CASE

Conditionality BadConditionality is a voter:

1. Advocacy Skills – force them to defend one position throughout the entire debate, its reciporical2. Bad Neg Research – shouldn’t be rewarded for lazy neg research, force them to find the best

answer to the aff 3. Forces Contradictory Answers – prevents the 2AC from reading its best offense, could be

crossapplied to another flow4. Time Skew – overspread us in the 2AC and create a shallow debate and preventing clash and

depth of education5. Strat skew – prevent us from reading our best offense out of fear of contradictions6. Depth over breadth – it is more important to learn about things in detail than learn little about a

variety of things – only debate provides this education.7. Neg side bias – the negative gets the block and pre-round disclosure 8. Its not what you do its what you justify – view the debate as the interp against the counter interp9. Interp – 1 Conditional world, prevents contradicting truth claims. Their interp is arbitrary and 

self serving.

AUVs are highly capable and configurable tools for a variety of missionsElvander and Hawkes, 2012, Blue Finn Ocean Technology; engineer Deepflight underwater submersible (Josh and Graham, “ROVs and AUVs in Support of Marine Renewable Technologies,” Bluefin Robotics Papers, http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/assets/Papers/ROVs-and-AUVs-in-Support-of-Marine-Renewable-Technologies-by-Elvander-Hawkes-Oct2012.pdf, ASG)The Bluefin Robotics Autonomous Underwater Vehicle ( AUV ) is an extremely versatile system that can be utilized for a wide range of missions. For shallow or deep survey applications, the Bluefin AUV is a highly capable , extensively configurable tool that can be used to obtain high quality data from a wide array of oceanographic sensors. An AUV is able to maintain sensor positioning at an ideal height above the seafloor during surveys, is unaffected by surface sea states, and can follow a rough terrain to produce the best possible images. Bluefin Robotics offers a wide range of products to meet the needs of a variety of customers, including propeller-driven torpedo form-factor AUVs, a hovering AUV (HAUV), and a glider. Bluefin’s torpedo form-factor AUVs come in three different diameters: 9-in, 12-in, and 21-in. The Bluefin torpedo form-factor vehicle and the HAUV are shown below in Figure 1. The length of the 12-in and 21-in vehicles is variable from one to eight meters to meet the demands of the specific application. The vehicles make use of free-flooded modularity to create a robust system that is field maintainable, easily expandable and customizable , and some are equipped with field-swappable payload sections. Inside the free-flooding hull are a number of subsystems protected within their own pressure vessels or oil-filled, pressure-tolerant assemblies. The most critical of these subsystems is the Main Electronics Housing (MEH), which contains the main vehicle computer, power distribution network, Doppler Velocity Logger (DVL), navigation system, and a variety of other subsystems. A wide array of payloads has been successfully integrated into Bluefin AUVs, including side scan sonar (SSS), synthetic aperture sonar (SAS), multibeam echosounders, sub-bottom profilers, cameras, magnetometers, water sampling systems, fluorometers, conductivity and temperature sensors, and sound velocity sensors, to name a few. Collection of high quality data with these payloads requires a combination of high accuracy navigation data and stable vehicle dynamics . Stable vehicle dynamics are achieved through closed loop control of vehicle motion in trackline or trackcircle modes, while operating at any depth or altitude above the seafloor. Vehicle propulsion, as well as horizontal and vertical control, is achieved by an articulated,

ducted thruster known as the tailcone. The system is designed to be passively stable in roll due to a proper separation of the center of buoyancy and the center of gravity. The tailcone is designed to be torque-neutral over a wide range of speeds, and thus roll is minimally affected by propeller speed. Navigation on a Bluefin AUV involves a fusion of data from several sensors. Selection of an appropriate navigation option depends on the vehicle configuration, operating depth, navigation accuracy specifications, and budget. Shallow water systems with moderate navigation accuracy requirements will often use a compass-based navigation solution. These systems achieve a quality navigation solution through the integration of a tactical-grade Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), digital magnetic compass, DVL, GPS receiver, pressure/depth sensor, and a sound speed sensor.

[AUVs Long Distance]

AUVs can work for years – solar and heat energy are inexhaustibleBlidberg, Director of the Autonomous Undersea Systems Institute, 1 (Richard, 2001, IEEE ICRA,”The Development of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV)”, http://ausi.org/publications/ICRA_01paper.pdf)Solar Energy is now being used to power an AUV [AUSI]. This system demands a detailed design of onboard energy management; both during the acquisition phase, as well as, the utilization phase of operations. It is an inexhaustible energy source but requires an AUV to surface while recharging. The Glider AUVs [Simonetti] utilize heat energy to vary the buoyancy of an AUV that can glide up and downin the water column. The potential endurance of such a system is measured in years.

Cap K

1. Their framework is arbitrary – you can’t just ignore everything we said in the1AC because they don’t think it’s important. That kills clash and leads to pointless debates where people talk past each other. Make them explain how their argument responds to what we said.

a. The debate should be about the desirability of the plan were it to be done by the federal government.

b. Alternative role of the ballot claims like “evaluate the ethics of neoliberalism” are unpredictable, infinitely-regressive, and promote a bad method of political engagement that leaves us unable to change to better the world around us.

c. If we win that our specific use of neoliberalism is good, then our advantages are also defenses of our representations and epistemic

approach.

2. The case outweighs – providing food and saving the environemnt is more important. We are forcing the US to take responsibility for the havoc they wreaked through capitalistic/neolib ideology, particularly the devastation of the environment and the subsequent lack of food resources. We don’t want to build AUVs for profit; we literally just want people to stop dying avoidabledeaths.

3. They have no one to implement the alternative which makes it impossible for the alternative to solve for structural violence. We have the same impacts, but our plan has a real world, policy option that can solve. Our planis the only option for reducing the oppression caused by capitalism.

