Unformatted text preview: Mega Blockfile
“ The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia.” PRO BLOCKS: A2: IRAN
1) Delink:
Realize that Iran isn’t even a threat to the US considering how small their
defenses are compared to the US. Morris in 2017 quantifies that the truth is,
Iran just isn’t a threat to the United States. Its military budget is $13 billion,
equivalent to about 2 percent of the U.S. military budget of $611 billion, the
highest in the world.
2) Turn:
Realize that the arms sales to Saudi Arabia only serve to further destabilize the
situation within the middle East. Saudi Arabia is creating a humanitarian
catastrophe in Yemen, with U.S. support. Since 2015, Saudi Arabia has been
bombing Yemen to defeat the Houthis, a group that Saudi Arabia accuses of
being proxies for Iran — an exaggerated claim. 3) Delink:
The arm sales actually have a counterintuitive effect in that they hurt US
hegemony and aspirations in the Middle East. The old US-led order in the region
is dying. US allies no longer call Washington before they take action in the
region. The Saudis have prosecuted the war in Yemen with little regard for the
United States’ views while simultaneously demanding the Pentagon’s logistical
support and the uninterrupted flow of munitions. A2: Security
1) Delink: Security interests in the Middle East are actually made worse because
of Blowback. Blowback occurs in 3 ways:
First, a previously friendly regime becomes unfriendly. For example, the United
States sold billions of dollars in weapons to the Shah of Iran during the 1970s in
the hopes that Iran would provide a stabilizing influence on the Middle East. The
sales included everything from fighter jets for air campaigns to surface‐to‐air
missiles to shoot down enemy fighters. After the 1979 revolution, however, Iran
used those weapons in its war with Iraq and enabled the new Iranian regime to
exert its influence in the region. With Saudi Arabia getting stronger militarily and
having still not paid the US the entirety of the money owed, it's not easy to rule
out this happening.
The second — entanglement — is a process whereby an arms sales relationship
draws the United States into a greater level of unwanted intervention. Arms
sales might entangle the United States is by creating new disputes or
exacerbating existing tensions. In fact this has already happened. The Yemen conflict has been devastating as a study from the Independent in 2018
demonstrates that 56,000 people have been killed in Yemen since early 2016.
The number is increasing by more than 2,000 per month as fighting intensifies
around the Red Sea port of Hodeidah. It does not include those dying of
malnutrition, or diseases such as cholera.
Third, Blowback can occur when U.S. weapons are sold or stolen from the
government that bought them and wind up on the battlefield in the hands of
the adversary. Bandow from Cato concedes that Historically the kingdom has
been a dangerous breeding ground for terrorists, funding fundamentalist
Wahhabism around the globe and providing 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers. Saudi
money enriched al-Qaida and other radical groups; the regime backed jihadists
in Syria and through its invasion of Yemen freed up radical groups, including alQaida, in the Arabian Peninsula. Arms sales raise the possibility that arms could
be stolen by potentially dangerous groups. A2: Economic Benefits.
1) Turn:
The US arms industry is not even that significant when it comes to being
composed of the labor market. Vox news in 2018 highlights that Overall, the
private US defense industry does directly employ a lot of US workers — about
355,500 in 2016, according to the most the recent estimates from the Aerospace
Industries Association. But private-sector defense workers make up less than 0.5
percent of the total US labor force.
2) Minimize the Impact: Any benefits to the US would be extremely short terms
at best since the Saudi Arabia plans to make more weapons domestically.
Building up a local weapons manufacturing industry is part of the crown prince’s
much-touted 2030 economic development plan, which is supposed to reduce
the kingdom’s economic dependence on oil exports. Saudi Arabia expects half of
all jobs created by weapons deals to be local jobs. Raytheon, for example, is in the process of opening a subsidiary in Riyadh. This leads to..
3) The fact is that the arms deal is not about job as it is more about the politics
of the region and oil.
