Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 1

Tate-Gannon-Fisher-Lee START D/A Overview

Start D/A Overview

The D/A has the biggest impacts in the round and outweighs and turns case.

Because of the following reasons:

Magnitude
a.
The impacts to start going bad are huge and are the most immanent threat.
It controls the magnitude of all nuclear impacts - START affects 95 percent of the world’s nuclear
weapons
Shultz et al 8 (GEORGE P. former secretary of state, WILLIAM J. PERRY, former secretary of defense, HENRY A. KISSINGER, former secretary of state, and SAM NUNN,
former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 1/15, http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120036422673589947.html)

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a
very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands. The steps we are taking now to address these
threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous. One year ago, in
an essay in this paper, we called for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to
end them as a threat to the world. The interest, momentum and growing political space that has been created to address these issues over the past year has been
extraordinary, with strong positive responses from people all over the world. Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in January 2007 that, as someone who signed the first treaties
on real reductions in nuclear weapons, he thought it his duty to support our call for urgent action: "It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means
of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious." In June, the United Kingdom's foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett,
signaled her government's support, stating: "What we need is both a vision -- a scenario for a world free of nuclear weapons -- and action -- progressive steps to
reduce warhead numbers and to limit the role of nuclear weapons in security policy. These two strands are separate but they are mutually reinforcing. Both are
necessary, but at the moment too weak." We have also been encouraged by additional indications of general support for this project from other former U.S. officials
with extensive experience as secretaries of state and defense and national security advisors. These include: Madeleine Albright, Richard V. Allen, James A. Baker III,
Samuel R. Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Warren Christopher, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleburger, Melvin Laird, Anthony Lake, Robert
McFarlane, Robert McNamara and Colin Powell. Inspired by this reaction, in October 2007, we convened veterans of the past six administrations, along with a
number of other experts on nuclear issues, for a conference at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. There was general agreement about the
importance of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons as a guide to our thinking about nuclear policies, and about the
importance of a series of steps that will pull us back from the nuclear precipice. The U.S. and Russia, which possess close to 95%
of the world's nuclear warheads, have a special responsibility, obligation and experience to demonstrate leadership , but other
nations must join. Some steps are already in progress, such as the ongoing reductions in the number of nuclear warheads deployed on long-range, or strategic,
bombers and missiles. Other near-term steps that the U.S. and Russia could take, beginning in 2008, can in and of themselves dramatically
reduce nuclear dangers. They include: • Extend key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991. Much has been learned about
the vital task of verification from the application of these provisions. The treaty is scheduled to expire on Dec. 5, 2009. The key provisions of this treaty, including
their essential monitoring and verification requirements, should be extended, and the further reductions agreed upon in the 2002 Moscow Treaty on Strategic
Offensive Reductions should be completed as soon as possible.