Apolitical alternatives fail Rorty 98 (prof of philosophy at Stanford, Richard, 1998, “achieving our country”, Pg. 7-9)JFSSuch people find pride in American citizenship impossible, and vigorous participation in electoral politics pointless. They associate American patriotism with an endorsement of atrocities: the importation of Africanslaves, the slaughter of Native Americans, the rape of ancient forests, and the Vietnam War. Many of them think of national pride as appropriate only for chauvinists: for

the sort of American who rejoices that America can still orchestrate something like the Gulf War, can still bring deadly force to bear whenever and wherever it chooses. When young intellectuals watch John Wayne war movies after reading Heidegger, Foucault , Stephenson, or Silko, they often become convinced that they live in a violent , inhuman, corrupt country . They begin to

think of themselves as a saving remnant-as the happy few who have the insight to see through nationalist rhetoric to the ghastly reality of contemporary America. But this insight does not move them to formulate a legislative program, to join a political movement, or to share in a national hope. The contrast between national hope and national self-mockery and self-disgust becomes vivid when one compares novels like Snow Crash and Almanac of the Dead with socialist novels of the first half of the century-books like The Jungle, An American Tragedy, and The Grapes of Wrath. The latter were written in the belief that the tone of the Gettysburg Address was absolutely right, but that our country would have to transform itself in order to fulfill Lincoln's hopes. Transformation would be needed because the rise of industrial capitalism had made the individualist rhetoric of America's first century obsolete. The authors of these novels thought that this rhetoric should be replaced by onein which America is destined to become the first cooperative commonwealth, the first classless society. This America would be one in which income and wealth are equitably distributed, and in which the government ensures equality of opportunity as well as individual liberty. This new, quasi-communitarian rhetoric was at the heart ofthe Progressive Movement and the New Deal. It set the tone for the American Left during the first six decades of the twentieth century. Walt Whitman and John Dewey, as

we shall see, did a great deal to shape this rhetoric. The difference between early twentieth-century leftist

intellectuals and the majority of their contemporary counterparts is the difference between agents and spectators. In the early decades of this century, when an intellectual stepped back from his or her country's history and looked at it through skeptical eyes, the chances were that he orshe was about to propose a new political initiative. Henry Adams was, of course, the great exception-the great abstainer from ·politics. But William James thought that Adams' diagnosis of the First Gilded Age as a symptom of irreversible moral and political decline was merely perverse. James's pragmatist theory of truth was in part a reaction against the sort of detached spectators hip which Adams affected. For James, disgust with American hypocrisy and self-

deception was pointless unless accompanied by an effort to give America reason to be proud of itself in the future. The kind of proto- Heideggerian cultural pessimism which Adams cultivated seemed, to James, decadent and cowardly. "Democracy," James wrote, "is a kind of religion, and we are bound not to admit its failure. Faiths and utopias are the noblest exercise of human reason, and no one with a spark of reason in him will sit down

4. NO LINK – Simply the use of the private sector and exploring to achieve a communally beneficial goal is not capitalistic. We aren't going in the plan with the goal of making profit on the back of people or the environment, but we are actually trying to better the status quo. They can't pin us downin a link of omission of capitalist ideology simply because we use the private sector. Make them bring out specific evidence as to how AUVs promote capitalism; otherwise, ignore the link.

NO LINK – Extend Stump 11 – Overfishing is a capitalist impact and when we solve for it it means weare solving for capitalism. Our aff is a step in the right direction.

5. The Alternative Fails

A) Can’t solve the aff – the alt doesn’t encourage AUVs, so it can't solve for food security and environmental data.

B) Can’t solve the kritik—in order to solve for all of their impacts, they have to have present a viable alt to capitalist system. They don’t do this.

Richards 9 – PhD in Philosophy @ PrincetonJay Richards, PhD with honors in Philosophy and Theology from Princeton, “Money,Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem,” pg. 31-32Myth no. 1: The Nirvana Myth (contrasting capitalism with an unrealizable ideal rather thanwith its live alternatives) But the myth can have subtle effects even if we reject utopian schemes. To avoid its dangers, we have to resist the temptation to compare our live options with an ideal that we can never realize . When we ask whether we can build a just society, we need to keep the question nailed to solid ground: just compared with what? It doesn’t do anyone any good to tear down a society that is “unjust ” compared with the kingdom of God if that society is more just than any of the ones that will replace it. Compared with Nirvana, no real society looks good. Compared with utopia , Stalinist Russia and America at its best will both get bad reviews . The differences between them may seem trivial compared to utopia. That’s one of the grave danger s of utopian thinking: it blinds us to the important differences among the various ways of ordering society. The Nirvana Myth dazzles the eyes, to the point that the real alternatives all seem like dull and barely distinguishable shades of gray. The free exchange of wages for work in the marketplace starts to look like slavery. Tough competition for market share between companies is confused with theft and survival of the fittest. Banking is

confused with usury and exploitation. This shouldn’t surprise us. Of course a modern capitalist society like the United States looks terrible compared with thekingdom of God. But that’s bad moral reasoning. The question isn’t whether capitalism measures up to the kingdom of God. The question is whether there’s a better alternative in this life. “Those who condemn the immorality of liberal capitalism do so in comparison with a society of saints that has never existed —and never will.” —Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works If we’re going to compare modern capitalism with an extreme, we should compare it with a real extreme—like communism in Cambodia , China, or the Soviet Union. Unlike Nirvana, these experiments are well within our power to bring about. They all reveal the terrible cost of trying to create a society in which ev- eryone is economically equal. If we insist on comparing live options with live options, modern capitalism could hardly be more different, more just, or more desirable than such an outcome. That doesn’t mean we should rest on our laurels. It means we need to stay focused on reality rather than romantic ideals. So how should we answer the question that began this chap- ter: can’t we build a just society? The answer: we should do everything we can to build a more just society and a more just world . And the worst way to do that is to try to create an egalitarian utopia .

6. Alt Fails - The short timeframe for action means quick policy solutions are key – otherwise warming will overtake us and prevent radical changes to society

Parenti, Soros Senior Justice Fellow, 2013

(Christian, “A Radical Approach to the Climate Crisis” Dissent Magazine, Online: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-radical-approach-to-the-climate-crisis)

And the very bad news is, time has run out . As I write this, news arrives of an ice-free arctic summer by 2050. Scientists once assumed that would not happen for hundreds of years. Dealing with climate change by first achieving radical social transformation — be it a socialist or anarchist ordeep-ecological/neo-primitive revolution, or a nostalgia-based localistaconversion back to a mythical small-town capitalism — would be a very long and drawn-out , maybe even multigenerational, struggle . It would be marked by years of mass education and organizing of a scale and intensity not seen in most core capitalist states since the 1960s or eventhe 1930s. Nor is there any guarantee that the new system would not also degrade the soil, lay waste to the forests, despoil bodies of water,and find itself still addicted to coal and oil . Look at the history of “ actually existing socialism ” before its collapse in 1991 . To put it mildly, the economy was not at peace with nature . Or consider the vexing complexities facing the left social democracies of Latin America. Bolivia, and Ecuado r, states run by socialists who are beholden to very powerful, autonomous grassroots movements, are still very dependent on petroleum revenue. A more radical approach to the crisis of climate