The United States was desperate for Saudi oil and a military ally in the Middle
East, so US politicians have been willing to sell the kingdom all the war weapons
it wants, ignoring the regime’s record of human rights abuses. The very short
terms benefits that the US might not even get are in no way worth the lives of
innocent people throughout the Middle East especially in Yemen. A2: ISIS
1) First, TURN:
An extensive field investigation into the origins of Isis’ weaponry in Syria and
Iraq has found that weapons supplied by the US and Saudi Arabia to the Syrian
opposition often ended up in the jihadis’ hands, enhancing the “quantity and
quality” of their armaments. 2) This would be really bad as it would reverse the positive trend in the status
quo that has the ISIS regime getting weaker and weaker.
The Economist in 2015
Now that ISIS forces are retreating, the loot of conquest has dried up. Some
analysts reckon it may have lost up to 75% of its revenues. A2: Other Weapons Supplier
1) Delink as Caverle from the NY Times in 2018 this is no way feasible
Transforming the Saudi military to employ Russian, much less Chinese, weapons
would cost a fortune even by Gulf standards, would require years of retraining
and would greatly reduce its military power for a generation. Russia cannot
produce next-generation fighter aircraft, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles for
its own armed forces, much less for the export market. China has not produced,
never mind exported, the sophisticated aircraft and missile defense systems
Saudi Arabia wants. A2: Middle Eastern Ally Lost
1) Turn: The truth is Saudi Arabia is not really a military ally as it is an oil ally.
The US relies on Saudi Arabia for its oil when they don’t really need to.
Cunningham from Business Insider in July 2016 concludes that “The U.S. holds
more oil reserves than anyone else in the world, including Saudi Arabia, Russia,
and Venezuela. That conclusion comes from a new independent estimate from
Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy. Rystad estimates that the U.S. holds
264 billion barrels of oil, more than half of which is located in shale. 2) Delink: Saudi Arabia has continued to prove why they are not a reliable ally.
From exacerbating the Yemen Crisis to how Bandow from Cato concedes that
Historically the kingdom has been a dangerous breeding ground for terrorists,
funding fundamentalist Wahhabism around the globe and providing 15 of 19
9/11 hijackers. Saudi money enriched al-Qaida and other radical groups; the
regime backed jihadists in Syria and through its invasion of Yemen freed up
radical groups, including al-Qaida, in the Arabian Peninsula. Arms sales raise the
possibility that arms could be stolen by potentially dangerous groups. CON BLOCKS: A2 National Security
1. There is no risk of a national security threat, Trevor Thrall writes in June 2018 that
A. Trevor Thrall is an associate professor at George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government and a senior fellow at the Cato
Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department. Caroline Dorminey is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy
Department. June 13, 2018.
At the strategic level, the United States inhabits such an extremely favorable security environment in the post-Cold War world that most arms sales do little or nothing to improve its security. Thanks to its geography, friendly (and weak)
neighbors, large and dynamic economy, and secure nuclear arsenal, the United States faces
very few significant threats. There is no Soviet Union bent upon dominating Europe and destroying the
United States. China, despite its rapid rise, cannot (and has no reason to) challenge the sovereignty or territorial
integrity of the United States. Arms sales — to allies or others — are unnecessary to deter major, direct threats to U.S. national security in the current era. 2. There is no risk of great power war Robb 12—Lieutenant, US Navy (Doug, Why the Age of Great Power War is Over, , JZG)
The 20th century brought seismic shifts as the global political system transitioned from being multipolar during the first 40 years to
bipolar during the Cold War before emerging as the American-led, unipolar international order we know today. These changes
notwithstanding, major world powers have been at peace for nearly seven decades—the longest such
period since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia codified the sovereign nation-state. Whereas in years past, when nations allied with their neighbors in ephemeral bonds of convenience, today’s global politics are tempered by permanent
international organizations, regional military alliances, and formal economic partnerships.
Thanks in large part to the prevalence of liberal democracies, these groups are able to moderate international
disputes and provide forums for nations to air grievances, assuage security concerns, and negotiate settlements—thereby
making war a distant (and distasteful) option 3. Nuclear weapons deter all war – empirics prove
Tepperman 9, LL.M. in International Law from NYU, former Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, 2009
(Jonathan, 8-28-9, The Daily Beast, “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb,” nuclear weapons may
not, make the world more dangerous bomb may make us safer. nuclear weapons can be
agents of peace nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. there's never been a war
between two states that possess them.here has not been any war among nuclear states." To understand why—and why
the next 64 years are likely to play out the same way—you need to start by recognizing that all states are rational on some basic level.
