Drones Af

1AC

Plan
The United States federal government should grant jurisdiction
to a federal court that prohibits domestic UAV surveillance
when it is determined that warrantless searches violate the
constitution.

Backlash
Contention one is Backlash
Public backlash against drones causes state bans on the tech
Sorcher 13, National Journals national security correspondent, won the
National Press Clubs Michael A. Dornheim Award in 2014; graduated from Tufts
University 2/21/13, Sara, National Journal, The Backlash Against Drones,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-backlash-against-drones20130221
February 21, 2013 The Seattle Police Departments planned demonstration of its
small surveillance drones quickly devolved into a noisy protest. Angry residents
attending the community meeting in October chanted No drones! drowning out
officers attempts to explain how the unmanned aerial vehicles would support
certain criminal investigations, help out during natural disasters, and assist in
search-and-rescue operations. Now its clear that Seattles drones, purchased with
federal grants, wont be flying over the metro area anytime soon. Amid backlash
from civil-liberties advocates and citizens worried about government invasion of
their privacy, the mayor earlier this month tabled any drone ambitionsfor now.
Public concerns are not limited to Seattle. Lawmakers in at least 11 states want to
restrict the use of drones because of fears they will spy on Americans, and some are
pushing to require warrants before the robots collect evidence in investigations. Just
this month, the Virginia General Assembly passed a two-year moratorium on drones.
The outcry comes after the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued last year for a list of
drone applicants within the U.S. When that information went public, staff attorney
Jennifer Lynch says, it really got people up in arms about how drones are being
used, and got people to question their city councils and local law-enforcement
agencies to ask for appropriate policies to be put in place to regulate drone usage.
Drones change the game: Nearly continuous surveillance could be possible without
a physical intrusion such as a property search or an implanted listening device. The
flying robots can carry high-powered cameras, even facial-recognition software or
thermal imaging to see through walls. They can hover, potentially undetected, for
hours or days at a time. As of yet, however, there are no laws governing the use of
domestic drones when it comes to privacy. Unless Congress or the executive branch
moves to regulate the robots use before they take to the skies en masse, states will
likely continue to try to limit or ban drone use altogether, which could stymie
their potential for other, beneficial uses. And failing to enact privacy limits only
increases the likelihood of an incident in which the public perceives that the
technology is being misused. The Federal Aviation Administration, which is charged
with overseeing drone implementation in the U.S., says its focus is totally on
safety, not privacy worries. We are concerned about how its being used only to
the extent it would affect the safety of the operation, says FAA spokesman Les
Dorr. GAO recommends that the FAA, along with the Justice and Homeland Security
departments, discuss privacy parameters. If we wait until theres a crisis,
oftentimes the rules and regulations that are made in crisis arent our best

showing, Dillingham says. Congress can also act; Reps. Ted Poe, R-Texas, and Zoe
Lofgren, D-Calif., introduced a bill last week requiring warrants for the use of drones
in criminal investigations.

Scenario 1 is Farming
Food Insecurity is occurring globally and is a national concern
Forman and Maxey 15 (Johanna Mendelson Forman, scholar in residence at
American University's School of International Service, Levi Maxey, part of the
Managing Across Boundaries Initiative at the Stimson Center, Should Food Security
be a National Security Issue?, 4/9/2015, Stimson,
http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/should-food-security-be-a-national-security-issue/,
DJE)
Food security as a policy issue has evolved to reflect the dynamism of global
events. The increasing attention paid to foods impact on poverty, humanitarian
crises, conflicts and climate change all suggest that food security is a national
security concern. Since the term was first used at the 1974 World Food Conference
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Program has recognized that food security
is multidimensional. It includes food availability, food access (i.e., having adequate
resources for a nutritious diet), utilization (inputs to food like water and sanitation)
and stability. To be a secure population, household or individual must have access
to adequate food at all times. In 2015 we can see that this is often not the case in
fragile states but also in many parts of the developed world. The food price crisis of
2008 reverberated globally. From the food riots that accompanied the Arab Spring,
to the upheavals in Haiti due to the increases in the price of rice, to the corn riots in
Mexico because of the high costs of a staple like tortillas, one thing was clear: food
had entered the security space . Much like climate change is now considered a
national security concern, food security has recently moved from the realm of
development economists and humanitarian organizations into the halls of the
Pentagon where analysts began recognizing the linkages between food insecurity,
climate change, and natural and man-made disasters . In the United States, food is a
much more complicated subject than it used to be. Today, policymakers must
consider not only nutrition but also access to locally grown commodities,
management of food waste, and the impact of commodity prices on the daily cost of
food. Food security both affects and is vulnerable to changes in economic stability,
climate change, education and national health. Debate over food deserts, or
places without access to fresh fruits and vegetables, remain important when it
comes to socio-economic indicators, and addressing the double burden of
malnutrition and obesity in the United States sparks conversations about access,
education, and nutrition regulations in the food industry. When striving for the
physical wellbeing of the public within an interdependent system, these kinds of
issues surrounding food security rest at the foundation of any national security
strategy.

Drones are key to precision farming

Griekspoor 13 P.J. Griekspoor, 3-21-2013, "Precision Agriculture Seen as Big
Winner in Drone Technology," No Publication, http://farmprogress.com/storyprecision-agriculture-seen-big-winner-drone-technology-9-96113
The biggest thing on the horizon in precision agriculture is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
flights, according to a new report from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International. Kansas, already a leader in research on the vehicles that are
expected to see explosive growth when integration into national airspace begins in
2015, ranks No. 7 among states likely to see economic benefits the report says , with
the state expected to see a $2.9 billion impact and 3,700 new jobs between 2015
and 2025. The greatest area of growth indicated by the report will be in precision
agriculture, which is slated to grow 10 times that of the public safety market for
UAS. Precision agriculture use of UAS refers to two segments of the farm market:
remote sensing used to scan plants for health problems, growth rates and
hydration; and precision application of needed pesticides or nutrients in order to
save money and reduce environmental impact. Aerial sensing with the hexacopter,
can provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18
minutes a task that would take hours if not days on a tractor. Aerial sensing with
the hexacopter, can provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch
resolution in about 18 minutes a task that would take hours if not days on a
tractor. Members of the Kansas Ag Research and Technology Association got an
upclose look at the work that is being done at Kansas State University by agronomy
professor Kevin Price, who is working closely with Deon van der Merwe, head of the
toxicology section at the K-State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. UAVs can help
monitor crop conditions Van der Merwe is a remote-controlled aircraft enthusiast
who is excited about the prospect of using UAVs, commonly referred to as drones, to
detect blue-green algae blooms in bodies of water. Price brought two aircraft to the
KARTA conference, a flying wing by RiteWingRC called the Zephyr II and a DJI S800
Spreading Wings hexacopter. Price said the promise of using the aircraft to do
remote sensing to monitor crop condition, detect diseases and map fields for
variable rate application of nutrients or pinpoint areas for fungicide or pesticide
application, is huge. Aerial sensing with the hexacopter, for example, can provide
mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18 minutes a
task that would take hours if not days on a tractor.

Precision farming key to prevent agricultural collapse

Gonzalez 13 Sarah Gonzalez, 2-27-2013, "Data analysis, biotech are key in
agriculture's future sustainability," No Publication, http://www.agri-pulse.com/agissues-biotech-future-22613.asp
Bayer's forum, which began on Tuesday in Orlando, Florida, included a futuristic look
at agriculture in the year 2025, just 25 years before the world population is
expected to reach nine billion and agriculture is required to increase productivity by
70 percent. We've been able to convince consumers that biotechnology is the core
of sustainability by 2025, Kottmeyer said, adding that convincing and educating

consumers is more important than convincing regulators. During the shift of focus
from regulator to consumer he predicts, Kottmeyer said it is important to appeal to
the emotional sentiments on which the consumer bases decisions. Furthermore, the
organic customer is attracted to simpler agriculture, social justice, sustainability and
good stewardship, which he says are all things biotechnology can provide. The
approach that they're rejecting has a clear benefit to the very things most important
to them, he said. The benefits of seed technology will be realized, particularly
because of the increased global population in 2050, as well as the prediction that
more than half the world population will be in the middle class by that date. He said
this huge middle class, particularly in China and India, will create a new consumer.
While the European Union currently blocks all U.S. biotechnology products,
Kottmeyer is optimistic the consumer will drive a change. He noted that data
analytics, which allowed him to make his 2025 predictions, show that finding ways
to influence consumers is much simpler than normally anticipated. You just have to
crunch the data, he said. In fact, the entire agriculture industry is currently moving
into a data-centric era, said David Nicholson, head of Bayer's Research and
Development, during the forum. Using the information gained from technology in a
way that helps agriculture achieve the required 70 percent increase in productivity
is the key to success or failure, he said. Precision agriculture, in particular, is the
focus of this data-driven era allowing the farmer to know what to grow and where to
grow it for the best results. When we think of the farmer of the future we see a
grower as CEO, said David Hollinrake, Bayer's Vice President of Agriculture
Commercial Operations Marketing, adding that farming will increasingly become a
business investment instead of a lifestyle or family choice. We want to be able to
participate as an enabler of using data as precision tools.

A Food crisis will collapse civilization through disease and

terrorism
Brown 09 [Lester, environmental analyst, founder of the Worldwatch Institute,
and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit research
organization, recipient of 26 honorary degrees and a MacArthur Fellowship, has won
several prizes and awards, including the United Nations Environment Prize, the
World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the Blue Planet Prize, Could Food
Shortages Bring Down Civilization?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/civilization-food-shortages/]
One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much
of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as todays economic crisis. For
most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a
complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so direand how would we go about responding
to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure,
our civilization might devolve into chaosand Earth might collide with an asteroid, too! For many years I have studied global agricultural, population,
environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the

Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food shortages could
bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization. I can no
longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental
declines that are undermining the world food economymost important, falling
water tables, eroding soils and rising temperaturesforces me to conclude that
breakdown of governments and societies.

such a collapse is possible. The Problem of Failed States Even a cursory look at the
vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion.
And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting
trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a
single one. In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of
consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began,
world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest
begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain
prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever. As
demand for food rises faster than supplies are growing, the resulting food-price
inflation puts severe stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the
edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the
streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of
failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their problems stem from
a failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food situation continues
to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate. We have
entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to
international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the
concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk. States fail when
national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and
basic social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of
part or all of their territory. When governments lose their monopoly on power, law
and order begin to disintegrate. After a point, countries can become so dangerous
that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in
Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs
in jeopardy. Failing states are of international concern because they are a source of
terrorists, drugs, weapons and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere .
Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of failing states, has become a base for
piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan, number
seven, is the worlds leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive genocide of
1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers
among them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo
(number six). Our global civilization depends on a functioning network of politically
healthy nationstates to control the spread of infectious disease , to manage the
international monetary system, to control international terrorism and to reach
scores of other common goals. If the system for controlling infectious diseases
such as polio, SARS or avian flubreaks down, humanity will be in trouble. Once
states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough
states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself.

Fourth, terrorism guarantees extinction

Hellman 08 (Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, Risk
Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI,
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
* Cites CT experts
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the
threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An
explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a
nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: A 10-kiloton
bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill
some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic
damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages
viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of
Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident
within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David
Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one
percent, but notes, We would never accept a situation where the chance of a
major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear
terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we cant live in a world where its
anything but extremely low-probability. [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85
national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20
percent for the probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring
somewhere in the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent of the respondents
believing it more likely to be carried out by terrorists than by a government [Lugar
2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear
terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because
terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war,
the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear
terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both
are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to
reduce which-ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of
other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). His
article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and
neglected the threat of full-scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an
effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In
fact, societys almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes
studying that risk all the more important. The cosT of World War iii The danger
associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the
failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and
the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are
possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of
all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed
World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World
War. World War IIs fatalities were double or triple that numberchaos prevented a

more precise determination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today
bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore
implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an
extrapolation of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III,
while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it
will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the
situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the
Philippine Congress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, Global war has become a
Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win,
you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a
duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide. Former Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara expressed a similar view: If deterrence fails and conflict
develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western
civilization will be destroyed [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George
Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns
when they quoted President Reagans belief that nuclear weapons were totally
irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of
life on earth and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less
emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact:
The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch
calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million
dead) a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30
million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths
during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would
eventually die from lack of adequate medical care millions of people might
starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to estimate how
many. further millions might eventually die of latent radiation effects. [OTA
1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological
damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the
TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly
simultaneous nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a
nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as
many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs
resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or
comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still
no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear
war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even a limited nuclear
exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and
Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the
large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities.
While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that
we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge
from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that preventing World War III is
a necessitynot an option.

Diseases cause extinction

Guterl 12 [Fred, award-winning journalist and executive editor of Scientific
American, worked for ten years at Newsweek, has taught science at Princeton
University, The Fate of the Species: Why the Human Race May Cause Its Own
Extinction and How We Can Stop It, 1-2, Google Books, online
Over the next few years, the bigger story turned out not to be SARS, which trailed
off quickly, bur avian influenza, or bird flu. It had been making the rounds among
birds in Southeast Asia for years. An outbreak in 1997 Hong Kong and another in
2003 each called for the culling of thousands of birds and put virologists and health
workers into a tizzy. Although the virus wasn't much of a threat to humans,
scientists fretted over the possibility of a horrifying pandemic. Relatively few people
caught the virus, but more than half of them died. What would happen if this bird flu
virus made the jump to humans? What if it mutated in a way that allowed it to
spread from one person to another, through tiny droplets of saliva in the air? One
bad spin of the genetic roulette wheel and a deadly new human pathogen would
spread across the globe in a matter of days. With a kill rate of 60 percent, such
a pandemic would be devastating, to say the least. Scientists were worried, all
right, but the object of their worry was somewhat theoretical. Nobody knew for
certain if such a supervirus was even possible. To cause that kind of damage to the
human population, a flu virus has to combine two traits: lethality and
transmissibility. The more optimistically minded scientists argued that one trait
precluded the other, that if the bird flu acquired the ability to spread like wildfire, it
would lose its ability to kill with terrifying efficiency. The virus would spread, cause
some fever and sniffles, and take its place among the pantheon of ordinary flu
viruses that come and go each season. The optimists, we found out last fall, were
wrong. Two groups of scientists working independently managed to create bird flu
viruses in the lab that had that killer combination of lethality and
transmissibility among humans. They did it for the best reasons, of courseto
find vaccines and medicines to treat a pandemic should one occur, and more
generally to understand how influenza viruses work. If we're lucky, the scientists will
get there before nature manages to come up with the virus herself, or before
someone steals the genetic blueprints and turns this knowledge against us.
Influenza is a natural killer, but we have made it our own. We have created the
conditions for new viruses to flourishamong pigs in factory farms and live animal
markets and a connected world of international trade and traveland we've gone
so far as to fabricate the virus ourselves. Flu is an excellent example of how we
have, through our technologies and our dominant presence on the planet, begun to
multiply the risks to our own survival

Scenario 2 is the economy

US economy is experiencing slowed growth

Koesterich 15 (Russ Koesterich, Global Chief Investment Strategist for
BlackRock , Is the US Economy Treading Water?, 7/22/2015,
http://marketrealist.com/2015/07/us-economy-treading-water/, DJE)
Though the US economy is showing signs of life, Russ explains why US consumers
arent opening their wallets. Last week, investors digested the latest round of mixed
economic data about the US economy. While housing numbers came in strong, the
disappointing June retail sales report showed that consumer activity remains soft.
The mixed data illustrate a basic contradiction for 2015: Despite continued
improvement in the labor market and lower gasoline prices, consumers arent
responding with open wallets. At 1.4 percent year-over-year, adjusted retail sales
growth is close to its lowest level since 2009. The above graph shows the monthover-month growth in retail (XRT) sales, which slumped by 0.3% in June. Households
cut back on purchases of automobiles as well as other goods. This raises concerns
that the economy is slowing again and tempers expectations of a September rate
hike. Monthly retail sales have now fallen four times in the last seven months. Retail
trends show that consumption has not quite picked up as much as expected. While
poor economic data mean recovery remains weak, they support equities (IVV) and
bonds (AGG), which could potentially delay a rate hike. That said, the rate hike is
likely to be gradual and from extraordinarily low levels. On the other hand, housing
(IYR) (VNQ) numbers remain robust. Recently, new home sales reached a sevenyear peak. Another strong indicator is housing starts, as you can see in the above
graph. Housing starts in the United States surged 9.8% to 1,174 thousand units in
June, compared to the previous month. This is the highest level in almost eight
years. Building permits also picked up to multi-year highs. This indicates strength in
the economy, as consumers are investing in big-ticket items like houses. This fits
well in the theme of the year so far, which has been a mixed bag of macro data. In
the next part of this series, well delve into the state of the labor market, which is
seeing a similar pattern.

Drones improve the efficiency of every sector of the economy

Dubravac 14 Chief economist of the Consumer Electronics Association (9-22014, Shawn Dubravac, Richmond Times-Dispatch, "How commercial drones can
drive economic growth", http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guestcolumnists/article_a849638c-bf53-514d-a793-51255162a0bf.html)
Drones are an exceptional example of how emerging technologies can increase the
productivity of myriad diverse businesses. Whether monitoring valuable
infrastructure, quickly and inexpensively surveying an area, or delivering rich video
in real time, drones will change the way businesses do what they do. The CEA
estimates the costs related to using a drone may be one-tenth the cost of other
alternatives of certain business activities. Because drones are such efficient costreducers for various use-cases, entirely new services and consumer benefits are
now on their way to market. In some ways, the marketplace for commercial drones
is limited only by our imaginations. Drones have already helped catch cattle

rustlers, capture wedding memories and monitor national borders. In the

agricultural sector alone, drones are farming crops, weeding fields and applying
fertilizers. Eventually, this technology will be integral to media outlets, real estate
professionals and emergency first responders. In July, a three-day search for a
missing senior in Wisconsin ended when an amateur drone pilot joined the effort
and spotted the man after only 20 minutes. As in most nascent markets, companies
are experimenting with drones across numerous business applications. In July,
Amazon petitioned the FAA for an exemption to allow the company to test drones in
the U.S., an effort to implement same-day package delivery. Such experimentation
can lead to lasting innovation, new business models and economic growth. Without
the exemptions, Amazon may have to move its research and development
operations abroad, resulting in fewer domestic jobs and less national investment. In
the absence of federal guidelines from the FAA, states are instead crafting their own
drone laws, creating a patchwork of different and diverse state laws. According to
the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states including Virginia have
enacted 20 laws regarding drone use the latest laws, in Tennessee and Indiana,
went into effect July 1. This maze of regulations will make compliance much more
complicated for companies that want to incorporate drones into their commercial
operations. We shouldnt delay any longer in opening our skies to new economic
growth. While were waiting for the government to provide clarity, the projected
jobs, economic activity and $4.4 million in added tax revenue the drone sector will
provide in Virginia over the coming years are drifting that much further out of reach.
We need to feed tomorrows economic engine today, but the absence of
forward thinking is hindering our potential.

Second drones are necessary to maintain growth

Rehfuss 15 [Abigail W. graduate of Loyola University Maryland, Albany Law School of Union University,
Assistant Albany County Attorney.] [THE DOMESTIC USE OF DRONES AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT]
(http://tinyurl.com/o5te3mx) (accessed 7-14-15) //MC

As of 2012, a market study estimated that drone spending will almost double
over the next decade from current worldwide drone expenditures.66 This study,
conducted by the Teal Group, remarked that [t]he UAV market will continue to be
strong despite cuts in defense spending . . . [now that] UAVs have proved their
value in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan . . . .67 The study predicts that the
worldwide UAV market will continu[e] as one of the prime areas of growth for
defense and aerospace companies, and it reflects the rapidly expanding interest in
the UAV business by nearly forty U.S., European, South African, and Israeli
companies.68 Overall, the study predicts that the U.S. will account for 62
percent of worldwide RDT&E spending on UAV technology over the next decade,
and 55 percent of the procurement . . . .69 Undoubtedly, introducing drones on
the home front has the potential to spur economic growth across the country.