change begins not with a long-term vision of an alternate society but with an honest engagement with the very compressed timeframe that current climate science implies . In the age of climate change, these are the real parameters of politics. Hard Facts The scientific consensus , expressed in peer-reviewed and professionally vetted and published scientific literature, runs as follows : For the last 650,000 years atmospheric levels of CO2—the primary heat-trapping gas—have hovered at around 280 parts per million (ppm). At no point in the preindustrial era did CO2 concentrations go above 300 ppm. By 1959, they had reached 316 ppm and are now over 400 ppm. And the rate of emissions is accelerating . Since 2000, the world has pumped almost 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere—about a quarterof all CO2 emissions since 1750. At current rates, CO2 levels will double by mid-century. Climate scientists believe that any increase in average global temperatures beyond 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will lead to dangerous climate change , causing large-scale desertification, crop failure, inundation of coastal cities, mass migration t o higher and cooler ground, widespread extinctions of flora and fauna , proliferating disease, and possible social collapse . Furthermore, scientists now understand that the earth’s climate system has not evolved in a smooth linear fashion. Paleoclimatology has uncovered evidence of sudden shifts in the earth’s climate regimes. Ice ages have stopped and started not in a matter of centuries, but decades. Sea levels (which are actually uneven across the globe) have risen and fallen more rapidly than was once believed. Throughout the climate system, there exist dangerous positive-feedback loops and tipping points . A positive-feedback loop is a dynamic in which effects compound, accelerate, or amplify the original cause . Tipping points in theclimate system reflect the fact that causes can build up while effects lag. Then, when the effects kick in, they do so all at once, causing the relatively sudden shift from one climate regime to another.

7. Permutation – do both – global warming and food scarcity are the worst manifestations of capitalism. They are an examples of an out of control system using violent economics to ruin the planet and society in the name of profit – removing them is the opposite of what your authors criticize. Neoliberal economics can be refined in ways that resolve oppression – the 1AC is an example of this because it generates social growth for people who are heavily disadvantaged under the current order.

Ferguson ’11 Ferguson, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford, 11(The Uses of Neoliberalism, Antipode, Vol. 41, No. S1, pp 166–184)If we are seeking, as this special issue of Antipode aspires to do, to link our critical analyses to the world of grounded political struggle —not only to interpret the world in various ways, but also to change it—then there is much to be said for focus ing, as I have here, on mundane, real- world debates around policy and politics, even if doing so inevitably puts us on the compromised and reformist terrain of the possible, rather than the seductive high ground of revolutionary ideals and utopian desires. But I would also insist that there is more at stake in the examples I have discussed here than simply a slightly better way to ameliorate the miseries of the chronically poor ,or a technically superior method for relieving the suffering of famine victims.¶ My point in

discussing the South African BIG campaign, for instance, is not really to argue for its implementation. There is much in the campaign that is appealing, to be sure. But one can just as easily identify a series of worries that would bring the whole proposal into doubt. Does not, for instance, the decoupling of thequestion of assistance from the issue of labor, and the associated valorization of the “informal”, help provide a kind of alibi for the failures of the South African regime to pursue policies that would do more to create jobs? Would not the creation of a basic income benefit tied to national citizenship simplyexacerbate the vicious xenophobia that already divides the South African poor,¶ in a context where many of the poorest are not citizens, and would thus not be eligible for the BIG? Perhaps even more fundamentally, is the idea of basic income really capable of commanding the mass support that alone could make it a central pillar of a new approach to distribution? The record to date gives powerful reasons to doubt it. So far, the technocrats’ dreams of relieving poverty through efficient cash transfers have attracted little support from actual poor people, who seem to find that vision a bit pale and washedout, compared with the vivid (if vague) populist promises of jobs and personalistic social inclusion longoffered by the ANC patronage machine, and lately personified by Jacob Zuma (Ferguson forthcoming).¶ My real interest in the policy proposals discussed here, in fact, has little to do with the narrow policy questions to which they seek to provide answers. For what is most significant, for my purposes, is not whether or not these are good policies, but the way that they illustrate a process through which specific governmental devices and modes of reasoning that we have become used toassociating with a very particular (and conservative) political agenda (“neoliberalism”) may be in the process of being peeled away from that agenda, and put to very different uses . Any progressive who takes seriously the challenge I pointed to at the start of this essay, the challenge of developing new progressive arts of government, ought to find this turn of events of considerable interest.¶ As Steven Collier (2005) has recently pointed out, it is important to question the assumption that there is, or must be, a neat or automatic fit between a hegemonic “ neoliberal ” political-economic project (however that might be characterized), on the one hand, and specific “ neoliberal” techniques , on the other. Close attention to particular techniques (such as the use of quantitative calculation, free choice, and price driven by supply and demand) in particular settings (in Collier’s case, fiscal and budgetary reform in post-Soviet Russia) shows that the relationship between the technical and the political-economic “ is much more polymorphous and unstable thanis assumed in much critical geographical work”, and that neoliberal technical mechanisms are in fact “ deployed in relation to diverse political projects and social norms” (2005:2).¶ As I suggested in referencing the role of statistics and techniques for pooling risk in the creation of social democratic welfare states, social technologies need not have any essential or eternal loyalty to the political formations within which they were first developed. Insurance rationality at the end of the nineteenth century had no essential vocation to provide security and solidarity to the working class; it was turned to that purpose (in some substantial measure) because it was available, in the right place at the right time, to be appropriated for that use. Specific ways of solving or posing governmental problems , specific institutional and intellectual mechanisms, can be combined in an almost infinite variety of ways, to accomplish different social ends . With social, as with any other sort of technology, it is not the machines or the mechanisms that decide what they will be used to do.¶ Foucault (2008:94) concluded his discussion of socialist government- ality by insisting that the answers to the Left’s governmental problems require not yet another search through our sacred texts, but a process of conceptual and institutional innovation. “[I]f there is a really socialist governmentality, then it is not hidden within socialism and its texts. It cannot be deduced from them. It must be invented”. But invention in the domain of governmental technique is rarely something worked up out of whole cloth. More often, it involves a kind of bricolage (Le vi- Strauss 1966), a piecing together of something new out of scavenged parts originally intended for some other purpose. As we pursue such a process of improvisatory invention, we might begin by making an inventory of the parts available for such tinkering, keeping all the while an open mind about how different mechanisms might be put to work,

and what kinds of purposes they might serve. If we can go beyond seeing in “ neoliberalism” an evil essence or an automatic unity, and instead learn to see a field of specific government al techniques , we may be surprised to find that some of them can be repurposed, and put to work in the service of political projects very different from those usually associated with that word. If so, we may find that the cabinet of government al arts available to us is a bit less bare than first appeared, and that some rather useful little mechanisms may be nearer to hand than we thought.

8. Perm – Do the plan as the last act of capitalism

10. Perm do the plan then the alternative. Double bind: Either the alternative is strong enough to solve the residual link of the affirmative, thus perm works, or alt can't solve and the K is useless.

