system of bilateral military alliances as out-dated Cold War thinking . During the Cold War China tacitly accepted a US troop presence in Asia as a force for stability and as a substitute for a remilitarised Japan. Yet in recent years, Chinese views of the US military presence in the region have shifted. Beijing increasingly sees US military alliances in Asia as fostering an adversarial security environment akin to the NATO versus the Warsaw Pact competition in Europe. In particular, Beijing views the
recent expansion of the US-Japanese defence guidelines and the growing US defence relationships with Southeast Asian countries as threatening. In private conversations with government officials and military officers in China, we found that Beijing opposes the US alliance system

because it sees its purpose to be containing China. Indeed, US forces in East Asia are increasingly seen as a major obstacle to Chinas objectives in the region , which range from assertiveness in the South China Sea to its long-held goal of national unification . The strengthened US-Japanese security alliance lies at the heart of Chinese concerns in
two critical aspects. First, as the alliance expands Japan will assume an increasingly prominent role. This prospect raises historical concerns about Japanese remilitarisation. Tokyo already has the worlds second largest defence budget (after the USA) and maintains one of the best-equipped militaries in the region. In addition, Japans industrial and technological wherewithal can provide it with ready resources should it decide to become a great military power at short notice. The Chinese often point to Japans large stockpiles of plutonium and Japans sophisticated space-launch capabilities as evidence of potential nuclear and missile capabilities.

And, the forces deterrent effect prevents the conflict from spinning out of control Sokolsky, et al. 2k [ Richard, adjunct research associate at the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, C. R. Neu, Senior Economist at RAND and Ph.D. & M.A. in economics, Harvard University, The role of Southeast Asia in U.S. strategy toward China, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1170/MR1170.ch3.pdf] Although the prospects are remote that China will mount conventional military attacks against the sea-lanes for the foreseeable future, the possibility cannot be ruled out that hostilities could break out between China and one of the ASEAN states in the South China Sea, perhaps as a result of an incident that spins out of control. In this scenario, China might seek to deter U.S. military involvement by raising the costs of conflict enough to weaken U.S. resolve. The Chinese could calculate,
whether correctly or not, that the United States might hesitate to place its carriers at risk, and that Chinas growing cruise and ballistic missile capabilities would provide Beijing with a credible sea denial option.8 Indeed, territorial disputes in the South China Sea have emerged

as the key external security issue facing ASEAN and pose the greatest potential flashpoint for conflict in Southeast Asia (see Figure 3.1). Beijings quest for improved power projection capabilities, assertiveness in pressing its maritime and territorial
claims in the South China Sea, and track record in using force to defend Chinas sovereignty have all stirred apprehensions in Southeast Asia about Chinas intentions. Much of the worry reflects an underlying, if often unspoken, fear that Chinese assertiveness foreshadows a China

that will become more menacing as its power grows. And, Experts conclude that military presence is key to Asian stability AFP, Agente French Press, 05 [US Needs Strong Military Presence In Asia: Study, http://www.spacewar.com/news/superpowers-05t.html] The report by 14 experts assesses how Asian states are modernizing their military programs in response to China's rise as a regional power, counterterrorism, changes in US force posture and local security dilemmas. Highlighting three possible "conflict" scenarios -- China-Taiwan war, strife on the Korean peninsula and nuclear catastrophe in South Asia -- Michael O'Hanlon, an arms control expert from The Brookings Institution, said the United States and Asian allies "must retain a wide range of military capabilities." They include higher-technology "transformative" assets and large numbers of infantry forces, he said in the report, "Military modernization in an era of uncertainty" compiled by the Seattle-based National Bureau of Asian Research. "The United States will continue to require the use of a wide range of military bases in Asia, and Washington should place a premium on maintaining diversity in such arrangements," he said. Given the great distances necessary in transporting military forces from the United States to the Western Pacific, O'Hanlon said, such base facilities would continue to claim "paramount importance." "Those who argue that defense transformation will radically reduce the need for
overseas bases do not make a convincing case," O'Hanlon said. A US military transformation plan was unveiled last year to close up hundreds of American facilities overseas no longer needed to meet Cold War threats and to bring home up to 70,000 uniformed personnel within a decade. It was

touted as the most comprehensive restructuring of US forces overseas since the end of the Korean War and aimed at deploying a more agile and more flexible force by taking advantage of modern military technologies. "Whether through defense transformation or changing force posture in Asia , the

reshaping of US armed forces should not ignore the wide range of possible and quite demanding scenarios in Asia capable of threatening US security," O'Hanlon said. The possible scenarios: a surprise attack by nuclear-armed North Korea on US ally South Korea, China's seizure of Taiwan by means of an amphibious attack, Pakistan's atomic weapons falling into the hands of the Al-Qaeda terror network or an India-Pakistan nuclear war over Kashmir. The five US treaty
allies in Asia are Japan, Australia, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. Singapore, a strong supporter of US military presence in the region, allows American forces use of facilities in the island state. Ashley Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, said in the 461-page report that the United States would be called upon to "maintain or even increase" its role as regional security guarantor for a number of Asian states. "This will require the US to preserve its current military dominance, protect its existing alliances, and develop new ties to major states that are not allied or opposed to Washington," he said. "Not doing so," Tellis said, "would likely lead to military build-ups, increased tension, and even nuclear weapons proliferation." On China, he said although its growing military power dominated the
strategic thinking of the United States and other regional powers, Asian states felt explicit security competition with China would "undermine" economic progress. Yet, as a safeguard, many Asian powers are developing military capabilities and outlaying defense expenditures as a safeguard against China's rise, he said.

2NC IMPACT INTERNAL/ LINK CARD **

Decreased US military presence extirpates regional stability and causes a litany of conflicts to erupt LeBlanc, Lieutenant Colonel United States Army, 04 [Lee D, May, 21ST CENTURY UNITED STATES MILITARY STRATEGY FOR EAST ASIA: COUNTERING AN EMERGING CHINA, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc? Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424084]
A continued formidable U.S. military forward presence seems inevitable to accomplish NSS objectives, even in light of U.S. military enhanced capabilities. History suggests that there is no stronger demonstration of U.S. commitment than forces

on the ground. Though there might be a temptation to reduce the military footprint, it seems such a reduction could compromise U.S. interests. History has shown that U.S. military effectiveness is dependent on strategic response. It appears that the geographical vastness of the Asian region might require 14 forward stationing of U.S. military forces to ensure responsiveness. Therefore, a U.S. military forward presence in the Asian region suggests assurance of
maintaining U.S. interests. History also suggests that the U.S. military strategy with respect to China for the 21st century will be primarily influenced by economics. As the world becomes more and more globally interdependent, regional stability does not appear to be

simply an American interest. A U.S. military presence in the region for over 50 years appears to have enabled economic growth for the U.S., Japan, South Korea, China, and other Asian countries. The U.S. presence appears to have deterred North Korea from attacking, offsetting a Japanese remilitarization and arms escalation with China, prevented China from regaining the democratic Taiwan, prevented the spread of communism, discouraged the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and maintained peace among historical enemies. This stability suggests the U.S. facilitated an environment conducive for economic prosperity. Given the regions economic growth and its contribution of 50% of the worlds GDP,
both China and the U.S. cannot afford to go to war and thereby jeopardize their interests, the regions stability, and on-going globalization in the 21st century. Since the transformation effort to enhance U.S. military capabilities is likely to provide more lethality with fewer forces, it could cause a paradigm shift in U.S. domestic, regional, and global perspectives. This will then certainly result in serious pleas for the U.S. to reduce its military presence in the East Asian region. Be that as it may and given the heavy armor threat that China possesses, the only way the U.S.

can counter this threat is to be in a forward position of advantage. It also appears reasonable that a strong regional U.S. military presence in the 21st century is critical to deal with 21 st century threats and the global war on terror. Current and projected threats appear formidable. History suggests that there should be a regional balance to Chinas military growth and that North Korea must be deterred. Likewise nuclear proliferation between China, Japan, India, and others might be further discouraged through a U.S. military presence. Transnational threats will likely require a forward military presence in order to effectively engage day-to-day incidents. A strong presence, regardless of transformational capabilities, is likely to facilitate U.S. intelligence collection disciplines. Conversely, a reduced U.S. military presence could potentially undermine U.S. ability to deter current threats and fight the global war on terror. The argument seems to be clear, that is, the U.S. military strategy should not change; otherwise, U.S. interests will be compromised in the region with global repercussions. A strong U.S. military presence in the 20th century appears to have established regional stability that has fostered regional and global economic prosperity. The changing strategic environment for the 15 Asian region has the potential to cause a paradigm shift in forward
basing of U.S. forces. Regardless of the sense of euphoria from the current state of affairs, the promising future in the Asian region, or enhanced U.S. military capabilities as a result of transformation, the U.S. seems wedded to a strong forward presence. This strategy is

deemed essential in order for the U.S. to continue to provide the common denominator that will ensure U.S. goals for political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity in the 21st century despite an emerging China. Given the geographical vastness of the Asian region, the number of large armies in the region, U.S. commitments, and formidable threats, a credible U.S. military presence appears to be critical to achieving U.S. NSS objectives.

2NC JAPAN LINK WALL

Japan is the keystone of the pacific --- deters Chinese invasion of Taiwan Yoshida, Japan Times Staff Writer, 08 [Reiki,Basics of the U.S. military presence, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgibin/nn20080325i1.html] Experts say U.S. bases in Japan are extremely important for the U.S. to maintain its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond, even as far as the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. For example, the Yokosuka Naval Base
in Kanagawa Prefecture is often described as the most strategically important U.S. naval installation overseas. Similarly, Okinawa, because of its proximity to the Taiwan Strait as well as mainland

China and the Korean Peninsula, has been dubbed by the U.S. military "The Keystone of the Pacific." Many military vessels, airplanes and service members, including the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, Aegis destroyers, F-15 fighters and marine corps units, have been dispatched from bases in Japan to fight in Iraq and maintain postwar security operations there. And, Japanese military presence allows for us intervention that defuses conflict escalation Mass, 10 Editor for the John Birch Society Bulletin (Warren, Controversy Over U.S. Base in Okinawa, The New American, May 21, http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/3595controversy-over-us-base-in-okinawa) A comment in the Guardian revealed an important reason behind the U.S. desires to maintain a large military presence in Japan: While many Okinawans oppose the military presence, Washington insists that the island is ideally located should the U.S. need to intervene in conflicts on the Korean peninsula or between China and Taiwan. (Emphasis added.) The
statement literally describes the interventionist U.S. foreign policy that has been conducted (with congressional declarations of war) during both world wars, and without such declarations ever since. It is a policy used to justify sending U.S. troops to into combat in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The power vacuum in Asia is especially relevant to the alleged need for a U.S. troop presence in Japan, since that vacuum was largely created when the United States (while occupying Japan following its surrender in 1945) forced Japan to adopt what is termed the "Postwar Constitution" or the "Peace Constitution. Article 9 of the

postwar Japanese Constitution reads: Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Article 9, in effect, makes Japan incapable of defending itself, and therefore, dependent upon the United States to protect it from possible hostile powers such as China or North Korea. Furthermore, if Japan had maintained a viable military
force since gaining control of its own government following World War II, it might have formed defense alliances with Asias other free nations, such as South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and (when it still existed) South Vietnam. Such an alliance may well have successfully repelled the communist advance of North Korea and North Vietnam, eliminating even the pretext of any reason for the United States to have sacrificed 36,516 military killed in Korea and 58,236 in Vietnam.

And, withdrawal from Japan decks the Asian balance of power Azhari, Singapore News, 10 [Khaldon, May, US military presence crucial to balance of power in Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1058034/1/.html] TOKYO: US military presence remains crucial to the balance of power in Asia, says Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. East Asian security still needs the presence of American forces, so the region can continue its economic growth and balance the emergence of China, a country that is also important for this balance as there is no one country that should dominate Asia. This was the message from Mr Lee at the 16th annual Nikkei Future of Asia Symposium in Tokyo. Mr Lee also stressed the need to keep the US bases in Japan. Japan is in the midst of deciding where to relocate the US forces now based in Okinawa, and Mr Lee emphasized that US bases in Japan are necessary to maintain the balance of power in Asia. Mr Lee said: "We believe that their presence brings about stability and peace. They need a base in the northeast, and if there is no base in Japan, they can't deploy their weaponry and project their power. If Japan closes them off from Okinawa, I think it will be a
setback for the deployment of the American forces, which is not to the benefit of Asia."

Okinawan troops ensure China cant attack Taiwan. Bush 10 - director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies (3/10/10, Richard C., "Okinawa and Security in East Asia," http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2010/0310_japan_politics_bush.aspx) Of course, our two countries and China are not the only ones concerned with the alliance. South Korea has important stakes involved in the presence of U.S. forces in the Western Pacific. In the event of a conventional attack by North Korea, South Korea has a very strong
military, but it also depends on the ability of the United States to move forces quickly to the Korean peninsula. It depends on those U.S. forces, including Marines, to dissuade and deter North Korea from even considering an attack. South Korea is comfortable with the relocation of

8,000 marines to Guam, in part because there are already other U.S. troops on the peninsula and in Japan, and also because moving Marines from Guam by air doesnt take long. However, South Korea would likely be concerned by signs that the U.S.-Japan alliance was slowly dissolving. If U.S. troops were to be removed from, first, Okinawa and, then, the home islands, it would likely weaken deterrence.

Taiwan also has concerns. The Marines on Okinawa, plus the U.S. air force, serve to strengthen deterrence in the event of aggression by China against Taiwan. China will be less likely to mount an attack because the U.S. has both ground troops and an air base on Okinawa. If China attacked U.S. installations on Okinawa, that almost ensures a serious conflict. The bases act as a tripwire. US military presence is key to deterring China and maintaining East Asian Stability NPR 6/21/10- Japan's PM Faces Test Over U.S. Base On Okinawa LexisNexis
SHUSTER: The U.S. has maintained bases on Okinawa since the battle there in the spring of 1945. It was the bloodiest land battle of the war in the Pacific. The U.S. kept military control of Okinawa until 1972; 20 years after the rest of Japan regained its

sovereignty. This history has a lot to do with the sensitivity of all sides in the current controversy. The Futenma
affair has sparked a debate in Japan about the ongoing presence of U.S. forces. In a recent interview with the BBC, the current foreign minister, Katsuya Okada, speaking through an interpreter, pointed out that Japan's constitution limits how its self-defense forces can be used,

and how the continued presence of U.S. forces acts as a deterrent to potential conflicts with North Korea or China. Foreign Minister KATSUYA OKADA (Japan): (Through Translator) For Japan's own security and to maintain the peace and stability in Asia as well, we do need U.S. forces in Japan. And that position is not going to change, even with the change in government. SHUSTER: But this is not a position that all Japanese support. In order to handle this matter successfully,
the new prime minister, Naoto Kan, will have to explain that need better, to the Japanese people, say some analysts. Professor NARUSHIGE MICHISHITA (Security and International Studies Program, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies): He has to address the issue of defending Japan. SHUSTER: Narushige Michishita is a specialist in strategic and defense studies. He is sympathetic to the U.S. position, but he believes it will be difficult for Prime Minister Kan to convince the Japanese, especially the people of Okinawa, of the dangers Japan may face that require a

large U.S. military presence. Its key to containment Pacific Free Press 3/ 4/10- Okinawa: Japans Pacific Pullback Lexisnexis. For a country with a pacifist constitution, Japan is bristling with weaponry. Indeed, that Asian land has long functioned as a huge aircraft carrier and naval base for U.S. military power. We couldnt have fought the Korean and Vietnam Wars without the nearly 90 military bases scattered around the islands of our major Pacific ally. Even today, Japan remains the anchor of whats left of Americas Cold War containment policy when it comes to China and North Korea. From the Yokota and Kadena air bases, the United States can dispatch troops and bombers across Asia, while the Yokosuka base near Tokyo is the largest American naval installation outside the United States. Okinawan presence is key Bush 10 - director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies (3/10/10, Richard C., "Okinawa and Security in East Asia," http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2010/0310_japan_politics_bush.aspx) The most sensible strategyfor both the U.S. and Japanis to try to shape Chinas intentions over time so that they move in a benign direction; so that it has more to gain from cooperation than a challenge. This has been the U.S. and Japans strategy since the early 1970s. The strategy has a good foundation in economic interdependence. However, it is easier said than done and is one of the biggest challenges of this century. The strategy requires at least two elements: engaging and incorporating China as much as possible, and maintaining the strength and willingness to define limits . This combination of elements is important because engagement without strength would lead China to exploit our good will while strength without engagement would lead China
to suspect that our intentions are not benign.

If engagement-plus-strength is the proper strategy for the U.S. and Japan each to cope with a rising China, it only makes sense that Japan and the United States will be more effective if they work together, complementing each others respective abilities. The strength side of this equation almost requires Japan to rely on the alliance since history suggests that it will not build up sufficiently on its own. An important part of strength is positioning your power in the right places. That is why forward deployment of U.S. forces in Japan has always been important. That is why our presence on Okinawa is important.

**TAIWAN WAR BAD***

2NC A2 CHINA/ TAIWAN IMPACT DEFENSE

Military confrontation can happen --- recent trade ties only risk confrontation Lieberthal, Professor of Political Science and William Davidson Professor of International Business at the University of Michigan, 05 [Kenneth, Preventing a War Over Taiwan, March/April, http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/Faculty/pparides/lieberthal.pdf] One of the greatest dangers to international security today is the possibility of a military confrontation between China and Taiwan that leads to a war between China and the United States. Such a war would be not only tragic
but also unnecessary, since it would result from a failure of imagination and diplomacy--fought because a place that has long declared itself independent was attacked for doing so again. Neither Beijing nor Taipei wants a war, but both sides have adopted policies that run an

unacceptably high risk of bloodshed over the next several years. The Bush administration should therefore take steps now to
reduce the prospect of conflict across the Taiwan Strait. Understanding what those steps should be, however, requires getting past the rhetorical constructs that have dominated discussion to date. China says that it wants stability across the Taiwan Strait, that it can postpone final resolution of the cross-strait issue for a long time, that it is developing its regional military capabilities solely to deter Taiwanese independence, and that it will use force if necessary to prevent or reverse a declaration of independence. But these positions have not served China's interests well, because it has failed to make clear exactly what "declaring independence" involves. By not doing so, Beijing has risked miscalculation by a Taiwanese leadership

that does not want to provoke a military response but continues to push the envelope just short of one. The fact
that for more than a decade Taiwan's leaders have declared Taiwan to be "an independent, sovereign country" without dramatic consequences adds to the confusion. Beijing's stance now runs the risk that Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian will consider China's threats a bluff. (Chen's proindependence predecessor Lee Teng-hui, for example, has said that Beijing is nothing more than a "paper tiger.") Ironically, Beijing's position also enhances the stature and leverage of the pro-independence elements in Taiwan. Since China says war and peace will be determined by what these individuals say and do, they attract enormous domestic and international attention. China may be able to continue on its current course,

expanding trade and investment ties with Taiwan while insisting that the island's leaders accept the "one-China principle" as a precondition for any political talks and threatening the use of force in response to a declaration of independence. But if it does, it will be tying both its credibility and the chances of a confrontation to forces beyond its control. And, war over Taiwan is the only scenario for extinction ---- US gets involved Tucker, professor at Georgetown University, 05 [Nancy, Dangerous strait: the U.S.--Taiwan--China crisis, p. google books] At the beginning of this new century, nowhere is the danger for Americans as great as in the Taiwan Strait where the potential for a war with China, a nuclear armed great power, could erupt out of miscalculation, misunderstanding, or accident. Skeptics might argue that other threats are more volatile or more certain conflict in the Middle East, terrorism at home and abroad, clashes with angry and chaotic rogue or failed states. But although the United States risks losing lives and repu- tation in these encounters none but a collision with China would be as massive and devastating. War with China over Taiwan may or may not be inevitable. The pros- pect,
nevertheless, shapes the course of U.S.-Taiwan relations and signifi-cantly influences the texture of Taiwan's domestic affairs. Similarly, though the level of tension between Washington and Beijing fluctuates, depending on security, proliferation, trade, and human rights concerns, the dilemma of

Taiwan's future remains a constant and can become incendiary with little warning. Optimists believe that, with time, ground for
reconciliation be- tween China and Taiwan can be found and the two sides will be able to ar- rive at a mutually acceptable solution despite an impasse that has produced repeated military skirmishes and political upheaval for more than fifty years. Pessimists argue that the road to war has been laid, and nothing that anyone does, short of realizing the immediate unification demanded by Beijing, will deter combat. Indeed some feel that progress toward such a calamity has speeded up, making Washington's struggle to keep the rivals at peace, and the United States out of war, much more difficult. It is not surprising, therefore, that those who write on the interactions among the United States, Taiwan, and the PRC inevitably are drawn to, and quickly become preoccupied with, the situation in the Taiwan Strait. The tendency to focus on the clash of interests surrounding Taiwan's status and future follows naturally from the hazards inherent in the existing situation. For decades the contending parties have struggled toward largely incom- patible objectives. China insists upon recovery of the island of Taiwan which it asserts is a part of China's sovereign territory, severed from the mainland first by imperialists and then by the losing side in a civil war. Tai- wan's rulers initially believed as adamantly as those of the PRC in the uni- ty of China, but declared that Taipei not Beijing was the legitimate capital. More recently , Taiwan has sought increasing autonomy

and international space despite Beijing's objections, with the majority of the population fa-voring a status quo that shuns both
independence and Chinese control. For the United States also, the status quo is desirable since Washington has acknowledged, without accepting, the one-China principle asserted by Bei- jing. At the same time, the United States has legally obligated itself, in a way some sec as a

to help provide for Taiwan's defense and has asserted its preference for a solution to the problem that will meet with the assent of the people of Taiwan.
contradiction,

Historical legacies cause miscalculation Lieberthal, Professor of Political Science and William Davidson Professor of International Business at the University of Michigan, 05 [ Kenneth, Preventing a War Over Taiwan, March/April, http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/Faculty/pparides/lieberthal.pdf] Wars sometimes occur because of miscalculations influenced by the weight of historical legacies . In the case of the Taiwan Strait, the dangers of such a conflict are so clear and the potential consequences so dire, that all three major players should summon the courage to think creatively about how to prevent it. Because neither Beijing
nor Taipei is likely to make the first move even if they recognize such a plan's potential benefits, Washington will have to jump-start the process. Given

the relatively brief window of opportunity during which a stable framework agreement can be reached, as well as the still-ambiguous implications of recent developments, the Bush administration should move quickly .