Their leaders a country will start a fight only when it's almost certain it can get what it wants at an acceptable price. Nuclear weapons change all that by making the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable A2 Middle East
1. US intervention in the Middle East always fails. Emily Weber writes in November 2018 that
Emily Weber is an M.A. candidate in International Affairs focusing on International Security Studies and U.S. Foreign Policy at George
Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs. She currently works in government relations. November 20, 2018
Other U.S. interventions in the Middle East to promote democracy and state-building have
proven ineffective at best. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were intended to end the threat of terrorism and
build democratic states but have not achieved their goals. The Taliban is still controls a great deal of Afghanistan.
In Iraq, Al-Qaeda and ISIS continue their incursion. Both of the latter groups have become widespread in Yemen
because of the war. Although it is reasonable that the United States would want to prevent these groups from gaining more power in the similar U.S. interventions in the Middle East have failed. Ground troops, special forces
operations, and air strikes are not long-term solutions for preventing the spread of these nonstate actors.
region, A2 Terrorism
1. Arms Sales don’t help to prevent terrorism. Trevor Thrall writes in June 2018 that
A. Trevor Thrall is an associate professor at George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government and a senior fellow at the Cato
Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department. Caroline Dorminey is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department. June 13, 2018.
Moreover, even if one believed that the benefits would outweigh the potential costs, arms sales still have almost no value as a tool in the war on
terror for several reasons. First, the bulk of arms sales (and those we considered in our risk assessment) involve major
conventional weapons, which are ill suited to combating terrorism. Many U.S. arms deals since 9/11
have involved major conventional weapons systems such as fighter jets, missiles, and artillery, useful for traditional
military operations, but of little use in fighting terrorists. Insurgencies that hold territory, like the Islamic State, are
one thing, but most terrorist groups do not advertise their location, nor do they assemble in large groups. Second, there is little evidence from the past 16 years that direct military intervention is the
right way to combat terrorism. Research reveals that military force alone “seldom ends
terrorism.”50 This comports with the American experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the war on terror to date. Despite regime
change, thousands of air strikes, and efforts to upgrade the military capabilities of friendly governments, the United States has not
only failed to destroy the threat of Islamist-inspired terrorism, it has also spawned chaos, greater resentment, and a
sharp increase in the level of terrorism afflicting the nations involved.51 Given the experience of the
United States since 2001, there is little reason to expect that additional arms sales to
countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, or the United Arab Emirates will reduce terrorism, much less antiAmerican terrorism specifically. 2. Arms Sales don’t stop the biggest threat terror threat to the US, domestic terrorism, they actually
make the problem worse. Trevor Thrall continues in June 2018 that
A. Trevor Thrall is an associate professor at George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government and a senior fellow at the Cato
Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department. Caroline Dorminey is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy
Department. June 13, 2018.
Finally, arms sales are completely useless to combat the largest terrorist threat to the U.S.
homeland — lone wolf attackers already living in the United States. As noted, none of the successful attacks
in the United States since 9/11 resulted from operations directed by al Qaeda or ISIS. And in fact only two foiled attempts since then — the
52 persons already living
in the United States, inspired by Islamist groups, decided to carry out attacks on their own.
Clearly, arms sales to foreign nations won’t help with that problem; rather, as many analysts
have suggested, amplifying conflicts abroad may well make the problem worse
underwear bomber and the printer-bomb plot — can be ascribed to al Qaeda. Instead, in almost all cases, A2: Airstrikes Worsen Famine
1. First Stopping Military Support Will do Absolutely Nothing. Realize that
the blockade is the main cause of the famine. Carey 18 a journalist from bloomberg tell us that In principle, the coalition says the purpose of the
blockade is to stop Iranian weapons from entering Yemen to supply the
Houthi rebels who are in control of much of the north, including the
capital Sanaa. But in practice, it has cut the amount of desperately needed
food, medicine and fuel getting into the country by more than half,
according to aid groups.