11. Utopian alternatives bad –

a) Not real world – policy makers do not sit around for yearsbefore something happens

b) Hurts education – we are not debating actual harms, but are debating theoretical situations that might happen

c) Reason to reject – voter for fairness

12. Technology makes capitalist growth sustainable – the last half century proves our argumentCraig S. Marxsen, Associate Professor, Economics, University of Nebraska, Kearney, “Prophecy de Novo: The Nearly Self-Fulfilling Doomsday Forecast,” INDEPENDENT REVIEW v. 7 n. 3, January 2003, p. 325+.Mark Sagoff (1995) writes that some of the foremost mainstream economic thinkers dismiss the idea of limits to growth because knowledge (technology) effectively substitutes for natural resources and services of the natural environment. According to Sagoff, Solow found that past growth depended "simply on the rate of (labor-augmenting) technological change" andthat "most of the growth of the economy over the last century had been due to technological progress" (1995, 611). Sagoff notes that ecological specialists such as Herman Daly, on the other hand, argue that further growth will soon prove impossible because of limits imposed by sources of raw materials and sinks for wastes. Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Daly, Robert Costanza,

and Donella Meadows (1992) have mounted arguments against the growth model of neoclassical economics, but Sagoff shows that these arguments fail. He cites impartial assessments of the sufficiency of exploitable energy resource reserves, and he explains how price signals have shifted forestry and fishing from extractive to farming approaches. Potential food supplies seem more than adequate and are amenable to technological augmentation. Even the seemingly most serious chemical threats to the environment, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), demand little more than shifting out of activities that create risks out of proportion to their benefits. Sagoffconcludes that ecological economics fails at every turn to show that growth is unsustainable .

13. Capitalism is human nature and thus inevitableWilkinson 5 – Academic Coordinator of the Social Change Project and the Global Prosperity Initiative

at The Mercatus Center at George Mason University Will, Capitalism and Human Nature, Cato Policy Report Vol. XXVII No. 1

Property Rights are Natural The problem of distributing scarce resources can be handled in part by implicitly coercive allocative hierarchies. An alternative solution to the problem of distribution is the recognition and enforcement of property rights.

Property rights are prefigured in nature by the way animals mark out territories for their exclusive use in foraging, hunting, and mating. Recognition of such rudimentary claims to control and exclude minimizes costly conflict, which by itself provides a strongevolutionary reason to look for innate tendencies to recognize and respect norms of property. New scientific research provides even stronger evidence for the existence of such property "instincts." For example, recent experimental work by Oliver Goodenough, a legal theorist, and

Christine Prehn, a neuroscientist, suggests that the human mind evolved specialized modules for making judgments about moral transgressions, and transgressions against property in particular. Evolutionary psychology can help us to understand that property rights are not created simply bystrokes of the legislator's pen. Mutually Beneficial Exchange is Natural Trade and mutually beneficial exchange are human universals, as is the division of labor. In their groundbreaking paper, "Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange," Cosmides and Tooby point out that, contrary to widespread belief,

hunter-gatherer life is not "a kind of retro-utopia" of "indiscriminate, egalitarian cooperation and sharing." The archeological and ethnographic evidence shows that hunter-gatherers were involved in

numerous forms of trade and exchange. Some forms of hunter-gatherer trading can involve quite complex specialization and the interaction of supply and demand. Most impressive, Cosmides and

Tooby have shown through a series of experiments that human beings are able easily to solve complex logicalpuzzles involving reciprocity, the accounting of costs and benefits, and the detection of people who have cheated on agreements. However, we are unable to solve formally identical puzzles that do not deal with questions of social exchange. That, they argue, points to the existence of "functionally specialized, content-dependent cognitive adaptations for social exchange." In other words, the human mind is "built" to trade.

BATAILLE!!! Perm:

Perm. DO Both. Perm solves best – captures the benefits of social criticism while avoiding the harms of total contestation. Richard WOLIN , Distinguished Professor of History and Comparative Literature at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2004 [“"Left Fascism: Georges Bataille and the German Ideology," The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism, Published by Princeton University Press, ISBN 9781400825967, p. 167-168]

Mauss's Weberian lament concerning the fragmentation of modern life is accompanied by admiration for premodern communities Mauss's flamboyant descriptions of sacrifice, potlatch, gift-giving, and other nonutilitarian forms of ritual were undoubtedly the main sources for Bataille's theory of expenditure or nonproductive consumption. But Mauss's conclusions are unproblematic in a way that Bataille's are not. Mauss—who was politically allied with the French Socialist Party (SFIO)—merely sought to restore an element of balance in advanced industrial societies whose relation to nonutilitarian modes of social interaction had seriously atrophied. His critique represented as a welcome corrective to their potentially debilitating uniformity.Bataille's stance was in fact quite different. His critique of modernity was intended neither as a palliative nor as a corrective, but , in keepingwith the leitmotif of transgression, as a type of (non- Hegelian) supersession.' Bataille appeals for a total break with the modernity. He rejects not only its utilitarian predispositions and [end page 167] excesses but also its very status as a form of life: its cultural, political, legal, ethical, and aesthetic aspects. Thus, his theory inclines toward a totalizing indictment of modernity that shares marked affinities with the critique of civilization proffered by the German conservative revolutionaries. Their shared belief that the shortcomings of the modern age can be remedied neither piecemeal nor from within entails an ethos of total contestation.

Bataille votes aff. When genuine large-scale violence is at stake the aesthetic games must end. You take Bataille’s theories too far – the perm is the best option – we have to avoid indiscriminateviolence. Kenneth ITZKOWITZ, 1999, Associate Professor of Philosophy – Marietta College, “To witness spectacles of pain: The hypermorality of Georges Bataille” College Literature, WinterYet in our lives there are also limits. It is unlikely that Bataille would applaud Manson for the same reason he ultimately rejects Sade. They are both indiscriminate; they both go too far. "Continuity is what we are after," Bataille confirms, but generally only if that continuity which the death of discontinuous beings can alone establish is not the victor in the long run. What we desire is to bring into a world foundedon discontinuity all the continuity such a world can sustain. De Sade's aberration exceeds that limit. (Bataille 1962, 13) In other words, our wasteful consumption must also have limits. To actually approve of our own self-destruction goes too far. Later on in Death and Sensuality, Bataille continues, Short of a paradoxical capacity to defend the indefensible, no one would suggest that the cruelty of the heroes of Justine and Juliette should not be wholeheartedly abominated. It is a denial of the principles on which humanity is founded. We are bound to reject something that would end in the ruin of all our works. If instinct urges us to destroy the very thing we are building we must condemn those instincts and defend ourselves from them. (Bataille 1962, 179-80) This passage is crucial for understanding Bataille's ethics. Usually Bataille writes on behalf of the violence that remains unaffected by absolute prohibitions. Prohibitions cannot obviate this transformative violence. There is always ample motive to produce the experiences of sacred transformation, i.e., to transgress the prohibitions. Yet self-preservation is also a fundamental value for Bataille; there is also ample motive to resist the violence that denies the value of the well being of life itself. As he says in the second of the above passages, we must condemn what threatens to destroy us; our sovereign aspirations can be taken too far. In another passage he speaks of our need "to become aware of . . . [ourselves] and to know clearly what . . . [our] sovereign aspirations are in order to limit their possibly disastrous consequences" (1962, 181). It is when we are ignorant of these aspirations that we are most vulnerable to them, enacting them anyway, albeit inattentively.

