Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 Scholars Nuclear K’s

Link – Hegemony

Their arguments for hegemony only drive WMD development

Huntley 7 (Wade L. Huntley, Nuclear Nonproliferation: Time for New Thinking?, International Studies Association, 3 March, 2007)NAR

But within the framework of standard deterrence assumptions, this logic is exactly backwards. US threats of retaliatory attack to deter an adversary’s use of WMD against vital US interests are inherently more credible than threats of preemptive attack to deter an adversary’s acquisition of WMD, which may derive from motivations having little to do with US interests. Although this distinction between these two forms of coercion is obfuscated in the 2002 NPR, US Strategic Command advisories to deliberations over the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review recognized the distinction and were skeptical that nuclear weapons could deter WMD acquisition: “Nations with expansionist aims may view development of WMD as the only means of countering US nuclear power… Our nuclear deterrent posture does not influence these reasons to obtain WMD…” 17 Moreover, when preventing nuclear weapons acquisition requires interrupting efforts an adversary already has underway (such as ending an indigenous development program), this “acquisition deterrence” becomes compellence. Many factors make coercion to sustain a status quo (deter gain) easier than coercion to change a status quo (compel loss). Finally, there is the prospect that whatever weak acquisition deterrence might accrue from counterproliferation threats would be more than offset by U.S. adversaries’ increased motivations to obtain capabilities to deter U.S. action, fueled by the general undermining of non-nuclear use and nonproliferation norms that rededicated U.S. reliance on nuclear threats could foster. This factor was also recognized by the US Strategic Command in its advisories to the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review: “As the only true superpower, the approach the U.S. takes to such issues as nuclear policy, START I & II treaty execution, pursuit of a CTBT, and the NPT extension will have a major influence on the action of other countries.” 19 Thus, the acquisition deterrence aspiration also begs numerous questions concerning the motivations of states to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place, and whether US policy – for good or ill – has much bearing at all. This topic is taken up in the fourth section of this paper.

Internal Link – Colonialism

The Aff’s representations begin the path from demonization to regime change and colonization
Lal 9 (Prerna April 5 Freelance blogger for the Immigrant Rights and Race in America blog at Change.org, and serve as an Online Organizer for CODEPINK: Women for Peace. http://prernalal.com/2009/04/north-korea-is-not-a-threat-unveiling-hegemonic-discourses/ TBC 7/1/10)

The Obama Administration has scrambled to battle anti-Americanism with new euphemisms. It is not the ‘global war on terror’ but a ‘global contingency operation.’ Not likely to catch on anytime soon. The people living in dire states and conditions, ravaged by war, poverty and hardship, know precisely what it is–an attack on their existence predicated by the United States and its allies. We have seen and read the master narrative before of demonizing a country, bringing about regime change and killing, colonizing and repressing more peoples while doing it. By unearthing these counter-discourses, we can hope to move towards a ‘solution’ to the North Korea issue. Again, the ‘problem-solution’ is not the missiles, but the manner in which North Korea is seeking help and attention. Finding common ground requires discovering and deconstructing the cultural and discursive constructs. However, the window of opportunity is quite small, as seen by positions and interests of the parties involved. I don’t doubt though, that North Korea will cease to be an entity sometime in the near future and become into Korea again.

Impacts – Colonialism

Colonialism results in the genocidal extermination of populations globally

Street 4 (Paul, Author - writes on imperialism, racism, and thought control, http://www.thereitis.org/displayarticle242.html, AD: 7/2/10) jl

It is especially important to appreciate the significance of the vicious, often explicitly genocidal “homeland” assaults on native-Americans, which set foundational racist and national-narcissist patterns for subsequent U.S. global butchery, disproportionately directed at non-European people of color. The deletion of the real story of the so-called “battle of Washita” from the official Seventh Cavalry history given to the perpetrators of the No Gun Ri massacre is revealing. Denial about Washita and Sand Creek (and so on) encouraged US savagery at Wounded Knee, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in the Philippines, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Korea, the denial of which encouraged US savagery in Vietnam, the denial of which (and all before) has recently encouraged US savagery in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s a vicious circle of recurrent violence, well known to mental health practitioners who deal with countless victims of domestic violence living in the dark shadows of the imperial homeland’s crippling, stunted, and indeed itself occupied social and political order.

Power-mad US forces deploying the latest genocidal war tools, some suggestively named after native tribes that white North American “pioneers” tried to wipe off the face of the earth (ie, “Apache,” “Blackhawk,” and “Comanche” helicopters) are walking in bloody footsteps that trace back across centuries, oceans, forests and plains to the leveled villages, shattered corpses, and stolen resources of those who Roosevelt acknowledged as America’s “original inhabitants.” Racist imperial carnage and its denial, like charity, begin at home. Those who deny the crimes of the past are likely to repeat their offenses in the future as long as they retain the means and motive to do so.
Colonialism results in the extinction of entire populations

Porter 98 (Robert B, Seneca and Professor of Law and Director of the Tribal Law and Government Center U of Kansas, 21 University of Michigan Journal of Law and Reform) jl

Nonetheless, this otherwise natural process was dramatically altered by colonization. These colonizing efforts were accomplished by force and often with great speed, producing dramatic changes within Indigenous societies and interfering with the natural process of adaptation and change. This disruption has had a genocidal effect; groups of Indigenous peoples that existed 500 years ago no longer exist. There should be no doubt that their extinction was not an accident – it was the product of a concerted effort to subjugate and eliminate the native human population in order to allow for the pursuit of wealth and manifest destiny. As a result, extinction is the most dramatic effect of colonization. Allowed to run its full course, colonization will disrupt and destroy the natural evolutionary process of the people being colonized to the point of extinction.