Third, economic collapse causes competition for resources and

instability that escalates and goes nuclear
Harris and Burrows 09 [counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the
principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NICs Long Range Analysis
Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, Washington
Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf]
Increased Potential for Global Conflict

Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the
future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces.
With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for
unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great
Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period
include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think
Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral
institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think
that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century.
For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow
would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as
they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report
stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even
as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will
decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is
reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the
diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds
most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be
a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to
conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and
disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of
economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military
presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of
nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead
states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers,
acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is
not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the
great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East
with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place
under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader
conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established.
The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped
surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will
produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an
impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like

Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions
may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to
escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such
as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there
is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will
drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In
the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem
assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining
domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war,
however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns
are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as
Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious
funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to
increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create
opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With
water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage
changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

China
Contention two is China
Drones are critical to the economy/competitiveness but status
quo backlash will push the market out and stifle innovation
Gruber 4-25-15 [Robert H. litigation associate @ Greenberg Traurig] [COMMERCIAL DRONES AND
PRIVACY: CAN WE TRUST STATES WITH DRONE FEDERALISM?] (http://tinyurl.com/pgpsp64) [Richmond Journal of
Law & Technology Volume XXI, Issue 4] (accessed 7-13-15) //MC

the future UAS industry. Its potential

benefits are vast and varied: beyond mere job creation, drones will contribute to
efficiency in various industries and aspects of society. This is particularly true in the
commercial sphere, where competition and innovation can drive progress towards
functions far removed from the individual surveillance people fear. UAS have already proven useful in
functions from crop monitoring9 to gathering atmospheric data.10 Dominos Pizza made headlines
At this stage, it is impossible to accurately predict the scope of

when it announced the development of delivery UAS systems, as have other companiesand while some skeptics

it is not too difficult to imagine a future in

which packages appear on our doorstep out of the sky. 12 Recently, Facebook announced a
dismissed the press releases as publicity stunts,11

plan that epitomizes the benevolent possibilities of commercial UAS. 13 It has purchased the U.K.-based company
Ascenta, which manufactures solarpowered aircraft that can stay aloft at high altitudes for years at a time.
Facebooks goal? Providing Internet access in areas where traditional connections are impractical or impossible. 14

Even though commercial UAS flight is still largely prohibited in the United States , the
battle over drone regulation has already begun, fixated largely on imagined
harms to peoples privacy.15 And the privacy advocates are winning: more than
twenty states have passed laws restricting UAS operations.16 Many of these address law
enforcement surveillance, but an increasing number of states are proposingand enactingrestrictions
on private and commercial aircraft. For example, a bill proposed and enrolled in Texas makes it a
misdemeanor to collect an image of a persons land without consent.17 Other states are considering similar
legislation.18 One town in Colorado must have gotten Napolitanos memoit considered issuing drone hunting

This sort of legislation is

both premature and problematic, particularly with respect to the kind of drones that
will be used for commercial or civil purposes (as opposed to law enforcement purposes). It is
premature because legislators cannot foreseeand therefore cannot balanceall of the
potential benefits and harms of commercial drone use. Many of the privacy interests purportedly
licenses that would authorize its citizens to shoot any unpiloted aircraft.19 [5]

advanced by restrictive legislation are already protected by other areas of the law. 20 It is problematic because

inconsistent and overly-restrictive regulations (1) potentially violate the First Amendment
right to gather information and (2) threaten to chill industry growth .21 The harms such legislation
causes are analogous, in a sense, to those that would have arisen if states had created a patchwork of Internet

the United States

leads the pack in UAS technology. If the current legislative pattern continues, the U.S.
might very well drive a market with incredible potential overseas, to more
privacy laws several years before the development of the World Wide Web.22 Right now,

open-minded nations.23 [6] Is restrictive legislation nevertheless justified, as a means of vindicating legitimate
privacy interests?24 Perhaps not, particularly where commercial UAS use is concerned. There are few cognizable
circumstances in which using drones to monitor individual people will be profitable for non-government actors and
entities. 25 First, a primary advantage of unmanned aircraft is that they can go swiftly and easily where people

UAS could be used profitably to survey mines, monitor power lines in remote areas,
collect traffic-flow information, spray and monitor crops, and so forth. Some predict that
cannot.

eighty-percent of commercial drones will be used for agricultural purposes

26 so the majority will seldom even accidentally interfere with individual privacy
interests. As one person put it, corn doesnt mind if you watch it.27 Second, even if a particular
commercial drones images could be processed and linked to individuals identities ,
what would justify the cost of such directed monitoring? Demographic information may be valuable, but our
phones and Internet activity paint a cheaper and more accurate picture of consumer
activitieswhere individuals go, where they shop, and what they buy. [7] The global market for UAS is growing
fast.28 At the moment, the best available UAS technology belongs to the United States and Israel.29 Developed for

this technology nevertheless has massive export potential for civil

and commercial uses. [8] However, the United States monopoly on UAS technology
may already be eroding. In 2013 Israel surpassed the U.S. as the chief exporter of UAS
military purposes,

technologyalthough Israel remains second to the U.S. in production.30 What accounts for this discrepancy? A
regulatory barrier: the companies that develop our military drones are restricted from marketing their technology

By competing in the global

market, the U.S. can realize all the benefits of a multi-billion dollar industry once the
FAA opens up the national airspace33which it is poised to begin doing soon but only if the
U.S. avoids establishing a draconian regulatory framework for commercial UAS. [9]
elsewhere.31 China and other countries are now entering the ring.32

This Article focuses on commercial UAS, and on the legal frameworksboth current and potentially forthcoming
surrounding them. 34 Part I provides a brief background of the politically-charged context within which UAS
regulation is being developed. Part II examines two critical issues in the UAS regulatory debate: (1) the extent to
which the third-party doctrine will apply to information captured by commercial UAS; and (2) the boundaries of
First Amendment protection of information gathering. Part II also outlines existing state and federal laws
governing civil drone use. Part III examines approaches the United States could take in regulating commercial drone

the federalism model will stifle the market for UAS aircraft
unless Congress acts to create a baseline federal scheme that
assuages privacy concerns without hindering industry growth.
use. Ultimately, the article concludes that
and technology,

US drone leadership is key to stop Chinese territorial

expansion into the Senkakus and SCS maintaining the
industry is critical to maintain the lead
Zhou 12 [Dillon former research assistant @ Cyber Conflict Studies
Association in Vienna, graduated w/ a degree in IR @ University of Massachusetts
Boston]
China intends to take full advantage of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to
achieve its national interests including their territorial disputes over the Senkaku
Islands and South China Sea. The U.S. and the World should, therefore, be concerned with this
development given that this may lead to a drone race between the top two producers of drones
the U.S. and China. In a world whose militaries and governments are buzzing about the potential of the
drones, it is no surprise that China is working to bring their drone program up to speed to
compete with America just as President Obama is executing his "Asia Pivot" through
Its evident that

strengthening U.S. military, political and economic presence in Asia. China is rising as evident in its growing

If
the U.S. works towards countermeasures against drones from rival states like China the risk
posed by the development of competing drone programs can be minimized allowing
the U.S. to implement its "Asia Pivot" with one less impediment. The Rise of the Drones Drones are the
economic and military power but the U.S. should not treat the Chinese drone program as a cause for panic.

strategic tools of the future, especially when it comes to the political contests between the major players in global
affairs.

The Department of Defenses Defense Science Board (DSB) released a report on

the future of drones as a potent tool of great powers like the U.S. and China.
The report notes that drones are fast becoming a tipping point in global affairs
because: Armed forces in the United States and around the world have actively embraced unmanned systems.
The advantages of these systems in terms of persistence, endurance and generally lower costs and deployment

Unmanned systems have become an

established part of military operations and will play an increasing role in the modern
military machine. The value of the drone lies in its capacity to radically expand a militarys ability to gather
footprint have been highlighted in recent conflicts ...

intelligence and expand its ability to project its power beyond limits faced by frontline personnel. It can also carry
out the unpleasant business of neutralizing enemies, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Abu Yahya al-Libi, Al Qaedas
last number two leaders, with some civilian casualties. However, the drone is not as precise or accurate as
described by the defense industry as shown by a joint study published by Stanford Law School and NYU School of
Law, which detailed the considerable toll taken on civilians in Pakistan and causes unintended consequences in its

The U.S. remains the

leading market for drones, but other powers like China, Russia, Europe and the Middle East
are also working to develop their own drone capabilities . Unlike the other powers, China is
the most prolific developer of a rival drone program to America's program. The DSB report
said [i]n a worrisome trend, China has ramped up research in recent years faster than
any other country. Chinas New Dragons in the Sky Like the U.S., China has given its new fleet of UAVs
search and kill operations in multiple areas of U.S. intelligence operations.

unique code names which often include the character for dragon or "long" and designed them with
comparable capabilities as their U.S. counterparts. Many of its newer models including the CH-4, the Wing Loong

The drone
program has had a profound effect on Chinas defense industry. The DSB report
notes that [China] displayed its first unmanned system model at the Zhuhai air
show five years ago, and now every major manufacturer for the Chinese military
has a research center devoted to unmanned systems. One unique aspect of the Chinese
drone program is that the cost of the drones are significantly cheaper than those made by
the U.S. and Israel. For example, according to Wired, "[t]he Wing Loong [the Chinese equivalent of the U.S.
and Xianglong appears to be copies of the U.S. Reaper, Predator and Global Hawk designs.

Reaper] reportedly comes at a rather incredible bargain price of $1 million (625,000), compared to the Reaper's

For China, their nascent drone program

provides a valuable tool for projecting its power in Asia , especially in a time when
its engaged in territorial disputes with its neighbors . More importantly, China feels a
need to meet the threat in perceives in President Obamas so-called Asia Pivot. The drones could act as the
varying price tags in the $30 million (18.7 million) range."

ideal surveillance tool in tracking U.S. and its Asian allies' military movements in the event of a crisis or

act as a proxy weapon to deter assertive behavior over the South

China Sea and Senkaku Islands. At the same time, the cheaper Chinese drones are a hot export product
international spat and

line for the Chinese defense industry. Many African and Asian states have placed orders for the economic Chinese
drones. "We've been contacting many countries, especially from Africa and Asia," Guo Qian, a director at a division
of the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. The geostrategic impact of the advent of
these new "dragons" is to stoke fears of a drone race between the U.S. and China, which have already manifested
at the Pentagon. Worried About the Dragons Reach The U.S. is deeply concerned with the speed of the Chinese
drone program and the growing resources being devoted to the program. The main concern, according to the DSB
report, is as follows: The military significance of Chinas move into unmanned systems is alarming. [China] has a
great deal of technology, seemingly unlimited resources and clearly is leveraging all available information on

China might easily match or outpace U.S. spending

on unmanned systems, rapidly close the technology gaps and become a formidable
global competitor in unmanned systems. Basically, the U.S. is afraid that it won't be able to keep up
Western unmanned systems development.

with a China that has invested itself in a intensive government-sponsored effort to compete with the U.S. drone
program in terms of technical quality, quantity, and as a export product to clients in the developing world.

On a

strategic level, the Chinese drones could be the "tipping point" for giving the
Chinese the edge in possible future disputes in Asia with the U.S . as it attempts to create
regional security as part of its "Asia Pivot." There are several facts that provide some solace to
the U.S. as China's drones are far from being a real challenge to the American drone program. First, the

Chinese drones are nowhere as sophisticated as U.S. drones in their range and proper
hardware for optic systems and motors to power the "dragons." The DSB report notes that the U.S. technical
systems are almost unrivaled at present. Second, China lacks the manpower to properly
support their new fleet of drones. Whereas the U.S. has been training and honing a large force of UAV pilots,

the U.S. drone program is about 20 years

ahead of the Chinese program. The current models on show are considered to be
prototypes and not finished products . The Chinese also have not had a chance to gain real experience
technicians and operation managers for 15 years. Finally,

with their drones during real operation.

It will escalate accidents, unwillingness to back down, 2

biggest armies destabilizes the whole region
Auslin 13 [Michael Scholar @ American Enterprise Institute] [The Sino-Japanese Standof]
(http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/338852)

What was more dangerous, however, was a game of chicken that began in the waters
off the Senkakus. Beijing dispatched private fishing boats and maritime patrol vessels on a near-daily basis to
the islands, and Japan responded with its coast guard. The two countries have now faced off
regularly in the waters around the Senkakus, sometimes with a dozen ships or
more. Beijings goal seems to be to undercut Tokyos claim of administrative control
over the islands. That would then invalidate Japans right to expel ships from the
exclusive economic zone around the Senkakus. In recent weeks, though, the Chinese
have become more aggressive, and very visibly escalated tensions. For the
first time ever, they have flown maritime patrol planes into Japanese airspace
around the islands. A predictable cycle thus emerged: The Japanese responded by
scrambling F-15s, and last week, the Chinese sent two J-10 fighter jets to monitor Japanese
military aircraft, according to the South China Morning Post. Now, the new Japanese government of Prime Minister

Abe is preparing to go one step further: giving Japanese pilots the authority to fire
warning shots with tracer bullets across the nose of any Chinese aircraft that doesnt heed
Shinzo

warnings to leave Japanese-controlled airspace. It was barely a dozen years ago that the U.S. and China faced a
crisis when a hotshot Chinese pilot collided with a U.S. electronic-surveillance plane over the South China Sea,

Japan and China are now on a metaphorical collision course, too,

and any accident when tensions are so high could be the spark in a tinderbox.
Its not difficult to see Beijing issuing orders for Chinese fighters to fire their own
warning shots if Japanese jets start doing so. Even though leaders from both
countries promise to meet and keep things cool, a faceoff at 20,000 feet is much
harder to control than one done more slowly and clearly on the oceans surface.
This SinoJapanese standoff also is a problem for the United States, which has a
defense treaty with Tokyo and is pledged to come to the aid of Japanese forces
under attack. There are also mechanisms for U.S.Japanese consultations during a
crisis, and if Tokyo requests such military talks, Washington would be forced into a
difficult spot, since Beijing would undoubtedly perceive the holding of such talks as
a serious provocation. The Obama administration has so far taken pains to stay neutral in the dispute;
crashing both aircraft.

despite its rhetoric of pivoting to the Pacific, it has urged both sides to resolve the issue peacefully. Washington
also has avoided any stance on the sovereignty of the Senkakus, supporting instead the status quo of Japanese

Japan, however, since its government saw

Chinas taking to the air over the Senkakus as a significant escalation and proof
that Beijing is in no mind to back down from its claims. One does not have to be
an alarmist to see real dangers in play here . As Barbara Tuchman showed in her classic The Guns of
administration of the islands. That may no longer suffice for

events have a way of taking on a life of their own (and one doesnt need a
Schlieffen Plan to feel trapped into acting). The enmity between Japan and China is deep and
pervasive; there is little good will to try and avert conflict. Indeed, the people of
both countries have abysmally low perceptions of the other. Since they are the
two most advanced militaries in Asia, any tension-driven military jockeying
between them is inherently destabilizing to the entire region. Perhaps of even greater
concern, neither government has shied away from its hardline tactics over the
Senkakus, despite the fact that trade between the two has dropped nearly 4 percent
since the crisis began in September. Most worrying, if the two sides dont agree to return to
the status quo ante, there are only one or two more rungs on the ladder of military
escalation before someone has to back down or decide to initiate hostilities when
challenged. Whoever does back down will lose an enormous amount of credibility in
Asia, and the possibility of major domestic demonstrations in response . The
prospect of an armed clash between Asias two largest countries is one that should
bring both sides to their senses, but instead the two seem to be maneuvering
themselves into a corner from which it will be difficult to escape. One triggerhappy or nervous pilot, and Asia could face its gravest crisis perhaps since
World War II.
August,

Draws in the US and goes nuclear

Blaxland and Kersten 13 [John Senior Fellow @ Strategic and Defence Studies
Centre, the Australian National University. Rikki Professor of modern Japanese political history in the
School of International, political and Strategic Studies @ College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian
National University] [Escalating territorial tension in East Asia echoes Europes descent into world war]
(http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/02/13/escalating-territorial-tension-in-east-asia-echoes-europes-descent-intoworld-war/)

activation of Chinese weapons radars aimed at Japanese military platforms

around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is the latest in a series of incidents in which China has
asserted its power and authority at the expense of its neighbours. The radars cue supersonic missile systems
and give those on the receiving end only a split second to respond . With Japanese law
empowering local military commanders with increased discretion to respond (thanks to North Koreas
earlier provocations), such incidents could easily escalate . In an era of well-established UN-related
The recent

adjudication bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), how has it come to this? These incidents

In the early years of the 20th century, most pundits considered a

major war between the great powers a remote possibility . Several incidents prior to 1914 were

disconcertingly echo past events.

handled locally or successfully defused by diplomats from countries with alliances that appeared to guarantee the
peace. After all, never before had the world been so interconnected thanks to advanced communications

But alliance ties and perceived national interests meant that

once a major war was triggered there was little hope of avoiding the conflict .

technology and burgeoning trade.

Germanys dissatisfaction with the constraints under which it operated arguably was a principal cause of war in
1914. Similarly, Japans dissatisfaction helped trigger massive conflict a generation later. A century on, many of

the same observations can be made in East Asia. Chinas rise is coupled with a disturbing surge in
jingoism across East and Southeast Asia. China resents the territorial resolution of World War II, in which the United
States handed responsibility for the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands to Japan while large chunks of the South China Sea
were claimed and occupied by countries that emerged in Southeast Asias post-colonial order. Oil and gas reserves
are attractive reasons for China to assert itself, but challenging the US place in East Asian waters is the main
objective. China resents American re-balancing as an attempt at containment, even though US dependence on
Chinese trade and finance makes that notion implausible. China is pushing the boundaries of the accepted postSecond World War order championed by the United States and embodied by the UN. Chinas rapid rise and long-

Chinas
assertiveness is driving regional states closer into the arms of the United States.
Intimidation and assertive maritime acts have been carried out , ostensibly by elements not
held grievances mean its powerbrokers are reluctant to use institutions like the ICJ. But

linked to Chinas armed forces. Chinas white-painted Chinese Maritime Services and Fisheries Law Enforcement
Command vessels operating in the South China Sea and around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands have evoked strong

Japans recent allegation that China used active radars is a significant escalation.
Assuming it happened, this latest move could trigger a stronger reaction from Japan . China looks
increasingly as if it is not prepared to abide by UN-related conventions . International law has
reactions. But

been established mostly by powers China sees as having exploited it during its century of humiliation. Yet
arguably, it is in the defence of these international institutions that the peaceful rise of China is most likely to be

Chinas refusal to submit to such mechanisms as the ICJ increases the prospect of
conflict. For the moment, Japans conservative prime minister will need to exercise great skill
and restraint in managing domestic fear and resentment over Chinas assertiveness and the militarys hairtrigger defence powers. A near-term escalation cannot be ruled out . After all, Japan recognises that
China is not yet ready to inflict a major military defeat on Japan without resorting to
nuclear weapons and without triggering a damaging response from the U nited S tates.
assured.

And Japan does not want to enter into such a conflict without strong US support, at least akin to the discreet
support given to Britain in the Falklands War in 1982. Consequently, Japan may see an escalation sooner rather

Chinas domestic
environment has nurtured jingoism. The Chinese state has built up the publics appetite for vengeance
than later as being in its interests, particularly if China appears the aggressor.

against Japan by manipulating films and history textbooks. On the other hand, Chinese authorities recognise that

it is
prudent to exercise some restraint to avoid an overwhelming and catastrophic
response . If the 191418 war taught us anything, it is that the outcome of wars is rarely as
proponents conceived at the outset .
the peaceful rise advocated by Deng Xiaoping is not yet complete (militarily at least). In the meantime

Solvency
Contention three is Solvency
The FAA regulations dont pose a serious threat to the
commercial drone industry this card assumes your limitations
warrants
Whitlock 15 (Craig Whitlock, covers the Pentagon and national security for The
Post, FAA rules might allow thousands of business drones, 2/15/2015, The
Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/faareleases-proposed-rules-for-domestic-drone-use/2015/02/15/6787bdce-b51b-11e4a200-c008a01a6692_story.html, DJE)
Thousands of businesses could receive clearance to fly drones two years from now
under proposed rules that the Federal Aviation Administration unveiled Sunday, a
landmark step that will make automated flight more commonplace in the nations
skies. Meanwhile, the White House on Sunday issued presidential directive that will
require federal agencies for the first time to publicly disclose where they fly drones
in the United States and what they do with the torrents of data collected from aerial
surveillance. Together, the FAA regulations and the White House order provide some
basic rules of the sky that will govern who can fly drones in the United States and
under what conditions, while attempting to prevent aviation disasters and
unrestrained government surveillance. The FAAs draft rules would make it relatively
simple for real estate agents, aerial photographers, police departments, farmers
and anyone else to fly small drones for work purposes. Operators would need to
pass a written proficiency test, register the drone and pay about $200 in fees but
would not have to obtain a regular pilots license or demonstrate their flying skills.
The long-awaited regulations the FAA had been drawing them up for several
years are expected to lead to a revolution in commercial aviation. But they must
first undergo a lengthy period of public review and comment that is projected to
take at least until early 2017. Once the rules are finalized, the FAA estimates that
more than 7,000 businesses will obtain drone permits within three years . Were
putting forward what we believe to be the safest possible approach at the moment,
but of course we look forward to hearing back from the public, Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters Sunday on a conference call. The proposed
regulations carry some significant limitations. Businesses would be allowed to fly
drones only during daylight hours. And drones would have to remain within eyesight
of the operator or observers posted on the ground. The drones could fly no more
than 100 mph and would have to stay below an altitude of 500 feet to avoid the risk
of colliding with other aircraft. They would also be prohibited from flying over
bystanders not directly involved in their operation. As a result, companies would not
be permitted to fly drones over long distances. That would effectively preclude
companies such as pizza makers, Amazon.com and newspaper companies from
delivering goods to customers doorsteps via drone (Amazons chief executive,
Jeffrey P. Bezos, also owns The Washington Post). The rules, however, are expected
to be modified and loosened over the coming decade as drone technology

advances. Unlike with regular aircraft, the FAA would not require drone operators or
manufacturers to certify in advance that the drones are safe to fly. Michael Huerta,
head of the FAA, said such a requirement is unnecessary because small drones
pose the least amount of risk to our airspace. The regulations would apply only to
drones weighing 55 pounds or less. The FAA is still drafting rules for larger drones,
and those are expected to take several more years to sort out. In addition, FAA
officials said they are considering a separate set of rules for micro-drones that
weigh less than 4.4 pounds. Under those rules, operators would not have to pass
any kind of test; they would only have to submit a written statement to the FAA
promising that they were familiar with basic aviation safety measures.