Perm. Vote aff to provide the background of stability against which disruption becomes possible.Radical rejection eliminates the capacity for transgression to have purchaseBataille says that perpetual chaos is more boring than strict adherence to rules, which means we outweigh both in a policy AND an aesthetic framework

John Fortuna, Ph.d candidate in Political Philosophy and International Relations, UC-Santa Barbara, “Loss and Sacrifice in the Thought of Georges Bataille (And their Political Implications),” Prepared forthe Conference of the Western Political Science Association, March 19-21, 2009, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p317285_index.htmlWhile it is certainly the case that Bataille’s position does require some sort of re- working of our practices (or perhaps more importantly, the way in which we understand those we currently have) in order to accommodate the experience of sacrificial loss, this does not necessarily entail a complete upheaval of society and politics. As disruptive as sacrifice may be to the stable and logical forms

which tend to comprise profane existence, it does not seem to be the case that Bataille is recommending that we simply overturn all things profane. In fact, Bataille specifically argues against such action where, in Guilty, he says, Life is a result of disequilibrium and instability. Stable forms are needed to make it possible however….To shrink from fundamental stability isn’t less cowardly than to hesitate about shattering it. Perpetual instability is more boring than adhering strictly to a rule, and only what’s in existence can be made to come into disequilibrium, thatis, to be sacrificed. The more equilibrium the object has, the more complete it is, and the greater the disequilibrium or sacrifice that can result (Bataille 1988b, 28-29). Perhaps the most important insight to take from this quote is that sacrifice (here emphasized as that which disrupts what is) depends upon the logical and stable forms that are marks of the profane world of work and utility. Because sacrifice might be said to represent a transgression of the norms of the profane world, it follows that these norms must exist in order for such a transgression to occur in the first place. While Ihave been emphasizing the importance for Bataille of sacrificial loss (and to the extent that it follows from it—disruption), in this passage he seems to be affording some sort of recognition to the importance of values like stability, that are associated not with the sacred but rather the profane.

- Case outweighs. The capacity to exercise sovereign will depends on a background of liberal freedom. People killed in wars or stamped under the boot of authoritarian regimes have no capacity to exercise their radical will.

- Turn – the status quo is premised on limitations – the lack of AUV development restricts abundant activity. The plan removes this barrier, allowing us squander resources as we will... just more responsibly.

- They link to their own critique. A. They can’t articulate a reason to vote negative that doesn’t fall back into the trap of repression. Why reject the aff? Why be concerned with our radical potential? Every answer to these questions reproduces a logic of future value B. Choice is key. The K proposes a radical individuality, based on absolute sovereignty of decision. Even if they’re right that this is true, it’s a choice they can only make for themselves. Demanding that the whole world die to prove their point is the pinnacle of representational logic.They impose a static meaning to the world, where all questions must be sublimated under the ‘struggle against problematic excess.’ This is the antithesis of genuine sovereign decision

Celebrating expenditure for its own sake is non-sensical – their criticism links to itself.Richard WOLIN , Distinguished Professor of History and Comparative Literature at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2004 [“"Left Fascism: Georges Bataille and the German Ideology," The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism, Published by Princeton University Press, ISBN 9781400825967, p. 165 // BATMAN]

At times, Bataille's celebration of transgression for its own sake seems woefully simplistic. In lieu of a conceptual framework that would permit one to distinguish between constructive and retrograde instances of transgression, we are left with an ethos of shock, rupture, and disruption simpliciter. Bataille seeks to ground postmodern ethics in the attitudes of a cultural avant-garde (Acephale and the College of Sociology) oriented toward precapitalist life forms that modernity has scorned. Yet the very idea of achieving a conceptual reckoning with Bataille-generated ideals such as "transgression," "heterogeneity," and "expenditure" would seem inimical to their very spirit . In his idiom, to rely on procedures of principled legitimation or a rational accountability would be to succumb to the logic and rhetoric of "productive consumption"—the values of a society predicated on instrumental reason and commodity exchange.

The critique is ivory tower elitism – only the rich and powerful can afford to expend without reserve. Richard WOLIN , Distinguished Professor of History and Comparative Literature at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2004 [“"Left Fascism: Georges Bataille and the German Ideology," The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism, Published by Princeton University Press, ISBN 9781400825967, p. 170-171 // BATMAN]

One could raise an analogous criticism of Bataille's treatment of potlatch—the public, demonstrative destruction of wealth—as well [end page 170] as gift-giving. In truth, only those who possess great wealth can afford to destroy it. Consequently, the option to engage in potlatch does not exist for society's lower classes. 56 Like sacrifice, potlatch is implicated in the reproduction of social hierarchy. Such acts reinforce the status and prestige of those who destroy their wealth. In nearly every case, the practitioners of potlatch belong to the upper strata of society. Those who are forced to passively endure the potlatch are in effect humiliated. Through such acts, their lowly social rank is reaffirmed .

NO LINK:

Bataille’s theory of expenditure doesn’t apply to postmodern consumer capitalism, which is based on massive amounts of consumption and waste – exactly what Bataille advocates.Yang 2000 (Mayfair Mei-hui, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California Santa Barbara, has held fellowships at the Center for Chinese Studies of the University of Michigan, the Chicago Humanities Institute, University of Chicago, and the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, “Putting Global Capitalism in Its Place: Economic Hybridity, Bataille, and Ritual Expenditure,” Current Anthropology, University of Chicago Journals)

Scholars such as Jean‐Joseph Goux (1998) have pointed to a troubling overlap between Bataille’s views on luxury and sacrificial expenditure and postmodern consumer capitalism. Consumer capitalism is also predicated on massive consumption and waste rather than on the thrift, asceticism, and accumulation against which Bataille directed his theory of expenditure . It exhibits potlatch features in the tendency for businesses to give goods away in the hope that “supply creates its own demand”; it collapses the distinction between luxury and useful goods and between need and desire (Goux 1998). Unlike

modernist capitalism, postmodern consumer capitalism is driven by consumption rather than production. Thus, Bataille’svision of the ritual destruction of wealth as defying the principles of accumulative and productive capitalism does not address this different phase of consumer capitalism , whose contours have only become clear since his death in 1962. It seems to me that despite their overt similarities, the principles of ritual consumption and those of consumer capitalism are basically incompatible. If Bataille had addressed our consumer society today, he would have said that this sort ofconsumption is still in the service of production and productive accumulation, since every act of consumption in the world of leisure, entertainment, media, fashion, and home décor merely feeds back into the growth of the economy rather than leading to the finality and

loss of truly nonproductive expenditure. Even much of modern warfare is no longer truly destructive but tied into thefurthering of military ‐ industrial production. Nor, despite its economic excesses, does our consumer culture today challenge the basic economic logic of rational private accumulation as a self‐depleting archaic sacrificial economy does.15 Furthermore, capitalist consumption is very much anindividual consumption rather than one involving the whole community or social order.