And, Escalation will spiral out of control Swaine, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment, [Asia Program] postdoctoral fellow at the University of Berkeley, 04 [Dr. Michael, Trouble in Taiwan, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/? fa=view&id=1460] A war with China over Taiwan would, of course, be far more dangerous than any of the United States' post-Cold War operations. Although not a match for the United States, China is nonetheless a continental power with very large conventional ground, naval, and air forces, as well as a nuclear weapons arsenal capable of reaching any target in the United States and beyond. Taiwan's proximity to China, the difficulty involved in interdicting Chinese attacks without directly striking the Chinese mainland, and the historical inclination of both sides to display resolve in a crisis through decisive -- and sometimes rapid -- military action suggest that escalation might prove extremely difficult to control. And, If the US doesnt get involved Japan will --- inclusion of US forces in Japan forces intervention Hurd, Senior Reporter CBN News, 09 [Steve, Chinese Attack on Taiwan: War for U.S.? , March 25 th, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/March/Chinese-Attack-on-Taiwan-War-for-US-/]
*extensively cites and references Dan Blumenthal senior director for China and Taiwan under Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld Also, John pike, director of the Global Security Organization

China's Art of War But China also hopes to win without ever firing a shot. The Chinese military classic The Art of War says that the height of military skill is to conquer without the use of military force, and that seems to be precisely what China is trying to do to Taiwan. China employs a skillful version of the carrot and the stick, aiming 700 ballistic missiles at the island while building trade and cultural ties with it. Some feel that time is on Beijing's side, and peaceful unification is inevitable. But from a military standpoint Taiwan is too strategically important to simply give to China. And if the U.S. doesn't intervene on Taiwan's behalf, there are growing indications that Japan just might. And, Taiwan retaliates --- that ensures miscalculation Hurd, Senior Reporter CBN News, 09 [Steve, Chinese Attack on Taiwan: War for U.S.? , March 25 th, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/March/Chinese-Attack-on-Taiwan-War-for-US-/]

*extensively cites and references Dan Blumenthal senior director for China and Taiwan under Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld Also, John pike, director of the Global Security Organization

Taiwan Vows Counterstrike And Taiwan might not be the pushover that Beijing assumes it is. Taiwan has some of America's best weaponry, and has vowed a counter strike against Chinese cities if it is attacked. "There's always the possibility that somebody on one side or the other is going to misread the situation and suddenly we find ourselves in a much more serious crisis than anybody had anticipated," Pike said. Washington hopes Beijing is aware of the risks, because experts say a war over Taiwan is simply too dangerous to be fought.

2NC OVERVIEW/ EXTINCTION MODULE

The DA outweighs the case --<> And, Chinese Nuclear Launch activates the Russian Early Warning System Kristensen director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, 06 [Report: Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War, http://www.nukestrat.com/china/chinareport.htm] In Chapter 2 we quoted a range for Chinas DF-5A ICBM of at least 8,000 miles (13,000 km). Assuming a circumpolar
trajectory for the missile, Figure 92 illustrates which areas of the United States are within range assuming the DF-5A is launched from silos near the city of Luoning in Chinas Henan Province. A range of at least 6.835 miles (11,000 km) is required to put cities at 186 | Federation of American Scientists/Natural Resources Defense Council risk on the West Coast and in the north-central region of the United States. A range of 7,456 miles (12,000 km) puts cities on the East Coast at risk, including New York City and Washington, D.C. If the range of the DF-5A exceeds 8,000 miles

then all of the continental United States could be targeted. Note that a near-polar intercontinental ballistic missile would necessitate an overflight of Russia and possibly activate Russias early warning system . Missile trajectories from China to the continental United States which do not overfly Russia would require a range exceeding 10,560 miles (17,000 km).
(13,000 km) trajectory toward the United States from Luoning is the shortest distance but

Accidental launch Rosenberg, San Francisco Gate, 06 [Eric, Experts warn of an accidental atomic war / Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia, http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-1006/news/17316809_1_nuclear-missiles-norwegian-scientific-rocket-ballistic] Russian military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack, said Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford. "Any
launch of a long-range nonnuclear armed sea or land ballistic missile will cause an automated alert of the Russian early warning system," Postol told reporters. The triggering of an alert wouldn't necessarily precipitate a retaliatory hail of Russian nuclear missiles, Postol said. Nevertheless, he said, "there can be no doubt that such an alert will greatly increase the chances of a nuclear accident involving strategic nuclear forces." Podvig said launching conventional versions of a missile from a submarine that normally carries nuclear ICBMs "expands the possibility for a misunderstanding so widely that it is hard to contemplate." Mixing conventional and nuclear D5s on a U.S. Trident submarine "would be very dangerous," Podvig said, because the Russians have no way of discriminating between the two types of missiles once they are launched. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile

could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces." Accidental nuclear war is not so farfetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before
the mistake was discovered. The United States and Russia have acknowledged the possibility that Russia's equipment might mistakenly conclude the United States was attacking with nuclear missiles. In 1998, the two countries agreed to set up a joint radar center in Moscow operated by U.S. and Russian forces to supplement Russia's aging equipment and reduce the threat of accidental war. But the center has yet to open. A major technical problem exacerbates the risk of using the D5 as a conventional weapon: the decaying state of Russia's nuclear forces. Russia's nuclear missiles

are tethered to early warning radars that have been in decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. And Russia, unlike the United States, lacks sufficient satellites to supplement the radars and confirm whether missile launches are truly under way or are false alarms. Only scenario for extinction Bostrom, gannon award winner, prof at oxford, 02 [Nick Bostrom, Professor of philosophy at Oxford University, 2002, (http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)] A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An allout nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

A2 CHINA DOESNT LAUNCH

The US would launch --- still trigger soviet systems Kristensen director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, 06 [Report: Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War, http://www.nukestrat.com/china/chinareport.htm] S. Nub
In the first hypothetical nuclear attack scenario, U.S. ballistic missile submarines stationed in the Pacific Ocean fire Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at Chinese DF-5A missile silos. As discussed above the U.S. Trident force has evolved to become the main element in U.S. nuclear war plans against China. U.S. long-range bombers based in the Pacific region or flown from the United States would require a relatively long time to reach their targets and would have to penetrate Chinas airspace. The U.S. ICBM force, based in silos in the upper Midwest, would have to

over-fly Russia and risk triggering the remnants of the Soviet early-warning system, or worse. Since the end of the Cold
War, U.S. nuclear forces have been shifted to the Pacific in the form of additional Trident SSBNs based at the Submarine Base at Bangor, Washington. For these reasons we developed a scenario involving a Trident strike against the DF-5A, the sole Chinese nuclear weapon system capable of hitting the continental United States (CONUS) and Chinas primary deterrent against the United States.

A2 STABLE NOW/RELATIONS HIGH

US Taiwan war can still happen Hunkovic, American Military university, 09 [Lee J, 2009, The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf]
This scenario involves China deciding to invade Taiwan and break the status quo. As the pairwise comparisons indicated, of the three actors involved ,

China is the most likely to break the status quo and go to war, as Taiwan would be little short of suicidal to provoke a war with China, unless they came into possession of a dramatic tactical advantage to counter the sixteen-to-one odds that they would face against the Peoples Liberation Army and the United States neither wants nor can afford a war with China at the present time . Although the current situation is noticeably less hostile between China and Taiwan than it was a year ago, situations change, it could just as easily revert and it could then lead to war. So can global warfare Hunkovic, American Military university, 09 [Lee J, 2009, The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf] This scenario is not only the most dramatic of the three, where all three actors go to war to defend their interests, but
also has the largest number of both focal events and indicators involved. Any of the Alternate Futures listed, in which one of the actors involved has not conceded has the ability to transpose into Alternate Future 1, where an all out war occurs. While the likelihood of this scenario is

notably less than in recent years, due to the political shift in Taiwan , any upset to the current balance could lead to this scenario once again becoming a possibility. Its only artificially stable --- and US non involvement collapses the economy and the defense base Hunkovic, American Military university, 09 [Lee J, 2009, The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf] The situation between China, the United States and Taiwan is stable for the time being. However, the stability of the status quo is delicate. If any change in the current dynamic between the three countries occurs and the balance is upset, war may be the end result. If a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, China is clearly the most likely of the three countries to fire the first shot. This is due to the fact that the absorbing of Taiwan is not only the highest national priority from the standpoint of patriotism and national morale, but also critical to Chinese national security. Taiwan would be little short of suicidal to provoke a war with China and the United States does not wish to be
involved in any additional war at this point, as it simply cannot afford one, with its dire economic crisis. While the United States will quite possibly be more concerned with the preservation of its own national interests in the near future, rather than maintaining its military security obligations and wish

to steer clear of the Chinese-Taiwanese conflict, by finding a graceful way to shy away from its military commitment to defend Taiwan; however, the danger of this policy, as the pairwise comparisons showed, is that doing so, at least openly, could have the complete opposite effect, by emboldening China to take Taiwan by force. To make matters worse, this would not only severely undermine the strategic security of other American allies in East Asia, such as Japan, but also serve to worsen the economic crisis that threatens to severely curtail the funding to the U.S. military. Therefore, the United States has a
vested interest in using aggressive diplomatic pressure to maintain the status quo and workable relations between China and Taiwan, by using incentives to keep both countries at the negotiating table, as the Chinese typically do not respond well to intimidation and attempting such will only increase their proclivity towards military aggression. While the Taiwanese people without a doubt deserve their freedom and human rights, neither of which the Peoples Republic of China places any value on whatsoever, allowing the situation to deteriorate to the point where Taiwan is at war with China would be doing them an incredible disservice, due to the fact that at this point, America is in a very precarious position militarily and economically and not militarily supporting Taiwan in such a conflict would be leaving them to almost certainly be eventually crushed. Since the United States does

have a moral and ethical responsibility to do everything in their power to keep this from happening, the best way to accomplish this goal is to do everything possible to keep both China and Taiwan from determining that their negotiations
nonetheless are not being productive and that war is their best option. Attempting to follow any other course of action at the present time, from attempting to militarily coerce China or openly renouncing the United States security obligation to Taiwan would be a dangerous

course of action and a recipe for disaster.

1NC/2NC WAR IMPACT

And, Taiwan war is the only scenario for Asian war and great power escalation --- perception is key OHanlon adjunct professor at John Hopkins and lecturer at Princeton and Bush, 07 [Michael, A war like no other: the truth about China's challenge to America, p. google books] War between China and Taiwan is a distinct possibility. Such a war could easily drag in the United States, pitting the worlds only superpower against its main rising power and thus leading to the first serious conflict in history between nuclear weapons states. It seems inconceivable, in this day and age, that the United States and China could really wind up in war. Their mutual interests in cooperating are so strong, their economies are so intertwined, the dangers of war are so enormous, and the number of other problems for them to worry about is so great that it would seem the height of foolishness for the two huge powers ever to come to blows . There is much truth to this, Indeed, as we have argued in chap- ter three, most of the reasons whv China and the United States could theoretically fight do not in the end hold water. But the Taiwan problem is different. Not only does it involve a third actor over which neither Beijing nor Washington has control. Not only does it involve a territory that China sees as an integral part of its own nation and that the United States sees as a long-standing , stalwart, and democratic friend. In addition, the way that a China-Taiwan crisis could begin and escalate would hold the inherent potential for escalation to direct superpower war. This chapter explains whv. The- next chapters get
into the dynamics of what could happen if that war began, how it might be terminated before getting extremely serious but also why it could be tough to control. The overall message is sobering. Even if the chances of war between the United States and China are less than 25 percent indeed, even if they are less than 10 percentthey are far from zero. And given the enormous consequences of any such war, in terms ol immediate danger as well as lasting effects on the interna- tional system, every effort must be made to prevent it. World War I did not seem very likely to most world leaders in 1912 or 1913 either; certainly a horrible four-year struggle, followed two decades later by an even worse world war, was not predicted. We must avoid dire mistakes of that era and take seriously the possibility of a war that, even if unlikely already, must be rendered more unlikely still. In short, the reasons whv that war could occur, are as follows: First. China really does consider Taiwan its own, and even as it has arguably adopted a more subtle and sophisticated approach to the Taiwan challenge in recent years, it has explicitly kept the threat of force on the table.1 Second, Chinas military capabilities are growing last even as Taiwan's begin to stagnate, meaning that Beijing could sense an opportunityif it can keep the United States out of the light Third, Taiwan could push the sovereignty' issue in away that China interprets as the pursuit of full independence. While China would probably be wrong in reaching any such con- clusion, perceptions could matter more than reality in such a situation . Fourth, while Washington's
commitment to Taiwan is long- standing, it is also somewhat ambiguous, so leaders in China might convince themselves that the United States real!)' would sit out a China-Taiwan war.

2NC CCP COLLAPSE MODULE

Either china wont attack in response to Taiwanese secession or they do and the attack fails --either one crushes the CCP Hunkovic, American Military university, 09 [Lee J, 2009, The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf] In other words, the national security concerns for China regarding Taiwan are potentially grave. If China were to lose Taiwan, at best, its ability to expand into the Pacific would be curtailed and it would most likely find itself encroached upon by the U.S. military and at worst , it could find itself losing other territories, in a similar fashion to the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and facing a nuclear arsenal or arsenals just beyond its borders, which would effectively end any reign of military supremacy that the PRC currently enjoys. If such were to occur, the CCP could easily lose control of their country , given their loss of power and territory and be in no position to make any demands of the United States on any issues , including the democratization of China, as the U.S. could gain a first-strike nuclear capability against them. Considering these facts , the Peoples Republic of China may not be desirous of a war with Taiwan under the current conditions, but absolutely must militarily defend their interests if an attempt at secession occurs, as failing to do so could reduce their formerly powerful nation to a fraction of its former self, as well as incite revolution within the country and a possible overthrow of the CCP. That causes a desperate attempt to hold on to power ensures lash out and extinction San Renxing,. The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed", 8/5/05. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html What, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words: A cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in a battle with humanity. If you dont believe me, read some passages directly from the speeches. We must prepare ourselves for two
scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities.

Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nations future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone! In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! Wed rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isnt there a nuclear bondage theory? It
means that since the nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be

finished, and the world will be finished. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world . We, as
revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, wed have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! Since the Partys life is above

all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.

2NC ECONOMY MODULE

Any outcome of a Taiwan-China conflict brings the next great depression to fruition Hunkovic, American Military university, 09 [Lee J, 2009, The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf] Therefore, considering these facts, a war between China and Taiwan, especially with American military involvement, is a losing scenario from an economic standpoint, regardless of the outcome. While America would shift its most preferred nation status from the PRC to Taiwan if Taiwan were to gain full independence and pursue a greater trade relationship with them, it would still be damaging its relationship with its other trading partner, which means that it would still suffer economically. If China were to reabsorb Taiwan with little resistance or before America could intervene , America would still suffer an economic loss in the short term, as trade with China would go on, but Taiwan would be no more. In either case, the economic loss of a Cross-Strait war would almost certainly guarantee that the American economy further declines and the U.S. would enter a second Great Depression , making it a terrible scenario under the
current conditions. Therefore, America has an even greater interest in avoiding a war between the PRC and Taiwan, even if it were to mean losing Taiwan and degrading Americas image and credibility.

Economic decline causes nuclear war O'Donnell, 9 (Sean, Baltimore Republican Examiner, a graduate student at the University of Baltimore studying law and ethics, B.A. in History from the University of Maryland, a Squad Leader in the Marine Corps Reserve, Will this recession lead to World War III? February 26, http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Will-thisrecession-lead-to-World-War-III#comments) Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.

2NC RISK OF CONFLICT HIGH --- A2 YOUR EV IS OLD

Top level intelligence officials conclude nothing has changed --- only a spark is needed to ignite the powder keg CP, [China Post] 09 [February, U.S. official warns of China, Taiwan conflict, http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national-news/2009/02/14/195982/U.S.-official.htm] National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told lawmakers that China's double-digit annual percentage military spending increases
last year's budget jumped 17.6 percent to about $61 billion pose a reater threat to Taiwan. Unless Taiwan does something about it, then we're really the only other country helping them do it, Blair said. That means we're going to have to help them some more in order to maintain a balance. Much

of China's military is focused on rival Taiwan, which relies on U.S. weapons and technology to counter the hundreds arms sales to Taiwan are a persistent source of U.S.-China tension Beijing was infuriated by the Bush administration's announcement last year of a US$6.5 billion arms package for Taiwan. The United States is required to provide the island with weapons to defend itself and has hinted it would come to Taiwan's aid if mainland forces invaded. But Washington is also wary of angering China, a major trading partner and fellow U.N. Security Council member. Blair, a retired admiral who heads 16 U.S. intelligence agencies , told a Senate panel that the United States must continue to make sure that military adventures are unattractive to both sides. He indicated that the U.S. feels responsible for striking a balance in the Strait. Taiwan should not be so defenseless that it feels it has
of missiles China aims at the self-governing island Beijing claims as its own territory. U.S. to do everything that China says. On the other hand, China cannot be so overwhelming that it can bully Taiwan, Blair said, answering congressional questions about the U.S. intelligence agencies' latest assessment of threats to the United States. He also cautioned that Taiwan has to realize that its long-term security lies in some sort of an arrangement with China. It does not lie in military defenses. Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949, and Beijing threatens to attack should Taiwan formalize its de facto independence. The United States and China came close to conflict

over Taiwan in 1996, when President Bill Clinton deployed warships in response to China lobbing missiles into waters near Taiwan. Blair called recent warming ties between China and Taiwan positive and very encouraging . New Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou has worked to defuse tensions and expand trade with China. But Blair also said in testimony that Chinese preparations for a possible Taiwan conflict continue to drive the modernization goals of the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese defense-industrial complex. And, Conflicts have only accelerated --- USSino conflict can explode at any time Samuelson, contributing editor Washington post and NYT, graduate Harvard, 10 [ Robert, February, The China Miscalculation, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/15/the_china_miscalculation_100294.html] It's become apparent from recent events that America's political, business and scholarly elites have fundamentally misjudged China. Conflicts with China have multiplied. Consider: the undervalued renminbi and its effect on trade; the breakdown of global warming negotiations in Copenhagen; China's weak support of efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; its similarly poor record in pushing North Korea to relinquish its tiny atomic arsenal; the sale of U.S. weapons to Taiwan; and Google's threat to leave China rather than condone continued censorship. The United States and China view the world in starkly different terms. The lesson of the Great Depression and World War II for Americans was that isolationism was self-defeating. Tried after World
WASHINGTON -War I, it failed. The United States had to engage abroad to protect its economy and physical security. These core ideas remain the bedrock justifications for overseas military commitments and the promotion of an open world economy. The quest is for stability, not empire. China, too, covets stability. But its history and perspective are different, as Martin Jacques shows in his masterful "When China Rules the World." Starting with the first Opium War (1839-42) -- when England insisted on importing opium from India -- China suffered a string of military defeats and humiliating treaties that gave England, France and other nations trading and political privileges. In the 20th century, China was balkanized by civil war and Japanese invasion. Not until the communists' 1949 triumph in the civil war was there again a unified national government. These experiences left legacies: fear of disorder and memory of foreign exploitation. Since 1978, China's economy has increased roughly 10-fold. The prevailing American assumption was that as China became richer, its interests and values would converge with those of the United States. China would depend increasingly on a thriving global economy. Freer domestic markets would loosen the stranglehold of the Communist Party. The United States and China would not always agree, but disputes would be manageable. It isn't turning out that way. A wealthier China has become more assertive, notes Jacques. American

prestige has further suffered from the financial crisis originating in the United States. But the fissure goes deeper: China does not accept the legitimacy and desirability of the post-World War II global order, which involves collective responsibility among great powers (led by the United States) for world economic stability and peace.
China's policies reflect a different notion: China First. Unlike the isolationist America First movement of the 1930s, China First does not mean global disengagement. It does mean engagement on China's terms. China accepts and supports the existing order when that serves its needs, as when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Otherwise, it plays by its own rules and norms. Trade policy is explicitly discriminatory to address two crucial problems: surplus labor and scarce commodities. The undervalued renminbi aims to help create 20 million or more jobs that Jacques cites as needed annually. China is scouring the globe to make investments in secure raw materials, particularly fuel. The object of "economic reform," Jacques writes, was "never Westernization" but "a desire to restore the (Communist) Party's legitimacy." Most American-Chinese disputes reflect China's unwillingness to endanger domestic goals for international ends. It won't commit to binding greenhouse gas cuts because these could reduce economic growth and (again) jobs. On Iran, it values its oil investments more than it fears Iranian nukes. Likewise, it worries that unrest in North Korea could send refugees spilling across the border. Because Taiwan is regarded as part of China, U.S. arms sales there become domestic

interference. And censorship is needed to maintain one-party control. China's worldview threatens America's

geopolitical and economic interests. Just recently, 19 U.S. trade associations wrote the Obama administration warning that new Chinese
rules for "indigenous innovation" could "exclude a wide array of U.S. firms" from the Chinese market -- or force them to turn over advanced technology. (British firms are so incensed by "overwhelming protectionism" that some may quit China, reports the Telegraph newspaper.) It would be a

tragedy if these two superpowers began regarding each other as adversaries. But that's the drift. Heirs to a 2,000year cultural tradition -- and citizens of the world's largest country -- the Chinese have an innate sense of superiority, Jacques writes. Americans, too, have a sense of superiority, thinking that our values -- the belief in freedom, individualism and democracy -- reflect universal aspirations.

Recent events dont disprove OHanlons argument --- relations are dipping and miscalculation is likely China Post, 6/15/10 [Warnings of war diminished but still relevant 3 years on, http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2010/06/15/260700/p2/Warnings-of.htm]
When introducing the book, Bush had said they reached an optimistic conclusion with a pessimistic sub-conclusion. In most areas, he said, the relationship between the United States and China which the book characterized as close cooperation and friendly rivalry was pretty good . The

A2 OHANLON CARD INDICT --- TAIWANESE PRESIDENT MEANS TENSIONS LOW

one place where the U.S. and China might come into conflict, they had predicted, was over the issue of Taiwan. If war did erupt across the Taiwan Strait, Bush and O'Hanlan thought armed invasion of Taiwan would be too costly in terms of losses to the People's Liberation Army. Rather, they envisaged a military-backed blockade coupled with missile and cyber attacks. These, they said, would be far harder for Taipei and Washington to deal with than a conventional
attack. Moreover, Taiwan's increased economic dependence on China would make a blockade that much easier to enforce. Whether the United States came to Taiwan's aid would depend on various factors, they said, but hinged on interpretation of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, and which side was deemed to have provoked the conflict. In their absolute worst-of-the-worst scenario, the authors imagined China might attack U.S.

Navy ships to inflict a few thousand casualties in the hope of deterring further U.S. participation. Bush and O'Hanlan imagined this having a contrary effect, however, with Washington launching military strikes against Chinese territories, including pre-emptive attacks on nuclear installations. This might then be followed by Beijing using its nuclear weapons before they were wiped out. Fortunately this unlikely but extremely costly war has not erupted. Indeed, three years on, and China's patient cold-shouldering of Chen Shui-bian through the two terms of his
Democratic Progressive Party administration has finally paid off. Even before Ma's election, the Chinese Communist Party was entertaining members of his Kuomintang, its erstwhile enemy, at functions in China in preparation for regime change in Taiwan. In fact,

it is U.S.-Chinese relations which have deteriorated during this period. Rather than close cooperation, they are now more frequently characterized by rivalry, and rivalry of a decreasingly friendly nature. This is hardly unexpected, of course, and the Brookings authors' were long ago criticized by some as being too optimistic, if not naive, in imagining that relations between China, as it metamorphoses into a major power on the world stage, and the United States, as it struggles to maintain its position as the only remaining superpower, could ever be anything other than fractious. China's scramble for resources to feed the appetite of its developing manufacturing sector (and its concomitant neo-colonial economic and
diplomatic endeavors) set it on collision course with similar needs in the already developed nations. Though these conflicts have been temporarily eased due to the global economic downturn, the downturn has also brought into focus other areas of contention, such as the sizable amount of U.S. national debt held by China and China's intransigence with regard to revaluing the yuan . In former times, such a cooling in U.S.-China

relations would have been to Taiwan's advantage. Perhaps due to President Ma's cross-Strait initiatives, however, or perhaps because
Washington needs Beijing's help in dealing with North Korea, or perhaps in line with previous Democrat pro-China policies during Bill Clinton's administration, U.S. President Obama is choosing to play a waiting game with China. So publication of a Chinese-language edition of Bush

and O'Hanlan's book is timely and relevant after all. Certainly, their key concern the improved management of interactions between the U.S. and China during the latter's rise on the world stage is as pertinent as ever. Similarly, their key observations about Taiwan's role in that broader scenario that the PRC's lack of substantial experience of democracy could easily lead it to misinterpret political developments in Taiwan, in particular its leaders' inability to distinguish actions and words that Taiwan's politicians make for political gain rather than those that truly reflect policy intentions are things that politicians on both sides of the Taiwan Strait should constantly bear in mind.

