Varsity-Packet-Final

It would also speed up the arms race and develop the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: e GAO’s findings could not have come at a worst time, on the heels of an international study on maritime trafficking that reveals weapons, drugs and banned missile are regularly smuggled aboard reputable ships owned by major companies in the U.S. and Europe. 7|Page Port Security Affirmative BDL 1AC 4/5 Use of WMD in a port will destroy nearby population centers Jon D. Haveman and Howard J. Shatz, Public Policy Institute of California, 2006 (Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Costs, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_606jhr.pdf) Beyond their economic role, the largest seaports are also near major population centers, so the use of a weapon of mass destruction at a port could injure or kill thousands of people. In addition, a weapon such as a nuclear device could cause vast environmental and social disruption and destroy important non-port infrastructure in these urban areas such as airports and highway networks. A successful nuclear terrorist attack would cause a police state Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly political analyst, 2004 (Al-Ahram Weekly, "Extinction!" 8/26, no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails , it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilizations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. Therefore we propose the following Plan: The United States federal government should increase investment in its transportation infrastructure by investing in enhanced detection for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons at US ports. 8|Page Port Security Affirmative BDL 1AC 5/5 Contention 3 – Solvency US needs to increase funding and support for port security Jon D. Haveman and Howard J. Shatz, Public Policy Institute of California, 2006 (Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Costs, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_606jhr.pdf) Finally, the U.S. government should reconsider the level of staffing and funding devoted to port security efforts. Under current programs, 12,000 facility and vessel security plans and more than 5,600 C-TPAT plans will need monitoring (with the number of C-TPAT plans steadily rising). The U.S. Coast Guard has gained a large set of new duties that need staffing. New technologies need developing. Customs officials must review large amounts of new information to target high-risk containers. Personnel from the Coast Guard and other parts of the government need training in tasks previously unknown to them. Finally, new security equipment will need maintenance, repair, and upgrading. Increasing investment will protect ports Wendy Keefer,...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online