Constitutional amendment protection is the lynchpin to protect

privacy
Ahsanuddin 14 (Sadia Ahsanuddin Muslim Public Afairs Council Research Fellow;
Harvard Grad, worked at three think tanks, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Brennan Center

[Domestic Drones: Implications for Privacy

and Due Process in the United States] (accessed 3-25-15) //MC
for Justice and interned at the United Nations)

reasonable expectation of privacy standard has been vital and several decisions
have been handed down that indicate what to expect as drones get integrated into
The

the national airspace. The privacy of the home, for instance, is still likely to be protected by the Fourth

Kyllo v. United States,101 the Supreme Court considered a case where law enforcement
used thermal-imaging devices to map the heat patterns emitting from a home. The Court ruled that the
evidence obtained via the thermal-imaging device was inadmissible because the
device allowed law enforcement to explore details of the home that would previously
have been unknowable without physical intrusion , and therefore, the surveillance is a
search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. 102 Barring certain
Amendment.100 In

exceptions, then, if a drone were operated to conduct warrantless surveillance of the inner quarters of a home, the

the Court
recognized that thermal-imaging devices, as with drones today, were not widelyavailable to the public, and as such the average person could not reasonably foresee its use in
surveillance would violate the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo is also an important case to consider because

investigating a private dwelling.103 However, not everything at home would be protected by the Fourth
Amendment. Under the plain

view doctrine, objects, statements, or activities that an individual

exposes to the public are not currently considered to be protected by the Fourth
Amendment.104 In the age of mass surveillance, however, the reasonable expectation of privacy standard will
have to be reassessed. Courts will have to address whether individuals have any
reasonable expectation of privacy, even when at home . Today, it is commonly expected that
the government routinely surveils large numbers of people.105This capability to conduct surveillance
will only strengthen with the increased use and prevalence of drones. 106 In such an age,
what will the average individuals reasonable expectation of privacy be? As Professor Woodrow Hartzog stated,
Once

youve been put on notice that you can have no expectation of privacy, then
its not reasonable to expect any privacy in any area in particular .107 2.
Public vs. Private Places The demarcation between the public and private spheres is crucial when
considering an individuals right to privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally held that an individuals
privacy rights are limited while in public; an individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy where
they are privy to the public eye.108 They do, however, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the intimate
areas of their homes, as well as in the immediate areas around their homes.109

Existing case law

presents an instructive vantage point from which to glean future law relating to
drone surveillance. In United States v. Karo, for instance, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
tracked a beeper device attached to a can of ether on public streets and in private residences.110 Because the
DEA was not authorized to conduct any surveillance inside homes, the Court held
that a trespass under the Fourth Amendment had occurred: Indiscriminate monitoring of
property that has been withdrawn from public view would present far too serious a threat to
privacy interests in the home to escape entirely some sort of Fourth Amendment
oversight.111 As drones become increasingly used by law enforcement agencies, it is likely that
there will be legal challenges and a reviewing court will have to determine the
location of the individual and whether they had a reasonable expectation of privacy to
determine whether an unreasonable search took place. Alternatively, courts may decide to determine
whether the surveillance itself is reasonable , regardless of where it took place.
According to a Congressional Research Service report, it can be deduced that surveilling an individual at home
without a warrant, using technology not generally available, would constitute a search. If law enforcement were to
use a normal camera or camcorder in order to record an individual in plain view of the public, albeit at home, law
enforcement officers may be in their right to record data. It would also seem that brief drone surveillance of public

courts may choose to distinguish between an unmanned

[unstaffed] aircraft and a manned [staffed] aircraft conducting surveillance . Courts
may decide that the technology used is a decisive factor in determining
whether an unwarranted search has occurred , partly because law enforcement use of
rare technological equipment may set apart what is in plain view of the public and
what is not.112 Case law also offers insight on warrantless aerial surveillance as well: anything that
cannot be viewed by the public while traveling through the United States navigable
airspace is protected by the law. On the other hand, if an individual passing over a property can view
some incriminating evidence with their bare eye, law enforcement does not need to obtain a
warrant to submit that evidence in a court of law. 113 In California v. Ciraolo, law
areas may be permitted. And yet,

enforcement conducted manned [staffed] aerial surveillance of the backyard of a suburban home based on a tip
that the suspect was growing marijuana. Police flew an aircraft 1,000 feet above the suspects backyard and were
able to identify the marijuana plants with their bare eyes. California argued that the respondent had knowingly
exposed his backyard to aerial observation, because any member of the public flying through the navigable

The Supreme Court concluded

that because [a]ny member of the public flying over the backyard could have
observed the plants with their naked eye, the respondents expectation that his
garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable , and is not an expectation that
society is prepared to honor.115 Thus, the warrantless gathering of evidence from areas that are
visible to the public was permitted by the Supreme Court.116 That the evidence was gathered
using a manned [staffed] aircraft is applicable to the usage of drones to collect
evidence. However, drones allow the possibility of extended surveillance to an extent
that manned [staffed] aircraft does not. As the ACLU suggested, drone surveillance presents
the possibility of a single, distributed, wide-area surveillance system via multiple mutuallyairspace over the respondents home could see the marijuana plants.

coordinating drones deployed over a neighborhood.117 The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that mass or

Although the
Supreme Court has held that warrantless location tracking on public roads is
permissible, as in United States v. Knotts, a majority of justices in two concurrences in United
States v. Jones indicated an awareness that prolonged surveillance of an
individual encroaches upon Fourth Amendment rights . In United States v. Jones, the
extended surveillance may infringe upon the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Supreme Court unanimously decided that the attachment of a GPS device to a car and the month-long tracking of
the vehicle without a valid warrant constituted an unreasonable search, and that the evidence obtained therewith

in the future, the Court

might uphold an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in the face
was inadmissible in court. The two concurrences, however, indicated that

of lengthy, pervasive, and warrantless location tracking.119 Although the majority of

the Court ultimately decided United States v. Jones based on the trespass on private property that law enforcement
perpetrated when placing the tracking device on the suspects car,120 Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayors
individual concurrences took issue with the warrantless cataloguing of the suspects actions for one month. In

information collected about the suspect reflects a wealth of detail

about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations .121
Concurrences represent a shadow majority willing to decide the issue on the grounds of
the length of the search. As such, these opinions are instructive in considering
the potential directions American jurisprudence may take when considering
drone surveillance, especially since drones are better adept at cataloguing an individuals associations than
Justice Sotomayors words, the

most formerly introduced technologies.

A ruling now is necessary to stop any worse privacy invasions

Stanley and Crump 11 (Jay Stanley Senior Policy Analyst with the ACLUs
Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, former analyst at the technology research
firm Forrester. Catherine Crump staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy,
and Technology Project and a nonresident fellow with the Stanford Center for
Internet and Society) [Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance:]
(https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/protectingprivacyfromaerialsurveillance.pdf)
(accessed 3-25-15) //MC
UAVs and privacy
federal government likely to permit more widespread use of drones , and the
technology likely to become ever more powerful , the question becomes: what role will drones
play in American life? Based on current trendstechnology development, law enforcement
interest, political and industry pressure, and the lack of legal safeguardsit is clear
that drones pose a looming threat to Americans privacy. The reasons for concern
reach across a number of different dimensions: Mission creep. Even where UAVs are being
envisioned for search and rescue, fighting wildfires, and in dangerous tactical police operations, they
are likely to be quickly embraced by law enforcement around the nation for other, more
controversial purposes. The police in Ogden, Utah think that floating a surveillance blimp above
their city will be a deterrent to crime when it is out and about.58 In Houston, police suggested that drones
could possibly be used for writing traffic tickets .59 The potential result is that they become commonplace
in American life.60 Tracking. The Justice Department currently claims the authority to
monitor Americans comings and goings using GPS tracking deviceswithout a
warrant. Fleets of UAVs, interconnected and augmented with analytics software,
could enable the mass tracking of vehicles and pedestrians around a wide area. New uses. The use
of drones could also be expanded from surveillance to actual intervention
in law enforcement situations on the ground. Airborne technologies could be developed that could, for
example, be used to control or dispel protesters (perhaps by deploying tear gas or other technologies),
stop a fleeing vehicle, or even deploy weapons.61 In addition, drones raise many of the
same issues that pervasive video surveillance brings in any context. For example:
Chilling effects. What would be the effect on our public spaces, and our society as a whole, if everyone felt the
keen eye of the government on their backs whenever they ventured outdoors? Psychologists have
With the

repeatedly found that people who are being observed tend to behave differently ,
and make different decisions, than when they are not being watched . This effect is so
great that a recent study found that merely hanging up posters of staring human eyes
is enough to significantly change peoples behavior.62 Voyeurism. Video
surveillance is susceptible to individual abuse , including voyeurism. In 2004, a couple making
love on a dark nighttime rooftop balcony, where they had every reason to expect they enjoyed privacy, were
filmed for nearly four minutes by a New York police helicopter using night vision . This
is the kind of abuse that could become commonplace if drone technology
enters widespread use. (Rather than apologize, NYPD officials flatly denied that this filming constituted
an abuse, telling a television reporter, this is what police in helicopters are supposed to do, check out people to

Discriminatory targeting. The individuals

operating surveillance systems bring to the job all their existing prejudices and
biases. In Great Britain, camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately
on people of color. According to a sociological study of how the systems were operated, Black people
were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be
surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population .64
Institutional abuse. In addition to abuse by the inevitable bad apples within law enforcement, there is
also the danger of institutional abuse. Sometimes, bad policies are set at the top, and an entire
law enforcement agency is turned toward abusive ends . That is especially prone to
happen in periods of social turmoil and intense political conflict. During the labor, civil
rights, and anti-Vietnam war movements of the 20th century, the FBI and other security agencies
engaged in systematic illegal behavior against those challenging the status quo . And
once again today we are seeing an upsurge in spying against peaceful political
protesters across America.65 Automated enforcement. Drones are part of a trend toward
automated law enforcement, in which cameras and other technologies are used
to mete out justice with little or no human intervention. This trend raises a variety of
concerns, such as the fact that computers lack the judgment to fairly evaluate the
circumstances surrounding a supposed violation , and may be susceptible to bugs and
other software errors, or simply are not programmed to fairly and properly encapsulate
the state of the law as passed by legislatures.66 One point that is often made with regards to new surveillance technologies is
make sure no one is doing anything illegal).63

that, while they may increase government surveillance of individuals, they can also increase individuals ability to record the activities of officials, which
can serve as a check on their power.67 Too often, however, the authorities seek to increase their surveillance over individuals (for example, by installing
surveillance cameras throughout public spaces) while restricting individuals ability to use that same technology as a check against their power (for
example, by attempting to prevent individuals from videotaping police68). Already, security experts have started expressing concern that unmanned
aircraft could be used for terrorism69which naturally raises the question: will individuals be able to make use of the new technology for their own

government seek a monopoly over the new technology by citing fears of

its use for terrorism? The Fourth Amendment restricts the use of drones With drone
technology holding so much potential to increase routine surveillance in American life, one key question is
the extent to which our laws will protect us. The courts should impose limits on
the use of drones for surveillance, prohibiting them from becoming pervasive. The Supreme
Court has never taken a position on whether the Fourth Amendment places limits
on government use of UAV surveillance. However, it allowed some warrantless aerial
surveillance from manned [stafed] aircraft. In the 1986 decision California v.
Ciraolo, the Supreme Court focused on whether an individual has a privacy interest in being free from aerial
purposes, or will

surveillance of his backyard. The police had received a tip that Dante Ciraolo was growing marijuana in his
backyard, but high fences prevented them from viewing his backyard from the street. The police borrowed a plane,
flew it over the backyard and easily spotted marijuana plants growing there. Ciraolo argued that his Fourth
Amendment rights were violated because the government did not get a warrant. The Court rejected this argument,
explaining that there was no intrusion into his privacy because [ a]ny

member of the public flying in

this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers

observed.70 In Dow Chemical Co. v. United States , also decided in 1986, the Supreme Court
addressed whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated Dows Fourth Amendment rights when it
employed a commercial aerial photographer to use a precision aerial mapping camera to take photographs of a
chemical plant. The Court found no violation, in part because

the camera the EPA used was a

conventional, albeit precise, commercial camera commonly used in mapmaking ,

and the photographs here are not so revealing of intimate details as to raise constitutional concerns. However,

the Court suggested that the use of more sophisticated, intrusive surveillance might
justify a diferent result. It wrote, surveillance of private property by using highly sophisticated
surveillance equipment not generally available to the public, such as satellite technology, might be constitutionally
proscribed absent a warrant.71 In Florida v. Riley, decided in 1989, the police had received a tip that Michael
Riley was growing marijuana in a greenhouse on the property surrounding his home. The interior of the greenhouse
was not visible from the ground outside the property, and the greenhouse had a ceiling, though two panels in the
ceiling were missing. A police officer flew over the greenhouse and spotted marijuana through the openings in the

four justices concluded that its decision

in Ciraolo applied because Riley had left part of the greenhouse open to
public view, and so the search was constitutional.72 Because of their potential for pervasive
use in ordinary law enforcement operations and capacity for revealing far more than the naked eye, drones
pose a more serious threat to privacy than do manned [stafed] flights. There are
good reasons to believe that they may implicate Fourth Amendment rights in ways that
manned flights do not. Government use of UAVs equipped with technology that
dramatically improves on human vision or captures something humans cannot see
(such thermal or x-ray images) should be scrutinized especially closely by the
courts. This follows from the Supreme Courts statement in Dow Chemical that using sophisticated technology
roof. While no reasoning commanded a majority of the Court,

not generally available to the public may be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. It is also suggested
by the 2001 case Kyllo v. United States, in which the court rejected the use of thermal imaging devices to peer into

the pervasive or
continuous use of a surveillance technology may heighten Fourth Amendment
concerns. In United States v. Knotts, the Supreme Court addressed whether attaching primitive beeper
a suspects home without a warrant.73 Further, the Supreme Court has suggested that

tracking technology to a car violated the drivers Fourth Amendment rights.74 Although it concluded that the use of
the beeper in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment, it held that if such

dragnet type law

enforcement practices as twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this
country ever arose, it would determine if diferent constitutional principles
would be applicable. Citing to this language in Knotts, the federal appeals court in Washington D.C.
recently ruled that attaching a GPS device to a persons car and tracking his movements for 28 days fell into this
category of dragnet-type surveillance and held that the governments warrantless tracking violated the Fourth

Because drones allow for

surveillance at least as pervasive and continuous as GPS tracking, the courts should
recognize that the Fourth Amendment places restrictions on their use . With drones as in
so many areas, the technology is moving far more rapidly than our
jurisprudence, and it is important that the courts keep the Constitution
relevant in the world of high technology in which we are increasingly going to be living.
Recommendations UAVs are potentially extremely powerful surveillance tools, and that power, like all
government power, needs to be subject to checks and balances . Like any tool, UAVs have the
potential to be used for good or ill. If we can set some good privacy ground rules , our society
can enjoy the benefits of this technology without having to worry about its
darker potentials. We impose regulations on what law enforcement can do all the time, for example
allowing law enforcement to take a thermal image of someones home only when they get a warrant. We need
to impose rules, limits and regulations on UAVs as well in order to preserve the privacy Americans
have always expected and enjoyed. The ACLU recommends at a minimum the following core
measures be enacted to ensure that this happens: Usage restrictions. UAVs should be
Amendment. 75 That case is now up on review before the Supreme Court.

subject to strict regulation to ensure that their use does not eviscerate the privacy
that Americans have traditionally enjoyed and rightly expect. Innocent Americans should not have to worry that

use of drones should be prohibited for

indiscriminate mass surveillance, for example, or for spying based on First Amendmentprotected activities. In general, drones should not be deployed except: where there are
specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a
specific instance of criminal wrongdoing or, if the drone will intrude upon reasonable expectations of
privacy, where the government has obtained a warrant based on probable cause; or where there is a
geographically confined, time-limited emergency situation in which particular individuals lives are at risk, such
as a fire, hostage crisis, or person lost in the wilderness ; or for reasonable non-law
enforcement purposes by non-law enforcement agencies, where privacy will not be
substantially affected, such as geological inspections or environmental surveys, and
where the surveillance will not be used for secondary law enforcement purposes.
Image retention restrictions. Images of identifiable individuals captured by aerial surveillance
technologies should not be retained or shared unless there is reasonable suspicion that the
images contain evidence of criminal activity or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or pending
criminal trial. Public notice. The policies and procedures for the use of aerial surveillance
technologies should be explicit and written, and should made public . While it is legitimate
their activities will be scrutinized by drones. To this end, the

for the police to keep the details of particular investigations confidential, policy decisions regarding overall
deployment policiesincluding the privacy tradeoffs they may entailare a public matter that should be openly

Democratic control. Deployment and policy decisions surrounding UAVs

should be democratically decided based on open informationnot made on the fly
by police departments simply by virtue of federal grants or other autonomous
purchasing decisions or departmental policy fiats. Auditing and effectiveness
tracking. Investments in UAVs should not be made without a clear, systematic
examination of the costs and benefits involved . And if aerial surveillance technology is deployed,
discussed.

independent audits should be put in place to track the use of UAVs by government, so that citizens and other
watchdogs can tell generally how and how often they are being used, whether the original rationale for their
deployment is holding up, whether they represent a worthwhile public expenditure, and whether they are being
used for improper or expanded purposes.

Circumvention arguments are wrong executive doesnt ignore

orders from Courts
Prakash and Ramsey 12 (Saikrishna B, David Lurton Massee, Jr. Professor of Law
and Sullivan and Cromwell Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law and Michael
D, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law, review of The Executive
Unbound, Texas Law Review (2012) 90:973, http://www.texaslrev.com/wpcontent/uploads/Prakash-Ramsey-90-TLR-973.pdf)
Yet we doubt the books central claim that we live in a post-Madisonian republic. First,
the U.S. Executive is very much boundby the Constitution, Congresss laws, and the
courts. Though we cannot peer into the many minds populating the Executive Branch,
we do not believe that executive officials regard themselves as above the law and the
courts, answerable only to the people via elections and polls. The Executive Branch

does not act this way, and most of its actions are consistent with its own
sense of what the law requires and forbids (although, like most actors, it often
reads the law to maximize its discretion). To be sure, the Executive Branch takes
advantage of gaps and ambiguities in the law, as well as its speed,
decisiveness, and access to information, all as The Executive Unbound
describes.5 But the Executive does not systematically disregard orders

from Congress or the courts nor does it usually exercise core powers that
the Constitution assigns elsewhere; the Executive does not impose
criminal punishments, spend money without authorization, or rule by
decree. Second, while we agree with Posner and Vermeule that public opinion colors
Executive Branch decision making, we also believe that the public favors an
executive bound by the law. So long as the public expects the law to
constrain the Executive, the Executive will take into account this
expectation and the publics sense of the law, even under Posner and
Vermeules own light. In other words, the public has a taste for the rule of law, a
taste that the Executive Branch ignores at its peril. We think the legal
constraints on the modern Executive are so manifest that we wonder whether
Posner and Vermeules real project is more aspirational than descriptive. Perhaps their
ultimate objective is to persuade us that we should have an unbound executive, not that
we already have one. We hedge here because the book seems of two minds. In keeping
with the title, most of the book forcefully argues that the Executive faces no material
legal constraints. For instance, Posner and Vermeule write that the legally constrained
executive is now a historical curiosity6 and that the Madisonian separation of powers
has collapsed.7 There is no equivocation here. Yet Chapter 6 argues that irrational

fear of executive tyranny has prevented the Executive from obtaining

powers needed to handle modern emergencies.8 Obviously this complaint

assumes that there are constraints on the Executive. And the conclusion in particular
appears to admit that the courts and Congress check the Executivethat the

Executive is bound and that the Madisonian republic lives on.

More Advantages/Add Ons

Judicial Independence
The war on terror was a critical blow to US judicial
independence
McCormack 14 E.W. Thode Professor of Law, University of Utah. (1/1/14,
Wayne McCormack, Washington and Lee Law Review, U.S. Judicial Independence:
Victim in the War on Terror,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4374&context=wlulr, vol 71, issue 1)
One of the principal victims in the United States so-called war on terror has been
the independence of the U.S. Judiciary. Time and again, challenges to assertedly
illegal conduct on the part of government officials have been turned aside, either
because of overt deference to the government or because of special doctrines such
as the state secrets privilege and standing requirements. I have even described the
behavior of the United States since 9/11 as a war on the rule of law.1 This Article
catalogs the principal cases first by the nature of the government action challenged
and then by the special doctrines invoked. What I attempt to show is that the
Judiciary has virtually relinquished its valuable role in the U.S. system of
governance, which depends on judicial review. In the face of governmental claims of
crisis and national security needs, the courts have refused to examine, or have
examined with undue deference, the actions of government officials. Oddly enough,
the mostly Republican Supreme Court has shown more stiff resistance than most of
the lower courts,2 but still has ducked some significant issues.3 In the cases
considered here, the U.S. government has taken the position that inquiry by the
Judiciary into a variety of actions against alleged malfeasors would threaten the
safety of the nation.4 This is pressure that amounts to intimidation. When this level
of pressure is mounted to create exceptions to established rules of law, it
undermines due process of law. Perhaps one or two examples of government
warnings about the consequences of a judicial decision would be within the domain
of legal argument. But a long pattern of threats and intimidation to depart from
established law undermines judicial independence. That has been the course of the
U.S. war on terror for over a decade now.

Court dodging controversial claims kills US global presence

McCormack 14 E.W. Thode Professor of Law, University of Utah. (1/1/14,
Wayne McCormack, Washington and Lee Law Review, U.S. Judicial Independence:
Victim in the War on Terror,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4374&context=wlulr, vol 71, issue 1)
Much of this Article will deal with the ways in which American courts have ducked
(avoided, if that is a more neutral term) claims challenging the legality of official
action in the wake of terrorism. Before turning to that discussion, it is worth taking a
brief look at what commentators and courts have said about the issue of judicial
independence, both domestically and internationally. The latter point is part of how
the U.S. courts avoidance has damaged the American global presence both legally

and politically. I hasten to add at the outset this caveat: the discussion of the Justice
Case from Nuremberg49 will show emphatically that the American judges have not
been complicit in criminal activity but simply have shied away from their traditional
judicial review function over Executive action. What remains is for the future to
determine how and when that role might be resumed.

Surveillance is a key test ground for judicial independence

FISA sacks independence
McCormack 14 E.W. Thode Professor of Law, University of Utah. (1/1/14,
Wayne McCormack, Washington and Lee Law Review, U.S. Judicial Independence:
Victim in the War on Terror,
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4374&context=wlulr, vol 71, issue 1)
The Ninth Circuit reversed on the ground that Mayfield lacked standing because he
had settled the damages claim and a declaratory judgment would not likely impact
him or his family.423 And although at least one judge said he shares the very
significant concerns that the significant purpose standard violates the Fourth
Amendment,424 the Mayfield opinion has been termed an outlier.425 Thus, with
the exception of a lone judge in Oregon, courts have universally accepted the
argument that FISA is not subject to the standards applicable to judicial search
warrants.426 The common rubric is that foreign intelligence is different and gives
rise to special needs of government surveillance. It is difficult, however, to see
what is special about surveilling alleged plotters of violence. Perhaps special
needs could apply in the case of foreign governments or political entities, which are
not part of the people protected by the Fourth Amendment anyway. The only
persons who come within the concerns of FISA are really foreign citizens in the
United States whom the government has probable cause to believe are acting as
agents of a foreign power. Thus, the whole premise of FISA as a special needs
exception to the Fourth Amendment could be flawed even before the change to a
significant purpose, and is surely flawed, as the Oregon court believed, when the
relaxed standards have the primary purpose of law enforcement. The special
needs cases to which the courts have referred in creating this exception have all
been instances in which the target of the search had undertaken some voluntary
departure from the private realmsuch as traveling by air, driving on a public
street, or operating a restaurantin which the public safety demanded an
inspection without regard to probable cause.427 It is possible that taking to the
airwaves through telephone or internet is a similar departure from normal life such
that we have relinquished any claim to privacy. But this conclusion should at least
deal carefully with all the Supreme Court precedents regarding expectations of
privacy, the issue covered in the next section.428 Just dealing with the basic
justification of FISA, with the lone exception of a district judge in Oregon, we have
the apparent specter of the Judiciary yielding to executive claims of special needs
arising from the threat of violence, resulting in a failure of judicial review and loss
of judicial independence. But, in 2013 came the revelation that the FISA Court
had authorized unlimited recording of data communications by U.S. citizens within

the United Statesa revelation of little surprise to those who were following the
issue.