A2 LACK OF A BLUE WATER NAVY PREVENTS ATTACK

That wouldnt be chinas military strategy --- they would first strike Taiwan, breaks the nuclear taboo. Hurd, Senior Reporter CBN News, 09 [Steve, Chinese Attack on Taiwan: War for U.S.? , March 25 th, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/March/Chinese-Attack-on-Taiwan-War-for-US-/]
*extensively cites and references Dan Blumenthal senior director for China and Taiwan under Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld Also, John pike, director of the Global Security Organization

How Might China Attack? How might a Chinese attack unfold? The prospect of a giant Normandy-like invasion has been jokingly dismissed as the "million man swim" because China doesn't yet have enough naval vessels to transport a large invasion force across the Taiwan Strait. Experts say a quick decapitation strike is more likely. "China's strategy I think would be a missile attack on Taiwan's airfields, which are not well defended, hoping to seize air dominance," Pike added. Allowing for the insertion of Special Forces who would seize key command and control sectors. The publication Janes Defense suggests that Chinese sleeper cells already on the island would move into action, assassinating key leaders and attacking radar and communication facilities. It says China might even preemptively hit U.S. bases in the pacific, believing war with the U.S is inevitable. Chinese forces would then seek to install a new government within a week, one that would tell the U.S. Navy to go home. Dan Blumenthal was senior director for China and Taiwan under Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. Its rapidly developing blue water navy --- developing military tech on an unprecedented scale ZN 10 [Zee News, China may develop full-fledged blue water Navy , http://www.zeenews.com/news620083.html]

**Cites Gary Li, a PLA specialist at the London-based Institute of International and Strategic Studies and a litany of military analysts

Beijing: Chinese military war games in South China Sea this weekend deploying naval warships in an "unprecedented scale" showed Beijing's capability to emerge as a full-fledged blue water Navy, military analysts said. "People's Liberation Army's Navy warships are this weekend exercising southeast of Japan's strategic offshore islands - part of a recent series of Chinese naval war games in East Asia unprecedented in their reach and scope," Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported. "After two decades of doubledigit annual increases in military spending, the PLA is rapidly proving it is capable of things once seen as only theoretically possible as it strives to develop a full blue water Navy," it said. Chinese and India naval forces were regarded as the two emerging blue water navies of the region. PLA is numerically strong in terms of fleet and forces but unlike its Indian counterpart yet to acquire aircraft carriers. PLA's East Sea Fleet flotilla of crack Sovremenny class destroyers, frigates and submarines which are taking part in the games steamed through the so-called first island chain - the US-dominated stronghold that links Japan to Taiwan and Philippines and practised anti-submarine manoeuvres. The ships moved out through the Miyako Strait just days after a North Sea Fleet flotilla sailed in the other direction on its return from a "confrontation exercise" deep in the disputed South China Sea, the Post said. That flotilla, which comprised destroyers, frigates and auxiliary ships and had air cover, sailed some 19 days and covered 6,000 nautical miles. It included psychological tests for crew exposed to tough conditions. The ships traversed the Bashi Strait between the Philippines and Taiwan. Recently, naval aviators have been running extensive long-range exercises with command planes, bombers and attack aircraft from several different bases in the Nanjing and Guangzhou military regions. The manoeuvres have featured stealth and night flying, radar-jamming electronic warfare and multiple mid-air refuelling, as well as simulated bombing raids in the South China Sea, the report said. Gary Li, a PLA specialist at the London-based Institute of International and Strategic Studies, said the games are highly significant as they shows a great deal about China's capabilities and emerging strategies. "We've seen annual exercises at this time, but nothing at all like this... We are seeing greatly improved co-ordination and communication and a great deal of flexibility," he said.

INDEPENDENCE CAUSES WAR

Taiwanese declaration of independence ensure warfare --- causes escalation Hurd, Senior Reporter CBN News, 09 [Steve, Chinese Attack on Taiwan: War for U.S.? , March 25 th, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/March/Chinese-Attack-on-Taiwan-War-for-US-/] *extensively cites and references Dan Blumenthal senior director for China and Taiwan under Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. Beijing recently authorized the use of force if Taiwan ever declares its independence. America has a defense treaty with Taiwan but honoring that treaty would mean war with China. The Taiwanese armed forces practice defending the island from a Chinese invasion. Those planes are supposed to be dropping Chinese paratroopers on the island.
Even though the Taiwanese have never been ruled by the People's Republic of China, the mainland has made absorbing Taiwan a national crusade. New Law Green Light's Attack And China's new anti-secession law now gives the Chinese military the green light to attack

Taiwan if the island pursues formal independence. Taiwan says the new law is tantamount to preparation for war. And that could mean war for the United States, which has pledged to defend Taiwan. Although most analysts say the U.S. would defeat the Chinese in a conventional conflict, the fighting might not remain conventional.

*** SPRATLY WAR BAD ***

SOUTH CHINA SEA 1NC INTERNAL

The South China Sea is a flash point for conflict escalation --- lack of a perceived defense commitment spurs Chinese aggression. Springut, a Joseph S. Nye, Jr. National Security Intern at the Center for a New American Security . 09 [ Micah, July 27th, Managing China's Growing Assertiveness in the South China Sea, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/4124/managing-chinas-growing-assertiveness-in-the-southchina-sea While the U.S. military remains preoccupied with ongoing operations in the Middle East , competition brewing in the South China Sea risks greater conflict if not properly managed. Two recent maritime incidents in the region involving the Chinese and American navies are manifestations of ongoing jockeying between the two powers, and are a reminder that subtle shifts in power have put new areas of Asia into play. In March, Chinese naval vessels harassed an American reconnaissance ship, the
U.S.N.S. Impeccable, 75 miles off the coast of Hainan island, and in June, a Chinese submarine stalking a U.S. Navy destroyer collided with its trailing sonar array. The Department of Defense agreed to hold a dialogue with their Chinese counterparts in the near future in the hopes of averting future incidents and establishing procedures to resolve them. This is a positive step. However, a number of disconcerting trends call into question the efficacy of U.S. policy in the region and highlight a dilemma for the United States that will only deepen over time. Chinese territorial claims over the South China Sea and its islands and atolls overlap with those of a number of Southeast Asian nations . The volume of trade carried through its waters

make it of vital strategic importance in Asia, while resource competition and military expansion have the potential to generate conflict. The latest maritime incidents are reflective of a more assertive stance from Beijing in recent years and come as China oversees the impressive modernization of its naval capabilities. Beijing only recently renewed
pressures on its conflicting territorial claims with the Philippines and Vietnam (and on plans by Western oil companies to extract resources in the area), throw ing into doubt a 2002 agreement on managing tensions in the region. Chinas response to the Impeccable incident was also troubling, with a Foreign Ministry spokesman arguing against international law in maintaining that American ships needed permission to enter into Chinas Exclusive Economic Zone. Nevertheless, the American response to these provocative acts was positively mild. The government did nothing stronger than to lodge a complaint with the Chinese government after the Impeccable incident, and declared the submarine collision to be inadvertent, declining to make it an open issue. These reactions were clearly designed to keep the incidents from imperiling Washingtons larger agenda with Beijing. In fact, U.S. stated policy on South China Sea territorial disputes is similarly cautious and has not changed since the mid-1990s, when the U.S. asserted it would not take a stance on any territorial claim and would urge a non-assertive environment for the peaceful resolution of differences. Such an approach reveals a crucial dilemma in Americas strategy towards China. The U.S. has pursued what some have called strategic hedging, seeking to induce Chinese cooperation on a range of shared interests, while simultaneously preparing for the possibility that China will choose confrontation. Yet, given the desire to preserve relations with Beijing and to avoid feeding tensions, the U.S. prefers that its military deterrent be more implicit than explicit. The hope is that sober minds in Beijing, who understand the need for a peaceful international environment for economic growth, will prevail. However, American strategy in this instance fails to appreciate Chinese calculations in the South China Sea. The primary concern is not that China would make a strategically disastrous choice to confront the United States head-on there. Rather, China might act aggressively perhaps through economic and military pressure on its southern neighbors if it believes that it can limit U.S. opposition and international fallout. Elements in the Chinese government are clearly emboldened by recent trends. The Global Times, a central government mouthpiece, recently ran an article stating that 92 percent of internet users think the South China Sea dispute will have to be resolved by force, suggesting that military action would be an attractive option for distracting from any eventual domestic troubles. A think tank subordinate to the PLA General Staff Department called this month for

mounting a military campaign that would strike at the arrogance of one or two small nations, realistically recover a few strategic islands and reefs, including with strikes against illegal oil wells. The decisive factor, in their view, was that the United States lacked the will to oppose military action. If not disabused of these notions, the PLA and others will continue to see opportunity where there is only danger. To address these misconceptions, the U.S. must clarify its commitments to defending the South China Sea against aggression. At the
same time, it must tread carefully to reduce to the greatest extent possible a Chinese backlash, while allowing space for Beijing to rein in those advocating confrontation. The Defense Department should use the planned talks on maritime issues to convey Americas resolve to maintain its presence in the South China Sea. Yet, because this issue is larger than just maritime incidents, these efforts must be followed by other measures. A high-profile public address from a top State or Defense Department official should explain American interests in the region including freedom of navigation through this vital part of the global commons, and the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes and reaffirm the United States willingness to protect those interests. The U.S. should also strengthen security relationships with its Southeast Asian partners.

1NC SPRATLY/ GREAT POWER/ ECON MODULE

Great power escalation and economic collapse Havely, staff writer BBC and News Online, 99 [World: Asia-Pacific Analysis: Flashpoint Spratly Chinas territorial claim extends well into South East Asia, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/279170.stm] The disputed territory of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea offers one of the region's major potential flashpoints for the 21st century. If conflict ever did break out there, no less than six nations could quickly find themselves in the midst of a bruising encounter. Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and the superpower of China have
all staked overlapping claims in whole or in part around the Spratly region. All, apart from Brunei, occupy one or more of the islands backed up with military installations and the area is stage to frequent tense stand-offs between the competing parties. Rich rocks To date the most serious confrontation to take place in the Spratlys occurred in 1988 when Chinese forces evicted a Vietnamese presence on Johnson Reef. Beijing says that archaeological evidence proves the South China Sea was historically Chinese territory. Now it wants it back. Most of the islands are low-lying coral reefs and rocky outcrops, home to little more than a few sea birds. Some are so small they disappear at high tide, whilst others provide barely enough space for one person to keep their feet dry. But these islands are more than just dots on a map. Their significance lies in what surrounds them: water or, more specifically, the 250,000 square kilometres (155,000 square miles) of the South China Sea. Around the islands are some of the world's richest fishing grounds. And underneath the sea bed there are thought to be massive reserves of oil and gas - both are valuable resources for what has been, at least until recently, an expanding, energy-hungry region. Of significance to the wider world are the vital sea-lanes that traverse the area,

transporting oil Middle Eastern oil to Japan and west coast America. Around a quarter of the world's total shipping trade passes through the area every year. War in the Spratlys could quickly have an impact on the global economy. War games It would also put pressure on the US to intervene, as it has defence guarantees and treaties with a number of the claimants.
It would be reluctant to do so. In 1995 the US naval war college ran a series of computer war games simulating a conflict with China over the South China Sea. In every case Chinese forces won the day. Strategic analysts view the Spratlys dispute as the result of a so-called power

vacuum in post-Cold War East Asia. Economic decline causes nuclear war O'Donnell, 9 (Sean, Baltimore Republican Examiner, a graduate student at the University of Baltimore studying law and ethics, B.A. in History from the University of Maryland, a Squad Leader in the Marine Corps Reserve, Will this recession lead to World War III? February 26, http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Will-thisrecession-lead-to-World-War-III#comments) Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.

2NC ESCALATION
East Asian war and economic collapse Williams, Far Eastern Economic Review Staff, 02 [Don't neglect the spratlys, p. lexis] The continual lack of substantial progress on the issue of unresolved territorial claims to the Spratly Islands threatens to march East Asia closer to disaster . Rich in minerals, oil, natural gas and fish, the sea lanes of the South China Sea are an attractive prize for the six players with claims to the Spratlys: Brunei, China, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines. An outbreak of conflict would impact every member of the Asia-Pacific community and would have a negative rippling effect on the global economy . The primary source of concern is China. China's creeping assertiveness into the 200 islets and reefs, along with its unwillingness to negotiate multilaterally, has left the other claimants with little recourse. Conflict over the Spratlys triggers US involvement --- security commitments Lohman, Director of the Heritage Foundations Asian Studies center, 09 [Walter, Spratly Islands: The Challenge to U.S. Leadership in the South China Sea, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/02/Spratly-Islands-The-Challenge-to-US-Leadership-inthe-South-China-Sea]
China's Unreasonable Claim On the eve of the annual Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit this week,

an old issue has resurfaced: conflicting claims over the Spratly Islands. The issue is back in the news for good reason; it never really went away. According to press reports, last week
the Chinese vice foreign minister summoned the charge d' affaires from the Philippines embassy to register a "stern protest" over a new Philippines' law formally staking claim to what it calls the "Kalayaan Islands." The Chinese, of course, contend that they hold, in the words of the foreign ministry, "indisputable sovereignty over these islands and their adjacent waters. There is nothing simple about this dispute. Taiwan and Vietnam claim all of the Spratly Islands. And the specific Bruneian and Malaysian claims overlap those of the Philippines. But it is the Chinese claim--because of

its aggressive scope, the history behind it, and China's growing military capacity to back it up--that pose the real problem to regional stability. The Chinese claim is expansive, to say the least. The Kalayaan Islands are 1,000 nautical miles
away from China. By contrast, the Philippines' province of Palawan is roughly 230 miles away. (Incidentally, the Kalayaans are a municipality of Palawan.) Yet China also claims territory even closer to Palawan Island: Mischief Reef, the source of so much diplomatic scuffling 10 years ago, is only 135 miles away. The distance between China and the territory it is claiming is apparently of no concern to Beijing. Indeed, the Chinese claim not only the Spratlys but 80 percent of the South China Sea. In support of such a massive claim, the Chinese reference 2,000-year-old maps and an imaginative reading of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Critically, the claim is passively supported by China's growing military prowess

(double-digit annual growth in military spending and an expanding fleet of sophisticated warships and submarines) and what increasingly appears to be deliberate ambiguity about the intentions behind this buildup. Highlighting Chinese Ambitions The Philippines has done the world a great favor by reminding it of Chinese ambitions. The dispute over the
South China Sea flared in the mid-to-late 1990s as a result of Chinese efforts to physically fortify their claim to Mischief Reef. Although initially alarmed by China's moves, by 2002 ASEAN was heralding a new era that would essentially set sovereign disputes aside and focus instead on mutual development. This is ASEAN's comfort zone; they were pleased to paper over the problem. But the excessive Chinese claim on the territory of their member states was never withdrawn. And neither were the structures on Mischief Reef that precipitated the crisis. The Congress and President of the Philippines are staking their claim to the Spratly Islands without apology. They appear prepared to weather Chinese protests. Indeed, there is no cause for them to capitulate. As is, choosing among several draft bills asserting their claim and political pressure to be aggressive, the Philippines settled on a course that was the least objectionable to their neighbors. This is a diplomatic problem. The possibility that this dispute could escalate to a point where the U.S. could be called to invoke its treaty obligations to the Philippines is remote. It did not reach that point in the mid-1990s--a much more contentious environment than today. But the risk of serious conflict only increases with time. American Support Needed One of the greatest values of

in peacetime, in this case the U.S.-Philippines 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, is that they clearly show where American loyalties lie. The United States should unequivocally support the right of the Philippines to stake its claims
American security treaties in the South China Sea. It should also bring attention to the responsible, deliberative, legal nature of its claims. And although it cannot support any party's particular claim, the U.S. can certainly point out the aggressive, unreasonable nature of the Chinese claim. All legalities aside, at some level, any claim to territory should have to pass a common sense test. Claiming sovereignty over 648,000 square miles of sea bordering on eight countries is absolutely untenable. And the U.S. ought to say so. Ultimately, the U.S. cannot remain neutral in a dispute between an

ally and its competition for regional influence--China. If an alliance does not at least mean dispensing with neutrality in choosing
your friends, then what does it mean? Playing on the ambiguities in the American position and on weaknesses plaguing perceptions of its commitment to the region, the Chinese are content to slowly turn up the heat on the South China Sea. Silence abets their aspirations. The Spratly Islands

dispute is not just the Philippines' problem. It is an even bigger problem for the United States and all who rely on American leadership in the Asia Pacific. Left unchallenged, the Chinese claim to the South China Sea could one day leave the American Pacific Fleet asking Chinese permission to conduct routine operations. If the Chinese claims calcify at a pace similar to the development of their navy, in another 10 years, the U.S. will have a real crisis on its hands. Conflict escalation in the Spratlys probable --- varying strategic interests

Huat, Republic of Singapore Navy, Singapore Armed Forces, 97 [Lieutenant Colonel Soh Guan, Title : Unwarranted Despair or Unfulfilled Hopes. An examination of the possibility of armed conflict and the prospects of peace over the Spratly Islands., http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Soh.htm] Clearly, the strategic location of the Spratly Islands and the promise of resources are the primary motives for claiming these islands. While the resource issue is a question that can and should be resolved by the claimants with or without external mediation, the strategic location of the islands with its potential to control and/or disrupt the sea lines of communications has implications for non-claimants such as Singapore, Japan, and the United States, whose economic and strategic interests are inextricably linked with freedom of navigation through the South China Sea. Therefore, non-claimant nations are concerned about how the sovereignty issue is resolved, even if they are unconcerned about how the economic pie is divided. More than mere concern, nonclaimant nations will challenge any solution that impinges their strategic interests. Lee Kuan Yew, the Senior Minister of Singapore summed up this dichotomy in the following manner : So, the two issues of ownership and of passage over these waters have to be separated and dealt with separately. Ownership of the oil and gas can be resolved between the claimants but it must not impinge on the freedom of navigation of ships, flights of aircraft. This is a wider issue, an international issue.

2NC US SINO RELATIONS/ECON MODULE

South China conflict causes economic collapse, decimates US- Sino Relations and culminates in war Cossa, analyst CSIS, 98 [Ralph, Security Implications of Conflict in the South China Sea: Exploring Potential Triggers of Conflict, http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Cossa,%20Security%20Implications%20of %20%20Conflict%20in%20the%20S.ChinaSea.pdf] A failure to peacefully resolve the dispute, especially if it leads to renewed military actions by any one or more of the claimants, would have much broader regional, if not global economic as well as political/security consequences. Regardless of how conflict starts or who the combatants are, the consequences could be far-reaching. The region's economy , already hard-hit by the on-going Asian financial crisis, would be sure to suffer another, perhaps fatal, blow. Should the sea lanes be threatened, the conflict would rapidly become internationalized. The use of force by the PRC in the contested territories would have a particularly far-reaching destabilizing affect. The impact would be greatest on the prospects for cordial relations between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors. The steadily-improving relationship between the PRC and both the United States and Japan would also be severely disrupted. Economic Consequences. Given the integrated nature of the world's economy, and the increasingly important position the economies of Asia play in the overall global picture, a disruption of the currently stable Asian security environment could have serious impact on the economic interests of nations far removed from the actual scene of conflict. Countries like Japan, which rely heavily on seaborne trade and the import of natural resources-and which have significant direct financial investment in China and in Southeast Asian economies --would be most severely affected. China would suffer most if it initiated hostilities, especially if one assumes that an aggressive PRC military action would, at a minimum, result in punitive economic sanctions. China's economic development would be set back and the credibility of its leadership would likely suffer as a consequence.

US Sino relations are key to global peace Zhou, 8, Assistant Professor in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at Hobart and William Smith Colleges NY -- Dr. Jinghao, Does Chinas Rise Threaten the United States? Asian Perspective, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2008, pp. 171-182
Third, there

are many common interests between China and the United States.26On the one hand, China-U.S. relations are critical not only to both countries but also to the entire international community. David M. Lampton notes that there is no global issue that can be effectively tackled without Sino-American cooperation .27On the other hand, it is one of the
greatest challenges for the United States to coexist with China in the new century.28To be sure, they share many opportunities for mutual benefit. Economically, the Chinese economy heavily relies on Western expertise, Chinese foreign trade largely depends on foreign-invested companies, and about 60 percent of Chinas total exports are produced by foreign-funded enterprises. All of this makes China sensitive to the ups and downs of the international economy, and in particular that of the U.S. economy. If the U.S. economy has troubles, it hurts Chinas economic growth. In turn, China is the largest market of the United States. Sara Bongiorni has recounted the story of how her family wanted to spend a year without buying anything made in China. In fact, Bongiorni discovered it was not only difficult but also not worthwhile to do so, because she found that there are vast consumer areas that are nearly all Chinese-dominated. Thus, it is really difficult to exclude China from economic globalization.29 Politically, China and Western

societies need to work closely together in order to maintain the global peace. In fact, China has successfully worked with Western governments on several key international issues. China hosted the Six Party Talks. As a result, North Korea agreed to disable its nuclear programs by the end of 2007.30 China took tough actions on Irans nuclear program, showing the seriousness of Chinas commitment to nonproliferation. The United States and China also share common interests in energy, global warming, human rights, anti-corruption, social welfare, the role of nongovernmental organizations, AIDS and other disease prevention, United Nations reform, and counterterrorism. China and the United States recently signed an agreement to open a
military hot line between their defense departments. Fourth, a hostile U.S. relationship with China would damage both countries interests and make it impossible for them to work jointly on global issues. As early as 60 years ago, an Australian ambassador warned the United States that it was very dangerous to be hostile to China and suggested that it keep China as a friend, because China might easily become a very powerful military nation in 50 years. Likewise, John Ikenberry advised that the United States cannot stop Chinas rise.31 If the United States tries to keep

China weak, it would increase Chinas domestic instability, which would negatively affect global peace and development. The most important thing for the United States to do is not to block China from becoming a powerful country, but to
understand China and learn to live with a rising China. In the meantime, the United States should urge the Chinese government to become a responsible, accountable, and democratic stakeholder.32 If China moves in that direction, the United States can focus on shared interests such as fighting terrorism and promoting world peace.