2. Second The Arabian Peninsula and Squids will keep on fighting regardless
CNN 17 states that “Its leaders say they feared that Houthi control of
Yemen would give Iran a foothold in the Arabian peninsula that would
threaten Saudi interests. Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a larger
battle for dominance in the Arab world” 3. My opponents literally gain no offense , realize that Saudi Arabia can get
Weapons from Anyone else. Saudi Arabia has already began talking to
Russia over the US. Woody 19 tell us that “According to The Post, the
Saudis have resisted US requests to disavow their interest buying the S400 and have continued talks with Moscow. Saudi Arabia would be only
the latest ally with interest in the Russian-made air-defense system.” 4. The Con wins on scope , due to the fact that many countries currently sell
weapons to Saudi Arabia. If the United States stop selling arms to them
then someone woll. Dewan 18 tell us that “Arms deals are often done in
secret or with little publicity. The Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI) tries to track deals involving major weapons, and a
database of Saudi imports from the last decade shows the United States
as the biggest supplier, followed by the United Kingdom, France, Spain
and then Germany” A2: Bad For the Environment (OIL TRADE)
1. Climate change is irreversible , and we have clearly passed the point to return to a stable climate. Wang 18 tell us that “the scale and trigger
points of the feedbacks have finally been calculated, more or less. We
have already passed the point where a return to the stable climate of the
past 14,000 years is possible, and we are on course for "Hothouse Earth".
The best we can do is try to stabilise the warming at or just below +2C,
and that will not be possible without major human interventions in the
climate system.
2. Turn the argument because The US is a drop in the bucket , and China's
emissions continue to increase. The Fincialial times in 2018 states that
“China’s carbon emissions are on track to rise at their fastest pace in more
than seven years during 2018, casting further doubt on the ability of the
Paris climate change agreement to curb dangerous greenhouse gas
increases, according to a Greenpeace analysis based on Beijing’s own
data. Carbon emissions in the country, the world’s largest emitter of
greenhouse gases, rose 4 per cent in the first quarter of this year,
according to calculations by the environmental group based on Chinese
government statistics covering coal, cement, oil and gas. A2: Weaken Saudi Arabian Governance
1. De-Link Saudi Arabia Government is already improving and arms sales
gives us a key bargaining chip to influence its governmental development.
Weapons Sales give the US substantial leverage in dealing with Saudi
Arabia which is necessary to promote Reform. 2. Turn the argument because Trevor 18 tell us that “The United States has
used arms sales to try to encourage states to vote with the United States
at the UN, to support or adopt pro- Western and pro-U.S. foreign policies,
to convince Egypt and Israel to accept peace accords, and to gain access to military bases in places such as Greece, Turkey, Kenya, Somalia, Oman,
and the Philippines. After the Cold War, the United States also sought to
tie arms transfers to human rights and democratization efforts in client
state”. A2: Weaken Us Soft Power
1. 2. 3. Turn the argument because Our Alliance with Saudi Arabia Gives us an
invaluable strategic and geographic partner in the Middle east. Saudi
Arabia is at the centerpiece of many relationships between non-Muslim
and Muslim societies. Generally, Saudi Arabia works alongside the United
States to achieve political and foreign policy goals, rather than being
counterproductive.
De-link “ Saudi Arabia's geographic location and wealth of natural
resources makes it a powerful and crucial ally for the United State. Spross
18 tell us that “ This power over oil makes Saudi Arabia one of the key
linchpins in the global economy, as swings in the global economy since the
1970s have been strongly influenced by the price of oil.
Furthermore The interests of the two nations have accorded on many
fronts, often due to the willingness of the Saudis to accommodate
American foreign policy goals. The Kingdom has consistently interceded in
OPEC arrangements to prevent ruinous energy prices for the West,
accommodated American security interests in allowing American air bases
and military passage for its operations, served effectively as a balancer in
the Middle East, offered its services to quell regional friction in peace
initiatives pushed by the US, and taken a strong stand against terrorism A2: UN Arms Treaty
1. First Realize that Adhering to this treaty would ...
View
Full Document