b. Irreversibility

START is a crucial moment for disarmament – failure to ratify ensures planetary annihilation
Blanchfield 9 (Mike, Canwest News Service, Edmonton Journal, “Stakes high in game of nuclear knuckles; Obama, Medvedev hold START talks,” p. Lexis)
"Picture in your mind's eyes your favourite bistro, or some other cherished spot in the city of Paris," Dr. Bruce Blair tells the 75
guests picking at a rubber-chicken lunch recently at a downtown Ottawa hotel. Now, Blair tells them, picture an atomic bomb
exploding in that cafe, just like the one that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. In that instant, downtown Paris is gone, along with
150,000 souls. The carnage multiplies exponentially."History would perish. Culture would perish with those many lives. Your bistro, the
family at the table next to you, all of these evaporate," says Blair, who, by his own admission, misspent part of his youth with his
finger on the trigger of mass destruction as a nuclear-ballistic-missile launch officer in the U. S. Midwest. Obama arrives in
Moscow on Monday to meet his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, to hammer out the details of new Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty before the old 1991 deal expires in five months. While many see a new START treaty as the road to smoother relations
between the White House and the Kremlin, people such as Blair see it as a watershed moment to take bold steps to ultimately rid the world
of nuclear weapons. "We have the wind of Obama and Medvedev at our back," says Blair, president of the non-profit World Security
Institute, on a recent visit to Canada's capital to push his Global Zero grassroots initiative to rid the world of nuclear weapons. On a
trip to Europe in April, Obama called for a nuclear-free world. But with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, coupled with
the ever-present threat of terrorists in search of a dirty bomb, the road to that nuclear-free utopia is littered with more potholes than
during the Cold War. Still, Blair and many others say the need for the U. S. and Russia to show leadership is even more pressing, to
Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 2
Tate-Gannon-Fisher-Lee START D/A Overview
remove not only the ever-present Cold War possibility of a world-ending nuclear accident, but the 21st-century threat of nukes falling into
terrorist hands. Officials from both countries are already hammering out the details of an agreement that would replace the START 1
treaty which expires Dec. 5. Though the Moscow-Washington relationship is tangled in a web of tension over the U. S. missile-
defence-shield plans for Europe, and NATO's eastward expansion, positive signals emerged from the Kremlin on Friday on one
front:Medvedev's spokesman said he and Obama would sign a side deal that would allow the U. S. military transit of goods through
Russian territory to Afghanistan. The main goal would be a new START framework that would essentially see both sides slashing
their nuclear-warhead stockpiles by one-quarter, down to about 1,500 warheads each. But Charles Ferguson, a senior fellow with the
Council on Foreign Relations, says if Russia and the U. S. were to go so far as to cut their arsenals down to 1,000 each, other nuclear
countries could begin to compete with them. "We're uncertain as to where China is headed, in terms of its gradual nuclear
development. There's still uncertainties even about India, where it may be headed, or Pakistan," says Ferguson. For Blair, it's well
past the time to abandon long-held suspicions and animosities. After walking his Ottawa luncheon crowd through his Paris
doomsday vision, he piles on more scenarios. If there were an accidental launch of weapons that triggered all-out nuclear war between Russia
and the U. S., he says, 119 million people in each country would die in the initial exchange. "We've pushed our luck as far as we can;now we
need a policy. So, to put it bluntly, there are two paths that stretch before us:We either bury our weapons or we're buried by them."

c. Timeframe
Our impacts occur the fastest and need to be solved before anything else and delaying START has huge
impacts.

[Extend 1NC]

A. START will pass – but delay destroys heg, Russia relations and the non-proliferation regime
Butler 7/23 (Desmond, 2010, “US-Russia nuke treaty facing hurdles in US Senate”,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwGbzbS9cELaiIfmBjxLP1o4G8-QD9H4KUL80, THE)

WASHINGTON — The once smooth path for Senate ratification of a major nuclear arms control agreement with Russia is looking a little
dicier. Conservatives opposing New START, a replacement for a Cold War-era treaty, are trying to make it an issue in November's
congressional elections. While they are unlikely to kill the agreement , they could force Democrats to delay a ratification vote until after
the election. That could be damaging to President Barack Obama. A narrow victory after a lengthy, contentious debate could destroy his
hopes for achieving more ambitious goals, including further reductions of nuclear weapons and ratification of a nuclear test ban treaty . "A
delayed ratification with a close vote would be a blow to U.S. leadership around the world ," said Joseph Cirincione, president of the
Ploughshares Fund, a foundation that advocates a world free of nuclear weapons. "People would doubt the president's ability to negotiate other
agreements." The administration still hopes to win approval for New START before the Senate begins its summer break in August. To do
that would require the support of at least eight Republicans, along with all 57 Democratic and two independent senators to achieve the
necessary two-thirds majority in the 100-member Senate. The administration is expressing confidence, but so far only one Republican senator,
Richard Lugar of Indiana, has announced his support. Administration officials say they could wait until the "lame duck" session that takes
place after November's election, but before new lawmakers are sworn in . The White House does not want to postpone a vote until next
year because Republicans are expected to pick up seats in the election. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START agreement
in April. It would shrink the limit on strategic warheads to 1,550 for each country, down about a third from the current ceiling of 2,200. It also would
make changes in the old treaty's procedures that allow both countries to inspect each other's arsenals and verify compliance. An affiliate of the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think tank, has taken the lead in opposing the treaty. The Heritage Action for America, an advocacy group, has started a petition
drive and may run political advertisements on the issue during the election season. It also is lobbying in the Senate. Though arms control is hardly a major
issue in a campaign season dominated by economic worries, the divisive political environment makes it difficult for Republicans to buck the
conservative mainstream and hand Obama a victory that might be considered his top foreign policy achievement . Tom Daschle, a former
Democratic Senate Majority leader, who supports the treaty, says Heritage's influence may explain why so many Republicans have been reticent about taking
a stand. "It is certainly serious enough to silence some Republican senators," he said. He added that he expected enough Republicans eventually
would come around for passage. Heritage won some prominent support when a likely GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, announced
opposition to the treaty in a newspaper column this month. Some Republicans say that U.S. negotiators made too many concessions and that that the treaty
does not establish adequate procedures for making sure the two sides abide by its terms. They also fear that Russia could use the treaty to limit U.S. missile
defense plans. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and other Republicans are holding out support over another issue, insisting that the administration
increase money available to maintain and improve existing nuclear warheads . The administration appears willing to accommodate Republicans on
that issue and has requested a 10 percent increase. It has rejected criticism of the treaty, however, and has tried to win over Republicans by citing the support
of some of the party's foreign policy luminaries, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz and former President George W.
Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. The administration says that Russia has strong incentives to abide by the treaty because the U.S.
arsenal is technologically superior and the costs of maintaining large stockpiles is harder for Russia to bear . The defeat of the treaty
would damage Obama's efforts to repair U.S.-Russian relations and to rally international cooperation on eliminating nuclear
weapons. Administration officials say that Republicans will ultimately come around because rejecting the treaty would leave the two
countries dangerously uncertain about each other's arsenals . The authority to conduct inspections expired with the old START treaty last year.
Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 3
Tate-Gannon-Fisher-Lee START D/A Overview
"There is a simple question to ask: What is this and what if we don't have the treaty?" said Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, the State Department's top
arms control official. "I think that the risk of not having this is significant ."