And, Economic decline causes nuclear war O'Donnell, 9 (Sean, Baltimore Republican Examiner, a graduate student at the University of Baltimore studying law and ethics, B.A. in History from the University of Maryland, a Squad Leader in the Marine Corps Reserve, Will this recession lead to World War III? February 26, http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Will-thisrecession-lead-to-World-War-III#comments)

Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.

**A2 CHINA WAR GOOD**

A2 CHINA WAR GOOD SHELL

1. Escalation of the Taiwanese conflict immediately draws in other great powers and regional actors --- ensures a widespread thermonuclear war irrespective of the Chinese arsenals ---thats Huncovik 2. A US first strike decimates the environment --- cause extinction Takai 9, Retired Colonel and Former Researcher in the military science faculty of the Staff College for Japans Ground Self Defense Force (U.S.China nuclear strikes would spell doomsday, October 7, http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/07/us-china_nuclear_strikes_would_spell_doomsday/7213/) What would happen if China launched its 20 Dongfeng-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles, each with a 5-megaton warhead, at 20 major U.S. cities? Prevailing opinion in Washington D.C. until not so long ago was that the raids would cause over 40 million casualties, annihilating much of the United States. In order to avoid such a doomsday scenario, consensus was that the United States would have to eliminate this potential threat at its source with preemptive strikes on China. But cool heads at institutions such as the Federation of American Scientists and the

National Resource Defense Council examined the facts and produced their own analyses in 2006, which differed from
the hard-line views of their contemporaries. The FAS and NRDC developed several scenarios involving nuclear strikes over ICBM sites deep in the Luoning Mountains in Chinas western province of Henan, and analyzed their implications. One of the scenarios involved direct strikes

on 60 locations including 20 main missile silos and decoy silos hitting each with one W76-class, 100kiloton multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle carried on a submarine-launched ballistic missile. In order to destroy the hardened silos, the strikes would aim for maximum impact by causing ground bursts near the silos' entrances. Using air
bursts similar to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be as effective, as the blasts and the heat would dissipate extensively. In this scenario, the 6 megatons of ground burst caused by the 60 attacks would create enormous mushroom clouds over 12 kilometers high, composed of radioactive dirt and debris. Within 24 hours following the explosions, deadly fallout would spread from the mushroom

clouds, driven by westerly winds toward Nanjing and Shanghai. They would contaminate the cities' residents, water, foodstuff and crops, causing irreversible damage . The impact of a 6-megaton nuclear explosion would be 360 times more
powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, killing not less than 4 million people. Such massive casualties among non-combatants would far exceed the military purpose of destroying the enemy's military power. This would cause political harm and damage the United States ability to achieve its war aims, as it would lose international support. On the other hand, China could retaliate against U.S. troops in East Asia, employing intermediate-range ballistic missiles including its DF-3, DF-4 and DF-21 missiles, based in Liaoning and Shandong provinces, which would still be intact. If the United States

wanted to destroy China's entire nuclear retaliatory capability, U.S. forces would have to employ almost all their nuclear weapons, causing catastrophic environmental hazards that could lead to the annihilation of mankind.

Accordingly, the FAS and NRDC conclusively advised U.S. leaders to get out of the vicious cycle of nuclear competition, which costs staggering sums, and to promote nuclear disarmament talks with China. Such advice is worth heeding by nuclear hard-liners.

3, And, we dont know where Chinas weapons are --- a first strike is impossible and Lieber and Presss study is flawed. Bin, Professor of the Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua Universit, 06 [Li, Paper Tiger with Whitened Teeth, http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_5.pdf] Rather than exploring why China chooses to do so, Lieber and Press use this fact as evidence to support their point on U.S. nuclear primacy.3 If the authors paid more heed to Chinas choice of a small and low-alert nuclear arsenal they would find their deductions faulty, including technical problems in their calculations . All the calculations in their paper, including
the sensitivity analyses, focus on the hardness of the targets as well as strike capabilities, which are determined by the lethal distance, accuracy, and reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons. However, the calculations in the paper are based on a fundamentally unrealistic assumption :

that is, the United States can detect and locate all Russian and Chinese long-range nuclear weapons. The authors never state
this assumption in their paper perhaps unknowingly so, as most former calculations do not discuss the issue of target detection. In other previous studies, where the numbers of surviving nuclear weapons in a calculation are much larger than zero, it may be alright to ignore the factor of intelligence. But, if such a calculation gives a result of almost zero surviving targets in a nuclear exchange, the intelligence factor becomes highly salient and therefore cannot be ignored. The authors understand that one surviving mobile ICBM might destroy a U.S. city So their sensitivity analysis tries to prove that no single Russian longrange nuclear weapon can survive even if the U.S. nuclear weapons are not as effective as assumed. However, the real

problem is that if the United States does not know where some nuclear weapons are in Russia or China, the United With

near zero surviving targets in a nuclear exchange, the intelligence factor becomes highly salient. States cannot destroy them even with superior numbers and performance of nuclear weapons. It is instructive to know that once the Soviet Union (and later, Russia) felt that it had a sufficient number of nuclear weapons to survive a first U.S. nuclear strike, it chose to sign the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START) I and II that entail on-site inspections to verify the numbers and locations of the Russian long-range nuclear weapons. If Russia feels that not a single one of its nuclear weapons can survive a first strike by the United States, it may consider not revealing all its nuclear weapons to the United States. In fact, unlike the START treaties, the new Moscow Treaty does not require similar on-site inspections. It is evident, even more so in Chinas case, that it has never declared the number or location of its nuclear weapons. Naturally, the United States relies on its intelligence to identify and locate Chinas nuclear weapons and then uses this information to decipher which objects and how many objects appear to be nuclear weapons and where they are located. The calculations

in their paper do prove that the United States can destroy all the objects that have been identified by U.S. intelligence as nuclear weapons. However, the paper misses the central point of whether the entirety of Chinese long-range nuclear weapons have been identified and located by U.S. intelligence or whether all the objects that are identified in China are real nuclear weapons. The paper simply omits possible deficiencies of intelligence . Furthermore, the performance of U.S. intelligence in the first Iraq war and the Kosovo war suggests that the United States may miss more than just a few large military targets. Technically speaking, it is a relatively simple

countermeasure for China to conceal a few actual ICBMs and to deploy decoy missiles given the large size of the Chinese territory. No matter how the United States increases the number, accuracy, and reliability of its nuclear weapons, even if used in a surprise attack, it has no means of destroying those Chinese ICBMs that its intelligence has not found. Thus, there is no method or model by which Lieber and Press can determine with any certainty that the number of surviving Chinese ICBMs after a surprise U.S. strike (equal to the number of undetected Chinese ICBMs) will be zero, and it seems far more likely survivability would be greater than zero. The definitive conclusion that the surviving
Chinese ICBMs must be zero is technically wrong as it omits the intelligence deficiency. The uncertainties of the calculations in the paper are much greater and much more serious than indicated by the authors, and certainly goes beyond their single scenario of an enemy target surviving because a U.S. submarine commander does not believe his launch order. However, the greatest concern is that U.S. leaders actually believe that

zero retaliation from China is possible, as predicted by Lieber and Press, and behave incautiously. Zero retaliation is an illusion, and if taken seriously it would bring dire risks to the United States. 4. If china launches a single nuclear weapon it would trigger the Russian warning systems --ensures accidental US Russian nuclear warfare. 5. They cause the cold wars nightmare scenarios to become reality Bin, Professor of the Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua Universit, 06 [Li, Paper Tiger with Whitened Teeth, http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_5.pdf] The power pattern in the world has significantly changed since the end of the cold war. The United States is indeed in a new period of power expansion. However, nuclear weapons of the United States provide little contribution to its fast growing power. Lieber and Press are therefore wrong to predict that the United States would gain new coercive power. First, the United States cannot develop a fully disarming nuclear strike capability against Russia and China given its intelligence deficiency; second, a disarming capability of surprise attack in peacetime cannot generate coercive power in crisis given the difficulty of signaling; third, the United States cannot gain new nuclear coercive power as its new methods of using nuclear weapons are constrained by the nuclear taboo. In this new era, nuclear weapons essentially remain a paper tiger. U.S. nuclear modernization toward greater strike capability is just a whitening of the paper tigers teeth . If more people in the world today understood that this fundamental nature of nuclear weapons will remain unchanged , even with the rise of American nuclear strike capabilities, we might still avoid the reemergence of the Cold Wars worst nightmare scenarios.

A2 CHINA WAR GOOD --- EXTENSION

Lieber and presss argument is wrong they reach faulty conclusions and a belief in nuclear primacy causes miscalculation Bin, Professor of the Institute of International Studies, Tsinghua Universit, 06 [Li, Paper Tiger with Whitened Teeth, http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_5.pdf] In a recently published paper, authors Keir Lieber and Daryl Press provided a provocative analysis on the evolving nuclear relations of the United States with Russian and China. The authors concluded that [for] the first time in decades, [the United States] could conceivably disarm the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a nuclear first strike. 2 This potentially
new nuclear status of the United States is referred to as nuclear primacy. The authors also determine that U.S. nuclear primacy may give U.S. leaders coercive leverage over adversaries in future high-stakes crises This situation brings to mind the words of Sun Tzu who clearly warns us that on military matters one should exercise extreme caution. The gravity of strategic issues between nuclear powers and their implications are

matters of life and death; therefore, it is necessary to closely scrutinize these issues analysis and claims and to challenge the conclusions if warranted. In their analysis of Americas impending nuclear primacy vis--vis China, the authors Lieber and Press are wrong in two fundamental ways. First, the reasoning by which they arrive at their conclusions is faulty; and second, the implications of their conclusions are incorrect on several counts . The more serious problem arises, however, if U.S. decision-makers believe in American nuclear primacy as a reality . Any action as a result of a reliance on this false belief would lead to disaster for America and the rest of the world.

NANOTECH DEFENSE FRONTLINE

1. Qualifications should be the lens for evaluating the comparative risk of nanotech causing extinction. --- Their authors are random science hacks who cant speak to the scientific possibility of their impact scenario. These qualifications are a pre requisite to judging the veracity of warrants. 2. Nanotech is inevitable

UNECSO, United Nations Education, Cultural, and Scientific Organization, 2006, The Ethics and Politics of Nanotechnology http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001459/145951e.pdf
Following this initial surge of research money in the US, several other nations

have begun fund- ing nanotechnology-related research in earnest. Japans Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has contributed some $250 million to research in various areas of nano- technology. The UK Royal Society reports that the current level of EU research is about 1 billion, and that the United Kingdom is currently spending roughly 45 million annually. In addition, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brazil and Israel have all made clear that national research priorities in science and technology include research into nanotechnology .

3. Nanotech depresses the motivations for arms races and arms racing is born out of psychology and not technology Jim Logajan Co-director of the MOD Business Newsgroup, 7-6-2004 http://venusia.golgothe.net/pipermail/sci.nanotech/2004-July/001210.html Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations that drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is "Are nanotech arms races ever likely to arise ?" - not "Are they unstable?" Furthermore, an objective list would have included those aspects of nanotechnology that lent stability to any ensuing arms race as well as those that
caused instability. As a result, the list appears subjective, making it an inaccurate assessment of probable futures, and therefore of little value in determining policy. It needs to be redone with more objectivity, IMHO. 1) Cheaper to develop and test That is an odd claim to make since history has already invalidated it: An understanding of the physical laws needed to develop nuclear technology, microtechnology, and nanotechnology were all in place at the end of the 1930s. Nuclear reactors and bombs now exist, as do microelectronic devices, yet no MNT device yet exists. And Feynman spoke of MNT-like capabilities and their great promise back in 1959 - and yet they still don't exist. Therefore I simply can't reconcile your claim with reality. Furthermore, even when the first MNT assembler or nanofactory arrives on the scene, the design and development problems do not go away. The technology will be in virgin territory and there will be teething problems in the design of products and in each generation of device. Each of these problems will takes months and possibly even years to work out. And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race

"unstable". The "stability" of said race eventually rests on the psychology and motivations of the participants . If the intent of one side is to use the arms once they believe they have superiority, then a subsequent arms race is potentially unstable - but the technology involved is irrelevant. 4. If our first strike capability is truly so comprehensive we could take out nano arms factories too. 5. Status quo democratization, globalization, deterrence and international arms control will solve nanotech arms races and wars Bryan Burns, Ph.D. from Cornell and nanotech scholar, February 13, 2005 http://nanodot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/02/14/0132244&cid=1 In terms of achieving safety in peaceful uses of nanotechnology, the prospects seem good . The safety section of my
paper on Open Sourcing Nanotechnology reviews some of those issues and how openness could help. The bigger problem, as analyzed in Mark Gubrud's paper on Nanotechnology and International Security cited above, concerns avoiding arms races and warfare using nanoweapons. An international

arms control regime, as Mark recommends, may well be part of the solution, but it may be useful to put such a strategy into the context of a broader set of conditions and actions which can help avoid avoid arms races and nanowar : Democracy, and more broadly building a "high-trust civil society" as mentioned in the Foresight Guidelines on MNT, as in the argument that "democracies don't make wars on each other." Interdependence, increasing interlinkages, economic and otherwise, weaving peoples together to the point where their common interests far outweigh the gains from violent conflict . Thomas Friedman's phrasing on capitalist globalization is that "countries with McDonalds don't make war on each other." International arms control regimes, which might play a role, especially in setting norms enforced by reputation in international civil society , but
which face formidable practical and ethical questions in terms of the level of surveillance and other control which would be needed for thorough enforcement. Deterrence, based on credible threats of retaliation . This includes not just the extremes of mutual

assured destruction (MAD) institutionalized terrorism, but also the stability that might be promoted by modest levels of deterrence.

NANOTECH GOOD ECONOMY TURN

Turn economy --- Nanotech is necessary for global competitiveness Aatish SALVI 8, Vice president of the NanoBusiness Alliance. [A global technology race the U.S. must win, 2/25, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-salvikimbrell25feb25,0,5524858.story] A common misconception about nanotech is that it is a single technology . Unlike biotechnology (which focuses on genes and DNA) or information technology (which focuses on microchips and software), nanotechnology encompasses a collection of methods and tools for dealing with all matter at the nano scale . It is best thought of as a new approach to building things. Working at the nano scale allows us to manufacture with unparalleled precision and efficiency. Rather than mining tons of ore at a great cost to the environment to find a handful of diamonds, nanotechnologists can start with carbon and build a flawless diamond one atom at a time. Because they are so precise, nanotech processes waste less material, consume less energy and produce better results. Nanotechnology is the frontier of innovation; given its potential, it is not surprising that it is the focus of a global scientific race. The prize for winning this race is leadership in the production of renewable energy, clean water, cancer cures and next-generation computing. The U.S. government took an early lead in 2002 with the 21st Century Research and Development Act, which pledged $5 billion over four years to become a leader in nano science. That lead has steadily been eroded. Japan announced an equivalent initiative within months of ours. Since then, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China, Taiwan, India and Singapore have stepped up to the plate with significant investments. The 21st Century Research and Development Act expires this year, and we have not been in a technology race this close since the Apollo project. Given what is at stake and the degree to which the U.S. relies on innovation to fuel its economy, nanotechnology is a global competition that America can ill-afford not to win .

And, thats key to the economy National Science Board, the National Science Board oversees the collection of a very broad set of quantitative information about U.s. science, engineering and technology, and every 2 years publishes the data and trends in the Science and Engineering Indicators report. 2008, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy
US industry and the Federal Government are the primary pillars of financial support for the U.S. research and development (R&D)2 enterprise. The National Science Board (Board) observes with concern the indicators of stagnation, and even decline in some discipline areas, in support for U.S. R&D, and especially basic research, by these two essential patrons and participants. A decline in publications by industry authors in peer reviewed journals suggests a de-emphasis by U.S. industry on expanding the foundations of basic scientific knowledge. More specifically, research contributions by U.s. industry authors in the physical and biomedical sciences through publications in peer reviewed journals have decreased substantially over the last decade. In addition, in this century the industry share of support for basic research in universities and colleges, the primary performers of U.S. basic research, has also been declining. Likewise, Federal Government support for academic R&D3 began falling in 2005 for the first time in a quarter century, while Federal and industry support for their own basic research has stagnated over the last several years. These trends are especially alarming in light of the growing importance of knowledge-based industries in the global economy. The confluence of these indicators raises important questions about implications for the future of U.S. competitiveness in international markets and for the future existence of highly skilled jobs at home. The net economic and workforce effects on the Nation and on industry of these negative changes are complex, and the Board finds that requisite data for an adequate analysis of current conditions and future trends do not presently exist. Nevertheless, the Nation must be acutely aware of the current trends as future resource allocations for basic research are debated and decided in industry and by the Federal Government. Global Competition in Science and Technology: A Strong National Response Required. Innovation is a key to economic competitiveness and the technological

breakthroughs that improve our lives. Basic research fuels technological innovations and is critical in fostering the vitality of the U.S. science and technology enterprise and the growth of highly-skilled jobs. The scienctific and technological advances that have led to our Nations remarkable ability to create new industries and jobs, improve the standard of living for people, and provide sophisticated technology that ensures our national security can be traced back to the outcomes of basic research.

** AFF **

2AC TAIWAN WAR IMPACT D

Chinese military capabilities have raised the cost of war and denied the US a strategic at advantage --- ensures no US-Sino war Sollenberger, student at the Johns Hopkins University, graduate Swarthmore and analyst, 10 [Matthew, spring, Challenging US Command of the Commons:Evolving Chinese defense technologies as a threat to American hegemony?, http://bcjournal.org/2010/challenging-us-command-of-the-commons/] The advancement of Chinese military capabilities in the areas of information warfare, anti-access measures, and strategic nuclear forces has substantially altered the strategic environment surrounding a US-China conflict, particularly in the Chinese littoral theaters. By hampering US intelligence gathering and communication assets and using anti-access measures, China could delay a US military response to a possible confrontation across the Taiwan Strait. Given the Chinese-Taiwanese balance of forces, which has tilted significantly against Taiwan in the last years, any delay in the US response to such a crisis could allow China to achieve its unification goals militarily and present the US with a fait accompli. Meanwhile, Chinas enhanced capability to inflict substantial damage on US military and civilian assets at different levels of escalation has increased the costs of a potential military conflict between the US and China and thus, may reduce the readiness of US decision-makers to intervene in favor of Taiwan particularly given Chinas evolving ability to withstand US nuclear coercion and deny the US potential benefits from escalation. China has thus effectively challenged US command of the commons, contesting US military power in several key areas. By
definition, this erodes one of the pillars of hegemony, namely unrivaled military prowess.

Zero risk of a war over Taiwan --- Taiwanese efforts to improve relations CD, China Daily 1o [5/4/10, Taiwan pledges not to seek US help in war, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-05/04/content_9804241.htm Beijing - Mainland experts on Monday hailed Taiwan leader Ma Ying-jeou's pledge that the island will never ask the United States to help fight a war with the mainland, saying it demonstrates Ma's determination to push for better cross-Straits ties. In a CNN interview, conducted entirely in English via video conference and broadcast on April 30, Ma, speaking from his office in Taipei, said that "we will continue to reduce the risks so that we will purchase arms from the United States, but we will never ask the Americans to fight for Taiwan. This is something that is very, very clear." Chen Xiancai, a researcher at the Taiwan Studies Center in
Xiamen University, said Ma has been the first Taiwan leader who dared to say "never" to US help since former leader Lee Teng-hui introduced direct "presidential" elections in late 1990s. According to its 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US has the obligation to help defend

the island, but as it seeks better ties with Beijing, the US has hedged on saying how far it would go in the event of a war, Reuters commented on Monday. "The society of Taiwan has a strong dependence on the US, while Ma's comment of never asking for US help to fight for Taiwan indicates his determination to ease cross-Straits relations, which can be interpreted as goodwill toward the mainland," Chen told China Daily. He said the move proves Ma will continuously promote cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation, including the proposed comprehensive trade pact between the two sides. Chen, however, emphasized that Ma was very cautious to appease the US by reiterating the demand for arms sales, which are strongly opposed by the mainland. Li Jiaquan, a senior researcher with the Institute of Taiwan Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, also expressed his appreciation for Ma's comments. He said a consistent and determined mainland policy is also helpful in winning more support for Ma. Li said while the pro-independence opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) always attempted to drag America into a war to help its push for "Taiwan independence", Ma is trying to rule out such a possibility. Ma also said during the CNN interview that the risk to the US of a conflict between the mainland and Taiwan is the lowest in 60 years. "In the last two years, as a result of our efforts to improve relations with the mainland, we have already defused the tension to a great extent," he said. Direct transportation, mail and trade have been achieved across the Taiwan Straits since Ma took office in May 2008. Hsiao Bi-khim, director of the International Affairs Department of the DPP, accused
Ma on Sunday of undermining "national security" by eliminating the vagueness Washington has deliberately maintained on how it would respond to a possible mainland attack against Taiwan, the Taipei-based "central news agency" reported on Sunday. Washington, which had no immediate comment on Ma's remarks, could decide on its own whether to help Taiwan, Taiwan's "cabinet" spokesman Johnny Chiang said on Monday following protests from the opposition DPP. The US decided in January to sell Taiwan more than $6 billion worth of weapons, causing a tough response from Beijing.

Their evidence doesnt say great power war --- it says the US and china launch nukes on each other, zero risk of further escalation Swaine, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment, [Asia Program] postdoctoral fellow at the University of Berkeley, et al, 05 [ The nuclear Dimension of a Taiwan Crisis, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=740] But the surprises and miscalculations might not all be on Chinas side. The United States may be surprised by Chinas willingness to demonstrate its resolve and pay a high price by prolonging and exploiting the crisis situation. The United States

might also be caught off-guard by Chinas likely perception of an American attack on its command-control capacity as an assault on the regime itself. Finally, the U.S. may also miscalculate by discounting Taiwan as an independent actor, which could undertake its own acts of escalation or even choose to quit the conflict even as the U.S. seeks to continue. Roberts concluded his remarks by noting that the actual risks of a war across the Taiwan Strait, the risks of a nuclear escalation in such a war, and the risks of tit-for-tat nuclear exchange in such a war may all, as conventional wisdom holds, be low. But Taiwan remains one of the very few flashpoints between two important powers that may have a potential nuclear dimension. Ultimately, this fact, along with the very real possibilities of miscalculations and unexpected behavior,
underscores the importance of further systematic research and analysis, as well as substantive dialogue between China and the United States, on this important subject.