TURNS:

Bataille is wrong - the world’s supply of energy and resources is finite and is being consumed rapidly now, risking extinction – only Aff solves for the impactsTverberg, 07 (Gail E., fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society and a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries, writes for Contingency magazine and TheOilDrum.com, “Our world is finite: Is this a problem?” Energy Bulletin/Our Finite World, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29117)

We all know the world is finite . The number of atoms is finite, and these atoms combine to form a finite number of molecules. The mix of molecules may change over time, but in total, the number of molecules is also finite.

We also know that growth is central to our way of life. Businesses are expected to grow. Every day new businesses are formed and new products are developed. The world population is also growing, so all this adds up to a huge utilization of resources. At some point, growth in resource utilization must collide with the fact that the world is finite. We have grown up thinking that the world is so large that limits will never be an issue. But now, we are starting to bump up against limits. Where are we reaching earth’s limits? 1. Oil Oil is a finiteresource , since it is no longer being formed. Oil production in a given area tends to increase for a time, then begins to decline, as the available oil is pumped out. Oil production in the United States has followed this pattern (Figure 1), as has oil production in the North Sea (Figure 2). This

decline has taken place in spite of technology improvements. There is now serious concern that world oil production will begin to decline (”peak”), just as it has in the United States and the North Sea. I discussed this earlier in Oil Quiz - Test Your Knowledge . A congressional committee was also concerned about this issue, and asked the US Government Accountability Office to study it. The GAO’s report, titled CRUDE OIL: Uncertainty about Future Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production confirmed that this is an important issue. Exactly how soon this decline will begin is not certain, but many predict that the decline may begin within the next few years. 2. Natural Gas

Natural gas in North America is also reaching its limits. United States natural gas production reached its peak in 1973. Each year, more and more wells are drilled, but the average amount of gas produced per well declines. This occurs because the best sites were developed first, and the later sites are more marginal. The United States has been importing more and more natural gas from Canada, but this is also reaching its limits. Because of these issues, the

total amount of natural gas available to the United States is likely to decline in the next few years - quite possibly leading to shortages. 3. Fresh WaterFresh water is needed for drinking and irrigation, but here too we are reaching limits. Water from melting ice caps is declining in quantity because of global warming. Water is being pumped from aquifers much faster than it is being replaced, and water tables are dropping by one to three meters a year in many areas. Some rivers, especially in China and Australia, are close to dry because of diversion for agriculture and a warming climate. In the United States, water limitations are especially important in the Southwest

and in the more arid part of the Plains States. 4. Top soil The topsoil we depend on for agriculture is created very slowly - about one inch in 300 to 500 years, depending on the location. The extensive tilling of the earth’s soil that is nowbeing done results in many stresses on this topsoil, including erosion, loss of organic matter, and chemical degradation. Frequent irrigation often results in salination, as well. As society tries to feed more and more people, and produce biofuel as well, there is pressure to push soil to its limits–use land in areas subject to erosion; use more and more fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides; and remove the organic material needed to build up the soil. Are there indirect impacts as well? Besides depleting oil, natural gas, fresh

water, and top soil, the intensive use of the earth’s resources is resulting in pollution of air and water, and appears to be contributing to global warming as well . Can technology overcome these finite world issues? While we have been trying to develop solutions, success has been limited to date. When we have tried to find substitutes, we have mostly managed to trade one problem for another:

CP

1. Perm do both—China will cooperate with other nations in ocean developmentXinhua Net, 12-10-13[Staff writer, China supports building of harmonious ocean: UN envoy, http://www.ecns.cn/voices/2013/12-10/92072.shtml] /Bingham-MBChina stands ready to promote the creation of a harmonious ocean t ogether with other nations, said a Chinese envoy to the UN on Monday.¶ "Issues related to oceans and the law of the sea have attracted more attention from the international society this year," said Liu Jieyi, China's permanent representative to the UN, at a UN General Assembly meeting on Oceans and the Law of the Sea.¶ "China is ready to further promote the construction of a harmonious ocean together with other nations ," said Liu, adding that based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international laws, China will work to contribute to the peace, security and openness of oceans.¶ Liu said that China highly commends the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for its contribution to a balanced handling of the legitimate rights and interests of coastal states and the overall interests of the international community .

2. International fiat is illegitimate

Not predictable—infinite amount of actors that the neg could fiat

No literature—no one write articles about a forced choice between Chinese and United States policy because no policy maker would have to make that choice

Not educational—international counterplans reduce the debate down to US key warrants whichare generic to ANY topic—prefer strategies that promote topic education

Any reason to reject the counterplan is a reason to reject the team because the damage has already been done

Theory is a voter for fairness and education

NO SOLVENCY – CHINA CAN'T EVEN CONTROL HONG KONG RIGHT NOW. IF THEY CAN'T CONTROL THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO EXECUTE A PLAN OF THIS SCALE? THEY CAN'T THATS WHYONLY PLAN OR PERM SOLVES.

4. No solvency—Chinese management leads to inadequate management and enforcement—causes waste of resources and poor decision making that undermine ocean development

C.C.I.C.E.D., 2010[China Council for international cooperation on the environment and development, Report of task forceat the annual general meeting, Ecosystem Issues and Policy Options Addressing Sustainable Development of China’s Ocean and Coast, http://www.cciced.net/encciced/policyresearch/report/201205/P020120529358302221866.pdf] /Bingham-MBFinally, there is a lack of information-sharing mechanisms. On one hand, the nation’s ¶ monitoring and data systems cannot satisfy the full needs for environmental protection ¶ because the monitoring standards are inadequate and enforcement is poor. On the other hand, ¶ there are many departments who monitor the environmental parameters of marine, river ¶ basin, and coastal pathways, including for environmental protection, marine quality, water ¶ quantity, fisheries stock assessments, and marine works. However, different departments use ¶ different monitoring standards and therefore generate different statistics. In some cases, conflicting situations arise , and therefore monitoring results are not readily shared among ¶ departments. Conflicting data pose a great threat to the development of an adequate marine ¶ management system. Overlapping work between monitoring agencies, and the lack of ¶ transparency of the data, cause a waste of resources and clearly contribute to poor decision ¶ making at the end of the day.