The plan would be a key reversalre-establishing

independence
Peetros 13, Staff writer for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (2/26/13,
Samantha A. Petros, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Supreme Court places
National Security Agency above the law, http://www.bordc.org/blog/supreme-courtplaces-national-security-agency-above-law)
Today, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided, in a monumental 5-4 case, that
the secrecy of government surveillance can perversely insulate dragnet warrantless
wiretapping scheme from judicial review. In one fell swoop, the case effectively
invites the government to continue spying on law-abiding Americans en masse,
renders the judiciary institutionally complicit in constitutional violations , and places
the National Security Agency (NSA) above the law. The NSAs warrantless
wiretapping program caused an earthquake when first revealed in 2005, by New
York Times journalists who risked prosecution to alert the public to a secret
government scheme to wiretap the entire phone system and the Internet. Having
previously prompted threats of a mass resignation by Justice Department officials
under the Bush administration, the program was sensibly struck down as
unconstitutional by multiple federal courts, only to be reversed on appeal. Todays
decision allows government surveillance to continue in secret, without meaningful
checks and balances. While five Justices claimed that alternative sources of review
are available, their finding buries the courts head in the sand. For instance,
SCOTUS defers to the secret FISA court, which according to the Director of National
Intelligence, has previously found parts of the NSAs program unconstitutional. Yet
despite repeated requests, even Congress does not know the details of that judicial
decision, let alone whether and how the program has been modified to satisfy
constitutional limits. According to BORDCs Shahid Buttar: The Clapper decision is a
constitutional travesty of the highest order, reflecting the erosion of privacy, judicial
independence, and constitutional government. By allowing executive secrecy to
insulate violations from review, five Justices of the Supreme Court have effectively
killed what shreds once remained of the Fourth Amendment. Every American should
be gravely concerned, and anyone who still considers America the land of the free
should carefully reconsider their assumptions. Congress must reverse its premature
decision to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA) to provide the
check on executive abuses that the Court has abdicated. Buttar has written about
the NSAs warrantless wiretapping scheme since Congress amended the FISA
statute in 2008, for sources including Huffington Post. BORDC has covered more
recent developments, including the recent re-authorization of the 2008 FISA
amendments by Congress.

Judicial deference causes military adventurism with nuclear

weapons
Scales 2, Professor of law at the University of Denver (December 2002, Anna
Scales, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, The Jurisprudence of the Military-Industrial

Complex, http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1416&context=sjsj)
So, what is the jurisprudence of the military-industrial complex? The short answer is
this: the military-industrial complex has arrived at a comfy situation where it is
either exempt from the rule of law, or else gets to make every decision that informs
what the rule of law would require in a given situation. It is kind of like having your
cake and eating it with the Lord. Eisenhower could have no idea how huge,
seamless, and synergistic this complex would become, including not just weapons
manufacture, but virtually all relations of law, production, and populations in the
world. I am going to take a couple of minutes to spell out how the military side of
this complex presently works, erasing boundaries with industrial interests, and
indeed, with any other legally recognized interests at all First, our nations history
and legitimacy rest upon a separation of military power from democratic
governance. For that reason, the armed forces are subject to constitutional
constraint. Second, however, as an aspect of separation of powers, courts try not to
interfere in areas of foreign policy and military affairs. Often this is referred to as the
political question doctrine, a determination that a matter is beyond the
capabilities of judges. The strongest argument for this deference is that the political
branchesor the military itselfhave superior expertise in military matters. That
may be true in some situations. I am not sure, for example, the Supreme Court
would have been the best crowd to organize the invasion of Normandy. But what we
now have is an increasingly irrational deference.7 Consider three cases: a. In
Korematsu v. United States, 8 the Supreme Court said the internment of JapaneseAmericans at the beginning of 1942 was constitutional, based upon a military
assessment of the possibility of espionage in preparation for a Japanese invasion of
the United States. It turns out that the information provided by the military to the
Supreme Court was falsified.9 But note two things: (1) the nation was in the midst
of a declared world war, and (2) in subsequent less urgent circumstances,
Korematsu would seem to argue strongly for military justifications to have to be
based upon better, more reliable information than was offered there. b. In the 1981
case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 10 the Supreme Court decided that it was constitutional
for Congress to exclude women from the peacetime registration of potential
draftees, even though both the Department of Defense and the Army Chief of Staff
had testified that including women would increase military readiness. But Congress
got the benefit of the military deference doctrine as a cover for what I think was a
sinister political purposeto protect the manliness of warand the Supreme Court
felt perfectly free to ignore what those with the real expertise had to say. c. Most
recently, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 11 the Fourth Circuit held that a U.S. citizen who had
been designated an enemy combatant12 could be detained indefinitely without
access to counsel. In this case, however, not only is there no declared war,13 but
also, the only evidence regarding Mr. Hamdi was a two-page affidavit by a Defense
Department underling, Mr. Mobbs. Mobbs stated that Mr. Hamdi was captured in
Afghanistan, and had been affiliated with a Taliban military unit. The government
would not disclose the criteria for the enemy combatant designation, the
statements of Mr. Hamdi that allegedly satisfied those criteria, nor any other bases
for the conclusion of Taliban affiliation.14 And that is as good as the evidence for

life imprisonment without trial has to be. Deference to the military has become
abdication. In other words, what we presently have is not civilian government under
military control, but something potentially worse, a civilian government ignoring
military advice,15 but using the legal doctrine of military deference for its own
imperialist ends. Third, the gigantic military establishment and permanent arms
industry are now in the business of justifying their continued existences. This
justification is done primarily, as you know, by retooling for post-Cold War enemies
the so-called rogue stateswhile at the same time creating new ones, for
example by arming corrupt regimes in Southeast Asia.16 I was reminded of this
recently when we went to see comedian Kate Clinton. She thought Secretary Powell
had taken too much trouble in his presentation attempting to convince the Security
Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.17 Why not, she asked, just
show them the receipts? Fourth, we have seen the exercise of extraordinary
influence by arms makers on both domestic and foreign policy. For domestic pork
barrel and campaign finance reasons, obsolete or unproven weapons systems
continue to be funded even when the military does not want them!18 And, just
when we thought we had survived the nuclear arms race nightmare, the United
States has undertaken to design new kinds of nuclear weapons,19 even when those
designs have little military value.20 Overseas, limitations on arms sales are being
repealed, and arms markets that should not exist are being constantly expanded21
for the sake of dumping inventory, even if those weapons are eventually used for
rogue purposes by rogue states. This system skews security considerations, and
militarizes foreign policy. Force has to be the preferred option because other
conduits of policy are not sufficiently well-funded. Plus, those stockpiled weapons
have got to be used or sold so that we can build more. Fifth, enlarging upon this in a
document entitled The National Security Policy of the United States, we were
treated last September to the Bush doctrine, which for the first time in U.S.
history declares a preemptive strike policy. This document states, America will act
against emerging threats before they are fully formed.22 If they are only emerging
and not fully formed, you may wonder, how will we know they are threats?
Because someone in Washington has that perception, and when the hunch hits, it is
the official policy of this country to deploy the military .23 All optionsincluding the
use of nuclear weaponsare always on the table.

Deforestation
Drones plant enough trees to plant defo
Lutero 15 Writer for psfk (5/13/14, Leo Lutero, psfk Fighting Deforestation with
Tree-Planting Drones, http://www.psfk.com/2015/05/tree-planting-drones-forestbuilding-biocarbon-engineering.html)
BioCarbon Engineering (BCE) is a high-tech, high volume green thumb. Composed
of a team of engineers and biosphere experts, it aims to rebuild ecosystems by
leveraging drones in mapping and tree planting. The goal: to plant one billion trees
in a year. It might be a crazy goal but the startup is giving everything it has by
developing the right tech for the job. The first step toward a greener planet:
mapping. On the forefront is technology that uses remote sensing to collect
valuable information about target areas. Using drones, BCE can record detailed area
geography, vegetation density, water deficit and crop stress. With the information,
BCE can start planning what trees to grow. Twenty-fifteen isnt the time for by-hand
tree planting. Instead, BCE will be using drones for the job. The unmanned aerial
vehicles will drop special seed pods at the right spots. With calculated plots and
high-precision, up-take rates are expected to soar. With drones, more seeds can be
planted in day on a wider plot of land. It doesnt end at planting. The drones will be
able to monitor forest fauna by remotely measuring weight, leaf count, color, trunk
thickness and other key characteristics that can help reveal the health of forests. In
a blog post, BCE explains it wont be just planting a lot of the same trees in an area.
Instead it will recreate ecosystems by introducing symbiotic organisms such as fungi
and other vegetation types. Diverse communities instead of single-species forests
are far stable and less susceptible to infections and are more likely to survive in the
long run without human intervention.

Drones solve deforestation

Prindle 15 Staff Writer for Digital Trends (4/6/15, David, Digital Trends,
HUMANITYS LATEST WEAPON IN THE FIGHT AGAINST DEFORESTATION?
AUTONOMOUS SEED-BOMBING DRONES, http://www.digitaltrends.com/cooltech/seed-bombing-drones-fight-deforestation/)
Ever since the industrial revolution, humanity been fighting an uphill battle against
deforestation. Despite the best efforts of conservationists, the world either burns or
cuts down about 10 billion more trees than it replants each year a problem that
has big implications for climate change. Environmental organizations have been
trying (and failing) to reverse this trend for decades, but UK-based outfit BioCarbon
Engineering thinks it can succeed where others have failed. How? By enlisting an
army of seed-bombing drones to autonomously replant trees faster than mere
humans ever could. The only way were going to take on these age-old problems is
with techniques that werent available to us before, says CEO Lauren Fletcher. By
using this approach we can meet the scale of the problem out there. Fletcher

envisions BioCarbon drones flying out above a logged area, using cameras to map
out the level of deforestation. If a remote operator determines that the location is a
good candidate for restoration, the drones would swoop down to just a few meters
above the ground and fire a volley of seed pods into the Earth. These pods would be
pre-germinated and covered in a nutrient-laden hydrogel, giving them a greater
chance of successful growth.

Deforestation causes extinctionfood, oxygen and water

filtration
Akyena Brantuo, 10 Columnist for Ghana Web (6/27/10, Benjamin Akyena
Brantuo, Ghana Web, Deforestation: A Threat To Human Survival....,
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Deforestation-A-Threat-ToHuman-Survival-184934)
The earth is fast becoming unsafe for human habitation. This is no longer a subject
of speculation whispered among scientists and within government circles. Ordinary
people are living the reality. In fact, the danger is not so much of the depleting
forests and its ramifications for Economic Dynamics, Mortality Rates and Global
Warming, as it is about the lack of a decisive action to replenish the lost forest. As a
wise man once put it, the importance of trees becomes apparent when we imagine
a world without them. Firstly, deforestation affects economic dynamics. Damage to
forests and other aspects of nature could halve living standards for the worlds poor
and reduce global GDP by about 7% by 2050. This is according to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Bonn. Until recently, utilization of forest
products, including timber and firewood, has played a major role in human societies,
comparable to the roles of water and cultivable land. Today, developed countries
continue to utilize timber for building houses, and wood pulp for paper. In
developing countries, almost three billion people rely on wood for heating and
cooking. It is beyond debate that forest products industry is a large part of the
economy in both developed and developing countries. That notwithstanding, shortterm economic gains made by conversion of forest to urban centres, or overexploitation of wood products, typically lead to loss of long-term income and longterm biological productivity. As a result, West Africa, Madagascar, Southeast Asia
and many other regions have experienced lower revenue because of declining
timber harvests, not to mention the losses in billions of dollars illegal logging causes
to national economies annually. Not only that, deforestation also affects the
economy through agriculture. Farmers continue to lament over the lack of rains
during planting seasons, and the porous nature of the soil for planting.
Deforestation reduces soil cohesion and the content of water in the soil so that
erosion of the top soil, flooding and land sliding can ensue. Conversely, the
presence of trees help to disperse rainfall over a more even area. Leaves on the
ground, keep moisture close to the ground, aiding growth and traps chemicals
keeping them out of lakes and rivers. The resultant effect is that there is a low yield,
which does not only affect the individual farmer and his ability to fend for his family
and repay his loans, but there is a rippling effect on the economy of that country.
Without mincing words, It will take magic for an economy to withstand the absence
of trees and its derivatives, not to mention, other essentials of the economy such as

agric, water, wildlife, oxygen, medicine, etc, which succeed because of the
existence of trees. Indeed, the relationship between world economic crises and
deforestation is direct and proportional. Secondly, trees also affect mortality rates.
The saying is true; when the last tree dies, the last man will die. Media commentary
and testimonies of first hand witnesses are replete with the wonderful healing
prowess of indigenous people relying on various species of trees to heal diseases
that modern science has been insufficient to cure. Aside from that, the world is not
oblivious to the fact that many of the drugs in our hospitals are extracts from trees
and people by merely moving from urban centres to the countryside have felt very
healthy and de-stressed. Again, human lives are largely supported by the benefits
from trees atmospherically. How? Trees produce Oxygen and filter the air we
breathe. For instance, a mature leafy tree produces as much oxygen in a season as
10 people inhale in a year. Trees help cleanse the air by intercepting airborne
particles, and absorbing carbon dioxide, which has serious environmental
implications. In addition, trees muffle urban noise almost as effective as stonewall
since trees planted at strategic points in a neighbourhood or around your house can
abate a major noise from freeways and airports. If not checked, sound pollution can
impair your hearing and negatively affect your mood. Also, trees protect water
bodies which are great source of life: water is life and life is water. Regrettably, the
drying up of lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, and springs, because of deforestation, is
to say the least pathetic. Lest we forget, trees do not only save human lives but also
of plants and wildlife. Forest provide habitat for wildlife and medicinal conservation.
Forest biotopes are irreplaceable source of new drugs. Deforestation can destroy
genetic variations irretrievably.

Sage Grouse
Drones are key to sage brush restoration-saves sage grouse
Ridler 6/17, Writer for the associated press (6/17/15, Keith Ridler, Star Tribune,
Scientists fly drones to map sagebrush as part of Western wildfire strategy,
http://www.startribune.com/scientists-fly-drones-to-map-sagebrush-for-wildfirestrategy/307804721/)
BOISE, Idaho Scientists have deployed drones over western Idaho to map a littleknown landscape as part of an effort to reduce wildfire risks and protect sage
grouse and other wildlife across the West. They say they have to learn more about
what grows in the region so that when charred areas are restored, land managers
don't plant a type of sagebrush that sage grouse won't eat. The football-sized bird
found in 11 states is being considered for federal protections under the Endangered
Species Act. "The lack of maps is a huge, critical problem for conserving sagebrush
and any species like sage grouse that depend on it," Matt Germino, a U.S.
Geological Survey ecologist, said. "We have probably replanted the wrong type of
sage brush to some habitats," he said. A key part of the Interior Department's new
wildfire strategy involves replacing native plants after giant blazes, which have
been an increasing problem in rangeland in many Western states over the last
decade. Such efforts would reduce the likelihood of invasive plants , which often
burn more easily, from overrunning scorched areas. Scientists want to use drones to
identify and map the range of three subspecies of big sagebrush. The most
abundant is called Wyoming big sagebrush. Basin big sagebrush is the most
drought-tolerant. Mountain big sagebrush, meanwhile, is typically found at higher
elevations. The first problem with creating such a map, scientists say, is the
enormous size of the landscape. Attempts to use satellites have failed because they
can't supply the necessary detail. Sending scientists out to map on foot isn't
practical because of the giant landscapes involved. The second problem is that the
three sagebrush subspecies are so similar that even expert botanists examining
plants close up have trouble telling them apart. Wildlife, however, can tell the
difference, Jennifer Forbey, a researcher with Boise State University, said. For sage
grouse, she noted, their entire winter diet is sagebrush.

Theyre a keystone species

Welch 10, Seattle Times staff reporter(3-4-2010, Craig Welch, Seattle Times,
"Big impact on West if sage grouse is recommended as protected species",
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/big-impact-on-west-if-sage-grouse-isrecommended-as-protected-species/)
The problem for the grouse is simple: Half the sagebrush habitat in the West is
gone. These birds need a pretty big landscape, said Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife biologist Derek Stinson. They depend on sage brush, and lots and
lots of it. Before dawn Thursday, as he does almost every day this time of year,
Schroeder, the biologist, piloted his truck down unmarked dirt roads. His eyes
danced in the dark as he scanned empty wheat fields for strutting grouse. With the

windows down he heard them almost as soon as he spied them, the males puffing
out their chests and rolling their feathers and issuing what sounded like monstrous
burps. The morning spring ritual is how they compete with one another to try to
attract a female to mate. Adult females weigh about 2 pounds, males up to 7
pounds. Chowing for eight months out of the year on scratch-dry sagebrush
needles, grouse are plump, skittish birds that often range 20 miles between their
leks their strutting grounds and where they nest. But they are sensitive to
noise and easily driven off by farms and roads. Tall structures like power lines, wind
turbines and oil derricks on treeless grasslands offer new perches for predators
golden eagles, gyrfalcons and other raptors that might swipe grouse for lunch.
They once occupied desert that is now the Tri-Cities. The Columbia Basin Irrigation
Project filed their lands with water. The wild brush fires that once drove grouse to
new areas now squeeze them into smaller and smaller pockets. Like spotted owls,
the grouse are considered a keystone species a means to judge the health of an
entire landscape. And the landscape they represent is one of the Wests largest.
Based on how grouse are faring, Schroeder said the Western grasslands could use
some help.

Keystone species loss causes a domino efect-destroying the

entire ecosystem
National Geographic 11 (4/20/11, National Geographic, keystone species,
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/keystone-species/)
A keystone species is a plant or animal that plays a unique and crucial role in the
way an ecosystem functions. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be
dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. All species in an ecosystem,
or habitat, rely on each other. The contributions of a keystone species are large
compared to the species' prevalence in the habitat. A small number of keystone
species can have a huge impact on the environment. A keystone species is often,
but not always, a predator. A few predators can control the distribution and
population of large numbers of prey species. A single mountain lion near the
Mackenzie Mountains in Canada, for example, can roam an area of hundreds of
kilometers. The deer, rabbits, and bird species in the ecosystem are at least partly
controlled by the presence of the mountain lion. Their feeding behavior, or where
they choose to make their nests and burrows, are largely a reaction to the mountain
lion's activity. Scavenger species, such as vultures, are also controlled by the
activity of the mountain lion. A keystone species' disappearance would start a
domino effect. Other species in the habitat would also disappear and become
extinct. The keystone species' disappearance could affect other species that rely on
it for survival. For example, the population of deer or rabbits would explode without
the presence of a predator. The ecosystem cannot support an unlimited number of
animals, and the deer soon compete with each other for food and water resources.
Their population usually declines without a predator such as a mountain lion.
Without the keystone species, new plants or animals could also come into the
habitat and push out the native species . Some species of hummingbirds are
keystone species in the Sonoran Desert of North America. Hummingbirds pollinate
many varieties of native cactusand other plants. In areas of the Sonoran Desert with

few hummingbirds, invasive species such as buffelgrasshave taken over the

ecosystem. The theory that the balance of ecosystems can rely on one keystone
species was first established in 1969 by American zoology professor Robert T. Paine.
Paine's research showed that removing one species, thePisaster ochraceus sea star,
from a tidal plain on Tatoosh Island in the U.S. state of Washington, h ad a huge
effect on the surrounding ecosystem. The sea stars are a major predator for mussels
on Tatoosh Island. With the sea stars gone, mussels took over the area and crowded
out other species. In this ecosystem, the sea star was the keystone species. The sea
otter is another example of a keystone species in the Pacific Northwest. These
mammals feed on sea urchins, controlling their population. If the otters didn't eat
the urchins, the urchins would eat up the habitat'skelp. Kelp, or giant seaweed, is a
major source of food and shelter for the ecosystem. Some species of crabs, snails,
and geese depend on kelp for food. Many types of fish use the huge kelp forests to
hide from predators. Without sea otters to control the urchin population, the entire
ecosystem would collapse. Herbivores can also be keystone species. In African
savannas such as the Serengeti plains in Tanzania, elephants are a keystone
species. Elephants eat small trees, such as acacia, that grow on the savanna. Even
if an acacia tree grows to a height of several feet, elephants are able to knock over
the tree and uproot it. This feeding behavior keeps the savanna a grasslandand not
a forest or woodland. With elephants to control the tree population, grasses thrive
and sustain grazing animals such as antelopes, wildebeests, and zebras. Smaller
animals such as mice and shrews are able toburrow in the warm, dry soil of a
savanna. Predators such as lions and hyenas depend on the savanna for prey.
Elephants are the keystone species that maintain the entire savanna ecosystem.

Case Extensions

Backlash
Lack of clear guidelines undermine the drone industry
Whitehouse 13 Writer for USA Today, 2/23/15, Kaja, USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faanyc-councilman/23696377/
NEW YORK The federal government isn't the only entity seeking to rein in drones
as their popularity grows. Since 2012, 15 states have enacted laws restricting
drones in some way, according to data from theNational Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL), which tracks state laws. And if New York City Council Member
Dan Garodnick gets his way, drones will be banned in the Big Apple, except for
police with a warrant, as soon as this year. "There are a lot of very important uses
for drones that exist, but until we have the ability to enforce the rules, we are not at
a point to grant permission," Garodnick told USA TODAY. Across the country, state
and local governments are grappling with a confusing array of questions about how
to deal with drones, which hold great potential to help society as well as untested
privacy and security risks. Drone advocates say the rising plethora of restrictions
threaten to leave the U.S. behind at a time when the drone industry is growing.
Drone spending is on track to hit $91 billion worldwide in the next 10 years,
according to aerospace and defense industry research group Teal Group. "This is an
incredibly important industry," said John Frankel, founding partner of ff Venture
Capital, which is an investor in drone operator Skycatch. "It will create an enormous
number of jobs in the U.S. and abroad. It will open up enormous efficiencies for
existing businesses and industries." If the U.S. gets too restrictive on drones, Frankel
added, "Australia, Europe and Asia will become massive markets, and we will be a
backwater." Currently, the biggest driver of new drone laws by states has been
privacy, especially unlawful government surveillance. So far, 14 of the 15 states
have passed laws to curb government agencies from using drones to monitor its
citizens, such as in traffic or at a public rally. Seven of the 15 states also sought to
rein in how private citizens can use drones, according to NCSL's data. In Louisiana,
for, example, it's illegal to use a drone to monitor a person or property without
consent. Offenders face a fine of up to $500 and six months in jail.