EAST ASIAN PROLIF D

No Impact to East Asian proliferation military spending doesnt spill over and regional security cooperatives solve conflict and territorial disputes Feng, professor at the Peking University International Studies.10 [Zhu, An Emerging Trend in East Asia: Military Budget Increases and Their Impact, http://www.fpif.org/articles/an_emerging_trend_in_east_asia? utm_source=feed] As such, the surge of defense expenditures in East Asia does not add up to an arms race. No country in East Asia wants to see a new geopolitical divide and spiraling tensions in the region. The growing defense expenditures powerfully
illuminate the deepening of a regional security dilemma, whereby the defensive actions taken by one country are perceived as offensive by another country, which in turn takes its own defensive actions that the first country deems offensive. As long as the region doesnt split into rival blocs, however, an arms race will not ensue. What is happening in East Asia is the extension of what Robert Hartfiel and Brian Job call competitive arms processes. The history of the cold war is telling in this regard. Arm races occur between great-power rivals only if the rivalry is doomed to intensify. The perceived tensions in the region do not automatically translate into consistent and lasting

increases in military spending. Even declared budget increases are reversible. Taiwans defense budget for fiscal year 2010, for instance, will fall 9 percent. This is a convincing case of how domestic constraints can reverse a government decision to increase the defense budget. Australias twenty-year plan to increase the defense budget could change with a domestic economic contraction or if a new party comes to power. Chinas two-digit increase in its military budget might vanish one day if the type of regime changes or the high rate of economic growth slows. Without a geopolitical split or a significant great-power rivalry, military budget increases will not likely evolve into arms races. The security dilemma alone is not a leading variable in determining the curve of military expenditures. Nor will trends in weapon development and procurement inevitably induce risk-taking behavior. Given the stability of the regional security architecturethe combination of U.S.-centered alliance politics and regional, cooperation-based security networkingany power shift in East Asia will hardly upset the overall status quo. Chinas military modernization, its determination to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, hasnt yet led to a regional response in military budget increases. In contrast, countries in the region continue to emphasize political and economic engagement with China, though balancing China strategies can be found in almost every corner of the region as part of an overall balance-of-power logic. In the last few years, China has taken big strides toward building up asymmetric war capabilities against Taiwan. Beijing also holds to the formula of a peaceful solution of the Taiwan issue except in the case of the islands de jure declaration of independence. Despite
its nascent capability of power projection, China shows no sign that it would coerce Taiwan or become militarily assertive over contentious territorial claims ranging from the Senkaku Islands to the Spratly Islands to the India-China border dispute.

2AC NO IMPACT CHINA WAR/ASIA WAR

War in Asia unlikely--- relative stability and Chinese adventurism isnt synonymous with aggression Desker, Dean, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies , 08 [Barry, 'Why War in Asia Remains Unlikely' , http://www.iiss.org/conferences/global-strategic-challenges-as-played-out-in-asia/asias-strategicchallenges-in-search-of-a-common-agenda/conference-papers/fifth-session-conflict-in-asia/why-war-in-asiaremains-unlikely-barry-desker/] War in Asia is thinkable but it is unlikely. The Asia-Pacific region can, paradoxically, be regarded as a zone both of relative insecurity and of relative strategic stability. On the one hand, the region contains some of the worlds most significant flashpoints the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Strait, the Siachen glacier where tensions between nations could escalate to the point of resulting in a major war. The region is replete with border issues, the site of acts of terrorism (the Bali bombings, Manila superferry bombing, Kashmir, etc.), and it is an area of overlapping maritime claims (the Spratly Islands, Diaoyutai islands, etc). Finally, the Asia-Pacific is an area of strategic significance, sitting astride key sea lines of communication (SLOCS) and important chokepoints. Nevertheless, the Asia-Pacific region is more stable than one might believe. Separatism remains a challenge but the break-up of states is unlikely. Terrorism is a nuisance but its impact is contained. The North Korean nuclear issue, while not fully resolved, is at least moving toward a conclusion with the likely denuclearization of the peninsula. Tensions between China and Taiwan, while always just beneath the surface, seem unlikely to erupt in open conflict (especially after the KMT victories in Taiwan). The region also possesses significant multilateral structures such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the
nascent Six Party Talks forum and, in particular, ASEAN, and institutions such as the EAs, ASEAN + 3, ARF which ASEAN has conceived. Although the United States has been the hegemon in the Asia-Pacific since the end of World War II, it will probably not remain the dominant presence in the region over the next 25 years. A rising China will pose the critical foreign policy challenge, probably more difficult than the challenge posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This development will lead to the most profound change in the strategic environment of the Asia-Pacific. On the other hand, the

rise of China does not automatically mean that conflict is more likely. First, the emergence of a more assertive China does not mean a more aggressive China. Beijing appears content to press its claims peacefully (if forcefully), through existing avenues and institutions of international relations. Second, when we look more closely at the Chinese military buildup, we find that there may be less than some might have us believe, and that the Chinese war machine is not quite as threatening as some might argue. Instead of Washington perspectives
shaping Asia-Pacific affairs, the rise of China is likely to see a new paradigm in international affairs the Beijing Consensus founded on the leadership role of the authoritarian party state, a technocratic approach to governance, the significance of social rights and obligations, a reassertion of the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, coupled with support for freer markets and stronger regional and international institutions. The emphasis is on good governance. Japan fits easily in this paradigm. Just as Western dominance in the past century led to Western ideas shaping international institutions and global values, Asian leaders and Asian thinkers will increasingly participate in and shape the global discourse, whether it is on the role of international institutions, the rules governing international trade or the doctrines which under-gird responses to humanitarian crises. An emerging Beijing Consensus is not premised on the rise of the East and decline of the West, as sometimes seemed to be the sub-text of the earlier Asian values debate. I do not share the triumphalism of my friends Kishore Mahbubani and Tommy Koh. However, like the Asian values debate, this new debate reflects alternative philosophical traditions. The issue is the appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and those of the state. This debate will highlight the shared identity and shared values between China and the states in the region. I do not agree with those in the US

who argue that Sino-US competition will result in intense security competition with considerable potential for war in which most of Chinas neighbours will join with the United States to contain Chinas power.[1] These shared values are likely to reduce the risk of conflict and result in regional pressure for an accommodation with China and the adoption of policies of engagement with China, rather than confrontation with an emerging China. China is increasingly economically inter-dependent, part of a network of over-lapping cooperative regional institutions. In Asia, the focus is on economic growth and facilitating Chinas integration into regional and global affairs. An interesting feature is that in Chinas interactions with states in the region, China is beginning to be interested in issues of proper governance, the development of domestic institutions and the
strengthening of regional institutional mechanisms. Chinese policy is not unchanging, even on the issue of sovereignty. For example, there has been an evolution in Chinese thinking on the question of freedom of passage through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. While China supported the claims of the littoral states to sovereign control over the Straits when the Law of the Sea Convention was concluded in 1982, Chinas increasing dependence on imported oil shipped through the Straits has led to a shift in favour of burden-sharing, the recognition of the rights of user states and the need for cooperation between littoral states and user states . Engagement as part of global and regional institutions has resulted in

revisions to Chinas earlier advocacy of strict non-intervention and non-interference. Recent Chinese support for global initiatives
in peace-keeping, disaster relief, counter-terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation and anti-drug trafficking, its lack of resort to the use of its veto as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its active role within the World Trade Organisation participation in global institutions can be influential in shaping perceptions of a rising China. Beijing has greatly lowered the tone and rhetoric of its strategic

competition with the United States, actions which have gone a long way toward reassuring the countries of Southeast Asia of Chinas
sincerity in pursuing a non-confrontational foreign and security strategy. Beijings approach is significant as most Southeast Asian states prefer not to have to choose between alignment with the US and alignment with China and have adopted hedging strategies in their relationships with the two powers. Beijing now adopts a more subtle approach towards the United States: not directly challenging US leadership in Asia, partnering with Washington where the two countries have shared interests, and, above all, promoting multilateral security processes that, in turn, constrain US power, influence and hegemony in the Asia-Pacific. The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) is certainly in the midst of perhaps the most ambitious upgrading of its

combat capabilities since the early 1960s, and it is adding both quantitatively and qualitatively to its arsenal of military equipment. Its current national defence doctrine is centered on the ability to fight Limited Local Wars. PLA operations emphasize preemption, surprise, and shock value, given that the earliest stages of conflict may be crucial to the outcome of a war. The PLA has increasingly pursued the acquisition of weapons for asymmetric warfare. The PLA mimics the United States in terms of the ambition and scope of its transformational efforts and therefore challenges the U.S. military at its own game. Nevertheless, we should note that China, despite a deliberate and focused course of military modernization, is still at least two decades behind the United States in terms of defence capabilities and technology. There is very little evidence that the Chinese military is engaged in an RMA-like overhaul of its organizational or institutional structures. While the Chinese military is certainly acquiring new and better equipment, its RMA-related activities are embryonic and equipment upgrades by themselves do not constitute an RMA. Chinas current military buildup is still more indicative of a process of evolutionary, steady-state, and sustaining rather than disruptive or revolutionary innovation and change. In

conclusion, war in the Asia-Pacific is unlikely but the emergence of East Asia, especially China, will require adjustments by the West,
just as Asian societies have had to adjust to Western norms and values during the American century. The challenge for liberal democracies like the United States will be to embark on a course of self-restraint.

NO SOUTH CHINA SEA WAR

South China Sea war wont escalate Scobell, phd, strategic studies institute, 01 [ Dr, Andrew, The Rise of China: Security

Implications, http://www.sanford.duke.edu/centers/tiss/pubs/documents/TheRiseofChina.pdf]

The South China Sea presents a very different kind of flashpoint --one quite unlikely to be the location of a major conflict. Most of the disputed islands there are uninhabited and remote, and rival claimants to the area all have very limited power projection capabilities. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei are among
the states that claim some or all of the reefs, islets, and atolls that dot the area. China has the largest and most insistent claim. Beijing is very concerned with the sea lanes of communication and the natural resources of the region. China is increasingly dependent on Middle

East oil that is shipped via the Strait of Malacca and through the South China Sea. Moreover, China is keen on tapping the
fisheries and any energy reserves discovered in the area. Other nonmilitary security threats to the area are piracy--some estimates put about half of the world's pirates operating in the region. Environmental issues could exacerbate regional tensions and possibly lead to

limited hostilities, but these are unlikely to escalate or directly involve the United States in a war.

2AC NO WARUS CHINA RELATIONS RESILIENT

US-Sino relations resilient and can only improvecooperation over multiple issues Wenzhao, 09 Senior Researcher at the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Tao, 2/17/09, Positive signs ahead for Sino-US relations, China Daily, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-02/17/content_7482140.htm) The direction of Sino-US relations under Barack Obama's presidency is drawing increasing attention as the new US administration takes shape. The new president made remarks about China during his election campaign and wrote for the US Chamber of Commerce in China an article on the prospect of Sino-US ties in his term of office. In January, newly assigned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also deliberated on US foreign policy in a Senate hearing. Obama acknowledges that common interests exist between China and the US and welcomes a rising China. He realizes China's remarkable achievement in the past 30 years has driven economic development in neighboring nations and believes its emergence as a big power is irreversible and the US should cooperate to deal with emerging challenges. The US and China have had effective and smooth cooperation on a wide range of economic and security issues, from anti-terror, nonproliferation and climate change to the restructuring of the extant international financial system. This is expected to be the new administration's mainstream China policy and dominate the future of Sino-US relations. As multilateralism believers, both President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden advocate international cooperation instead of unilateral action to deal with international challenges and resolve disputes. Fruitful cooperation between China and the US on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue clearly indicates constructive bilateral and multilateral cooperation on sensitive issues can help ease strained regional situations. The new US administration has expressed its wishes to continue to promote a stable Korean Peninsula and to improve ties with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The new administration has also expressed expectations for cooperation with China on other international issues, such as the Iranian nuclear and Darfur challenges. China now plays a crucial role in the world's political landscape and we look forward to cooperative ties with it, Clinton recently said. Everdeepening economic and trade ties, as the cornerstone of bilateral relations, are expected to continue to develop during Obama's tenure . US-China relations resilient and will only get bettermultiple issues Wenzhao, 09 Senior Researcher at the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Tao, 2/17/09, Positive signs ahead for Sino-US relations, China Daily, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-02/17/content_7482140.htm)
During his presidential campaign, Obama

put forward the indices for US greenhouse gas emissions. Now, the international community is discussing a new emission reduction standard in the post-Kyoto Protocol era . They make the Obama administration likely to join some others in urging China to lay out rigid targets for emissions reduction. On the Taiwan question, Obama has expressed adherence to the one-China principle and to backing a peaceful settlement of sensitive issues. But he has also said his administration would continue to be committed to the Taiwan Relations Act, a Congressional bill aimed at maintaining the relations with the island. In a congratulatory letter to Taiwan leader Ma Ying-jeou after his success in contesting the island's leadership in March last year, the then Democratic Senator expressed his support for an improved cross-Straits relationship and trust building between the two sides . It is expected that the Obama administration will act in a cautious manner on the Taiwan question and not allow it to escalate into a prominent one in Sino-US relations . Entering the new century, Sino-US relations have increasingly been conducted under a regular mechanism. This is expected to be carried forward into the new US administration. Also, new mechanisms are expected to be worked out to further promote mutual understanding and cooperation . There are good reasons to anticipate a stable Sino-US relationship at this time of power transition in the US and anticipate strengthened constructive cooperation in the years ahead. Relations resilienteconomic interdependence and overall cooperation ensures a positive bilateral future China Daily, 10 (5/24/10, Wang stresses China, US economic interdependence, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-05/24/content_9886089.htm) *Wang QishanChinese Vice Premier, second to the head of the Chinese government

BEIJING - Chinese Vice-Premier Wang Qishan said on Monday economic interdependence between China and the United States reflects the importance of bilateral cooperation. "With increasingly close links, our two economies have become inseparable. This has been particularly true since the outbreak of the international financial crisis, and our two countries have acted together to meet the challenge," said Wang at the opening session of the second round of the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). The dialogue will conclude Tuesday. He said China-US economic ties are a cornerstone of the bilateral relationship, adding that the high economic complementarity between the two sides makes for win-win cooperation, not a zero-sum game. The world economy is at a "critical juncture," but as long as the two countries communicate with candor, enhance mutual trust and look for common ground, China and the US will overcome any future difficulty, Wang said. He said the dialogue, under the theme "Ensuring the Continuation of a Mutually Beneficial Economic Partnership," will include in-depth discussions on a number of issues including macroeconomic policy, trade and investment, financial markets' stability and the reform of the architecture of international finance. Wang said the dialogue's core objective is building a positive, cooperative and comprehensive ChinaUS relationship for the 21st century. "The dialogue will enable us to further our cooperation, solidify the positive momentum and promote the strong, sustainable and balanced growth of the global economy," he added. Wang expressed confidence the two nations will broaden their consensus, narrow their differences, and work together for
sound and steady growth in China-US relations through the talks. Wang also hailed the first round of the S&ED convened in Washington DC last July as successful and positive in enhancing cooperation. He said the it facilitated a joint response to the global financial crisis, promoting a worldwide economic recovery and global governance structures' reform. As the special representatives of Chinese President Hu Jintao, Wang and State Councilor Dai Bingguo co-chair the two-day S&ED with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, special representatives of US President Barack Obama. About 50 representatives from 40-plus government departments from the two countries also participated in the talks. Succeeding the China-US Strategic Dialogue and China-US Strategic Economic Dialogue, the S&ED was established on April 1, 2009, by President Hu and President Obama during their first meeting in London on the sidelines of the G20 financial summit.

2AC NO WARECON INTERDEPENDENCE

No risk of military or nuclear confrontation between US-Chinaeconomic interdependence Perry & Scowcroft, 9 *Professor at Stanford University, **Resident Trustee of the Forum for International Policy (William & Brent, 2009, US Nuclear Weapons Policy, Council on Foreign Relations) Economic interdependence provides an incentive to avoid military conflict and nuclear confrontation. Although the United States has expressed concern about the growing trade deficit with China, the economies of the two countries have become increasingly intertwined and interdependent. U.S. consumers have bought massive quantities of cheap Chinese goods, and Beijing has lent huge amounts of money to the United States. Similarly, Taiwan and the mainland are increasingly bound in a reciprocal economic relationship. These economic relation- ships should reduce the probability of a confrontation between China and Taiwan, and keep the United States and China from approach- ing the nuclear brink , were such a confrontation to occur. On other nuclear issues, China and the United States have generally supported each other, as they did in the six-party talks to dismantle North Koreas nuclear weapons programs. Here, the supportive BeijingWashington relationship points toward potentially promising dialogues on larger strategic issues. Economic interdependence makes US-China war very unlikely Wenzhao, 09 Senior Researcher at the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Tao, 2/17/09, Positive signs ahead for Sino-US relations, China Daily, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-02/17/content_7482140.htm) The ongoing financial crisis makes it necessary to expand Sino-US cooperation and create new fields and channels to push it forward. However, worldwide crisis has also fueled trade protectionism. The Democratic Party-led US administration, which cares more about the opinions of labor unions, is expected to stress balanced trade and labor standards. It is opposed to any practices that possibly reduce job opportunities in the US manufacturing sector. Obama talked of the Sino-US trade imbalance and the yuan's exchange rate during his presidential election. This may usher in an increasing number of trade disputes with China. Due to increasing interdependence between the two sides, a fully fledged trade war, however, is very unlikely. The Obama administration attaches great importance to the issues of energy, environment, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, thus posing opportunities together with challenges for bilateral ties. During the previous administration, China and the US reached a series of consensuses in this regard within the established Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) framework. Such momentum is expected to enter an essential stage in the new US administration.

2AC LINK TURN

Only a military withdrawal allows Japan and South korea to prevent Chinese adventurism Bandow, 04 senior fellow at the Cato Institute (Doug, Withdrawal of U.S. forces a good start, Japan Times, August 22, Lexis) Japan understandably looks at China with unease, but Tokyo should construct a defensive force capable of deterring Chinese adventurism. Taiwan is an obvious potential flash point, but no sane American president would inaugurate a ground war with China. Still, critics contend, having troops nearby would better enable the U.S. to intervene in some future crisis. But most potential conflicts, like past ones in the Balkans, would not warrant American involvement. Moreover, allies often limit Washington's options. France would not even grant overflight rights to Washington to retaliate against Libya for the Berlin disco bombing. Seoul and Tokyo would be unlikely to let Washington use their bases in a war with China over Taiwan. Changing technology has reduced the value of propinquity. As Bush observed, our forces are "more agile and more lethal,
they're better able to strike anywhere in the world over great distances on short notice." A major conflict like that in Iraq would require an extended build-up, irrespective of where the forces were located. In contrast, the benefits of withdrawing are obvious. As the president observed: "Our service members will have more time on the home front, and more predictability and fewer moves over a career... The taxpayers will save money as we configure our military to meet the threats of the 21st century." Drawing down unnecessary overseas garrisons would reduce pressure on personnel resulting from the unexpectedly difficult Iraqi occupation. Roughly 40 percent of the 140,000 troops now stationed in Iraq are Reserve or National Guard. Bush also contended that his proposal would "strengthen our alliances around the world." Actually, pulling out troops would not improve existing relationships. Indeed, former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke complained that "the Germans are very unhappy about these withdrawals. The Koreans are going to be equally unhappy." A few officials in Asia might fear for their security. Some Europeans complain that the administration is retaliating for their opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. However, most critics most worry about the economic impact on local communities surrounding American bases. Washington's response should be, so what? Proposals for drawing down U.S. forces were made long before the Iraq war and are justified by changing strategic realities, whatever the Bush administration's private intentions. Moreover, Americans aren't responsible for making Germans and Koreans happy. The economic health of small German villages is a problem for Berlin, not Washington. Still, some U.S. devotees of the status quo

worry about the impact of Bush's initiative. Charged Wesley Clark, who commanded President Bill Clinton's misbegotten war on Serbia: the
move would "significantly undermine U.S. national security." Even if trans-Atlantic ties loosened, the U.S. would be better off. America's alliances are mostly security black holes, with Washington doing the defending and allies doing the carping. Withdrawal would force friendly states to

take on full responsibility for their own defense, which would enhance U.S. security. Why do Americans patrol Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, which are of only peripheral interest to Europe and of no concern to the U.S.? Japan should take on a front-line role in deterring potential Chinese adventurism. Why does Washington treat populous and prosperous South Korea as a perpetual defense dependent?

Status quo military presence is geared towards Chinese containment --- this strategy facilitates hostility and ensures Asian warfare and a Sino Taiwan conflict Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, 06 [Michael, Containing China: The US's real objective, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad01.html] Accompanying all these diplomatic initiatives has been a vigorous, if largely unheralded, effort by the Department of Defense (DoD) to bolster US military capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. The broad sweep of US strategy was first spelled out in the Pentagon's most
recent policy assessment, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released on February 5. In discussing long-term threats to US security, the QDR begins with a reaffirmation of the overarching precept first articulated in the DPG of 1992 : that the United States will not allow the rise

2AC CHINESE CONTAINMENT BAD

of a competing superpower. This country "will attempt to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the United States", the document states . It then identifies China as the most likely and dangerous competitor of this sort. "Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional US military advantages" - then adding the kicker - "absent US counter-strategies." According to the Pentagon, the task of countering future Chinese military capabilities largely entails the development, and then procurement, of major weapons systems that would ensure US success in any full-scale military confrontation. "The United States will develop capabilities that would present any
adversary with complex and multidimensional challenges and complicate its offensive planning efforts," the QDR explains. These include the steady enhancement of such "enduring US advantages" as "long-range strike, stealth, operational maneuver and sustainment of air, sea and ground forces at strategic distances, air dominance, and undersea warfare". Preparing for war with China, in other words, is to be the future cash cow for the giant US weapons-making corporations in the military-industrial complex. It will, for instance, be the primary justification for the acquisition of costly new weapons systems such as the F-22A Raptor fighter, the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter, the DDX destroyer, the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine, and a new intercontinental penetrating bomber - weapons that would just have utility in an all-out encounter with another great-power adversary of a sort that only China might someday become. In addition to these weapons programs, the QDR also calls for a stiffening of present US combat forces in Asia and the Pacific, with a particular emphasis on the US Navy (the arm of the military least used in the ongoing occupation of and war in Iraq). "The fleet will have a greater presence in the Pacific Ocean," the document notes. To achieve this, "The navy plans to adjust its force posture and basing to provide at least six operationally available and sustainable [aircraft] carriers and 60% of its submarines in the Pacific to support engagement, presence and deterrence." Since each of these carriers is, in fact, but the core of a large array of support ships and protective aircraft, this move is sure to entail a truly vast buildup of US naval capabilities in the Western Pacific and will certainly necessitate a substantial expansion of

the US basing complex in the region - a requirement that is already receiving close attention from Admiral Fallon and his staff at PACOM.
To assess the operational demands of this buildup, moreover, this summer the US Navy will conduct its most extensive military maneuvers in the Western Pacific since the end of the Vietnam War, with four aircraft-carrier battle groups and many support ships expected to participate. Add all of this together, and the resulting strategy cannot be viewed as anything but a systematic campaign of containment. No high administration official may say this in so many words, but it is impossible to interpret the recent moves of Rice and Rumsfeld in any other manner .