5. China can’t solve—minimal AUV development as for nowZhao, 4/8, Staff Writer at China Daily Asia[Lei, “Tech gap exposed in search mission,” China Daily Asia, 4/8/2014, http://www.chinadailyasia.com/news/2014-04/08/content_15129377.html]In China, the AUV is still in its infancy and far from being operational, Cui said.In November, the Qianlong-1 unmanned autonomous underwater vehicle completed its first application test in the eastern Pacific Ocean.Co-developed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Harbin Engineering University, it can travel to a depth of 6,000 meters, and is tasked to explore the seabed and collect hydrological data. The vehicle ison a trial run and marks the first time a Chinese AUV has been used for a scientific expedition, according to the academy.

6. Don’t access the solvency of the plan

Extend the Avery 13 evidence from the 1AC, Only U.S. federal investment can catalyze private sector tech and R&D development. Therefore no other actor can do the plan because only the US federal government is key.

Also, they only say China not Chinese public private partnerships meaning China is not going to be able to solve for this without the involvement of the private industry, so the CHINA CP FAILS.

Our Find 2014 card states that Congress needs to create a national comprehensive program for the plan to work and that PPPs are key. Since they do not access this aspect of our solvency then they don’t get our advantages. Also when it comes to Food security they cannot help the people that are starving in the U.S. They do not access the solvency that we do since we help the fisheries that are suffering right now in the U.S. That’s Plummer 2013. They also do not access methane seepage since most of the coldvents are located in U.S territory.

Also, we are solving for overfishing by US corporations FIRST and then spilling over. The China CP does not solve for America and since they have no China spillover cards, the plan is the only way to COMPLETELY SOLVE.

China DA

[N/U] Relations resilientRussel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 6/25/2014[Daniel R., U.S. State Department, “The Future of U.S.-China Relations”, http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2014/06/228415.htm, accessed 7/8/2014 CK]Yet there is still enormous potential for progress in the U.S.-China relationship. Progress that will yield benefits to the citizens of both countries, our

neighbors, and the world. To realize this progress and these benefits, we seek to ensure that the relationship is not defined by strategic rivalry, but by fair and healthy competition, by practical cooperation on priority issues, and by constructive management of our differences and disagreements . Where interests overlap, we will seek to expand cooperation with China. These areas include economic prosperity, a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, and a reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases. Where they diverge – and we have significant and

well-known areas of disagreement – we will work to ensure that our differences are constructively managed. Mr.Chairman, there are those who argue that cold war-like rivalry is inevitable and that the United States and China are condemned to a zero-sum struggle for supremacy, if not conflict. I reject such mechanistic thinking. As anyone who has served in government can tell you, this deterministic analysis overlooks

the role of leaders who have the ability to set policy and to shape relationships. It gives short shrift to the fact that our two economies are becoming increasingly intertwined, which increases each side’s stake in the success of the other. It undervalues the fact that leaders in Washington and Beijing are fully cognizant of the risk of unintended strategic rivalry between an emerging power and an established power and have agreed to take deliberate actions to prevent such an outcome. And it ignores the reality of the past 35 years – that, in

spite of our differences, U.S.-China relations have steadily grown deeper and stronger – and in doing so, we have built a very resilient relationship. We view China’s economic growth as complementary to the region’s prosperity, and China’s expanded role in the region can be complementary to the sustained U.S. strategic engagement in the Asia-Pacific. We and our partners in the region want China’s rise to contribute to the stability and continued development of the region. As President Obama and Secretary Kerry

have made very clear, we do not seek to contain China ; to the contrary, we welcome the emergence of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China. We believe all countries, and particularly emerging powers like China, should recognize the self-benefit of upholding basic rules and norms on which the international system is built; these are rules and norms which China has participated in formulating and shaping, and they are rules and norms that it continues to benefit from. In this context, we are encouraging China to exercise restraint in dealing with its neighbors and show respect for universal values and international law both at home and abroad.

[N/U] China is willing to negotiate over oceanic projectsXinhua, state press agency of the People's Republic of China, 14(Ministry-level department subordinate to the State Council, 6/22/14, “China committed to peaceful settlement of maritime disputes”, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/866836.shtml, AL)China is committed to settling maritime disputes through dialogue and negotiation on the basis of respecting historical facts and international law, says visiting Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.¶ Li made the statement on Friday when addressing the China-Greece Maritime Cooperation Forum in Athens, where he called for stronger maritime cooperation between the two nations and expounded China's viewpoints on maritime affairs.¶ SEA OF PEACE, COOPERATION, HARMONY¶ Pledging to jointly build a "sea of peace" with other countries, Li said China will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development and firmly oppose any act of hegemony in maritime affairs . ¶ "China is a signatory state to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and has made active efforts to safeguardthe principles of the convention," he said.¶ China is willing to strengthen communication and cooperation with related countries and

improve bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, so as to jointly safeguard free and safe navigation, fight piracy and terrorism, respondto disasters and construct a maritime order of peace and tranquility.¶ He added that China is resolute in safeguarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is conducive to regional peace and order as well.¶ Proposing to build a "sea of cooperation," Li said China is willing to work with maritime states to actively forge a cooperative partnership to build sea lanes, develop marine economy and utilize marine resources, among other endeavors.

Turn—plan increases interdependence which builds relationsLuckhurst, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education Department of International Relations and Law Director, 2014[Jonathan, 3/26/14, International Studies Association Annual Convention, “Is China—U.S. Economic Cooperation an Antidote to Strategic Conflict,” 7/9/14, IC]The paper examines how China—U.S. economic cooperation decreases strategic tensions, with insights fromsocial constructivism and complex interdependence theory. China‘s integration in the international economy decreases the potential for confrontation or a new ‗superpower‘ rivalry with the United States. Interdependence has also encouraged economic cooperation between their governments since the 2008 financial crisis. Socialization and a ‗crisis effect‘ further motivated Chinese policymakers to adopt liberal and multilateral norms of economic governance. The convergence of Chinese and U.S. leaders around new, post-crisis governance norms has enhanced their relations. Some scholars claim the BRICS1 could challenge U.S. influence and the ‗liberal international order‘, but the Chinese government has rejected attempts to destabilize the international economy and its multilateral institutions. Chinese and U.S. policymakers have prioritized cooperation as they perceive their relations to be based on the non-zero sum effects of complex interdependence. Socialization, normative suasion, and policy networks strengthen these ties and reduce prospects for significant strategic conflict.