States overcompensate for lack of federal regulation

Goodale 13 Writer for The Christian Science Monitor, 2/6/13, Gloria Goodale,
States consider drone bans: Overreaction or crucial for privacy rights? (+video),
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0206/States-consider-drone-bansOverreaction-or-crucial-for-privacy-rights-video
LOS ANGELES As scrutiny over US drone policy abroad grows, local and state
officials are considering measures to ban their use at home. Charlottesville, Va.,
passed the first anti-drone law in the nation Monday, and lawmakers in at least nine
states from Massachusetts to California are considering some form of legislation
restricting the use of drones. The perception is that the drone program has grown
with so little oversight from Congress or lawmakers" that states have to "make up

the slack, saysMichael Boyle, a political scientist at La Salle University in

Philadelphiawho has studied the use of drones. The state and local efforts arise from
the prospect of an increasingly intrusive nanny state and it will lead to invasions
of privacy by governments, but also by organizations such as universities, some of
whom have already been given permits for drones. The local and state push to
legislate is being driven more by fear than reason, says Matt Waite, founder of the
Drone Journalism Lab at the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the
University of Nebraska in Lincoln.

Keeping the FAA in charge will destroy industry confidence

Pilkington 14, chief reporter for Guardian US 9/30/14, Ed Pilkington, The
Guardian, What's keeping America's private drone industry grounded?,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/drone-testers-faa-aviationfrustration-grows
But despite the excitement around drones as the next chapter in aviation history,
there is also growing frustration about the ponderous speed at which the new
automated technology is being integrated into the national airspace. Under current
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, almost all commercial use of the
unmanned planes is strictly prohibited. On a two-day tour of the Northern Plains test
site organised by the North Dakota department of commerce, the coordinator of the
site, the Guardian heard aviation experts and UAS pioneers repeatedly express their
frustration at the glacial speeds at which the FAA is moving towards integrating
drones into Americas skies. Becklund said he was so concerned about the slow rate
of progress that he feared that the US could jeopardize its technological and
commercial leadership in unmanned aerial vehicles. I worry that the rest of the
world is moving ahead faster than we are, he said. We have a lot of interest, the
phone is ringing off the hook, companies want to fly their unmanned airplanes, but
if a company comes to the test site and wants to know how it can go ahead and
commercialise its aircraft, we cant really tell them. Theres something not quite
adding up. He added: Its going to be a frustratingly long wait for the industry in
this country. We are going to have to push to maintain leadership in this area its
easy for people to go to Canada. Benjamin Trapnell, an expert in unmanned
aeronautics at the University of North Dakota, which is a key partner in the UAS test
site, said: The FAA is just rolling its eyes over this they want to see it all go away.
But thats not going to happen. Weve got this huge increase in technology, and the
question is: can we catch up with it under a bureaucratic system that moves with
glacial speeds.

Action on drones spills over to other privacy concerns

Crump and Stanley 13 (Jay Stanley Senior Policy Analyst with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and
Technology Project, former analyst at the technology research firm Forrester. Catherine Crump staff attorney with
the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and a nonresident fellow with the Stanford Center for Internet
and Society) [Why Americans Are Saying No to Domestic Drones]
(http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/domestic_surveillance_drone_bans_are_sweeping_t
he_nation.html) //MC

*fait accompli a thing that has already happened or been decided before those
affected hear about
With drones, on the other hand, because of the safety and regulatory issues they raise, we have a
chance to do it right. The American public and our elected representatives can, for once, get
ahead of the deployment curvewe can raise awareness, propose protections, and
build support for them before the problems hit us in the face. If done right, this
moment of hyperawareness about privacy could become a more permanent
state of afairs: Ryan Calo of Stanfords Center for Internet and Society suggested in a December 2011
paper that because of their disquieting nature, drones could be just the visceral jolt
society needs to spark broader changes in how Americans conceptualize
privacy problems.
Ultimately, the best solution on drones would be for Congress to pass strong, uniform rules protecting everyone
across the nation and putting privacy concerns to rest. For example, law enforcement agents should not make

utilize them only where they have a specific

reason to believe that use of one will turn up evidence of criminal activity. Ideally,
those protections would become a model for other, perhaps less vivid but equally intrusive
technologies such as cellphone location tracking . But unless and until Congress acts, state and
drones general tools of surveillance but should instead

local resolutions and rules are the best thing Americans can do to protect our privacy from the enormously invasive
potential of domestic surveillance drones. The upsurge in local activism around the country is just whats needed to
make this happen.

We solve independent judicial oversight checks

Ahsanuddin 14 (Sadia Ahsanuddin Muslim Public Affairs Council Research Fellow; Harvard Grad,
worked at three think tanks, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Brennan Center for Justice and interned at
the United Nations) [Domestic Drones: Implications for Privacy and Due Process in the United States] //MC
MPAC Suggested Guidelines The Muslim Public Affairs Council endorses the following principles in proposed federal
and state drone legislation:

law enforcements use of drones should be restricted .

Drones present an unprecedented threat to privacy , far more potent than manned
[stafed] aerial vehicles, and as such should be subjected to more stringent
requirements. In order to limit the capability of drones to chill First Amendmentprotected activities, law enforcement should be required to acquire a warrant before operating
a drone for surveillance in public and private locations. A warrant should also apply if law enforcement is
obtaining information from third-party drones. A few reasonable exceptions should be made : law
enforcement should be allowed to use a drone during emergencies, but any legislation should provide a
clear definition of emergency and law enforcement should be required to
Law enforcement use of drones:

submit a sworn statement describing the nature of the emergency before any drone is deployed. In all cases, a

Any data collected from a drone

that does not result from a search warrant or fall into one of the excepted
categories should be inadmissible in court. Data collection: Law enforcement should not be allowed to retain
time limit ought to restrict law enforcement operation of drones.

or use data that is incidental to the investigation at hand, irrelevant, or unrelated. Any such data should be destroyed within a week of acquirement.
Congress and state legislatures should require that all drone operators submit data collection statements to the FAA, stating who will operate the drone,
when, and the kind of data they intend to collect before obtaining a permit. The amount of personally-identifiable information collected should be
limited. Congress and state legislatures should develop data minimization guidelines for law enforcement use of drones. Further, law enforcement should
be required to abide by these data minimization guidelines and submit data minimization statements. Any personally-identifiable information should be
used solely for the purpose stated in a search warrant. Any data collected must be secured from unauthorized access from external parties. Adoption
of Fair Information Practices (FIPs): The FAA should require that any federal, state, or local agency applying for a license to operate a drone must
incorporate the FIPs in their privacy policies. Weaponization of drones: The weaponization of drones should be prohibited, as should any attempt to use a

Due process: No federal, state, or

local government may use a drone to deprive any individual located within the
United States of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
drone to deliver weapons against any person or property or use a drone as a weapon.

Remedies: Effective legislation ought to include remedies. States and individuals should have
the ability to bring a cause of action against an entity that, in operating a drone,
deprives them of rights. Oversight: Drone deployment by any federal, state, or local
governmental agency must be subjected to oversight by the appropriate governing body. Each

such agency must record the duration and geographic domain of each drone flight, as well as the purpose of each
mission. Each agency must submit a detailed report addressing the above to the appropriate governing body

subjected to oversight by an impartial

party that is ideally located outside the law enforcement agency. Oversight by municipal
annually. Local law enforcement drone usage should be
councils is preferable.

Current drone usage is under shaky assumptions of dueprocess brightlines are necessary to solve abuse
Gerstein 12 (Josh Gerstein writer @ Politico, specializing in legal and national security issues, attended
Harvard College and received a Bachelors degree, magna cum laude, in government.) [Obama: U.S. seeks 'due
process' in drone strikes] (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/09/obama-us-seeks-due-process-indrone-strikes-134889.html) //MC
"It's very important for the president and the entire culture of our national security team to continually ask tough

are we abiding by rule of law, are we abiding by

due process," Obama said in an interview with CNN first aired on Monday. "And then set up structures
and institutional checks, so that, you know, you avoid any kind of slippery slope into a
questions about, are we doing the right thing,

place where we're not being true to who we are." Obama's comments echo Attorney General Eric Holder's remarks
in a speech in Chicago in March explaining the legal basis the administration asserts for the drone strikes, part of
broader programs sometimes referred to as "targeted killing." However, Holder acknowledged in that speech that
the "due

process" the administration has employed does not involve an

independent review by the courts. "Due process and judicial process are not
one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security," Holder said then. "The Constitution
guarantees due process, it does not guarantee judicial process." Critics say the kind of due process Holder and

layers of internal administration review, rather than

a more formal process involving a court . One oddity of the current legal situation
remains that the U.S. government needs some kind of court-approved warrant to
intentionally eavesdrop on the telephone or e-mail of a U.S. citizen suspected of involvement with Al
Qaeda, like Anwar Al-Awlaki. However, using a drone, a missile, bomb or military raid to intentionally
kill that same person requires no approval from the judicial branch. Another thing absent
here despite the administration's welcome steps towards explaining the scope and
legal rationale of the drone programs: transparency. While the various systems for
authorizing such strikes have been reported on in books like Dan Klaidman's "Kill or Capture"
and news stories like this one in May in the New York Times, virtually nothing about the
mechanics of the process is officially on the record. In addition, it's unclear how if at all
the secret authorizing system deals with the issue of whether terrorist suspects ,
particularly Americans, need to be on notice that the government is seeking them before
they're killed in a process that offers no opportunity for surrender on the spot. The
Obama are describing is pretty weak stuff:

administration has also said that it only uses deadly force where capture is "not feasible," something president
described as limiting the program to "very remote areas [where] it's difficult to capture them." However,

question of feasibility, sometime referred to as "undue risk" to the U.S. soldiers or

operatives who might carry out an operation, seems highly subjective.

the

Agriculture
Drones help farmers grow better crops
Kelsey D. Atherton, 2-20-2015, ("Farmers Eye Drones For The Future," Popular Science, Kelsey Atherton is
a technology writer based in Washington, DC. He primarily covers defense technology and unmanned vehicles, and
will happily argue the semantics of what is and isn't a drone. When not writing for Popular Science he maintains the
even-nerdier Grand Blog Tarkin. http://www.popsci.com/farmers-eye-drones-future)

drones promise: cheap aerial photography, with regular and infrared cameras,
combined with programs that stitch together and analyze the photos, to give farmers
information that was previously unattainable or too costly . In 2013, a vineyard in California
used drone photography to find a section of vines that was ripening sooner than
expected, prompting an earlier harvest of that area. Last year, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture looked into acquiring and testing a drone for farming purposes. Drones
can do more for farming than just photographing crops. Sugar alternative giant Stevia
considered flying drones with lights over its crops at night to spur extra growth . And a
student contest in Maryland last summer considered drone designs to protect corn from insect
predators, including a design that landed on corn stalks and picked grubs off of it
with mechanical arms.
Heres what

Drones Improving the Production of Crops

HomeLand Security News Wire 13 July 2015, ("Food security, drones," LLC News Wire
Publications, LLC, http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150713-drones-contribute-to-improving-crops)

farming has suitable soils to apply new technologies . Today, numerous greenhouses have
advanced systems to control climate or supply water and nutrients to plants. The main purposes of greenhouse
farming are climate control, both at local and global levels, and crop monitoring. In
such a way, there is a need to measure certain environmental variables of the
greenhouse continuously and accurately. Researchers have used an unmanned
aerial vehicle powered by four rotors called quadcopter or quadrotor . The use of these
aerial robots is spreading due to their reduced size (from a few decimeters to a
meter or two), their low cost and the number of pieces of equipment that can
transport, for example, cameras or sensors . The quadrotor was equipped with
sensors for temperature, humidity, luminosity, and carbon dioxide concentration as
well as a controller to collect this data and send it to a wireless network. Researchers have
Greenhouse

carried out a complete analysis of computational fluid dynamics and have set the optimal position for these sensors and showing
that propellers flows do not produce interference in their actions. The quadrotor can follow programmed routes autonomously in the
greenhouse or move freely in search of anomalies in its measurements. Finally, all systems were shown in an experiment in a

The robot flew the whole greenhouse in twenty

minutes and generated maps of temperature, humidity, luminosity, and carbon
dioxide concentration. These maps can be used, amongst others, to guarantee
optimal environmental conditions for plant growth or to detect leaks of temperature and humidity
greenhouse located at the plastic sea in Almeria.

caused by cover damages.

Agricultural advancements are needed for the future

Associative Press, 12-14-2013, The Associated Press (AP) is an American
multinational nonprofit news agency headquartered in New York City. The AP
is owned by its contributing newspapers, radio, and television stations in the
United States, all of which contribute stories to the AP and use material
written by its staff journalists"Agriculture the most promising market for
drones," Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/14/agriculture-mostpromising-market-for-drones/
Experts point to agriculture as the most promising commercial market for drones
because the technology is a perfect fit for large-scale farms and vast rural areas
where privacy and safety issues are less of a concern . Already, farmers, researchers
and companies are developing unmanned aircraft systems equipped with cameras
and other sensors to survey crops, monitor for disease or precision-spray pesticides
and fertilizers. Drones, also known as UAVs, are already used overseas in agriculture,
including Japan and Brazil. And the possibilities are endless: Flying gizmos could be used to ward
off birds from fields, pollinate trees, do snow surveys to forecast water supply,
monitor irrigation, or plant and harvest crops. The technology could revolutionize
agriculture, farmers say, by boosting crop health, improving field management
practices, reducing costs and increasing yields .

Drones will revolutionize the agricultural industry

Los Angeles Times, 9-13-2014, "Drones may provide big lift to agriculture
when FAA allows their use," latimes, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dronesagriculture-20140913-story.html#page=1

the big boom in unmanned aircraft may come from what's known as precision
agriculture using high-tech systems to help farmers increase yields and cut
costs. In recent years, consumer-quality drones that are cheaper and easier to fly have become commonplace,
But

but Federal Aviation Administration rules have restricted their civilian use to recreation and research in all but a few
cases. That has led Morris and others to market their agricultural drones overseas, where regulations are not as
strict. Sunnyvale, Calif., technology company Trimble began offering agricultural drones in January and is currently
selling them in foreign markets. Indiana-based drone maker PrecisionHawk says it has projects in Canada, South
America and Australia. California farmers and technologists from the Russian River Valley to Silicon Valley say they
are eager to put drones to commercial use here at home. lRelated Farmers drilling deeper for water as drought
drags on BUSINESS Farmers drilling deeper for water as drought drags on SEE ALL RELATED 8 Some, like
YangQuan Chen, an engineering professor at UC Merced, envision a new "data drone valley" in the state's Central
Valley, not far from the tech giants and venture capitalists of the Bay Area. "I see a bright future. That's the reason
I started my lab in the Central Valley," said Chen, who was doing research with agriculture drones at Utah State

The
unmanned aerial systems can be programmed to fly low over fields and stream
photos and videos to a ground station, where the images can be stitched together
into maps or analyzed to gauge crop health. They can also be modified to land and
take soil and water samples. One day they could be used in the U.S. as precision
crop-dusters. "The application of these data drones is only limited by our
University before joining the UC Merced faculty and starting the school's mechatronics lab in 2012.

imagination," Chen said. Ryan Kunde with drone Ryan Kunde, a winemaker at DRNK Wines in Sebastopol,
Calif., prepares to launch a 3D Robotics Aero drone at Kunde Family Vineyards near Santa Rosa, Calif. Kunde flies his
drones recreationally, but he hopes one day to use them to help farmers manage their crops. (Discover Sonoma
County Wine) Agriculture could be the proving ground for commercial drone applications, partly because operating
in rural areas far from crowds, large airports and tall buildings alleviates privacy and safety concerns.

Many

experts believe that drones could revolutionize the industry . "I think it's going to change
agriculture as we know it in North America," said Scott Shearer, a professor at Ohio State University and an expert
in precision agriculture. "It's

definitely going to allow producers to become much more

efficient." Shearer said drones already can be used to provide more timely crop
data and higher-resolution aerial imagery at a fraction of the cost of using
traditional piloted aircraft or satellites. "It's a bit of a game changer," Shearer said.

Lifting of FAA regulations against drones increases agricultural

market
Los Angeles Times, 9-13-2014, "Drones may provide big lift to agriculture
when FAA allows their use," latimes, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dronesagriculture-20140913-story.html#page=1
future commercial drone markets would be
largely in agriculture, with some in public safety such as law enforcement, firefighting and emergency
management. The study, by the Assn. for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International,
projected that the economic effect of integrating drones into the national airspace
would top $2.3 billion in California in the first three years , more than in any other state,
leading to the creation of more than 12,000 jobs in this state alone . Some experts caution
A 2013 study by a drone trade group estimated that

that the trade group's predictions may be too optimistic, but they acknowledge that there is a huge opportunity for
agricultural drones. The benefits of ag drones are promising for farmers growing largely commodity crops in the
Midwest, but Shearer said they may be even greater for those cultivating high-value crops, such as California's wine
grape growers.

Ryan Kunde, winemaker for DRNK Wines near Sebastopol, has been testing drones
with the goal of one day using them to help make decisions in the vineyard where to harvest first,
what plants need more nutrients, which areas need more water and which need less.

Ryan Kunde looks over a

Kunde hopes one day to use the data that drones

collect to help farmers manage their crops. "Small increases in productivity make a
huge impact," he says. "It's farming smarter." (Discover Sonoma County Wine)
"Small increases in productivity make a huge impact," Kunde said. "It's farming smarter."
color-coded image captured by a drone.

Kunde began tinkering with drones in 2010, and eventually formed a company to provide drone monitoring data to

until the FAA approves commercial drone use, that business is

"kind of in a holding pattern," he said. "The market is there. We just don't have the
guidelines to regulate it," Kunde said. Drone advocates say wider use depends on
the complex process of integrating unmanned aircraft into national airspace, which
will start to be outlined in forthcoming FAA rules.
grape growers for a fee. But

Integration of drone technology is key to agriculture

The Economist, 12-4-2014, Free the drones,"
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635489-drones-have-immensecommercial-potentialso-long-regulators-dont-try-tether-them, Accessed: 5-262015, /Bingham-MB

One immediate commercial use is surveying land cheaply and effectively . A drone
can photograph a road to a resolution of 2cm, compared with the 30cm that a
satellite offersand it can do so at a third of the cost. Already farmers are using
them to monitor crop growth, which in turn enables modern farm machinery to
deliver exactly the right amount and type of fertiliser. In France, where the
technology is widely used, farmers say drones boost revenues by 50 ($62) or so
per hectare. Drones also improve safety: they can be used to do jobs, such as
inspecting power lines, that currently require dangling a man from a helicopter. And
they can deliver goods faster: DHL, a logistics firm, already uses a parcelcopter to
deliver medicine to Juist, a small island off the coast of Germany.

Drones key to Agriculture

Bennett 13 (Chris Bennett, Farm Press Blog, Drones begin descent on US
agriculture, http://westernfarmpress.com/blog/drones-begin-descent-us-agriculture,
February 12, 2013)

No one is laughing now. Once considered only a cut above remote-controlled toys, drones have proven their

manufacturers are eyeing U.S. agriculture as a

tremendous market opportunity. Speaking to Wired magazine, Chris Mailey, vice president of
the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), said,
Agriculture is gonna be the big market. Wired reports that Japan used drones, or unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), to spray 30 percent of its rice fields in 2010. UAV technology is
rapidly evolving and drones are already seeing limited use in the wine industry. In
2012, AirCover Integrated Solutions Corp., a California drone manufacturer, opened a plant in Carroll, Iowa. UAVs
can play a part in helping the American farmer lower costs and increase
productivity. Unless an expensive helicopter is hired, or a flyby photo with a plane is done, farmers have
potency in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and

limitations in assessing their crops until its time for harvest, CEO James Hill told the Daily Times Herald. According
to the Herald, the AirCover drones measure about 2-1/2 feet by 2-1/2 feet and 3.7 pounds are slightly larger
than a seagull. The drones, managed from the ground by state-of-the-art computer systems, can climb 80 feet per
second, or about four stories per second. They travel horizontally at 45 mph. Drone use advocates for agriculture
and other commercial industries will have to navigate through a minefield of privacy and legal issues. Lance
Gooden, Texas state representative, has introduced a bill that with few exceptions, would ban the use of drones by
private citizens or state or federal law enforcement. WOAI reported the following: "These drones are going to get
so cheap that soon you'll be able to buy your own drone at Best Buy," Gooden said. "You could park it a foot above
the ground in your neighbor's back yard and film into their house. If someone wanted to film your children out

The Federal Aviation

Administration, after getting swamped with thousands of drone applications from
universities (with a heavy agricultural focus), law enforcement and private citizens,
has a 2015 deadline to open up U.S. skies to civilian drones. The San Francisco Chronicle
reports: "the drone makers have sought congressional help to speed their entry into a
domestic market valued in the billions. The 60-member House of Representatives'
"drone caucus" -- officially, the House Unmanned Systems Caucus -- has helped
push that agenda." A host of industries are on hold to see what rules and regulations are finalized when
concrete laws are laid down. The commercial industry market for drones is extremely difficult to
gauge but the potential is genuinely massive measured in the billions. The New York
Times puts the drone market value at $5.9 billion and growing : "The market for
drones is valued at $5.9 billion and is expected to double in the next decade , according
playing by the pool and put that video on the Internet ... as creepy as that sounds."

to industry figures. Drones can cost millions of dollars for the most sophisticated varieties to as little as $300 for

the market scope

and profit potential for agriculture will hinge on drone costs . Mailey believes farming
and drones will be a fit, as he told Wired: Spraying, watering theres a whole
market for precision agriculture, and when you put that cost-benefit together,
farmers will buy [drones].
one that can be piloted from an iPhone." Regardless of how good the drone technology is,

Food shortages cause massive global war, famine and a huge

refugee crisis worse than global warming
Cribb 10 Julian Cribb, Author & public speaker at Poisoned Planet & The
Coming Famine, Principal at Julian Cribb & Associates, Founding Editor at
ScienceAlert Pty Ltd, educated at The University of Western Australia Radley
College, Abingdon, Berkshire, UK 2010 (The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis
and what We Can Do to Avoid it, Published by University of California Press, ISBN
9780520260719, p. 9)
more wars have been
triggered by disputes over food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic
differences. This should not surprise us: people have fought over the means of survival for most of history. But
in the abbreviated reports on the nightly media, and even in the rarefied realms of government policy, the focus
is almost invariably on the players-the warring national, ethnic, or religious factionsrather than on the play, the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite
conflict. Caught up in these are groups of ordinary, desperate people fearful that
there is no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their children-and
believing that they must fight "the others" to secure them . At the same time, the number
of refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and famines
precipitated by food and re source shortages. Governments in troubled regions
tottered and fell.
The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990s,

The coming famine is planetary because it involves both the immediate effects of
hunger on directly affected populations in heavily populated regions of the world in
the next forty years-and also the impacts of war, government failure, refugee crises,
shortages, and food price spikes that will affect all human beings, no matter who
they are or where they live. It is an emergency because unless it is solved, billions will experience great
hardship, and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy, one of the world's most progressive dairy farmers, with
operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and South America, succinctly summed it all up: " Global

warming gets all the publicity but the real imminent threat to the human race is
starvation on a massive scale. Taking a 10-30 year view, I believe that food
shortages, famine and huge social unrest are probably the greatest threat the
human race has ever faced. I believe future food shortages are a far bigger
world threat than global warming.