From Beijing's perspective, the reality must be unmistakable: a steady buildup of US military power along China's eastern, southern and western boundaries. How will China respond to this threat? For now, it appears to be
relying on charm and the conspicuous blandishment of economic benefits to loosen Australian, South Korean, and even Indian ties with the United States. To a certain extent, this strategy is meeting with success, as these countries seek to profit from the extraordinary economic boom now under way in China - fueled to a considerable extent by oil, gas, iron, timber, and other materials supplied by China's neighbors in Asia. A version of this strategy is also being employed by President Hu Jintao during his current visit to the United States. As China's money is sprinkled liberally among such influential firms as Boeing and Microsoft, Hu is reminding the corporate wing of the Republican Party that there are vast economic benefits still to be had by pursuing a non-threatening stance toward China. China, however, has always responded to perceived threats of

encirclement in a vigorous and muscular fashion as well, and so we should assume that Beijing will balance all that charm with a military buildup of its own. Such a drive will not bring China to the brink of military equality with the United States - that is not a condition it can realistically aspire to over the next few decades. But it will provide further justification for those in the United States who seek to accelerate the containment of China, and so will produce a selffulfilling loop of distrust, competition and crisis. This will make the amicable long-term settlement of the Taiwan problem and of North Korea's nuclear program that much more difficult, and increase the risk of unintended escalation to full-scale war in Asia . There can be no victors from such a conflagration.

No link --- navy fills in Ross, 05 - Professor of Political Science at Boston College, an Associate at the John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University, and Senior advisor in the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Fall 2005, Robert S, Assessing the China Threat, http://www.allbusiness.com/government/3584280-1.html) On the other hand, the United States has long defined U.S. dominance in maritime Southeast Asia as vital to U.S. security. So far, the rise of China does not threaten this interest. Moreover, despite the growth of Chinese economic influence, U.S. strategic partnerships in maritime East Asia are stronger than ever. So far, the United States has responded well to the rise of China. It has maintained its deterrent and stabilized the regional order.

2AC NO LINK GROUND TROOPS

2AC CHINESE ADVENTURISM D

China wont use its military Feng, 10 Professor at the International Studies and Deputy Director of Center for International & Strategic Studies (CISS) of Peking University, Research Fellow at the Fairbank Center for East Asian Studies and Center for International and Strategic Studies (5/10/10, An Emerging Trend in East Asia: Military Budget Increases and Their Impact, http://www.fpif.org/articles/an_emerging_trend_in_east_asia) With its military modernization, China does not seek to undermine the current status quo, regain historically lost territory, or expand its sphere of influence. A small and strong military force, with the self-proclaimed mission of resolving all historic grievances, is a perennial preoccupation of the Chinese leadership . Additionally, it reflects Chinas growing integration into the global economy and its turn seawards . China will maintain the momentum of modernizing its militarythis is a political imperative for the ruling partybut it will not risk damaging its global links by using the military . As long as there is no dramatic change in external relations, an arms race is not Beijings preference. Relations high now Saunders and Kastner, 09 senior research fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, assistant professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland (Phillip C. and Scott, Is a China-Taiwan Peace Deal in the Cards?, Foreign Policy, July 27,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/27/is_a_china_taiwan_peace_deal_in_the_cards? page=0,0)
In 1995 and 1996, as China fired ballistic missiles across the Taiwan Strait, U.S. analysts joked that Beijing's military capabilities were so limited that an invasion would require a "million-man swim." An ambitious military modernization program has greatly improved Chinese

military capabilities since then, but an even more remarkable shift has taken place in political relations with Taiwan over the last year. Since Ma Ying-jeou's inauguration as president of Taiwan in May 2008, mainland China and Taiwan have established direct shipping, air transport, and postal links; opened Taiwan to mainland tourists; and increased financial cooperation. The two sides are now negotiating a far-reaching economic cooperation agreement. This new atmosphere has greatly reduced the chances of a cross-strait confrontation that might draw the United States and China into a military conflict. Indeed, China and Taiwan recently announced plans for 100 swimmers to swim five miles from
the Chinese city of Xiamen to the Taiwan-controlled island of Jinmen. The offshore islands -- once a Cold War flashpoint -- have become a symbol of the dramatic improvement in cross-strait relations. Leaders on both sides have expressed interest in consolidating the improved relationship by negotiating a peace agreement. The recent warming trend suggests that it is now worth thinking seriously about how a peace agreement might work and what implications it might have for the United States.

** CHINA WAR GOOD **

1. War is inevitable a) Pentagon studies Ergas, Dec 5, 6 Zeki, visiting scholar for three years at the Institute of International Studies of the University of
California, at Berkeley, and for four years at the at the African Studies Program of the School of Foreign Service, at Georgetown University, presently Secretary General of PEN Internationals Swiss Romand Center and lives in Geneva, Introduction: The Neo-con Project for a New American Century and its Implications
As its title indicates, according

CHINA WAR GOOD SHELL

to the larger study, Americas manifest destiny is to be the worlds supreme political and economic power: a kind of Roman Empire of the 21st century which will impose upon the world a Pax Americana based on freedom and prosperity. What distinguishes the neo-cons from liberals is that they believe that the U nited States should not shy from using force to achieve that overarching goal. More specifically the Pentagon document identifies China as an emerging economic giant which will be Americas main rival in the near future. So for the neo-con intellectuals, it is not fundamentalist Islam and the international terrorists of Al Qaida that are Americas most serious future enemy but China. Furthermore, the Pentagon document gives a precise date as to when China will become an unacceptable threat to the US. That date is the year of 2017. Why 2017? And: What is the precise nature of that threat? The Pentagon document is based on the findings of a massive computer study that has analysed a myriad of economic, demographic, technological and military data that have been fed into it. Its conclusion is that, at the beginning of 2017, China which will have then the largest middle class of the world, perhaps 500 million people, or more will be consuming too much: too many energetic and mineral resources, and too many consumer products, and there simply will not be on the planet enough room for both China and the U nited States, if China
is to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of the United States (or even to that of Western Europe). So that is the conclusion of the Pentagon document. In reality, the situation is worse, far worse, in fact, because, owing to the neo-liberal globalisation that is spreading around the planet like a bushfire, China is not alone in that hungry quest for advanced consumerism. It is closely followed by India, Russia and Brazil (the other three emerging economic giants; together these big four are often referred to as the CRIB countries (C for China, R for Russia, and so on) which have a combined population of about 2,800 million, or more than forty per cent of the worlds total. And even the rise of the CRIB countries does not represent the whole scramble for advanced consumerism, for behind them are important middle-sized countries -- like Turkey, South Africa, Thailand, Vietnam, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, and so on. In fact a fierce and worldwide competition for scarce energetic and mineral resources in

which the US and China are playing the leading roles has already started. The US invasion of Iraq was mainly motivated by a wish to control the energetic resources of the Middle East, Iraq happens to be at the very heart of the Middle East, and a large military base there (now that the American military had to leave Saudi Arabia) is indispensable for that control. China is very active buying energetic resources in Africa, Latin America, and even Asia (its preferred method is long term contracts often

covering the production of the next 25 years; it has already signed such contracts with Iran, Angola, Nigeria and Venezuela). It is also heavily investing all over the world (it has a treasure chest of about a trillion dollars). At the China-Africa economic summit of Beijing, in November 2006, contracts worth about $ 16 billion were signed between China and the heads of state or of government of the 43 African countries that participated.

b) Energy competition Bajpaee 05, Researcher for Civic Exchange, HK-based think-tank and for Intl. Inst for Strategic Studies, (Chietigi
China's Quest for Energy. PINR 2/25 www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=10840)

Friction between China and the West has so far focused on the question of China's undervalued exchange rate, its human rights record and relations with "rogue" states. However, the competition over energy resources is now becoming an additional area of contention. China's growing presence on the international energy stage could ultimately bring it into confrontation with the world's largest energy consumer, the US . While China and the US have launched the US-China Energy Policy Dialogue, both states are also engaged in a competition for energy resources in Russia, the Caspian, the Middle East, the Americas and Africa. This competition could potentially combine with other areas of friction. For example, in the event of China engaging in a conflict with Taiwan, Japan or India or internal repression such as a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the US could censure China's actions by an oil embargo or by blocking vital sea lanes in the Straits of Malacca, thus sparking a wider conflict . It is not by
coincidence that China has made progress in resolving its border disputes with India and Russia, while failing to make progress on territorial disputes with Japan in the East China Sea and in the South China Sea given that the latter involve access to potential oil and gas resources. In this context, China's claim to pursuing a "peaceful ascendancy" policy and putting aside areas of disagreement in favor of creating a stable environment for economic development is limited to areas where China's vital strategic interests are not threatened.

c) Chinas self-image Krolikowski 8 (Alanna is a doctoral student in International Relations at the Department of Political Science of the
University of Toronto. She completed an MA in International Relations at the Munk Centre for International Relations of the University of Toronto in August 2006; State Personhood in Ontological Security Theories of International Relations and Chinese Nationalism: A Sceptical View: http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/Krolikowski_2008.pdf)
According to such an approach, the

history of the Chinese state-as-actor suggests that it should be a relatively straightforward case of unhealthy basic trust and ontological insecurity . Historians and political scientists studying China,

from SSu-yu Teng and John Lewis Fairbank onward, have stressed the profound civilizational rupture that China experienced with its first encounter with the West.37 The traumas associated with subsequent colonization and exploitation shattered Chinas self-

understanding as the beneficent Middle Kingdom and exposed as illusory its long-held beliefs about the pacific nature of its external

environment and its own place within it.38 These

processes can be understood as having lead to a deep form of existential crisis that, while being in a sense acute, has also been sustained over generations.39 The numerous upheavals experienced by the Chinese civilization during the 20th century, especially the most recent Tiananmen Square Massacre and ensuing international isolation, can no doubt count among the major disruptions to Chinas sense of a continuous biographical narrative. As Chih-yu Shih recounts, the issue of outwardly oriented self-representation has also been
intrinsically related to Chinas domestic institutional array:40 One witnesses the change of Chinas self-image from a socialist China externally allied with the Soviet Union and internally embodied in central planning and land reform, to a revolutionary China externally antagonistic toward both superpowers and internally plagued by the Cultural Revolutions, and then to an experimental China externally lauding independence and internally praising decentralisation. The most recent shift is toward a normal China externally looking for partnership and internally enforcing economic reform. All these changes have required a new theory of the world. While this series of redefinitions certainly suggests the capacity for identity change,

because these historical changes have required fundamental and often violent reconstitutions of the Chinese state and sweeping reassessments of the international environment, they should be understood as traumatic disruptions rather than reflexive developments of Chinas self-identity. The resulting sense of existential anxiety about its own self-identity and the nature of its environment should make of China an ontologically insecure actor with rigid basic trust. The condition of unhealthy basic trust which prevents China from quelling its existential anxiety and ontological insecurity should, according to the theory, compel China to engage in routinizing behaviours as a means of achieving a stable self-identity and a sense of ontological security. More specifically, we should expect ontological insecurity to prompt the reinforcement of an existing identity through routinized relationships. A state locked into this type of condition should systematically reproduce similar forms of behaviour with other actors as a means of stabilizing its identity. We should observe constant patterns in the states behaviour, including rigid, this hypothesis would include the absence of such patterns and, in their stead, change over time, flexibility in the states responses to different situations, adaptation and learning.

inflexible positions on international issues; a persistent loyalty to states with which it has routinized friendly or cooperative relations; and lasting animosity, hostility or rivalry with states that it is used to regarding as threats. Empirical observations disconfirming

2. China is modernizing its nuclear forces now Gill, phd, Director of SIPRI, 10 [Bates, CHINA AND NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL: CURRENT POSITIONS AND FUTURE POLICIEs , http://books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1004.pdf] Nonetheless, China is in the midst of a significant modernization programme for its nuclear force, particularly its means of delivery. This modernization effort aims to assure China of a reliable , effective and credible retaliatory capability by shifting from heavy reliance on its landbased, fixedsite, liquidfuel rocket force to a more mobile, solidfuel force with significant
landbased and seabased components and improved earlywarning and commandandcontrol systems.5 There are also important internal debates within Chinas strategic community of military, governmental and quasigovernmental experts about reinterpretation of the longstanding no firstuse pledge, and the need to move towards an elite and effective nuclear missile force that is on par with Chinas position as a major power.6 What is behind these changes? Two factors are important to consider, and they will continue to play an important role in shaping the form, extent and doctrine of Chinas future nuclear arsenal and the countrys approach to issues of arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. First, with greater financial

and technological resources at hand, China has been able in the past decade to invest in upgrading and improving its outdated nuclear arsenal. Second, while its overall security situation is perhaps the most favourable it has known in over a century and a half, China continues to harbour concerns about potential confrontation with other nuclear armed powers, particularly the USA, but also India and Russia, however remote the possibility may seem now. Related to this, Chinese
security perceptions, particularly in the nuclear realm, are affected by global developments in military technologyincluding the introduction of missile defence programmes, new types of nuclear warheads and advanced conventional weapons, including potential spacebased weaponsand these perceptions in turn influence Chinas nuclear force modernization plans. Decisions and deployments by Russia and the USA will be particularly important in this regard

And, Chinese modernization prevents US and Russian nuclear cuts Reuters, 10 [China seen staking "middle" role at nuclear talks, april. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P0GB20100426] "China is unlikely to take part in any unilateral or multilateral (nuclear) disarmament steps in the near- to medium-term," said the report written by Bates Gill, the director of SIPRI and an expert on Chinese security policy. "On the contrary, Chinese steps to modernize its nuclear arsenal will stand out among the world's major nuclear weapons states," said the report.
President Barack Obama announced this month a shift in U.S. doctrine, vowing not to use atomic weapons against non-nuclear states that abide by the NPT. CHINA'S AWKWARD POSITION The deepening diplomacy over nuclear arms has thrown into relief China's awkward position in atomic diplomacy -- as a member of the club of five nuclear weapons states formally accepted by the NPT, but one

claiming to share many developing countries ' demands and grievances with that club. Gill said that ambivalence is likely to play out at the conference throughout much of May discussing the NPT's future. " Beijing will probably expect the United States in particular, but also Russia, to do much of the heavy lifting" over disarmament commitments, Gill said in an email. China is also likely to use the conference to "defend the right of non-nuclear states, and particularly developing countries, to access nuclear technologies for
peaceful purposes," said the SIPRI report. Beijing faces growing calls from Western powers to support a fresh round of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear activities. Although China has been discussing possible sanctions, it has also long stressed that

Iranian demands for peaceful nuclear power must also be heeded. Under their new treaty, the United States and Russia vowed to limit their deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, 30 percent fewer than the limit set in a 2002 treaty. The SIPRI has

estimated that as of 2009 China possessed 186 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Since conducting its first nuclear test in 1964, China has said it will never be the first to use such weapons in any conflict. But Beijing wants to preserve some leeway to upgrade its arsenal,

insulating its deterrent against possible moves by potential foes , including the United States developing anti-missile technology. China wants to have a limited nuclear "second strike" force to deter foes, the nation's main military newspaper said last week,
spelling out the ideas behind the country's atomic modernization. China has been replacing liquid-fueled ballistic nuclear-capable missiles with solid-fuel missiles, which will make launching them faster. It is also building new "Jin-class" ballistic missile submarines, capable of launching nuclear warheads while at sea. "It remains too early to expect China to enter into official multilateral disarmament discussions with

the other nuclear weapons states," Gill said in response to questions. But if the United States and Russia were to contemplate cutting their strategic warheads to below 1,000 each, that would "depend on the other nuclear weapons states, and especially China, showing a willingness to engage in multilateral disarmament discussions ," said Gill. Those prevent Russian loose nukes from falling into the hands of terrorists NSN, 09 [National Security Network, Start with START, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1348] A START follow-on will secure more Russian nuclear materials; rebuild a significant US-Russian partnership on broader nuclear issues; and boost global efforts to control the most deadly weapons and materials. A new treaty
enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, led by the four horsemen former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Shultz, former Secretary of Defense Perry and former Senator Nunn. Most recently, a START follow on was recommended by a Council on Foreign Relations task force chaired by Perry and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. But despite its bipartisan support and its importance to our national security and to U.S.-Russian relations, certain hard line conservatives like John Bolton and Arizona Senator John Kyle are determined to unravel over three decades of progress on arms control. Their obstructionism must be overcome. START replacement treaty is a key agenda item for Obamas July 6 Moscow visit and renewed US-Russian cooperation. US and Russian negotiators arrived in Geneva on Monday to resume talks on cutting their nuclear weapons arsenals, diplomats said. The third round of talks on replacing the Cold War-era Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) are officially to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, a US official said... The discussions are meant to feed into a summit between US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow in early July. The attempt to strike a new deal to succeed START, which expires on December 5, symbolises a thaw in USRussian relations in recent months, reports the AFP. An agreement on a new START is essential to reducing the number of nuclear weapons. A recent bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations task force, chaired William Perry and Brent Scowcroft, supports efforts to renew legally binding arms control pacts with Russia by seeking follow-on agreements to START and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). The report also urges the United States and Russia to initiate a serious strategic dialogue, because it is only through such engagement that they can open up opportunities for deeper reductions in their arsenals and gain a better sense of the feasibility of moving toward multilateral nuclear arms control. As Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, of the Arms Control Association writes, [t]he landmark 1991 START agreement reduced excess nuclear stockpiles and provided greater predictability and stability. START slashed each nation's strategic warhead deployments from about 10,000 to less than 6,000, and it limited each country to no more than 1,600 strategic delivery systems. START helped build the confidence and stability necessary to

eliminate Cold War-era tensions. [AFP, 6/22/09. Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 6/23/09. The Cable, 6/22/09. Daryl Kimball, 6/19/09] Nonproliferation negotiations promote the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship, enabling cooperation
on other important matters. The Council on Foreign Relations explains, the change in administrations provides an opportunity to put the U.S.-Russia relationship on a new footing, and that U.S.-Russia arms control agreements have been invaluable in helping stabilize

strategic relations, developing a shared understanding of activities involving nuclear weapons, and lending predictability to reductions in American and Russian strategic nuclear forces. Both sides have expressed interest in
renewing arms control negotiations. Samuel Charap of the Center for American Progress writes, The first component [of a strategy toward Russia] should be to maximize the extent to which Russian policies complement our objectives on issues critical to our national security interests. Or, put another way, to make Russia a part of the solution to significant international problems. Russia can play a major role on a wide range of foreign policy challenges facing the United States. This is particularly true in terms of arms control and nonproliferation, since Russia is our only peer on these issues. This is specifically true regarding North Korea, as Russias role in the six party talks is vital. [Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Center for American Progress, 5/20/09] Nuclear

stockpiles and vulnerable fissile material are a great risk to national and global security: talks with Russia are the first step in global efforts to reduce the m, and opposition to such efforts flows from an
outdated Cold War view of the threat. The Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs have done much to secure nuclear stockpiles and fissile material around the world. But enthusiasm has lagged, and the threat remains real. A report from the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism assessed that the U.S. faces a serious threat from

terrorists attempting to carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world, and the U.S. must act urgently to counter this threat. As the CFR report explains, Terrorists now and for the foreseeable future do not have the wherewithal to enrich their own uranium or produce their own plutonium. Instead, they would have to target state stockpiles of these materials . To acquire nuclear weapons, a terrorist group could try to buy or steal existing weapons or weapons-usable fissile material , or convince or coerce a government custodian to hand over these assets. The United States and Russia together hold over 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons. A reduction of stockpiles between the two countries would reduce the possibility of theft or illicit sales and heighten the incentive for other countries to take the problem seriously . This makes a new START
agreement all the more important. Opposition to these efforts, led in Congress by Senator Kyl and outside by John Bolton, flows from the outdated assumption that, as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists describes Kyls views, cutting U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles does nothing to deal with the more pressing threats of terrorism, North Korea, Iran, and the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. Yet the Perry-Scowcroft task force believes that the START negotiations will actually make international responses to those nuclear challenges more likely. As they say in their task force report, Success in negotiating a follow-on bilateral arms control treaty with Russia will require clarity about the long-term strategic visions of both the United States and Russia. As part of a reinvigorated strategic dialogue, both countries should explore the geopolitical implications of deeper reductions and changes in nuclear force posture. [Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, 12/03/08. Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, 6/23/09.]