[N/Impact] Great power wars don’t happen- deterrence and interdependenceJian, CIIS senior research fellow, 14[Xu, 5/28/2014, China Institute of International Studies, “Rethinking China’s Period of Strategic Opportunity”, http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-05/28/content_6942258.htm, accessed 7/6/14 CK]

After WWII and especially today, the ancient, longstanding logic that dominates power has become less and less applicable and is now being replaced by a new “negative sum” logic – namely, the loss of one party does not necessarily turn into the gain of the other . Today, sometimes loss can go both ways. There are two reasons for the change: first, nuclear weapons have completely changed the underlining meaning of major power wars, a process that was demonstrated in the more than four decades-long Cold War. Both countries would not dare cross the red line into “hot war” due to nuclear deterrence. Second, with further globalization, the traditional relationship of interest and competition among major powers has been completely revised. Interdependence has been deepened and a kind of common destiny has come into existence. Contests for self-interest among major powers have increasingly been dominated by the law of positive sum and the win-win theory. Any vicious contest can only bring destruction to both sides. Of course, the changing rules of competition for dominance among major powers do not necessarily imply the elimination of all risk of war. History does not always follow such rational logic. However, under the new internationalcircumstances, the model and style of power competition have been altered and the possibility of war among major powers has been markedly reduced, if not fully eradicated. Any action contrary to this new rule is an infraction against the times.

No conflict in the SCS—both sides not too aggressive, expertsThayer, 13 (Carlyle A. Thayer – Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales, May 13, “Why China and the US won’t go to war over the South China Sea”, East Asia Forum, http://www.eastasiaforum .org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/)

China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea is challenging US primacy in the Asia Pacific.Even before Washington announced its official policy of rebalancing its force posture to the Asia Pacific, the United States had undertaken steps to strengthen its military posture by deploying more nuclear attack submarines to the region and negotiating arrangements with Australia to rotate Marines through Darwin.Since then, the United States has deployed Combat Littoral Ships to Singapore and is negotiating new arrangements for greater military access to the Philippines.

But these developments do not presage armed conflict between China and the United States. The People’s Liberation Army Navy

has been circumspect in its involvement in South China Sea territorial disputes, and the United States has been careful to avoid being entrapped by regional allies in their territorial disputes with China. Armed conflict between China and the United

States in the South China Sea appears unlikely.Another, more probable, scenario is that both    countries will find a modus vivendi enabling them to collaborate    to maintain security in the South China Sea. The Obama administration has repeatedly emphasised that its policy of rebalancing to Asia is not directed at containing China. For example, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the US Pacific Command, 

recently stated, ‘there has also been criticism that the Rebalance is a strategy of containment. This is not the case … it is a strategy of collaboration  and    coop eration’.

They trade-off with US Heg, which prevents multiple extinction scenarios – they cause war

Art 12[Dr. Robert J., Christian A. Herter Professor of International Relations at Brandeis University, May 2012, “America’s Path Grand Strategy for the Next Administration” Center for New American Securityhttp://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_AmericasPath_FontaineAndLord.pdf]

Why are these national interests crucial to the United States? Clearly, the country must do all it can to protect the homeland from

attack – the prime directive of any grand strategy – especially from a WMD attack by a terrorist group or a devastating state-sponsored cyber attack. It is also in America’s interest to preserve as deep a peace as possible among the great Eurasian powers because any war among them would be deeply destabilizing and costly and would risk drawing in the United States in one way or another. The United States also has a vested interest in avoiding intense security competitions among these states because such competitions could lead those states to acquire WMD . Assured access to oil supplies for air, sea and land transportation is essential to the global economy until the world can wean itself off its heavy dependence on oil for transportation, something that is going to takedecades, even with the greater push to switch to renewable energy sources. 11 An open economic order contributes to U.S. prosperity, but it also contributes to global economic growth and prosperity, both of which help promote peace. Spreading democracy and the rule of law within states will make for a more peaceful and prosperous world andwill also lessen the need for costly military interventions because democracies are less likely than nondemocracies to commit human rights abuses against their own populaces. Finally, averting severe climate change is in the best interest of the United States because of the risks involved in kicking the earth into a new, irreversible and adverse climatic state (even though under

moderate climatechange scenarios, the United States will suffer less than developing states and many of the other great powers). After presenting these national interests, I proposed that a forward defense posture – retaining America’s key alliances and deploying American troops abroad, both onshore and afloat in three key regions (East Asia, the Middle East and Europe) – would better realize and protect these interests than would a grand strategy of isolationism or offshore balancing, both of which entail America ending its military alliances and bringing its troops home. In my usage, both isolationism and offshore balancing are strategies in which the United States would have no standing military commitments in peacetimeto defend other states and no forward bases abroad. 12 The U.S. Navy might steam the seven seas, but all other U.S. troops would be at home, and there would be no standing military alliances or permanent overseas military bases. 13 Forward defense requires bases abroad and allies. Therefore, selective

engagement argues for retaining key American alliances, not only because they enable a forward defense posture but also because they are tools of political management and enhance cooperative solutions to regional security issues. In this view, key alliances retain enduring value. They ensure U.S. access to overseas bases where needed, facilitate joint training in peacetime (and, consequently, joint operations in wartime), promote transparency and a more open security dialogue, and help to structure expectations and develop shared attitudes about problem solving.

Standing alliances clearly experience difficulties and conflicts among their members, but they are generally more reliable tools for projecting power into key regions than are ad hoc, informal arrangements (although those can also be useful under certain conditions). I favor an in-theater military presence, either afloat or onshore because, in my view, America’s regional alliances retain greater credibility – and are therefore stronger for reassurance and deterrence purposes – with some U.S. forces in a region than with U.S. military guarantees but no forces in the region. Credibility is a function of will

and capability. In-theater forces enhance capability but are probably more important for what they signify about will. Such forces are tangible and, therefore, more politically salient as manifestations of political will than simple pledges on paper would be. In-theater forces are akin to actions speaking louder than words. Finally, the United States must continue to provide global leadership. Without such leadership, solutions to global collective action problems – whether they involve security or nonsecurity issues – are unlikely to arise . International politics is still organized around the state model; consequently, states remain the primary, although certainly not the only, actors in world politics. The United States is, and will continue for some time to be, the world’s most powerful state; therefore, its actions and inactions strongly influence whether international initiatives will succeed or fail. If the leader does not lead, things do not get done. By the same token, however, the leader cannot get others to follow unless it takes the interests of allies and other important parties into account when formulating policies and taking action, instead of simply consulting after it has decided on a course of action. Thus, although the United States has to lead, it also has toavoid excessive unilateralism