Food security allows government to provide food aid to other

countries
Nathan

Nunn and Nancy Qian 14

US Food Aid and Civil Conflict

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/faidconf_20130806_final_0.pdf

TheprincipalcontributionofourstudyistodevelopastrategyforestimatingthecausaleffectofUSfoodaidon
conflict.Ouranalysisusestwosourcesofvariation.First,weexploitplausiblyexogenoustimevariationinUS
wheatproduction,whichisprimarilydrivenbychangesinUSweatherconditions.USagricultural price

stabilization policy requires the government to purchase wheat from US farmers at a

set price, causing the government to accumulate excess reserves in high production
years.Muchofthegovernment surplus is then shipped to developing countries as food
aid.Thus,US wheat production is positively correlated with US food aid shipments in
the following year.Second,weexploitcrosssectionalvariationinacountryslikelihoodofbeingaUSfood
aidrecipient,whichwemeasureastheproportionofyearsthatacountryreceivesapositiveamountofUSfoodaid
duringthe36yearsofourstudy,19712006.Usingthetwosourcesofvariationtogether,weconstructthe
interactionoflastyearsUSwheatproductionandthefrequencythatacountryreceivesanyUSfoodaidanduse
thisasaninstrumentfortheamountoffoodaidreceivedbyacountryinagivenyear.Ourbaselineestimates,Asan
example,inherrecentbook,Polman(2010)documentsthefollowingexamplesoflargescaleaidtheft:Afghanistan
(2001present),Cambodia(1980s),Chad(2008),Ethiopia(1984,2001present),Iraq(early1990s),Kenya(1980s),
Nigeria(19671979),Rwanda(19941996),SierraLeone(1990s,2001),SouthAfrica(1990s),Sudan(1982
present),Thailand(1980s),Uganda(1950s),WestTimor(1999),andZaire(19941996,2001).whichexaminean
annualpanelof125nonOECDcountries,includecountryfixedeffectsthatcontrolforalltimeinvariantdifferences
betweencountries(includingthemaineffectofthelikelihoodthatacountrywasaUSfoodaidrecipient)and
regionspecificyearfixedeffectsthatcontrolforchangesovertimethataffectcountrieswithineachregionsimilarly

Precision Farming
Drones Key to precision farming
P.J. Griekspoor, 3-21-2013, "Precision Agriculture Seen as Big Winner in Drone
Technology," No Publication, http://farmprogress.com/story-precision-agricultureseen-big-winner-drone-technology-9-96113

The biggest thing on the horizon in precision agriculture is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
flights, according to a new report from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International. Kansas, already a leader in research on the vehicles that
are expected to see explosive growth when integration into national airspace begins
in 2015, ranks No. 7 among states likely to see economic benefits the report says ,
with the state expected to see a $2.9 billion impact and 3,700 new jobs between
2015 and 2025. The greatest area of growth indicated by the report will be in
precision agriculture, which is slated to grow 10 times that of the public safety
market for UAS. Precision agriculture use of UAS refers to two segments of the farm
market: remote sensing used to scan plants for health problems, growth rates and
hydration; and precision application of needed pesticides or nutrients in order to
save money and reduce environmental impact. Aerial sensing with the hexacopter,
can provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18
minutes a task that would take hours if not days on a tractor. Aerial sensing with
the hexacopter, can provide mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch
resolution in about 18 minutes a task that would take hours if not days on a
tractor. Members of the Kansas Ag Research and Technology Association got an
upclose look at the work that is being done at Kansas State University by agronomy
professor Kevin Price, who is working closely with Deon van der Merwe, head of the
toxicology section at the K-State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. UAVs can help
monitor crop conditions Van der Merwe is a remote-controlled aircraft enthusiast
who is excited about the prospect of using UAVs, commonly referred to as drones, to
detect blue-green algae blooms in bodies of water. Price brought two aircraft to the
KARTA conference, a flying wing by RiteWingRC called the Zephyr II and a DJI S800
Spreading Wings hexacopter. Price said the promise of using the aircraft to do
remote sensing to monitor crop condition, detect diseases and map fields for
variable rate application of nutrients or pinpoint areas for fungicide or pesticide
application, is huge. Aerial sensing with the hexacopter, for example, can provide
mapping of an entire section of land at 1-inch resolution in about 18 minutes a
task that would take hours if not days on a tractor.

Precision farming makes it more efficient

Peter Murray, MAR 13, 2011, "Precision Agriculture," Singularity HUB,
http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/13/precision-agriculture-high-technology-invadesthe-farm/

Touchscreen consoles allow farmers to manage the new technologies now running their tractors, which include GPS
guidance and satellite imagery. Here at the Hub, we try to keep our finger on the pulse of technology and how it
affects our lives. Farming is no exception, and its about to get an upgrade. With scrolling ads for the latest
touchscreen control system, wireless connectivity solutions, and Dell notebooks, PresionAgs website looks more

The high technology decorating the website is

symbolic of the infiltration of high technologies onto farms across the world. Tractors
like a site for tech junkies than for farmers.

operated by touchscreens are becoming increasingly common. Words such as remote sensing, near-infrared, and
algorithm that evoke images of a space shuttle cockpit are steadily working their way into the vernacular of

Welcome to the future of farming. Its called precision agriculture. The

mechanization of farming is considered one of the top ten engineering
accomplishments of the 20th century. Before the tractor it took 35 to 40 hours to plant and harvest
everyday farmers.

100 bushels of corn. Today the same amount of corn takes 2 hours and 45 minutes. The effects of this staggering
increase in efficiency were felt across society at large as would-be farmers, no longer needed, moved into the cities

Now
farming is poised to undergo another revolution , delivered through another of the
20th centurys technological breakthroughs: computers. Crop fields can be huge. In
places like the American Midwest and Canada fields can stretch for miles. Inefficiencies in farming
operations over distances like these can raise costs exponentially. Imagine the
amount of seed wasted by steering a tractor just six inches off track . Doubleseeding that six inch strip is not only wasteful in terms of seeds lost, but also due to
lost production of a crop now growing under suboptimal conditions. Now take that
seed error and multiply it by a factor of water + fertilizer + herbicides + pesticides.
GPS to the rescue. Whereas before a farmer had to reckon with guideposts, they now have tractors that
communicate with satellites. The typical guidance system youre likely to find on a tractor has a precision
of under a meter, but more advanced systems can reach sub-inch precision. And the best part is that the
tractor drives itself! The GPS is hooked up to a control system that drives the tractor so the farmer can sit
back, crank up the music, and enjoy the ride (watch the tractor drive itself in the video below). Considering
the constant mental effort it requires to keep straight with the guideposts, the relief
afforded by a hands-off ride is a significant benefit. Farmers who have switched over
to GPS often cite increased productivity from less stressed drivers. Aside from the
technology, a major advancement of precision ag comes from a change in the way
farmers think about their fields. In the past, a field was viewed as a uniform unit: if its time to water,
the entire field gets watered. But the reality is that not every part of the field has the same
need for water or fertilizer or pesticides. The smartness of precision ag comes in the
form of what are called variable rate technologies that control delivery of water
and chemicals according to what that subregion of the field needs. In the past farmers
in droves (in 1900 41 percent of the U.S. workforce were employed in agriculture; in 2000, just 1.9 percent).

could tell you what areas of the field needed more or less water from direct observation. But a farm back then was

As the fields of today approach the massive expanses of tens

of thousands of acres, comprehensive hands-on assessments are becoming
impossible. At the same time, effectively managing a farm of this size requires an
information gathering system that is quick and comprehensive. Remote-sensing is
just this system. Multi-spectral images taken from satellites and aircraft can provide
farmers with a wide range of information about their fields . Images of red light reveal relative
typically a few hundred acres.

levels of silt, sand, calcium, and clay in the soil (soil texture is an important factor in determining the right level of
water and chemical application). Readings in infrared tell you which areas receive more water and how water
moves in the field. Infrared images can also be used to assess weed coverage. Images in the thermal infrared range
is used to assess plant health. This is due to the fact that unhealthy plants are unable to cool off through
transpirationthe release of water through somata on their leavesand overheat as a result. Not surprisingly,
green light which reflects off the plants chlorophyll is used to assess plant growth. The multi-spectral data is
plugged into a computer model to generate a prescription map for the field. And its a pretty smart system: whether
youre scanning corn or cotton or peanut fields, the computer models used to interpret the data can be modified to

take into account the physical properties of the plant. The three false-color images shown here were taken by
sensors aboard NASAs Daedalus aircraft. The top image shows crop density (dark blues and greens indicate
vegetation, red indicates bare soil) the middle image maps water deficit (dark blues and greens indicate wet soil,
red indicates dry) and the bottom image measures stress (red and yellow indicate high stress). Multi-spectral

The
remote-sensing data reveals to the farmer what he already knew: variability is part
of the fields. So how does he use this information? The multi-spectral data is entered into a computer that then
imagery, such as these from NASA's Daedalus aircraft, reveal the heterogeneous reality of crop fields.

calculates the amount of water or chemicals needed, then automated sprayers vary their application accordingly as
the tractor moves across the field. Known as variable rate technology (VRT), this automation again takes the hard
decisions out of the farmers hands and gives them to computers. Remote-sensing data is expensive, and farmers
often get together and share the cost by purchasing surveys that span multiple farms. One limitation of remote
sensing is time resolution. Ideally fields would be scanned on a daily basis, but many farmers simply cannot afford
to hire airplanes that frequently. And satellite coverage is broad, rarely scanning the same field twice within a 24
hour period. But one neednt always take to the air to benefit from VRTs. Several companies offer sensing systems
that can be attached to tractor booms and read the field on the go. Like the sensors on Daedalus, these sensors
take multi-spectral readings to determine plant growth and health, and this data is then used to modify output from
applicators on the boom. The proximity to the plants offers the advantage of active light sensing. Because these
sensors provide their own light theyre not affected by light interferences such as clouds or shadows. And they can

The main motivation behind precision ag is, of course, to increase profit

margins. A farmer who adopts the technology saves about $2 to $8 per acre. If he springs for the high-end,
more sophisticated equipment, he can save up to $15 per acre. Concerns by todays farmers hesitant to
adopt the VRT approach (We never needed that junk! went one blog comment I saw) that the expensive
equipment will drive up food prices are unfounded . The 60 percent of Alabama
farmers who have adopted precision ag technologies saved an estimated $10
million in 2009. The land profits as well. Applying chemicals only to sites and in
amounts needed cuts down on pollution due to runoff . But if a farmer still doesnt buy into the
be used at night.

precision ag and finds himself soon unable to match large-scale profits, theres always the local or organic markets
he can turn to. With remote-sensing imagery, computer modeling software, and high tech tractors, this is definitely
not your grandfathers farm. While strawberry-picking robots are very cool, were probably a long way from seeing
them roll past the cows out to pasture. Farmers are a meat-and-potatoes type of folk who need a meat-and-potato

Precision ag is still young, and as the variable rate technologies

become more capable and user-friendly theyll reach more farms all across the
world. Of course, mass food production has its downside, such as the risks of monocultures and food chain
kind of technology.

corruption. Part of me worries that the precision ag technologies will hasten the pace at which farms are growing. If
we reach a point where the average farm of tomorrow looks like the industrial farm monstrosities of today, we have

But for now, as long as mass food production is

going to continue, its good to see that theyre doing it in more efficiently and using
less resources. A hundred years ago farming technology changed the world. Im
hopeful that a hundred years from now we might be saying the same thing.
to ask if the pros really do outweigh the cons.

Drone precision farming works Britain proves

Peter Moore, 7/20/2015
"Drones and driverless tractors is this the future of farming?," Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2015/jul/20/drones-driverless-tractors-futurefarming

Ian Beecher-Jones, a precision farming consultant, recently told Farmers Weekly magazine that about 60%

of
Britains farmland is now being managed by precision methods , which include sensor
systems, cameras, drones, microphones, virtual field maps, analytics and GPSguided tractors. These technologies examples of the so-called internet of things are fuelling
what is being called the new agricultural revolution.

Clive Blacker, an arable farmer from Yorkshire, recognised about 20 years ago that change was coming. It was
1998, he said, and it came being sat on the tractor seat and realising that there was so much variability in the
fields. There are the good bits and the bad bits, and we were treating them all the same way. I thought that there
were better solutions for this.
Blacker began to experiment with nascent technologies like yield mapping and, in 2004, set up a small business,
Precision Decisions, to supply hardware to farmers. One of the technologies he markets is the N Sensor from the
German firm, Yara, which he says is being used at 250 farms in the UK.
The N Sensor gives an example of the kind of precision technology available to farmers today. It consists of a cab-mounted tool
imagine a surfboard bolted onto the roof of a tractor that is equipped with sensors at either end. The sensors gaze outwards,
analysing the colour of a growing crop. From this data the N Sensor determines its chlorophyll content and, by an extension of logic,
the crops nitrogen requirement. The N Sensor then relays the data to a spreader, which, in turn, applies the required dose of
fertiliser to a specific part of the field.

People would be surprised at how much of this is going on, Blacker says. A Defra report from 2012 found that

22% of farmers have GPS steering systems, 20% do soil mapping, 16% variable rate
application (using technology like the N Sensor) and 11% yield mapping. Although these numbers
might seem low, precision techniques are mostly used by farmers with large acreages who have greater resources
to invest in the technology and make it cost effective.
While expensive systems like the N Sensor remain mostly the preserve of the large farms,

smaller

businesses are experimenting with different tech nologies. Andrea Graham, the head of policy at
the National Farmers Union (NFU), points out that livestock farmers are increasingly able to track
the health and movements of their animals with tags that relay data to the
farmhouse. The farmer can know when their cows are in heat or are about to give birth, to boost production or
ensure a safe delivery. Others apps, she says, monitor the levels of grass for animals to feed on and [tell the
farmer] when to move them on to the next field.
In light of the rising global population and estimates that climate change willbring more production potential to
Europe, precision farming is being treated with interest by the government. The National
Centre for Precision Farming was launched at Harper Adams University in 2012, with 3m of public and private
funds. The government has set aside 90m for innovative research and there has been an
increasing cross-pollination between the academic and business sectors. In one initiative, Sainsburys has partnered
with the agricultural firm ADAS and the University of Manchester to develop a track-mounted sensor to reduce the
carbon footprint of wheat production.
To maintain the recent progress, Graham said the NFU is lobbying the government for the continued support of
their agri-tech strategy. Blacker, for one, feels

there is lots of untapped potential.

Precision farming key to prevent agricultural collapse

Sarah Gonzalez, 2-27-2013, "Data analysis, biotech are key in agriculture's
future sustainability," No Publication, http://www.agri-pulse.com/ag-issues-biotechfuture-22613.asp

Bayer's forum, which began on Tuesday in Orlando, Florida, included a futuristic look at
agriculture in the year 2025, just 25 years before the world population is expected
to reach nine billion and agriculture is required to increase productivity by 70
percent. We've been able to convince consumers that biotechnology is the core of sustainability by 2025,
Kottmeyer said, adding that convincing and educating consumers is more important than convincing regulators.
During the shift of focus from regulator to consumer he predicts, Kottmeyer said it is important to appeal to the
emotional sentiments on which the consumer bases decisions. Furthermore, the organic customer is attracted to
simpler agriculture, social justice, sustainability and good stewardship, which he says are all things biotechnology
can provide. The approach that they're rejecting has a clear benefit to the very things most important to them, he
said. The benefits of seed technology will be realized, particularly because of the increased global population in
2050, as well as the prediction that more than half the world population will be in the middle class by that date. He
said this huge middle class, particularly in China and India, will create a new consumer. While the European Union

He
noted that data analytics, which allowed him to make his 2025 predictions, show
that finding ways to influence consumers is much simpler than normally anticipated.
You just have to crunch the data, he said. In fact, the entire agriculture industry is
currently moving into a data-centric era, said David Nicholson, head of Bayer's
Research and Development, during the forum. Using the information gained from
technology in a way that helps agriculture achieve the required 70 percent increase
in productivity is the key to success or failure, he said . Precision agriculture, in
particular, is the focus of this data-driven era allowing the farmer to know what to grow
and where to grow it for the best results. When we think of the farmer of the future we see a
currently blocks all U.S. biotechnology products, Kottmeyer is optimistic the consumer will drive a change.

grower as CEO, said David Hollinrake, Bayer's Vice President of Agriculture Commercial Operations Marketing,
adding that farming will increasingly become a business investment instead of a lifestyle or family choice. We want
to be able to participate as an enabler of using data as precision tools.

Food Insecurity
And, food insecurity makes conflicts longer and deadlier
Simmons 13 (Emily Simmons. People and Practices (HR), Advisor at The Marketing Store. Harvesting
Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation. New Security Beat. 3 September 2013.
http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/09/harvesting-peace-food-security-conflictcooperation/#.Uth9YaCLDy8)//JuneC//
Food and Conflict, Conflict and Food Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation, the latest edition
of ECSP Report, explores the complex linkages between conflict and food security , drawing insights
from scholarly work to help inform more effective programming for practitioners. There is no doubt that conflict
exacerbates food insecurity. Conflict can reduce the amount of food available, disrupt peoples access to food, limits
families access to food preparation facilities and health care, and increase uncertainty about satisfying future

Deaths directly attributable to war appear to be declining, but

war and other kinds of conflict continue to take a toll on human health , often through
food insecurity. Conflict induces the affected populations to adopt coping strategies
that invariably reduce their food consumption and nu trition. Poor nutritional status
in individuals of any age makes them more susceptible to illness and death. But
the acute food insecurity caused by conflict has especially potent and long-lasting
effects on children. Children whose nutrition is compromised by food insecurity
before they are two years old suffer irreversible harm to their cognitive and physical
capacities. Analysis of the causes of conflict and war has been an area of growing academic interest . Both
theoretical work and empirical analyses substantiate the many ways in which food
insecurity can trigger, fuel, or sustain conflict . Unanticipated food price rises
frequently provide a spark for unrest. Conflict among groups competing to control
the natural resources needed for food production can catalyze conflict. Social,
political, or economic inequities that affect peoples food security can exacerbate
grievances and build momentum toward conflict. Incentives to join or support conflicts and
rebellions stem from a number of causes, of which the protection of food security is just one. Food insecurity
may also help to sustain conflict . If post-conflict recovery proves difficult and food insecurity remains
high, incentives for reigniting conflict may be strengthened. Given the complexity of factors
needs for food and nutrition.

underlying food security, however, we do not yet understand what levels or aspects of food insecurity are most
likely, in what circumstances, to directly contribute to or cause conflict. More explicit integration of food security
variables into theories of conflict could help inform external interventions aimed at mitigating food insecurity and
preventing conflict. The high human and economic costs of conflict and food insecurity already provide substantial
incentives for international humanitarian and development organizations to intervene in order to alleviate food
insecurity in fragile states and conflict-affected societies. Experience suggests, however, that effective efforts to
address food insecurity in these situations may require external actors to reconsider the ways in which they
intervene. Modifying operational approaches to ensure greater complementarity and continuity between
humanitarian and development interventions, for example, could help to improve effectiveness and impact.

External support could help to strengthen institutions critical to food security and
conflict prevention in fragile states. Engaging more closely with households caught in conflict-created
poverty traps could alleviate persistent food insecurity and potentially sustain conflict recovery. And mobilizing civil
society and private businesses as partners could enable both humanitarian and development organizations to
broaden the capacities for conflict recovery and food security.

A Food crisis will collapse civilization through disease,

economic collapse, and terrorism
Brown 09

[Lester, environmental analyst, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of
the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization, recipient of 26 honorary degrees and a MacArthur

Fellowship, has won several prizes and awards, including the United Nations Environment Prize, the World Wide
Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the Blue Planet Prize, Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/civilization-food-shortages/]

One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from
trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided
by events such as todays economic crisis. For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems
preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life?
What evidence could make us heed a warning so direand how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list
of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization
might devolve into chaosand Earth might collide with an asteroid, too! For many years I have studied global agricultural,
population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political

food
our global civilization. I can no
longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food
economymost important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperaturesforces me to conclude that such a
collapse is possible. The Problem of Failed States Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends
tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that

shortages could bring down

not only individual governments but also

unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting trends of
environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one. In six of the past nine years world grain
production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover
stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response,
world grain prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever. As demand for food rises faster than

food-price inflation puts severe stress on the governments of

countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or grow their
own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the
supplies are growing, the resulting

number of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their problems stem from a failure to slow the growth of their

if the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break

down at an ever increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the
20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict;
today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk. States fail
when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and basic
populations. But

social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When governments lose

law and order begin to disintegrate. After a point, countries can

become so dangerous that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs
are halted; in Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs in jeopardy. Failing
states are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs,
weapons and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere . Somalia, number
one on the 2008 list of failing states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number
five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan, number seven, is the worlds leading supplier of heroin.
their monopoly on power,

Following the massive genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among them,

Our global civilization depends

on a functioning network of politically healthy nationstates to control the spread of
infectious disease, to manage the international monetary system, to control
international terrorism and to reach scores of other common goals. If the system
for controlling infectious diseasessuch as polio, SARS or avian flubreaks down, humanity will
be in trouble. Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to
outside lenders. If enough states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of
global civilization itself.
helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six).