Loose nukes culminate in global nuclear war

Speice, 6 (Patrick F., Jr., J.D. Candidate 2006, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary; B.A. 2003, Wake Forest University, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427, February, 2006, ln) The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons . 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons . 53 3. War now is good --A) Eliminates the Chinese arsenal Lieber and Press, 9 (Keir A., Associate Professor @ Georgetown University, Daryl G., Associate Professor of Government, Dartmouth College, Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec)
MODELING THE UNTHINKABLE To illustrate the growth in U.S. counterforce capabilities, we applied a set of simple formulas that analysts have used for decades to estimate the effectiveness of counterforce attacks. We modeled a U.S. strike on a small target set: 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in hardened silos, the approximate size of China's current long-range, silo-based missile force. The analysis compared the capabilities of a 1985 Minuteman ICBM to those of a modern Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile. [The technical details of the analysis presented in this essay are available online [2].] In 1985, a single U.S. ICBM warhead had less than a 60 percent chance of destroying a typical silo. Even if four or five additional warheads were used, the cumulative odds of destroying the silo would never exceed 90 percent because of the problem of "fratricide," whereby incoming warheads destroy each other. Beyond five warheads, adding more does no good. A probability of 90 percent might sound high, but it falls far short if the goal is to completely disarm an enemy: with a 90 percent chance of destroying each target, the odds of destroying all 20 are roughly 12 percent. In 1985, then, a U.S. ICBM attack had little chance of destroying even a small enemy nuclear arsenal. Today, a multiple-

warhead attack on a single silo using a Trident II missile would have a roughly 99 percent chance of destroying it, and the probability that a barrage would destroy all 20 targets is well above 95 percent. Given the accuracy of the U.S. military's current delivery systems, the only question is target identification : silos that can be found can be destroyed. During the Cold War, the United States worked hard to pinpoint Soviet nuclear forces, with great success. Locating potential adversaries' small nuclear arsenals is undoubtedly a top priority for U.S. intelligence today. The revolution in accuracy is producing an even more momentous change: it is becoming possible for the United States to conduct low-yield nuclear counterforce strikes that inflict relatively few casualties. A U.S. Department of Defense computer model, called the Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability (HPAC), estimates the dispersion
of deadly radioactive fallout in a given region after a nuclear detonation. The software uses the warhead's explosive power, the height of the burst, and data about local weather and demographics to estimate how much fallout would be generated, where it would blow, and how many people it would injure or kill. HPAC results can be chilling. In 2006, a team of nuclear weapons analysts from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) used HPAC to estimate the consequences of a U.S. nuclear attack using high-yield warheads against China's ICBM field. Even though China's silos are located in the countryside, the model predicted that the fallout would blow over a large area, killing 3-4 million people. U.S. counterforce capabilities were useless, the study implied, because even a limited strike would kill an unconscionable number of civilians. But the United States can already conduct nuclear counterforce strikes at a tiny fraction of the human devastation that the FAS/NRDC study predicted, and small additional improvements to the U.S. force could dramatically reduce the potential collateral damage even further. The United States'

nuclear weapons are now so accurate that it can conduct successful counterforce attacks using the smallestyield warheads in the arsenal, rather than the huge warheads that the FAS/NRDC simulation modeled. And to further reduce the fallout, the
weapons can be set to detonate as airbursts, which would allow most of the radiation to dissipate in the upper atmosphere. We ran multiple HPAC scenarios against the identical target set used in the FAS/NRDC study but modeled low-yield airbursts rather than high-yield groundbursts. The fatality estimates plunged from 3-4 million to less than 700 -- a figure comparable to the number of civilians reportedly killed since 2006 in Pakistan by U.S. drone strikes. One should be skeptical about the results of any model that depends on unpredictable factors, such as wind speed and direction. But in the scenarios we modeled, the area of lethal fallout was so small that very few civilians would have become ill or died, regardless of which way the wind blew. Critics may cringe at this analysis. Many of them, understandably, say that nuclear weapons are -- and should remain -- unusable. But if the United

States is to retain these weapons for the purpose of deterring nuclear attacks , it needs a force that gives U.S. leaders retaliatory
options they might actually employ. If the only retaliatory option entails killing millions of civilians, then the U.S. deterrent will lack credibility. Giving U.S. leaders alternatives that do not target civilians is both wise and just. A counterforce attack -- whether using conventional munitions or lowor high-yield nuclear weapons -- would

be fraught with peril. Even a small possibility of a single enemy warhead's surviving such a strike would undoubtedly give any U.S. leader great pause. But in the midst of a conventional war, if an enemy were using nuclear threats or limited nuclear attacks to try to coerce the United States or its allies, these would be the capabilities that would give a U.S. president real options. B) Chinas military is woefully inadequate --- a US attack obliterates their military capacity Lieber and Presse 6 Keir A. Leiber, author of War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Daryl G. Press, author of Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania ("The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006)

China's nuclear arsenal is even more vulnerable to a U.S. attack. A U.S. first strike could succeed whether it was launched as a surprise or in the midst of a crisis during a Chinese alert . China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People's Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational. China's medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack. According to unclassified U.S. government assessments, China's entire intercontinental nuclear arsenal consists of 18 stationary single-warhead ICBMs. These are not ready to launch on warning: their warheads are kept in storage and the missiles themselves are unfueled. (China's ICBMs use liquid fuel, which corrodes the missiles after 24 hours. Fueling them is estimated to take two hours .) The lack of an advanced early warning system adds to the vulnerability of the ICBMs. It appears that China would have no warning at all of a U.S. submarine-launched missile attack or a strike using hundreds of stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Many sources claim that China is attempting to reduce the vulnerability of its ICBMs by building decoy silos. But decoys cannot provide a firm basis for deterrence. It would take close to a thousand fake silos to make a U.S. first strike on China as difficult as an attack on Russia, and no available information on China's nuclear forces suggests the existence of massive fields of decoys. And even if China built them, its commanders would always wonder whether U.S. sensors could distinguish real silos from fake ones. Despite much talk about China's military modernization, the odds that Beijing will acquire a survivable nuclear deterrent in the next decade are slim. China's modernization efforts have focused on conventional forces, and the country's progress on nuclear modernization has accordingly been slow. Since the mid-1980s, China has been
trying to develop a new missile for its future ballistic missile submarine as well as mobile ICBMs (the DF-31 and longer-range DF-31A) to replace its current ICBM force. The U.S. Defense Department predicts that China may deploy DF-31s in a few years, although the forecast should be treated skeptically: U.S. intelligence has been announcing the missile's imminent deployment for decades. Even when they are eventually

fielded, the DF-31s are unlikely to significantly reduce China's vulnerability . The missiles' limited range,
estimated to be only 8,000 kilometers (4,970 miles), greatly restricts the area in which they can be hidden, reducing the difficulty of searching for them. The DF-31s could hit the contiguous United States only if they were deployed in China's far northeastern corner, principally in Heilongjiang Province, near the Russian-North Korean border. But Heilongjiang is mountainous, and so the missiles might be deployable only along a few hundred kilometers of good road or in a small plain in the center of the province. Such restrictions increase the missiles' vulnerability and raise questions about whether they are even intended to target the U.S. homeland or whether they will be aimed at targets in Russia and Asia. Given the history of China's slow-motion nuclear modernization, it is doubtful that a Chinese second-strike force will materialize anytime soon. The United

States has a first-strike capability against China today and should be able to maintain it for a decade or more.

NANOTECH TURN
War now prevents Chinese acquisition of nanotech weapons News Max 3, interview with Lev Navrozov a journalist, author, and columnistextensively studied superweapons and won the Albert Einstein Price for outstanding intellectual achievements, 9/26/, an interview on nanoweapons, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/25/210250.shtml RM: What countries are developing the post-nuclear superweapons involving nanotechnology? LN: It is worthwhile to speak only of China, Russia if dictatorship comes back to that country, and the United States if it awakens from its sleep, which may well be its last. To make the nanoweapons useful, a country must have the ability and the will to either world domination or
to the defense against another countrys world domination. RM: What do you believe are the motives and goals of the countries that are developing the post-nuclear superweapons? LN: The national student movement of 1989, associated with Tiananmen Square,

endangered the Chinese dictatorship more than any group in Soviet Russia endangered the Soviet dictatorship two years later. Yet the Soviet dictatorship fell. What a lesson for the Chinese dictators! We know authentic information
about the Tiananmen Square movement from Zhang Liangs publication "The Tiananmen Papers, a 514-page collection of Chinese government documents. It is clear that the dictators of China saw how absolutism was endangered in China and understood that

the only way to prevent future Tiananmens was to annihilate or subjugate the source of subversion, viz., the West. RM: What do you believe are going to be Chinas next steps in terms of acquiring territory? LN: In contrast to Hitler, who stupidly grabbed the rump of Czechoslovakia in 1939, China has been very cautious in its territorial claims, since the position of China now is the best for the development of "Superweapon No. 3, such as the nano superweapon. RM: Who does China see as allies and enemies? LN: The worst enemy is the democratic West, whose very existence produces Tiananmens able to destroy the Chinese dictatorship. The best ally is the democratic West, supplying China with everything necessary for the annihilation or subjugation of the democratic West . RM: Are the other postnuclear weapons being researched to this day? If so, are they known? If not, can you enlighten us? LN: Since the nano "Superweapon No. 3 is a hypothesis, and not an absolute certainty, the Chinese Project 863 has been engaged in genetic engineering and at least six or seven other fields. RM: If China has or is close to, molecular nanotechnology to be used in war, what is the purpose of having a large, advanced conventional army and "traditional nuclear weapons? LN: Eric Drexler, the Newton of nanotechnology, alive and enriching us with his wisdom, discusses the problem in his historic book of 1986 "Engines of Creation. My assistant Isak Baldwin says that, according to Drexler, " A nation armed with molecular

nanotechnology-based weapons would not require nuclear weapons to annihilate a civilization . In fact, it seems that a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps could be developed--leaving the nations infrastructure intact to be repopulated. Nevertheless conventional weapons might be useful
even on the "D-day, after nanotechnology has been successfully weaponized. Conventional non-nuclear weapons have been useful even after 1945. Please recall that two "atom bombs were delivered in 1945 by conventional U.S. bombers with conventional machine guns and all. RM: What beliefs or desires are motivating the rulers of China? The belief that Communism must triumph over Capitalism? LN: A New York taxi robber risks his life, life imprisonment, or death sentence to acquire the taxi drivers $200. Hence the bulletproof partitions in taxis. The dictators of China defend not $200, but their

power, which is worth trillions of dollars, apart from what cannot be expressed in terms of money (royal grandeur, cult, and glorification). Remember the French king who said, "The state it is me? Many dictators have been saying and
can always say: "Communism/capitalism/democracy/freedom/socialism/national socialism/our great country/the meaning of life/the goal of history it is me." RM: If the U.S. is the most technologically advanced country, does this mean we have been surpassed? LN: The

"most technologically advanced country is an ambiguous generality. In the 1950s, Russia was still a technologically backward country, with most of its population deprived of running water, to say nothing of passenger cars. Yet it did not prevent Russia from outstripping the United States in space rocketry, when the Soviet space satellite was launched before its
American counterpart. In its annual "Soviet Military Power, to which I subscribed, the Pentagon could not help praising certain Soviet weapons as second to none in the world. RM: What today is holding China back from becoming overtly aggressive and reshaping

the geopolitical world? LN: The dictators of China are not insane! Chinas government-controlled "capitalist corporations have been penetrating the entrails of the Western economies, absorbing the latest science and technology or sometimes entire Western corporations, induced to operate in China on cheap local labor. To become "overtly aggressive? What for? To invade Taiwan? To perish, along with the West, in Mutually Assured Destruction? No, the dictators of China are not insane! They are developing superweapons able to annihilate the Western means of nuclear retaliation. Extinction Anissimov Aug 2 2007 Michael, a science/technology writer and consultant, Existential Risks: Serious Business This does seem true, and admonitions about global warming may be partially to blame, as well as terrorist fearmongering (some of which may also, in fact, be well-founded). Anthropogenic global warming is a reality, yes, but I dont think its an existential risk, especially not in the next few decades. Bombardment with warnings on anthropogenic climate change, as well as terrorist attacks, is desensitizing the populace to warnings of existential risk. Im not saying such warnings are a bad thing, just pointing out the fact that theyre desensitizing us. The fact that the most severe risks have to do with technologies just barely beginning to roll off the assembly lines advanced AI and robotics, and synthetic biology doesnt help matters
either. But, as always, you, the reader, can refuse to be a part of the problem. You can take existential risk seriously, and refuse to write off those who

discuss these dangers, like Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking, as Doomsayers. For

most of the past 10,000 years, catastrophic technological risk has been impossible. Even global thermonuclear war would be more likely to kill off 10% or 20% of the population rather than 99% or 100%. And if you care about the long-term future of humankind as a whole, killing a billion and killing everyone makes a hell of a lot of difference.

Conflict is inevitable -- China is preparing for war now Nyquist 5 J.R. Nyquist, author of Origins of the Fourth World War, regular geopolitical columnist for Financial Sense Online, previously a columnist for WorldNetDaily (http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0701.html) Some ideas fall from fashion. But truth is always true, fashion or not. U.S. experts failed to connect the dots regarding Chinas development of a long-range cruise missile, a new attack submarine, new ground-to-air missiles, a new anti-ship missile (for sinking U.S. aircraft carriers) and more. China is preparing for war against the United States, specifically. As absurd as it sounds to the economic optimists who think trade with China guarantees peace, the U.S. and China are bound to collide. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesnt have a sense of history, doesnt understand communist thinking or the overall policy Beijing has consistently followed since 1949. Communist countries periodically experiment with capitalism, they always seek trade with the West, and they always sink the money and technology they gain thereby into a military buildup. Ultimately, they dont care about the prosperity of their people, the state of the national infrastructure, personal or press freedom. Some believe that we mustnt say that China is a threat. Such a statement would be akin to self-fulfilling prophecy. But an honest appreciation of Chinese actions should not be disallowed by an appeasing diplomacy or wishful thinking. The job of the analyst is not to guarantee good relations with countries that are preparing for destructive war. The job of the analyst is to see war preparations, diplomatic maneuvers and economic policies and draw a common sense conclusion about them. If world
peace depends on hiding Chinas military buildup, then world peace is like your fat uncle dressed in a Santa Claus suit. Saying its your fat uncle may ruin Christmas for your little sister, but Santa Claus isnt a real person and never will be.

EXTENSION- WAR INEVITABLE

The unfolding conflict will spiral out of control --- its worse than the cold war Bremmer 10 - American political scientist specializing in US foreign policy, founder of Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research firm, author (3/22,10, Ian, Prospect, Issue 169, "China vs America: fight of the century, "http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/china-vs-america-fight-of-the-century/) The list of irritants in US-Chinese relations is growing. Google threatens to quit China over censorship and cyber-attacks. Washington and Beijing are at cross purposes over Iran s nuclear programme. US lawmakers have again criticised Chinas unwillingness to allow the value of its currency to rise and its failure to protect the intellectual property of foreign companies. There are trade disputes over tyres and steel pipes. Yet these problems are merely symptoms of an illness that has progressed further than some observers realise. Put bluntly, the Chinese leadership no longer believes that American power is as indispensable as it once was for either Chinas economic expansion or the Communist partys political survival. Nor does it accept that access to US capital or commercial know-how is quite so important for the next stage of Chinas developmentor that its growth depends on the spending habits of American consumers. China has embarked on a process of economic decoupling. The western financial meltdown put millions of Chinese out of work in early 2009, as factories that produced goods for export closed their doors. Over the past 18 months, Beijing has seen how dependence on western markets can produce unacceptably high levels of risk at home. The solution is to shift its model to rely more on Chinas growing consumer base. This plan, however, must be undertaken with great care to ensure minimum industrial disruption. Meanwhile, Chinas political decoupling from the west is also in full swing. We saw it at Decembers climate change summit in Copenhagen , as China spearheaded resistance from developing states to western-proposed targets on
carbon emissions. We saw it in the strong reaction to an announcement in February of US arms sales to Taiwan and to Barack Obamas meeting with the Dalai Lama days later. We will see more public Chinese pushback against what Beijing considers interference from Washington in months to come. There is still

considerable mutual dependence between the US and China , grounded mainly in commercial ties. But the unfolding conflict is in many ways more dangerous than the cold war. Economic decision-making in Moscow had little impact on western power or standards of living. But globalisation means there is no equivalent to the Berlin wall, insulating China and America from turmoil inside the other. The rivalry may take on a life of its own, growing beyond the governments ability to contain it . American policymakers must ensure that US power remains indispensable to Chinas rise. This will not be a popular undertaking in Washington . Facing voters this November, US politicians will want to shift the blame for the countrys woes onto someone else. Cultural conservatives of the right and labour champions of the left will tell voters that their problems are made in China. Even more sober figures are beginning to raise the alarm, as when economist Paul Krugman warned in March 2010 that Chinas economic policy seriously damages the rest of the world. Soon, more Americans will be asking why a country with 10 per cent unemployment cant persuade a country with 10 per cent growth to respect trade
rules and play a responsible role on the global stage. And Beijings new assertiveness is feeding a growing insecurity in the US. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre in 2009, 44 per cent of Americans named China as the worlds leading economic power. Just 27 per cent chose the US. Reasonable or not, this

is a sea change in attitudes2008 was the last presidential election in which average voters didnt know or care where the candidates stood on China.

CONVETIONAL WAR WONT ESCALATE

War won't go nuclear - No first use Zhenqiang 2005 (Pan; China Security (World Security Institute China Program);

http://www.irchina.org/en/news/view.asp?id=403) First, NFU highlights Chinas philosophical belief that nuclear weapons can only be used to serve one purpose, that of retaliation against a nuclear attack, pending complete nuclear disarmament . Indeed, their extremely large destructive
capabilities render nuclear weapons the only truly inhumane weapon of mass destruction and are of little other use to China. Faced with U.S. nuclear blackmail in the 1950s, China had no alternative to developing its own nuclear capability so as to address the real danger of being a target of a nuclear strike. But even so, Beijing vowed that having a nuclear capability would only serve this single purpose . From the very beginning of acquiring a nuclear capability, Beijing

announced that it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons under any conditions; it also pledged unconditionally not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon states. This claim is not merely rhetoric that cannot be verified, as some Western pundits accused. On the contrary, Chinas nuclear
rationale has determined the defensive nature of its nuclear force, its posture, size and operational doctrine, which have been highly visible and have stood the test of time. It is in this sense that China is NOT a nuclear weapon state in the Western sense . Unlike all the other nuclear weapon states, for example, China

has never intended to use its nuclear capability to make up for the in efficiency of conventional capabilities vis--vis other world powers nor has China an interest in joining a nuclear arms race with other nuclear states. And thanks to the insistence of this policy based on NFU, China succeeds in reducing the nuclear element to the minimum in
its relations with other nuclear nations, avoiding a possible nuclear arms race, and contributing to the global strategic stability at large. If this policy serves well its core security interests, why should Beijing change it?

More evidence Zhenqiang 2005 (Pan; China Security (World Security Institute China Program);
http://www.irchina.org/en/news/view.asp?id=403) The third reason is that a change in Chinas NFU policy would deliver another crushing blow to the international efforts to maintain peace and stability through the arms control approach . The hostility by the administration of U.S.

President George W. Bush towards any constraints involving international, legally binding documents, including arms control agreements, has mostly paralyzed these efforts. In contrast, China firmly supports the reactivation of arms control efforts, advocating that all

nuclear weapon states should honestly undertake their obligations of nuclear disarmament as stipulated by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). China has consistently stressed that the first step should be the conclusion of a treaty by all nuclear weapon states not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Such an agreement would be a significant confidence-building measure among these states to put their subsequent actions on the right track. But if China changes its position on NFU, it would be tantamount to reversing all of Beijings attitudes. China would no longer take interest in any nuclear disarmament measures in its desperate efforts for a nuclear build-up. Nor would Beijing be interested in developing a new international arms control mechanism, aimed at constraining the behavior of nuclear weapon states. In addition, nuclear proliferation could be further fuelled as non-nuclear weapon states would have one more exemplary argument that a nation can opt for nuclear weapons in the name of national interests.

CONVENTIONAL WAR AMERICA WINS

U.S. wins a conventional war quickly Record, 2001 (Dr. Jeffrey Record (BA, Occidental College; MA, PhD, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced

International Studies) is professor of strategy and international security at the Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, and senior research fellow at the Center for International Strategy, Technology, and Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia; http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/win01/record.html)
Primary Sino-American war starters seem to be Chinese aggression against Taiwan and in the South China Sea. Yet ,

a US defense of Taiwan and of freedom of navigation in the western Pacific would play greatly to Americas traditional military strengths while at the same time exploit long-standing Chinese weaknesses . Historically, Chinas sole strategically impressive war-fighting suit has been the quantity of its ground forces, which counts for little in the pursuit of offshore imperial ambitions. Asserting and maintaining dominance over Taiwan and the South China Sea require mastery of air and naval powerarenas in which the United States is peerless and likely to remain so for decades
(assuming no retreat to isolationism plus a determination to maintain both conventional military supremacy and a forward military presence in East Asianeither to be taken for granted). Chinese naval and air forces are rudimentary by US standards, but perhaps an

even greater deficiency is the absence of any modern combat experience. China has not fought a major war since Korea (where US airpower pummeled the PLA), whereas the United States has had a virtual cornucopia of such experience since the end of the Cold War. Practice may not make perfect, but it is surely better than sitting on the military bench for almost half a century. (Chinas brief and highly restricted invasion of Vietnam in 1979 pitted masses of poorly
armed and trained Chinese troops against better-equipped North Vietnamese combat veterans.)

China will run us out of the pacific by the end of 2010 war now is the only way to ensure quick victory Clausen 05 Lt., Air traffic Control Consultant, Former Military Ed. w/ Aviation Week & Space Tech, 2005
(Perry, Thinking About China's Navy, Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, 0041798X, May2005, Vol. 131, Issue 5)"The United States is headed for a naval warmake all the difference" The United States is headed for a naval war with China. We are going to lose. The combination of inadequate shipbuilding and procurement of the wrong type of ships sets us up to be run out of the Western Pacific in five to ten years. Of all the shortsighted defense procurement decisions a government can make, the failure to fund steady, balanced shipbuilding is the worst of all. Feast and famine is the most expensive way to build ships.Unless it is a long, drawnout affair unlikely for a war at sea today nations fight naval wars with what they have at the start. Reservists and the National Guard can beef up Army units and, to a lesser extent, the Air Force, but it takes forever to build, man, and train a ship into a fighting unit.Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his McNamara-style whiz kids would like us to believe fundamental changes obviate the need for an adequate force structure. They coo this all-knowing perspective, combined with precision weapons, can provide the same combat power with fewer assets .

WAR NOW GOOD --- CHINA

soothingly that the revolution in military affairs offers complete knowledge of the battle space , and that The concept works against Afghanistan or Iraq, but it wont against a competitor in our league. The first thing a technologically sophisticated adversary with access to space China, Europe, or India will do is cut the cord on many of our high-tech command, control, and intelligence gadgets and we will be left with too few ships. The Pentagon civilians say they are preparing for the next war. In fact, they are getting ready to fight the last one. There may be a few more Iraqs in our future but the next major challenge is a maritime war across the Pacific that will require large, sustainable, adequately manned, blue-water ships . Inshore concepts like the Littoral Combat Ship are a waste of money for that kind of war. We need to push up CV-21, build DD(X)s in

respectable numbers, and launch a lot more nuclear-powered submarines. Some projections show our submarine fleet shrinking to 30 ships, about onethird of what is needed. We have been here before. The parallels between the United States and Japan in 1931 and the United States and China today are chilling. Now, as then, professional naval officers on both sides know their nations interests will clash. As in 1931, one nation is building a navy adequate to the task while the other has its head in the sand.It is difficult to play chipbuilding catch-up after a war starts. The United States went on a binge just before hostilities with Japan commenced, but fought the first two years of the war with the seven fleet carriers built in the 1920s and 1930s plus the USS Essex (CV-9) and the second Yorktown (CV-10).Japan, on the other hand, started the war with a superb navy. Only our ability to read their code and bad decisions by Japanese naval leaders averted disaster.Of course, the Washington Naval Treaty had restricted tonnage, which caused the Navy to design and build the smaller Wasp (CV-7) prior to the Treatys expiration in 1938. The Hornet (CV-8) subsequently was built to the earlier Yorktown design and commissioned in October 1941, just prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Consider how history might have changed if the U.S. Fleet had been able to build and deploy four or five more Yorktown (CV-5)-class carriers by the start of the war. Japan could have been managed diplomatically or defeated quickly, and more resources devoted to the war in Europe, which might have ended much sooner possibly averting the Cold War. On the other side of the line, Germany had only 57 U-boats in service including just thirty 500-/750-ton boats. Even with such meager forces, the Kriegsmarine missed starving Britain into submission by only the narrowest of margins. Germany would have prevailed had it started with a fraction of the 781 Uboats later sunk by Allies. Going back even farther, imagine how entertaining the Royal Navy would have found America in 1812 had we fielded 15 or 20 44-gun ships instead of three. It isnt too late, but it is close. Building only six ships in Fiscal Year 2006 and dropping below a fleet total of 300 ships is a recipe for disaster. China

will not be that parsimonious. If we fail to act, it will overtake us in naval power as early as 2010. A realistic sustained effort today can make all the difference.