d. Magnitude Overwhelms Probability.

Only a US-Russian war causes extinction and is an existential threat.

Bostrum 2 (Nick, professor of philosophy - Oxford University, March, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, Journal of
Evolution and Technology, p. http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

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

That means we win regardless of probability

Bostrom 5 (Nick, professor of philosophy at Oxford, July, Transcribed from by Packer, 4:38-6:12 of the talk at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/44,
accessed 10/20/07)

Now if we think about what just reducing the probability of human extinction by just one percentage point. Not very much. So that’s equivalent to 60 million
lives saved, if we just count currently living people . The current generation. One percent of six billion people is equivalent to 60 million. So that’s a large
number. If we were to take into account future generations that will never come into existence if we blow ourselves up then the figure becomes
astronomical. If we could you know eventually colonize a chunk of the universe the virgo supercluster maybe it will take us a hundred million years to get there but
if we go extinct we never will. Then even a one percentage point reduction in the extinction risk could be equivalent to this astronomical number 10
to the power of 32 so if you take into account future generations as much as our own every other moral imperative or philanthropic cause just becomes
irrelevant. The only thing you should focus on would be to reduce existential risk, because even the tiniest decrease in existential risk would just
overwhelm any other benefit you could hope to achieve . Even if you just look at the current people and ignore the potential that would be lost if we
went extinct it should still be a high priority.

e. Turns Case
In order to solve all of the Aff impacts we must first have good relations with Russia. START is key.

[Extend 1NC]
Relations solves extinction and the aff impacts
The Atlantic 8 (November, Medvedev Spoils the Party, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811u/medvedev-obama)
Like it or not, the United States cannot solve crucial global problems without Russian participation. Russia commands the largest landmass on earth;
possesses vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources; owns huge stockpiles of weapons and plutonium; and still wields a potent brain trust. Given
its influence in Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of its potential as a spoiler of international equilibrium elsewhere, Russia is one
country with which the United States would do well to reestablish a strong working relationship—a strategic partnership, even—regardless of
its feelings about the current Kremlin government. The need to do so trumps expanding NATO or pursuing “full-spectrum dominance.” Once the world financial
crisis passes, we will find ourselves returning to worries about resource depletion, environmental degradation, and global warming – the
greatest challenges facing humanity. No country can confront these problems alone. For the United States, Russia may just prove the “indispensable
nation” with which to face a volatile future arm in arm.

Start is a perquisite to plan.