U.S. is a key leader in world food production

Gayle Tzemach, 8-2-2012, "U.S. Drought and Rising Global Food Prices," Council
on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/food-security/us-drought-rising-global-foodprices/p28777

This is the hottest summer on record in the United States since 1895, and people are beginning to wonder whether this type of drought that we're

The United States is a pivotal player in world food

production and has the most sophisticated agricultural sector in terms of
seeds, technology, irrigation, deep commodity markets, and future markets. If
experiencing could become a new normal.

the United States crop is so devastated by drought, what is going to happen to the rest of the world? How do rising U.S. food prices affect global food
prices down the world's food supply chain? Which areas of the globe are most at risk? There are many large food producers in the world. China is the
largest wheat producer, but it is also the largest wheat consumer. What makes the United States unique is that we are the largest exporter, so we produce
about 35 percent of the world's corn and soybean supply. Those two commodities are crucial in the food chain, because they are used for feed stock for
animals. Around the world you have rising middle classes, a growing demand for meat and protein in the diet, and countries around the world are
becoming increasingly dependent on relatively inexpensive food stocks from the United States. When you see a crop failure of the magnitude you have
seen this summer, it flows through the whole food chain. Right now you have American livestock producers taking their pigs and cattle to the slaughter
house because they simply don't have the food to be feeding them. So you're going to see meat prices in the short term in the United States go down, but

you're going to see rising meat prices; [experts] are predicting

already 4 to 5 percent price increases in meat for the next year. That flows
through the whole food chain, [to] big-population countries that import a lot of
food, such as the Philippines, Afghanistan, Egypt. And when you see rapidly rising
food prices, of course it leads to instability. We've seen [this] in the last five years across many of those
over the longer term

countries, and you see rising food prices translate almost directly into street protests. You're going to see the continuation of [political] instability driven in

governments are going to

be very much on the alert for unrest and very sensitive to it. Egypt is already spending about onepart by rapidly rising food prices. In 2008, we had food protests across much of the Middle East, so

third of its subsidies on food, and it is draining the Egyptian foreign exchange reserve to continue those subsidies. This combination of an already
mobilized population out on the streets demanding lots of different changes [in Egypt], and rising food prices is going to create a very unstable
atmosphere. What are some policy responses for alleviating the pressures being felt in the United States and other countries because of rising food prices?
In the United States, we have to look at our own policies that are part of the problem, [including] our mandated use of ethanol in gasoline. This is
something that is a mandated [10] percent that is not flexible, and when you have rising food prices and a problem with the failing crop, you would think
that maybe we could lighten up on the ethanol mandate. Because right now so much of our food production is going into ethanol. So you've already seen
governors across the United States in some of the hard-hit states saying, "Shouldn't we review our ethanol policies?" That's not a short-term fix, but it is

we have a rising global

population. We have more mouths to feed every year, and food security for
the world is a critical issue. We should be looking at how to build in more
resilience into the global food system. Africa, which has the highest population growth rates of any continent in the world,
potentially longer-term and something we should be looking at carefully. In terms of policy,

used to feed itself and used to export food, but [its] agriculture has suffered tremendously over the last half century. Only 4 percent of the land in Africa is
even irrigated, and you've seen a green revolution occur in many parts of the world that has really passed Africa by. And so building in greater resilience
and improving the agricultural capacity of Africa is a critical part of this equation, so that Africa has more of an ability to feed itself and become more a
part of the global supply chain and not be so dependent on it. Unfortunately, governments have not made the investments in the agricultural sector that
they needed to over the past half century, which is why you have this situation in Africa today.

Extinction
US agriculture key to survival
Lugar 2000 (Richard Lugar, US Senator from Indiana, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 2000)

In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning

nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges.
But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is meeting the worlds
need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing starvation
and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that
states may go to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have
often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors
that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of [WMDs] weapons of mass
destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today
to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond
current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will
have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake.
Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at
the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to
eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better
understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to
expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people
destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable
land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be
disastrous for the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected
demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow
roughly three times more food on the land we have. Thats a tall order. My farm in
Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per
hectare typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we
will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly
boost output that much? Well, its been done before. Advances in the use of
fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to
generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 on our farm back then, my dad
produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar
increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results
again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we
must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects
that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States,
that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science.
Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed
the world. The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution.
And our success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian
role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.

Terrorism leads to extinction

Hellman, Stanford Engineering Prof, 8
[Martin E., emeritus prof of engineering at Stanford, Spring 2008, Risk Analysis of
Nuclear Deterrence accessed 5-28-14, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf, hec)

The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war,
yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding.

A terrorist

attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe

of immense proportions: A 10kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people,
and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever.
[Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary
of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be
roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those
odds at less than one percent, but notes, We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear
accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we
cant live in a world where its anything but extremely low-probability. [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85 national
security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the probability of an attack
involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent of the
respondents believing it more likely to be carried out by terrorists than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15].
I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach
of this article. Because

terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale

nuclear war, the risk analyses

proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one
component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed
remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of
other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only
dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are
unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact,
societys almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more

The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends

on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate .3 This section explores the cost of a failure of
important. The cosT of World War iii

nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible,

a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear

weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War
III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World War IIs fatalities were double or
this article defines

triple that numberchaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the
world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe
that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global
wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which
it will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different
view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, Global
war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand
only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of
double suicide. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: If

deterrence
fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a
high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently,
George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President
Reagans belief that nuclear weapons were totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing,
possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less
emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact: The

resulting deaths

would be far beyond any precedent.

Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from

35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and
30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths

days. Additional millions would be injured, and many

during the first 30

would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care

millions of people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not
possible to estimate how many. further millions might eventually die of latent
radiation effects. [OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological
damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983]

the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous nuclear explosions
and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase
homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T
Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by
ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth . The TTAPS report produced a
proposed that

heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale

even a limited nuclear exchange

or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could
have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of
smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how destructive
nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that

World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the
Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that

preventing World War III is

a necessitynot an option.

Economic collapse will trigger a global nuclear war that causes

extinction
Bearden 00 Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists
[T. E., The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly, Space Energy Access Systems,
http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm]

desperate nations take desperate actions . Prior to the final economic

collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of
their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by
some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North
Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a
spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long-range nuclear missiles
(some) can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the
mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict ,
escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress
conditions, once a few nukes are launched , adversaries and potential adversaries are then
compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this
side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to
survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its
perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD
exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed ,
are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy
civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many
decades.
History bears out that

Diseases cause extinction

Guterl 12 [Fred, award-winning journalist and executive editor of Scientific
American, worked for ten years at Newsweek, has taught science at Princeton

University, The Fate of the Species: Why the Human Race May Cause Its Own
Extinction and How We Can Stop It, 1-2, Google Books, online
Over the next few years, the bigger story turned out not to be SARS, which trailed off quickly, bur avian influenza, or bird flu. It had
been making the rounds among birds in Southeast Asia for years. An outbreak in 1997 Hong Kong and another in 2003 each called
for the culling of thousands of birds and put virologists and health workers into a tizzy. Although the virus wasn't much of a threat to
humans, scientists fretted over the possibility of a horrifying pandemic. Relatively few people caught the virus, but more than half of
them died. What would happen if this bird flu virus made the jump to humans? What if it mutated in a way that allowed it to spread

One bad spin of the genetic roulette

wheel and a deadly new human pathogen would spread across the globe in a matter
of days. With a kill rate of 60 percent, such a pandemic would be devastating, to say the least. Scientists
from one person to another, through tiny droplets of saliva in the air?

were worried, all right, but the object of their worry was somewhat theoretical. Nobody knew for certain if such a supervirus was
even possible. To cause that kind of damage to the human population, a flu virus has to combine two traits: lethality and
transmissibility. The more optimistically minded scientists argued that one trait precluded the other, that if the bird flu acquired the
ability to spread like wildfire, it would lose its ability to kill with terrifying efficiency. The virus would spread, cause some fever and

optimists, we found
out last fall, were wrong. Two groups of scientists working independently managed to create bird flu
viruses in the lab that had that killer combination of lethality and transmissibility among
humans. They did it for the best reasons, of courseto find vaccines and medicines to treat a pandemic should one occur, and
sniffles, and take its place among the pantheon of ordinary flu viruses that come and go each season. The

more generally to understand how influenza viruses work. If we're lucky, the scientists will get there before nature manages to come
up with the virus herself, or before someone steals the genetic blueprints and turns this knowledge against us. Influenza is a

We have created the conditions for new viruses to

flourishamong pigs in factory farms and live animal markets and a connected world of international
trade and traveland we've gone so far as to fabricate the virus ourselves. Flu is an excellent example of how we
have, through our technologies and our dominant presence on the planet, begun to multiply the risks to our
own survival
natural killer, but we have made it our own.

Food Insecurity causes war

Gary Kleyn, 25 May 2012, WA State Director at Australian Christians, Research
Manager at Future Directions International International Conflict Triggers and
Potential Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/Workshop_Report_-_Intl_Conflict_Triggers__May_25.pdf
There is little dispute that

conflict can lead to food and water crises. This paper will consider

parts of the world, however,

where food and water insecurity can be the cause of conflict

and, at worst, result in war. While dealing predominately with food and water issues, the
paper also recognises the nexus that exists between food and water and energy security

Famine is a trigger for nuke war

Gary Kleyn, 25 May 2012, WA State Director at Australian Christians, Research
Manager at Future Directions International International Conflict Triggers and
Potential Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity,

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/Workshop_Report_-_Intl_Conflict_Triggers__May_25.pdf
A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food
security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur,
Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in
developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of
Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research
Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even
nuclear war.

Economy
The US economys on the brink
Vermeulen 6/25, CEO and founder of AlgoTrades Systems, a market technical
analyst, trader and author of Technical Trading Mastery: 7 Steps to Win With Logic.
(6/25/15, Chris Vermeulen, Americans have no idea that the United States is on the
brink, http://countingpips.com/2015/06/americans-have-no-idea-that-the-unitedstates-is-on-the-brink/)
Americans have no idea that the United States is on the brink of an economic
crash. It is really not conceivable to the majority of Americans. We have been told
by President Obama that we are experiencing economic growth and that the
economy has been stable for a number of years now. The stock market continues to
surge to new heights. The NASDAQ is at a brand new all-time record high. So how in
the world can anyone be talking about an economic collapse? Many Americans will
agree that we did have a big bump in the road back in 2008, but things have pretty
much returned to normal now. Unfortunately, this brief period of stability that we
have been enjoying is an illusion. The fundamental problems that caused the
financial crisis of 2008 have yet to be addressed. Our long-term economic problems
have actually gotten worse. In the 8 years that the Fed has been doing QE, our
leaders in Congress and the White House have made no progress towards the
required Fiscal Policy changes that have to be addressed. Of course, it has just been
business as usual back in Washington DC. Today, the entire economic system in the
United States is based on debt. Without debt there is little to no economy. Thus,
debt comes from the banks and the concept of the too big to fail banks is at the
heart of this debt-based system. If the economy was expanding and is as healthy as
we have been led to believe, there would be lots of buying and selling, and money
would be moving around rapidly. The U.S. economy is behaving exactly contrary to
that right now. The velocity of M2 has fallen to an all-time record low. This is a very
powerful indicator that we have entered a deflationary era and that the Federal
Reserve has been attempting to combat this by flooding the financial system with
more money through more QE. The main problem with this economy is that it has
not been repaired. The only fiscal change taking place in the high echelons of
Congress has to do with the way that money is being spent without having any
money. This is what is fundamentally wrong with our economy. In the past 7 years, it
was imperative for the government to have focused on a much more balanced
budget. On a very basic level, the amount of economic activity that we have been
witnessing is not anywhere near where it should be, and the flow of money through
our economy is very stagnant. They can try to mask it for a certain period of time,
but it will come unraveled. Why would McDonalds plan to permanently close 700
poorly performing restaurants over the course of 2015? Why would they be doing
this if the economy is getting better? Procter & Gamble announced that it will be
cutting up to 6,000 more jobs from their payroll. JP Morgan just announced 5,000
layoffs last week. Why would they be doing this if the economy is getting better?
Because the economy is NOT getting better, it has just been getting worse. Our
Government has persistently manipulated the formula in order to create a facade
that they want us to see. They are changing the calculations on GDP for the 2ND

Quarter of 2015 so they will not result in a negative number. That is truly how bad
the economy really is. As recently as today, the Fed has made a 3rd revision of the
GDP which is more negative. The American Dream is now dead. We live in a
country where almost everyone is drowning in debt and where a vast number of
people are simply broke. This is the reason that both parents are working in most
families today. In fact, both parents are working multiple jobs in a desperate
attempt to make ends meet. Over the years, the cost of living has risen steadily, but
American paychecks have remained the same over the last 40 years. The erosion of
the middle class will continue until it will just not exist anymore. Our dream in
America has always been that we could afford a home, a car or two, and a nice
annual vacation. The American Dream is out of reach for more Americans than it
ever has been before. As it stands now, the middle class is dying right in front of our
eyes.

Drones help the US economy

Christopher Doering,, 3-23-2014, "Growing use of drones poised to transform
agriculture," USA TODAY,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/23/drones-agriculturegrowth/6665561/,%20Accessed:%205-29-2015,%20/Bingham-MB
WASHINGTON Drones are quickly moving from the battlefield to the farmer's field
on the verge of helping growers oversee millions of acres throughout rural
America and saving them big money in the process. While much of the attention
regarding drones has focused recently on Amazon and UPS seeking to use them to
deliver packages, much of the future for drones is expected to come on the farm.
That's because agriculture operations span large distances and are mostly free of
privacy and safety concerns that have dogged the use of these aerial high-fliers in
more heavily populated areas. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, the trade group that represents producers and users of drones and
other robotic equipment, predicts that 80% of the commercial market for drones will
eventually be for agricultural uses. Once the Federal Aviation Administration
establishes guidelines for commercial use, the drone industry said it expects more
than 100,000 jobs to be created and nearly half a billion in tax revenue to be
generated collectively by 2025, much of it from agriculture. Iowa, the country's
largest corn and second-biggest soybean grower, could see 1,200 more jobs and an
economic impact topping $950 million in the next decade.

It transforms every industryclear regulation is key

Hash-Hof 13 President, Electrofab Sales, (7-19-2013, Michele Nash-Hoff,
Industry Week, "What is the Importance of Unmanned Vehicles to our Economy?",
http://www.industryweek.com/emerging-technologies/what-importance-unmannedvehicles-our-economy)

The report states that the main inhibitor of U.S. commercial and civil development
of the UAS is the lack of a regulatory structure. Non-defense use of UAS has been
extremely limited because of current airspace restrictions.
The combination of greater flexibility, lower capital and lower operating costs could
allow unmanned vehicles to transform fields as diverse as urban infrastructure
management, farming and oil and gas exploration, to name a few. The use of UAS in
the future could be a more responsible approach to certain airspace operations
from an environmental, ecological and human risk perspective.
Present-day unmanned vehicles have longer operational duration and require less
maintenance than earlier models and are more fuel-efficient. These aircraft can be
deployed in a variety of terrains and may not require prepared runways.

The economys on the brinkUS Belligerence guarantees

further decline causes nuclear war
Roberts 15 Former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate
Editor of the Wall Street Journal, (5/11/15, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research,
War Threat Rises As US Economy Declines, http://www.globalresearch.ca/warthreat-rises-as-us-economy-declines/5448757)
The defining events of our time are the collapse of the Soviet Union, 9/11, jobs
offshoring, and financial deregulation. In these events we find the basis of our
foreign policy problems and our economic problems.
The United States has always had a good opinion of itself, but with the Soviet
collapse self-satisfaction reached new heights. We became the exceptional people,
the indispensable people, the country chosen by history to exercise hegemony over
the world. This neoconservative doctrine releases the US government from
constraints of international law and allows Washington to use coercion against
sovereign states in order to remake the world in its own image. To protect
Washingtons unique Uni-power status that resulted from the Soviet collapse, Paul
Wolfowitz in 1992 penned what is known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine. This doctrine is
the basis for Washingtons foreign policy. The doctrine states: Our first objective is
to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former
Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional
defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from
dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be
sufficient to generate global power. In March of this year the Council on Foreign
Relations extended this doctrine to China. Washington is now committed to blocking
the rise of two large nuclear-armed countries. This commitment is the reason for the
crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian
propaganda. China is now confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of
new US naval and air bases to ensure Washingtons control of the South China Sea,
now defined as an area of American National Interests. 9/11 served to launch the
neoconservatives war for hegemony in the Middle East. 9/11 also served to launch
the domestic police state. While civil liberties have shriveled at home, the US has

been at war for almost the entirety of the 21st century, wars that have cost us,
according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, at least $6 trillion dollars. These wars
have gone very badly. They have destabilized governments in an important energy
producing area. And the wars have vastly multiplied the terrorists, the quelling of
which was the official reason for the wars. Just as the Soviet collapse unleashed US
hegemony, it gave rise to jobs offshoring. The Soviet collapse convinced China and
India to open their massive underutilized labor markets to US capital. US
corporations, with any reluctant ones pushed by large retailers and Wall Streets
threat of financing takeovers, moved manufacturing, industrial, and tradable
professional service jobs, such as software engineering, abroad. This decimated the
American middle class and removed ladders of upward mobility. US GDP and tax
base moved with the jobs to China and India. US real median family incomes ceased
to grow and declined. Without income growth to drive the economy, Alan Greenspan
resorted to an expansion of consumer debt, which has run its course. Currently
there is nothing to drive the economy. When the goods and services produced by
offshored jobs are brought to the US to be sold, they enter as imports, thus
worsening the trade balance. Foreigners use their trade surpluses to acquire US
bonds, equities, companies, and real estate. Consequently, interests, dividends,
capital gains, and rents are redirected from Americans to foreigners. This worsens
the current account deficit. In order to protect the dollars exchange value in the
face of large current account deficits and money creation in support of the balance
sheets of banks too big to fail, Washington has the Japanese and European central
banks printing money hand over fist. The printing of yen and euros offsets the
printing of dollars and thus protects the dollars exchange value. The Glass-Steagall
Act that separated commercial and investment banking had been somewhat eroded
prior to the total repeal during the second term of the Clinton regime. This repeal,
together with the failure to regulate over the counter derivatives, the removal of
position limits on speculators, and the enormous financial concentration that
resulted from the dead letter status of anti-trust laws, produced not free market
utopia but a serious and ongoing financial crisis. The liquidity issued in behalf of this
crisis has resulted in stock and bond market bubbles. Implications, consequences,
solutions: When Russia blocked the Obama regimes planned invasion of Syria and
intended bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that while they had been
preoccupied with their wars in the Middle East and Africa for a decade, Putin had
restored the Russian economy and military. The first objective of the Wolfowitz
doctrineto prevent the re-emergence of a new rivalhad been breached. Here was
Russia telling the US No. The British Parliament joined in by vetoing UK
participation in a US invasion of Syria. The Uni-Power status was shaken. This
redirected the attention of the neoconservatives from the Middle East to Russia.
Over the previous decade Washington had invested $5 billion in financing up-andcoming politicians in Ukraine and non-governmental organizations that could be
sent into the streets in protests. When the president of Ukraine did a cost-benefit
analysis of the proposed association of Ukraine with the EU, he saw that it didnt
pay and rejected it. At that point Washington called the NGOs into the streets. The
neo-nazis added the violence and the government unprepared for violence
collapsed. Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt chose the new Ukrainian government
and established a vassal regime in Ukraine. Washington hoped to use the coup to

evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base, Russias only warm water port. However,
Crimea, for centuries a part of Russia, elected to return to Russia. Washington was
frustrated, but recovered from disappointment and described Crimean selfdetermination as Russian invasion and annexation. Washington used this
propaganda to break up Europes economic and political relationships with Russia
by pressuring Europe into sanctions against Russia. The sanctions have had adverse
impacts on Europe. Additionally, Europeans are concerned with Washingtons
growing belligerence. Europe has nothing to gain from conflict with Russia and fears
being pushed into war. There are indications that some European governments are
considering a foreign policy independent of Washingtons. The virulent anti-Russian
propaganda and demonization of Putin has destroyed Russian confidence in the
West. With the NATO commander Breedlove demanding more money, more troops,
more bases on Russias borders, the situation is dangerous. In a direct military
challenge to Moscow, Washington is seeking to incorporate both Ukraine and
Georgia, two former Russian provinces, into NATO. On the economic scene the dollar
as reserve currency is a problem for the entire world. Sanctions and other forms of
American financial imperialism are causing countries, including very large ones, to
leave the dollar payments system. As foreign trade is increasingly conducted
without recourse to the US dollar, the demand for dollars drops, but the supply has
been greatly expanded as a result of Quantitative Easing. Because of offshored
production and US dependence on imports, a drop in the dollars exchange value
would result in domestic inflation, further lowering US living standards and
threatening the rigged, stock, bond, and precious metal markets. The real reason for
Quantitative Easing is to support the banks balance sheets. However, the official
reason is to stimulate the economy and sustain economic recovery. The only sign of
recovery is real GDP which shows up as positive only because the deflator is
understated. The evidence is clear that there has been no economic recovery. With
the first quarter GDP negative and the second quarter likely to be negative as well,
the second-leg of the long downturn could begin this summer. Moreover, the current
high unemployment (23 percent) is different from previous unemployment. In the
postwar 20th century, the Federal Reserve dealt with inflation by cooling down the
economy. Sales would decline, inventories would build up, and layoffs would occur.
As unemployment rose, the Fed would reverse course and workers would be called
back to their jobs. Today the jobs are no longer there. They have been moved
offshore. The factories are gone. There are no jobs to which to call workers back. To
restore the economy requires that offshoring be reversed and the jobs brought back
to the US. This could be done by changing the way corporations are taxed. The tax
rate on corporate profit could be determined by the geographic location at which
corporations add value to the products that they market in the US. If the goods and
services are produced offshore, the tax rate would be high. If the goods and
services are produced domestically, the tax rate could be low. The tax rates could
be set to offset the lower costs of producing abroad. Considering the lobbying power
of transnational corporations and Wall Street, this is an unlikely reform. My
conclusion is that the US economy will continue its decline. On the foreign policy
front, the hubris and arrogance of Americas self-image as the exceptional,
indispensable country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the
world is primed for war. Neither Russia nor China will accept the vassalage status

accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and
Australia. The Wolfowitz Doctrine makes it clear that the price of world peace is the
worlds acceptance of Washingtons hegemony. Therefore, unless the dollar and with
it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to
pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future. Washingtons aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced
Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the
two countries into a strategic alliance. Russias May 9 Victory Day celebration of the
defeat of Hitler is a historical turning point. Western governments boycotted the
celebration, and the Chinese were there in their place. For the first time Chinese
soldiers marched in the parade with Russian soldiers, and the president of China sat
next to the president of Russia.