NANOTECH FRONTLINE
War with China now is key theyre using the relative peacefulness of relations as a cover to build a nanotech arsenal to wipe the US off the planet News Max, interview with Lev Navrozov a journalist, author, and columnistextensively studied superweapons and won the Albert Einstein Price for outstanding intellectual achievements, 9/26/ 03, an interview on nanoweapons, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/25/210250.shtml
RM: What

countries are developing the post-nuclear superweapons involving nanotechnology? LN: It is worthwhile to speak only of China, Russia if dictatorship comes back to that country, and the United States if it awakens from its sleep, which may well be its last. To make the nanoweapons useful, a country must have the ability and the will to either world domination or
to the defense against another countrys world domination. RM: What do you believe are the motives and goals of the countries that are developing the post-nuclear superweapons? LN: The national student movement of 1989, associated with Tiananmen Square,

endangered the Chinese dictatorship more than any group in Soviet Russia endangered the Soviet dictatorship two years later. Yet the Soviet dictatorship fell. What a lesson for the Chinese dictators! We know authentic information
about the Tiananmen Square movement from Zhang Liangs publication "The Tiananmen Papers, a 514-page collection of Chinese government documents. It is clear that the dictators of China saw how absolutism was endangered in China and understood that

the only way to prevent future Tiananmens was to annihilate or subjugate the source of subversion, viz., the West. RM: What do you believe are going to be Chinas next steps in terms of acquiring territory? LN: In contrast to Hitler, who stupidly grabbed the rump of Czechoslovakia in 1939, China has been very cautious in its territorial claims, since the position of China now is the best for the development of "Superweapon No. 3, such as the nano superweapon. RM: Who does China see as allies and enemies? LN: The worst enemy is the democratic West, whose very existence produces Tiananmens able to destroy the Chinese dictatorship. The best ally is the democratic West, supplying China with everything necessary for the annihilation or subjugation of the democratic West . RM: Are the other postnuclear weapons being researched to this day? If so, are they known? If not, can you enlighten us? LN: Since the nano "Superweapon No. 3 is a hypothesis, and not an absolute certainty, the Chinese Project 863 has been engaged in genetic engineering and at least six or seven other fields. RM: If China has or is close to, molecular nanotechnology to be used in war, what is the purpose of having a large, advanced conventional army and "traditional nuclear weapons? LN: Eric Drexler, the Newton of nanotechnology, alive and enriching us with his wisdom, discusses the problem in his historic book of 1986 "Engines of Creation. My assistant Isak Baldwin says that, according to Drexler, " A nation armed with molecular

nanotechnology-based weapons would not require nuclear weapons to annihilate a civilization . In fact, it seems that a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps could be developed--leaving the nations infrastructure intact to be repopulated. Nevertheless conventional weapons might be useful
even on the "D-day, after nanotechnology has been successfully weaponized. Conventional non-nuclear weapons have been useful even after 1945. Please recall that two "atom bombs were delivered in 1945 by conventional U.S. bombers with conventional machine guns and all. RM: What beliefs or desires are motivating the rulers of China? The belief that Communism must triumph over Capitalism? LN: A New York taxi robber risks his life, life imprisonment, or death sentence to acquire the taxi drivers $200. Hence the bulletproof partitions in taxis. The dictators of China defend not $200, but their

power, which is worth trillions of dollars, apart from what cannot be expressed in terms of money (royal grandeur, cult, and glorification). Remember the French king who said, "The state it is me? Many dictators have been saying and
can always say: "Communism/capitalism/democracy/freedom/socialism/national socialism/our great country/the meaning of life/the goal of history it is me." RM: If the U.S. is the most technologically advanced country, does this mean we have been surpassed? LN: The

"most technologically advanced country is an ambiguous generality. In the 1950s, Russia was still a technologically backward country, with most of its population deprived of running water, to say nothing of passenger cars. Yet it did not prevent Russia from outstripping the United States in space rocketry, when the Soviet space satellite was launched before its
American counterpart. In its annual "Soviet Military Power, to which I subscribed, the Pentagon could not help praising certain Soviet weapons as second to none in the world. RM: What today is holding China back from becoming overtly aggressive and reshaping

the geopolitical world? LN: The dictators of China are not insane! Chinas government-controlled "capitalist corporations have been penetrating the entrails of the Western economies, absorbing the latest science and technology or sometimes entire Western corporations, induced to operate in China on cheap local labor. To become "overtly aggressive? What for? To invade Taiwan? To perish, along with the West, in Mutually Assured Destruction? No, the dictators of China are not insane! They are developing superweapons able to annihilate the Western means of nuclear retaliation.

WAR NOW KEY

US beating China in nanotech now, future means our dominance will collapse Oregonian, Feb 2009, China chips away at our high-tech advantage China no longer wants to be the world's factory for cheap products. Under pressure to create better-paying jobs and to clean up its environment, the nation is trying to snag blue chip companies by vowing to crack down on intellectual property theft and schooling a new class of managers. The industries China craves high-tech and nanotechnology employ tens of thousands in Oregon and are a cornerstone of the states future, albeit a fading one. China's scramble up the ladder will test a long-held assumption: that our competitive advantage American ingenuity can't be beat. China's high-stakes play raises a nagging question: If it succeeds, how will Oregon and the U.S. compete in the coming decades? "That's a good question," says Jim McGregor, an analyst with In-Stat, an Arizona-based research firm. "Everyone's trying to figure out what's the impact of the economic situation we're about to get through and what's going to happen to China." Over the past 20 years, U.S. companies have all but thrown in the towel to Chinese competitors, moving factories for low-cost goods to tap the country's bargain prices. For the most part, the U.S. has managed to replace the assembly-line jobs shipped overseas with better, higher-skilled jobs at home. In 2008, high tech jobs employed 58,400 people in Oregon, paying an average of
$93,400 a year. "High-tech is extremely important in this state," says Tim McCabe, director of the Oregon Economic & Community Development Department. "But, like anything, we don't know what the future is going to be in high-tech." Now those better jobs could be getting

boxed up too. In an employment-squashing recession, some people worry that those positions, still cheaper in China, might not return to the U.S. when the economy rebounds. "If we sit on our hands and believe that our lead in technology and innovation is unassailable, China or someone will eat our lunch eventually," says Joseph Borich, president of the Washington State China Relations Council. " There's still a large gap in their ability to make new technologies, but they're gaining ground on us."

China has a huge advantage in researching nanotech Physorg, Aug 17, 2005 Scientific American Partner Network, Nanotechnology in China is focusing on innovations and new products The markets in china for nanotechnology products and systems is 5.4 billion us dollar in 2005 and will increase to 31.4 bn us $ by 2010 and 144.9 bn us $ by 2015. The main segments are nanomaterials, nanoelectronics, nanobio and nano-life-sciences which count already for 70 percent of the turnover. The market share ( worldmarket ) will be more then 6 percent by 2010 and 16 percent by 2015. Like no other country china understood that to win the race depends on finished products through Nano-Bio-CognoInfo convergence and not on nano science mainly. Second but maybe even more important, there are no ethical restrictions or social controversy on developing and using nanotechnologies for new products and systems. Over the past three years, the number of companies in the field of nanotechnology in China has grown and reached over 800. This growth rate is very rapid and it has yet to show signs of slowing down. The sales to date have been largely domestic, but with the increasing global interest on the development of nanotechnology and with the advantage of modern communication we can for sure speculate that this could be a very profitable investment in the near future. Nanotechnology and nano-bio-info-cogno converging technologies are becoming more and more the decisive factor of the race between regions and nations to win the future markets and societys wealth and political stability. The development shows that five nations are leading the competition today. China , as one of these five nations, has its unique advantage of high flexibilty, low labour costs, no barriers for new technologies, young and vibrant society, large amount of foreign venture capital, underestimated currency (today about 25 percent undervalue compared with the US Dollar), low taxes, goverment support and a home market with more than 1.3 billion people for applications. China has a lot of comparative advantages in nanotechnology research: Early starting in nanotechnology, China is among one of the few countries who has begun to explore nanotechnology since 1990s; a large and highly competent research team, with scientists trained in US, Europe and Japan, Some of which are leaders in their fields worldwide; a research and development network of three national centers and over 20 university institutes in nanotechnology; rich of several important mineral and biological resources which are important for developing nanomaterials; very competent, even leading, in the fields of nanomaterial research and application, tunnel microscopes, single atom operation etc; a huge domestic market, ideal for the growth of enterprises.

CHINA WIN NANOTECH CONFLICT

CHINA WIN MOLECULAR MANUFACTURING

The US doesnt research molecular manufacturing Regis, 04 Ed, popular science and technology writer, author of multiple books, Wired, The Incredible Shrinking Man
What turned the tide on Capitol Hill? Drexler's ideas had always been outlandish and his political skills underdeveloped. That combination became an Achilles' heel as opposition emerged from two quarters. First, a group called the NanoBusiness Alliance entered the fray. Formed in October 2001, the alliance wasn't interested in anything as starry-eyed or scary as self-replicating molecular assemblers; it wanted to sell newfangled products like "nanotech" suntan lotion, ski wax, and paint. One of the founders, venture capitalist F. Mark Modzelewski, was a notorious opponent of Drexlerian notions; in a later email exchange with blogger and nanotech booster Glenn Reynolds, he likened Drexler's theories to "a wino's claims on skid row that bugs are crawling under his skin." Meanwhile, support for Drexler's ideas softened elsewhere in Washington. The White

House's Office of Science and Technology Policy worried that fears whipped up by the likes of Crichton and Joy would turn the public against nanotech, just as similar scares had fueled opposition to GM foods and nuclear power. As New Hampshire's
John Sununu remarked on the Senate floor, "some people have expressed concern that nanotechnology will lead to a superrace of humans or a situation where nanomachines attack or even dominate human beings." Molecular manufacturing is a "loaded term," a Senate staffer

says. "It upsets a lot of people."

The sponsors of the House bill were more interested in making sure it got through the Senate than they were

in preserving funding for Drexler's ideas. Thus, when

House and Senate staff members met to discuss their respective bills, they scuttled the molecular manufacturing study. In the Senate version, Arizona's John McCain introduced an "amendment in the
nature of a substitute" in which the provision no longer appeared. The watered-down bill was passed by the unanimous consent of the Senate on November 18 and signed into law by Bush on December 3. During the ceremony, Richard Smalley stood at the president's side.

All of the nanotech evidence assumes molecular manufacturing key to nanoweapons Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, MARCH 29, 2006 Five-Minute Molecular Manufacturing As a general-purpose manufacturing technology, molecular manufacturing will be able to build highly advanced products useful in almost every field of endeavor, including medicine, environmental remediation, daily life, housing, humanitarian relief, entertainment, computation, transportation, infrastructure, and war. The ability of a personal nanofactory to build another nanofactory in an hour means that manufacturing capacity will not be scarce; because the manufacturing process will be automated and self-contained, the products will be inexpensive to make. Molecular manufacturing will create many risks, but military implications are perhaps the most perilous. A nation or organization that could design and test new high-tech weapons quickly, then inexpensively build an almost unlimited number of them, could become a potent military force virtually overnight. There are several reasons to think that an arms race based on this technology would not be stable. This logic could lead to preemptive strikes and massive oppression to prevent opponents from developing the technology. Chinas focused on molecular manufacturing theyll destroy the US in a nanowar Navrozov, Friday, Mar. 26, 2004 Lev, Center for the Survival of Western Democracy, Inc. Towards Molecular Nano Weapons in China vs. U.S. Unilateral Disarmament But attacked for his militarism, Drexler does not surrender, and sent to Howard Lovys NanoBot the following statement: Molecular manufacturing will bring a revolution in military affairs greater than the transition from hand-made spears to mass-produced guns. It is unwise to be on the wrong side of such a technology gap. NNI [National Nanotechnology Initiative] policy today opposes not only research on molecular manufacturing, but also open dialog on its scientific basis and potential consequences. Drexler does not mention China by name. To do so would be a sacrilege, an obscenity, an act of war. But he makes the case powerfully by saying: In a competitive world, the denialist policies of the NNI place us on a path to unilateral disarmament. Continuation of those policies thus poses a grave threat. The Chinese specialists from among the Chinese dissidents have been studyingunder the auspices of our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc. and under the guidance of its manager Isak Baldwinthe development in China of postnuclear super weapons in seven fields, including molecular nanotechnology. Here is the Web site Nano Science and Technology Network of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Translated from the Chinese:

CHINA HAS NANOTECH

China uses nanotechnology to try to boost its economy Abate, March 2, 2009 Tom, covers the technology sector for GlobalPost, former tech analyst for a Wall Street investment firm, businessman, founded two companies, won a Pulitzer, Navy vetran, undergrad from University of Berkeley Technology: The Asian tigers meow
Hong Kong, one of the original Asian tiger economies as a British colony, remains tied to the Western business cycle even under Chinese rule, and its economy is reported to be in the midst of a year-long contraction. China, meanwhile, struggles to maintain export-driven growth

rates that remain the envy of the world, yet barely meet the demands of its increasingly college-educated and urbanizing populace. Foreign observers say its GDP grew 6.8 percent in the 4th quarter of 2008 , down from 9 percent in the previous quarter and 13 percent for all of 2007. That deceleration has prompted Chinese authorities to announce a $586 billion stimulus package, equivalent to a reported 15 percent of its GDP, in a bid to reduce double-digit urban unemployment and avert feared civil unrest. Technology is just one element in Chinas vast economy and modernization plans. But its central planners continue to promote initiatives like the free trade zone in Tianjin, a coastal city southeast of Beijing. There, in what has been dubbed Chinas Silicon Valley, they envision a manufacturing cluster for nanotechnology , biotechnology and other advanced industries. Even as the global recession creates economic shock waves, China continues to invest in its advanced technology base. US and China have just jointly developed a nanorobot Market Watch, Feb 16, 2009 U.S., Chinese scientists build nanorobot NEW YORK, Feb 16, 2009 (UPI via COMTEX) -- U.S. and Chinese scientists say they've created a two-armed nanorobot that can manipulate molecules within a device built from DNA. Researchers at New York University and China's Nanjing University said the programmable unit allows researchers to capture and maneuver patterns on a scale that is unprecedented. New York University Professor Nadrian Seeman, one of the study's co-authors, said the two-armed nanorobotic device enables the creation of new DNA structures, thereby potentially serving as a factory for assembling the building blocks of new materials. With that capability, it has the potential to develop new synthetic fibers,
advance the encryption of information and improve DNA-scaffolded computer assembly, he said. In the two-armed nanorobotic device, the arms face each other, ready to capture molecules that make up a DNA sequence. Using set strands that bind to its molecules, the arms are then able to change the structure of the device. This changes the sticky ends available to capture a new pattern component. The researchers said their device

performs with 100 percent accuracy, as confirmed by atomic force microscopy that permits features a few billionths of a meter to be visualized. The research that included Nanjing Professor Shou-Jun Xiao and graduate students Hongzhou Gu
and Jie Chao, is reported in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

Nanotech Will be for War Chinas building nanoweapons to use them theyre not deterred Lev Navrozov, Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, 7/17/ 08, China Poses a Threat? http://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china_threat/2008/07/17/113782.html China or any other country that had in 1945 several hundred or thousand nuclear bombs of the kind of the two bombs the US dropped on Japan, could become the sovereign of the world . Professor Rosemont did not say a word about the nano or other post-nuclear weapon being developed in China since the 1980s. Yet post-nuclear global war requires post-nuclear global weapons. As soon as China acquires such weapons, its rulers will be likely to launch a world war to expand their rule globally in order to preserve it in China. The Internationale is still the Marxist-Leninist anthem of China, and the sentence of the anthem worth recalling says: The entire world in which we are nothing we shall smash to smithereens, and in our new world, which we will build, we will be everything.

NANOTECH NANOWAR
A nanotech arms race would cause miscalculation, makes nanowar inevitable Mark Avrum Gubrud. Superconductivity Researcher at U of MD. 1997. Nanotechnology and International Security. Foresight 5th Conference Paper. Whereas the perfection of nuclear explosives established a strategic stalemate, advanced molecular manufacturing based on selfreplicating systems, or any military production system fully automated by advanced artificial intelligence, would lead to instability in a confrontation between rough equals. Rivals would feel pressured to preempt , if possible, in initiating a full-scale military buildup, and certainly not to be caught behind. As the rearmament reached high levels, close contact between forces at sea and in space would give an advantage to the first to strike. The greatest danger coincides with the emergence of these powerful technologies: A quickening succession of "revolutions" may spark a new arms race involving a number of potential competitors. Older systems, including nuclear weapons, would become vulnerable to novel forms of attack or neutralization. Rapidly evolving, untested, secret, and even "virtual" arsenals would undermine confidence in the ability to retaliate or resist aggression. Warning and decision times would shrink. Covert infiltration of intelligence and sabotage devices would blur the distinction between confrontation and war. Overt deployment of ultramodern weapons, perhaps on a massive scale, would alarm technological laggards. Actual and perceived power balances would shift dramatically and abruptly. Accompanied by economic upheaval, general uncertainty and disputes over the future of major resources and of humanity itself, such a runaway crisis would likely erupt into large-scale rearmament and warfare well before another technological plateau was reached. Outweighs extinction Howard Rheingold, (Appointed lecturer at Stanford, Editor Emeritus of Whole Earth Review, Utne Magazine Independent Press Award, widely recognized as a leading authority on social implications of technology), Fall, 1992, Whole Earth Review, www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n76/ai_12635777
It looks as if something even more powerful than thermonuclear weaponry is emanating from that same, strangely fated corner of New Mexico where nuclear physicists first knew sin. Those who follow the progress of artificial-life research know that the effects of messing with the engines of

evolution might lead to forces even more regrettable than the demons unleashed at Alamogordo. At least nuclear weaponry and biocidal technologies only threaten life on Earth, and don't threaten to contaminate the rest of the universe. That's the larger ethical problem of a-life. The technology of self-replicating machines that could emerge in future decades from today's a-life research might escape from human or even terrestrial control, infest the solar system, and, given time, break out into the galaxy. If there are other intelligent species out there, they might not react benevolently to evidence that humans have dispersed interstellar strip-mining robots that breed, multiply, and
evolve. If there are no other intelligent species in existence, maybe we will end up creating God, or the Devil, depending on how our minds' children evolve a billion years from now. The entire story of life on earth thus far might be just the wetware prologue to a longer, larger, drier tale, etched in silicon rather than carbon, and blasted to the stars -- purposive spores programmed to seek, grow, evolve, expand. That's what a few people think they are on the verge of inventing.

NANO IMPACT CALCULUS

This is the only existential risk nothing else is even close Anissimov Aug 2 2007 Michael, a science/technology writer and consultant, Existential Risks: Serious Business This does seem true, and admonitions about global warming may be partially to blame, as well as terrorist fearmongering (some of which may also, in fact, be well-founded). Anthropogenic global warming is a reality, yes, but I dont think its an existential risk, especially not in the next few decades. Bombardment with warnings on anthropogenic climate change, as well as terrorist attacks, is desensitizing the populace to warnings of existential risk. Im not saying such warnings are a bad thing, just pointing out the fact that theyre desensitizing us. The fact that the most severe risks have to do with technologies just barely beginning to roll off the assembly lines advanced AI and robotics, and synthetic biology doesnt help matters either. But, as always, you, the reader, can refuse to be a part of the problem. You can take existential risk seriously, and refuse to write off those who discuss these dangers, like Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking, as Doomsayers. For most of the past 10,000 years, catastrophic technological risk has been impossible. Even global thermonuclear war would be more likely to kill off 10% or 20% of the population rather than 99% or 100%. And if you care about the long-term future of humankind as a whole, killing a billion and killing everyone makes a hell of a lot of difference.

NANO A2: CONTAINABLE

Its much easier for nanotech to kill everyone nanoweapons cause miscalculation and extinction Wired, April 2000, Why the future doesn't need us. www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html Unfortunately, as with nuclear technology, it is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones. Nanotechnology has clear military and terrorist uses, and you need not be suicidal to release a massively destructive nanotechnological device - such devices can be built to be selectively destructive, affecting, for example, only a certain geographical area or a group of people who are genetically distinct. An immediate consequence of the Faustian bargain in obtaining the great power of nanotechnology is that we run a grave risk - the risk that we might destroy the biosphere on which all life depends. As Drexler explained: "Plants" with "leaves" no more efficient than today's solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an inedible foliage. Tough omnivorous "bacteria" could out-compete real bacteria: They could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop - at least if we make no preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies. Among the cognoscenti of nanotechnology, this threat has become known as the "gray goo problem." Though masses of uncontrolled replicators need not be gray or gooey, the term "gray goo" emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be less inspiring than a single species of crabgrass. They might be superior in an evolutionary sense, but this need not make them valuable.

NANO MOLECULAR MANUFACTURING WORKS

Molecular Manufacturing has been proven effective decades of scientific evidence support us Drexler, Dec 2003 research affiliate with Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, coined nanotechnology, received the 1st Ph.D. in molecular nanotechnology from MIT, chairman of the board of directors of Foresight Institute, which he cofounded, an organization dedicated to helping prepare society for anticipated advanced technologies.NANOTECHNOLOGY Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against 'molecular assemblers' These nanofactories contain no enzymes, no living cells, no swarms of roaming, replicating nanobots. Instead, they use computers for digitally precise control, conveyors for parts transport, and positioning devices of assorted sizes to assemble small parts into larger parts, building macroscopic products. The smallest devices position molecular parts to assemble structures through mechanosynthesis--'machine-phase' chemistry. Machine- and solution-phase chemistry share fundamental physical principles, yet differ greatly. In machinephase chemistry, conveyors and positioners (not solvents and thermal motion) bring reactants together. The resulting positional control (not positional differences in reactivity) enables reliable site-specific reactions. Bound groups adjacent to reactive groups can provide tailored environments that reproduce familiar effects of solvation and catalysis. Positional control itself enables a strong catalytic effect: It can align reactants for repeated collisions in optimal geometries at vibrational (greater than terahertz) frequencies. Further, positional control naturally avoids most side reactions by preventing unwanted encounters between potential reactants. Transition-state theory indicates that, for suitably chosen reactants, positional control will enable synthetic steps at megahertz frequencies with the reliability of digital switching operations in a computer. The supporting analysis for this conclusion appears in "Nanosystems" and has withstood a decade of scientific scrutiny. It should be clear that chemical reactions (whether machine-phase or conventional) need no impossible fingers to control the motion of individual atoms within reactants. As molecules come together and react, their atoms (being "sticky") stay bonded to neighbors, and thus need no separate fingers to hold them. If particular conditions will yield the wrong product, one must either choose different conditions (different positions, reactants, adjacent groups) or choose another synthetic target. Direct positional control of reactants is both achievable and revolutionary; talk of additional, impossible control has been a distraction. Critics are wrong and misrepresent Drexlers argument Drexler, Dec 2003 research affiliate with Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, coined nanotechnology, received the 1st Ph.D. in molecular nanotechnology from MIT, chairman of the board of directors of Foresight Institute, which he cofounded, an organization dedicated to helping prepare society for anticipated advanced technologies.NANOTECHNOLOGY Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against 'molecular assemblers' You have attempted to dismiss my work in this field by misrepresenting it. From what I hear of a press conference at the recent National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) conference, you continue to do so. In particular, you have described molecular assemblers as having multiple "fingers" that manipulate individual atoms and suffer from so-called fat finger and sticky finger problems, and you have dismissed their feasibility on this basis. I find this puzzling because, like enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither have nor need these "Smalley fingers." The task of positioning reactive molecules simply doesn't require them. I have a 20 year history of technical publications in this area and consistently describe systems quite unlike the straw man you attack [Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., 23, 337 (1994); Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A, 353, 323 (1995)]. My proposal is, and always has been [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 78, 5275 (1981)] to guide the chemical synthesis of complex structures by mechanically positioning reactive molecules, not by manipulating individual atoms. This proposal has been defended successfully again and again, in journal articles, in my MIT doctoral thesis [the basis of "Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation," John Wiley & Sons (1992)]. And before scientific audiences around the world. It rests on well-established physical principles. The impossibility of Smalley fingers has raised no concern in the research community because these fingers solve no problems and thus appear in no proposals. Your reliance on this straw-man attack might lead a thoughtful observer to suspect that no one has identified a valid criticism of my work. For this I should, perhaps, thank you.