China
An example of prototypical military tech would be LOCUST
RT 15 (Russia Times, English-language news channel from Russia, Drones will
hunt in packs, as US Navy unveils LOCUST prototype launcher, 4/16/2015,
http://www.rt.com/usa/250233-us-drones-navy-locust/, DJE)
Drone technology is getting ever more deadly. The US Navy has released a video
detailing LOCUST the new tool allowing multiple drones to coordinate and swarm
the enemy autonomously. Its designed to protect large US vessels nearby. The
concept was detailed by the Navy last year, which only this month allowed the
Office of Naval Research (ONR) to demonstrate what LOCUST or the Low-Cost
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Swarming Technology program can do. Theyre touting
the tool as a new era in autonomous warfare. LOCUST is essentially a system that
can launch swarming UAVs to overwhelm the enemy and provide the marines and
sailors operating them with a massive tactical advantage, ONR explains in the press
release. The recent demonstrations are an important step on the way to the 2016
ship-based demonstration of 30 rapidly launched autonomous, swarming UAVs,
program manager Lee Mastroianni says. This level of autonomous swarming flight
has never been done before UAVs that are expendable and reconfigurable will free
manned aircraft and traditional weapon systems to do more, and essentially
multiply combat power at decreased risk to the warfighter , he adds. The program
acts in several stages: first, a tube-based launcher will fire a swarm of UAVs from a
ship, aircraft, or any surface, for that matter owing to the devices small footprint.
Once airborne, the drones share information and coordinate an offense or a
defense, each drone playing its allotted part. ONR says the technology is
revolutionary in its heavy advantage over remote-controlled UAVs. But safeguards
are always needed, so human personnel will be standing by to take over if
necessary. The added benefit of the new drone program, and drones in general, is
their ability to save greatly on costs for the US military. The emphasis on autonomy
on the battlefield will become even greater over the next 10-15 years, according to
the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenerts outline of the strategy.
The ONR is not the first to research the field of multiple UAVs linking up to perform
joint tasks. The famous Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA has
been pursuing its Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) program,
which aims to allow a single pilot to operate multiple drones at once, as well as his
own aircraft. In January, the US military openly declared preparations for new
strategies that would drastically change aerial drone warfare. The key objective of
this is to move UAVs toward a pack mentality, as the LOCUST and CODE programs
show.

Drones key to economy / aerospace

Rehfuss 15 [Abigail W. graduate of Loyola University Maryland, Albany Law School of Union University,
Assistant Albany County Attorney.] [THE DOMESTIC USE OF DRONES AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT]
(http://tinyurl.com/o5te3mx) (accessed 7-14-15) //MC

market study estimated that drone spending will almost double over
the next decade from current worldwide drone expenditures .66 This study, conducted by
As of 2012, a

the Teal Group, remarked that [t]he

UAV market will continue to be strong despite cuts in

defense spending . . . [now that] UAVs have proved their value in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan .
. . .67 The study predicts that the worldwide UAV market will continu[e] as one of the prime
areas of growth for defense and aerospace companies , and it reflects the rapidly
expanding interest in the UAV business by nearly forty U.S., European, South African, and Israeli
companies.68 Overall, the study predicts that the U.S. will account for 62 percent
of worldwide RDT&E spending on UAV technology over the next decade, and 55 percent of
the procurement . . . .69 Undoubtedly, introducing drones on the home front has the
potential to spur economic growth across the country .

Nuclear war scenario likely in Senkakus- Its the most strategic

option to win
Hugh White 14- professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University in Canberra
(http://nationalinterest.org/feature/asias-nightmare-scenario-war-the-east-china-sea-over-the-10805?
page=3)

It is clear that an armed clash between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is a real
possibility. If that happens Washington would face a very serious choice. Failing to support Japan militarily would
fatally weaken the US-Japan alliance, torpedo President Obamas Pivot, and undermine Americas whole
position in Asia. But supporting Japan would mean going to war with China. Whether that would be wise
depends, as much as anything, on how a US-China war over the Senkakus would play out. Of course no one knows for sure. There
has not been a serious maritime conflict for decades, nor war between two nuclear-armed states so we cannot be sure how the
fighting would go. Nor do we have any real experience of war between nuclear-armed states, so that factor too adds to uncertainty.
But there are some broad judgments that can be offered. If these judgments seem even moderately likely to be right, the implications
for Americas choice about war over the Senkakus are rather sobering. They suggest that this would be a war that America

would not win, could not control, and should not undertake. And that of course has huge implications for Americas
position in Asia. Suppose that fighting starts between China and Japan with a small armed clash near the islands, in which losses are
sustained by both sides. It is possible this kind of incident could be quickly contained without further fighting, but only if both Tokyo
and Beijing acted with tact, forbearance and political courage. No one would bet on that, so it is at least equally likely that the clash
would escalate, and if so Japan would quickly ask America to help. What happens next if America joins the fight depends
first on the strategic aims of each side? Chinas

primary aim might be to land forces to take control of the islands,

and at the minimum it would want to exclude Japanese and US forces from the air- and sea-space around
them. Americas and Japans aims might well look the same. Tokyo might decide that the time had come to put its control of the
islands beyond dispute by stationing forces on them, and at a minimum it would want to prevent further challenges of the kind we
have seen recently by excluding Chinese forces from around the islands. What operational objectives would flow for each side from
these strategic aims? Let us first suppose that each side decides to limit the geographic scope of the conflict to the areas around the
disputed islands. To achieve their primary aims by deploying and sustaining occupation forces on the islands, either side would need
to establish a high degree of sea and air control around them. That is likely to prove impossible for either of them: neither China nor
the Allies have any serious chance of achieving the sea and air control required to securely deploy and sustain occupation forces on
the disputed islands against the other sides formidable sea and air denial capabilities. So as long as both sides limit their operations
to the area around the islands, neither would be able to take control of the islands by establishing forces on them. The situation is
much less clear when we look at the two sides minimum aims. To prevent each other operating near the disputed islands they would
only need to impose sea and air denial around them. Each side could probably deny the waters surrounding the islands to the others
surface forces. Neither side could prevent the other sustaining a substantial submarine presence there. But a battle for air superiority
over and around the islands might be more evenly balanced. Allied advantages in quality and perhaps in tactics could be offset by
Chinese advantages in numbers and proximity, leading to a protracted and inconclusive air campaign in which losses on both sides
would be quite high. This suggests that as long as operations were limited to the immediate area under contention, the most likely
outcome would be an inconclusive stalemate: both sides could deny the waters around the islands to the others surface ships, but
neither can exclude the others submarine and air forces from the disputed area. It is hard to see how either side would consider this
a satisfactory basis to conclude hostilities. Neither would have to improve their position in relation to the islands enough to justify
the costs of the fighting. Both would be trapped in an indefinite and costly campaign, especially in the air, with no way to end the
conflict. Quite apart from any other considerations, this would prolong the extraordinary disruption of the conflict to each sides
economy, and convey a message of weakness to each sides public. This means both sides would have strong incentives to seek a
quicker and more decisive result by broadening the conflict beyond the disputed area itself. That could happen in several ways.

Some people have suggested that America could prevail in this kind of situation by imposing a distant
blockade of China which would bring its highly trade-dependent economy to its knees. Others have suggested

that cyber-attacks or attacks on Chinas satellites could compel China to back off. Certainly Washington has these options, but so
does Beijing. America is just as vulnerable as China to attacks on its sea-borne trade, cyber systems and satellites, and Chinas
capacity to mount such attacks is quite formidable. Moreover China may have options to damage Americas economy through its
immense holdings of US debt. This suggests that on balance neither side would see much to gain in opening these kinds of new
fronts. They would therefore be more likely to look for advantage by extending conventional military operations beyond the disputed
area itself. They

could try to degrade one anothers air and naval strength around the islands by
attacking forces and bases beyond that primary Area of Operations . This is what Americas Air-Sea Battle
concept is all about, of course, but two can play at that game. China has plenty of options to attack US and Japanese
forces and bases too. US and Japanese submarine and precision land-strike forces could certainly
sink a lot of Chinese ships and destroy a lot of air bases, but Chinese short- and medium- range
ballistic missiles could likewise do a lot of damage to US and Japanese bases, and China too could
sink a lot of allied ships. So again it is hard to see how one side or the other could win a decisive
advantage this way. That means further escalation might then seem the only way to achieve
acceptable strategic outcomes for both sides. But neither side has escalation dominance: any step by one side can be
matched by the other. Both sides might nonetheless be impelled to escalate further because the cost of relinquishing their strategic
objectives will have increased as the scale and cost of the conflict has grown. The longer and more bitter the fight becomes, the
harder it becomes to step back, and the more dangerous each step forward becomes. At

the top of this ladder of

escalation looms the possibility of an intercontinental nuclear exchange , which would, or at least
should, weigh heavily on both sides calculations right from the start . During the Cold War, the possibility of a
large-scale nuclear exchange affected the calculations of the superpowers whenever there was a risk of even the smallest-scale
skirmishes between their forces. That was because each superpower recognized how hard it would be to contain an escalating
conflict before it reached the nuclear level, because they both saw the danger that neither of them would back down and accept
defeat even to avoid a nuclear exchange. War was avoided because both sides understood that their opponents were as grimly
resolved as they were. Can we say the same of America and China today? There has perhaps been a tendency among American
strategists to overlook the importance of the nuclear dimension of any US-China conflict. They underestimate the significance of
Chinas nuclear forces because they are so much smaller than the Soviets were during the Cold War, or than Americas are today.
But that does not make negligible. They

can still destroy American cities, and kill millions of Americans, and
it would be a desperate gamble to try to destroy them with a disarming first strike . That means we have to
pay a lot of attention to the question of Chinas resolve. China of course faces huge risks from Americas much
greater forces, but its strategists may well calculate that on balance the nuclear factor favors China,
because it plays to what they may see as Chinas decisive advantage over the US in an East China Sea
scenario: the balance of resolve. Let me explain. When two adversaries are relatively evenly balanced in their ability to hurt one
another, the advantages lies with the one with greater resolve. More precisely, in the contest of wills that drives any escalating
conflict, the advantage lies with the side that can persuade its opponent that it has the greater resolve, and will thus not step back
and accept defeat before the escalating conflict has cost the other side more than it is willing to pay. If one side is confident that the
other believes it has more resolve, that side will be confident that the other will back off first, and will thus be more willing to enter a
conflict, and more willing to escalate it. If the operational balance is as I have suggested here, then this

is the situation
Washington would face in a conflict with China in support of Japan over the Senkakus . The outcome
would depend on the balance of resolve. It would only be wise for America to enter a conflict with China if Washington was confident
both that Beijing was less resolved to win than they were, and that Beijing understood this. Only then could Washington be
confident that Beijing would accept defeat before the conflict had escalated right out of control, and cost America more than the
objectives at stake were worth. So which side has the greater resolve? Is America more committed to preserving the primacy it has
enjoyed in Asia for over a century than China is to restore the primacy it enjoyed for centuries before that? I think the answer is
probably no. We cannot assume that China is any less determined to change the Asian order than America is to preserve it. Nor can
we simply assume that Chinas leaders would be too nervous about domestic stability in China to allow a conflict with the US to
escalate. On the contrary, public option might well stop Beijing from retreating just as much as US opinion would stop Washington
and probably more so. Ultimately it is a simple question of geography. What happens in Asia, and the waters around Asia, really
matters to China, just the way what happens in the Caribbean really matters to America. If we assume that America cares more
about the Caribbean than China, we should equally accept that China cares more about the Western Pacific that America. And most
importantly, this is probably the way China sees the balance of resolve. That makes China a very dangerous adversary .

If the US
enters a conflict with China underestimating Chinas power and resolve, it may find itself facing a
choice between accepting defeat and conceding victory to China after a protracted conventional war,
or risking escalation to a nuclear exchange. So unless Washington is very confident that it has greater resolve than
China, it would be far better to avoid conflict in the first place. Chinas willingness to risk a clash by its provocations towards Japan
suggests that it sees the situation this way, and expects America will too. That is why Beijing is so confident that Washington will
avoid a conflict by abandoning Japan. What does this mean for Americas position in Asia? It does not mean that America has no
choice but to withdraw from Asia. But it does mean America needs to reconsider the assumptions on which US policy in Asia,
including the Pivot, has so far been based. Washington assumes that Americas basic strategic aim in Asia must be to preserve US

primacy and the system of alliances on which it is based. If the analysis presented here is right, America cannot do that in the light of
Chinas challenge to the US-led regional order, because it is not ultimately as willing to risk an escalating conflict to preserve it as
China is to overturn it. The best way to define what role America could sustain in Asia in future is to ask what role America would be
willing to risk a nuclear war with China to protect. For example ,

America might not be willing to risk nuclear war to

preserve its own primacy in Asia, but it might be willing to do so to prevent China establishing
primacy. But that is a discussion for another time.

China not willing to cooperate

Lily Quo15-reporter at Quartz covering emerging markets. Dual masters degree in
international affairs from Peking University and the London School of Economics. She
graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
(http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/05/china-warns-inevitable-war-us-over-south-chinasea/113680/?oref=d-river)

After Chinese state media warned that war with the United States may be inevitable,
Beijing has published a policy paper detailing how the military will shift its focus from land
and coastlines to the open seas. Chinas State Council released a white paper today that
criticizes external countriesbusy meddling in South China Sea affairs and sets out an
active defense military strategy for the country. The paper comes a day after an editorial (link in
Chinese) in the state-run Chinese tabloid Global Times said conflict between China and the US will be unavoidable
if the Washington doesnt lay off Beijing for building islands and military facilities in disputed parts of the South
China Sea. We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if it were to come we have to accept it,
the paper said. (Editorials in state-run papers are not official representations of Beijings position, but often reflect
government sentiment.) The US has been calling on China to halt the construction of entire islands with ports, army
barracks and at least one air strip near the Spratly Islands. The areaone of the worlds busiest shipping lanes and
home to fertile fishing grounds as well as possibly oil and gasis the focus of overlapping claims by China, the
Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Brunei. According to the white paper, the Peoples Liberation Army
Navy will expand its defense perimeter to include open seas protection. The air force will also expand its focus to
include offensive as well as defensive military capabilities. We will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will
surely counterattack if attacked, the paper said. Chinese authorities denied the white paper had anything to do with
tension over US surveillance of Chinas building in the Spratlys. On Monday, Chinas foreign ministry said that it
had filed a complaint with the US for flying a spy plane near Chinese island construction sites last week.
International security experts have long said that armed conflict between the two countries is unlikely given their
economic reliance on each other. Increasingly scholars and analysts say that war may not be as improbable as many
experts suggest because of growing dominance of hardliners in the Chinese government, increased rivalry, or
general lack of trust between the countries. The US and other states are preparing for any potential confrontation.
Southeast Asian countries are building up their navies and coastguardsdefense spending in the region is expected
to reach $52 billion by 2020, up from a projected $42 billion this year, IHS Janes Defence has said. Last week, US
vice president Joe Biden told graduates at the Naval Academy in Annapolis that 60% of the United States Naval
force will be stationed in the Asia Pacific by 2020, in order to stand up for freedom of navigation and peaceful,
equitable resolution to territorial disputes. Today, these principles are being tested by Chinese activities in the
South China SeaWe are going to look to you to uphold these principles wherever they are challenged, he said

Biodiversity (Deforestation)
Biodiversity loss causes extinction
Nagan and Hammer 14, Winston P. Nagan is Sam T. Dell Research Scholar
Professor of Law, Affiliate Professor of Anthropology, Affiliate Professor of Latin
American and African Studies, University of Florida; Honorary Professor, University
of Cape Town; Craig Hammer is Program Lead and Senior Operations Officer with
the World Bank, Washington, D.C. (2014, Winston P. Nagan and Craig Hammer, New
York Law School Law Review, SOLVING GLOBAL PROBLEMS: PERSPECTIVES FROM
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY: The Conceptual and Jurisprudential Aspects of
Property in the Context of the Fundamental Rights of Indigenous People: The Case of
the Shuar of Ecuador, lexis)
The sustained existence of Earth's natural resources, particularly its biodiversity, is
of critical importance to human survival, and efforts to safeguard these resources
can be understood as a form of self-preservation. Commentators have noted that
biodiversity "provide[s] important services to humans--such as . . . structure, food
and bio-molecules that can be used for the development of drugs or alternative
fuels--that increase in value with their richness." n210 The World Bank has stated
that:
Biodiversity is the foundation and mainstay of agriculture, forests, and fisheries, soil
conservation and water quality. Biological resources provide the raw materials for
livelihoods, sustenance, trade, medicines, and industrial development. Genetic
diversity provides the basis for new breeding programs, improved crops, enhanced
agricultural production, and food security. Natural habitats and ecosystems provide
services--such as water flow, flood control, and coastal protection--that reduce
human vulnerability to natural hazards, including drought, floods, tsunamis and
hurricanes. Forests, grasslands, freshwater and marine habitats provide benefits of
global value such as carbon sequestration, nutrient and hydrological cycling, and
biodiversity conservation. Careful ecosystem management provides countless
streams of benefits to, and opportunities for, human societies, while also supporting
and nurturing the web of life. n211
It is therefore no surprise that biologist and natural theorist Edward O. Wilson has
famously written in The Diversity of Life that loss of biodiversity is the "scientific
problem of great[est] immediate importance for humanity." n212 In the
context of attempted expropriation of Shuar land for commercial extraction of
resources and the bioprospecting of plant life from Shuar territory by outside agents
who also appropriate the Shuar's Traditional Knowledge, these mind-boggling
macro-level considerations are certainly at play.

The Brink is nowbiodiversity loss will cause extinction

Germanos 13, Staff writer for Common Dreams, (5/28/13, Andrea Germanos,
Common Dreams, UN: Accelerating Biodiversity Loss a 'Fundamental Threat' to the

'Survival of Humankind', http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/05/28/unaccelerating-biodiversity-loss-fundamental-threat-survival-humankind)

The accelerating loss of biodiversity poses a " fundamental threat" to the
"survival of humankind," warned the head of the United Nations new biodiversity
body, as he also sounded the alarm on the declining biodiversity on farms. Zakri
Abdul Hamid, founding chair of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES), made the comments at the 7th Trondheim Conference
in Norway on Monday. On the widely noted declining plant and animal biodiversity in
the wild, Zakri said we are hurtling towards irreversible environmental tipping
points that, once passed, would reduce the ability of ecosystems to provide
essential goods and services to humankind. But biodiversity loss is hitting farms
also, said Zakri, threatening the world's food supplies, both in terms of livestock as
well as crops.

Of Case

Politics
Drone regulation has bipartisan support
Crump and Stanley 13 Catherine Crump is a staff attorney with the ACLU's
Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and a nonresident fellow with the Stanford
Center for Internet and Society; Jay Stanley is a senior policy analyst with the
ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and editor of the ACLU's Free Future
blog. (2/11/13, Slate, Why Americans Are Saying No to Domestic Drones,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/domestic_surveillanc
e_drone_bans_are_sweeping_the_nation.html)
The drone issue has also gained momentum because the concern over it is
bipartisan. While Democrats get most of the credit for pushing back on national
surveillance programs, it was the Republican Partys 2012 platform that addressed
domestic surveillance drones, stating that we support pending legislation to
prevent unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of
aerial surveillance.

Court decisions facilitate policymaking without political

backlash
Miller and Barnes, Associate Professors of Government and Political Science,
04
(Mark Miller, Associate Professor of Government Clark University, Making Policy,
Making Law, Jeb Barnes, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of
Southern California, 2004 http://books.google.com/books?
id=cuE9Ee5KU5IC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=
%22reverence+that+the+american+public+extends+to+the+judicial+branch
%22&source=bl&ots=7C6lAB5VOz&sig=hbmeL9Lkl6qajHlNhn3kAHQX_Os&hl=en&e
i=k0JnSszmAomnlAf1m63dDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)
ln the 1960s, the conventional wisdom among political scientists came to be that the federal courts

in
general and the U.S. Supreme Court in particular are protected from the most deadly of
congressional attacks by the high respect and reverence that the American public extends to
the judicial branch. ln the early 1960s, Murphy and Pritchett argued that "courts are protected by their
magic; only rarely can a hand be laid on a judge without a public outcry of sacrilege" (Murphy and Pritchett
1961, 554-55). ln the late 1960s, Nagel continued this theme when he argued that milder forms of attacks on
specific decisions of the Supreme Court had more chance of passing in Congress than did more frontal attacks
(Nagel 1969, 277). Others argue that many in Congress actually prefer that the federal courts hand down
decisions on extremely divisive issues (see, e.g., Dahl 1957; Bickel 1962; Graber 1993). As Graber explains
this line of reasoning, Mainstream politicians may facilitate judicial policymaking in part

because they have good reason to believe that the courts will announce those policies they
privately favor but cannot openly endorse without endangering their political support" (1993,
43). Schubert (1960) and Miller (1995) have argued that the presence of so many lawyers in Congress also
protects the courts from serious institutional attacks. Harry Stumpf summarizes this line of scholarship when
he writes, "Tbe prestige or sacrosanctity argument in Congress is used and used with some effectiveness in
protecting the judiciary against anti-Court legislative reaction" (Stumpf 1965, 394).

No risk of backlash high public acceptance of court rulings

Fontana, associate professor of law, 08

(David Fontana, associate professor of law at George Washington University Law,
Spring 2008, The Supreme Court: Missing in Action,
http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1165)
Second, Court decisions do not necessarily create the backlash that many on the left fear. If the Court had
decided cases in favor of rights before the tide had turned against the Bush administration, its decisions might
have elicited formulaic and near-obligatory compliance. There is considerable evidence suggesting a

strong presumption in American public opinion that the Courts decisions should be widely
accepted and then complied with by the other branches of government. Even when citizens
disagree with Supreme Court decisions, an overwhelming majority of them are loyal to the
Court and inclined to think that the less popular branches of government should fall into line
even when the Court issues controversial decisions such as Bush v. Gore.

Courts shield politicians from political backlash

Whittington, Professor of Politics at Princeton, 07
(Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton
University and currently director of graduate studies in the Department of Politics,
2007, Political foundations of judicial supremacy )

An active and independent Court can assume the blame for advancing constitutional
commitments that might have electoral costs. The relatively obscure traceability chain between
elected officials and judicial action allows coalition members to simultaneously achieve
certain substantive goals while publicly distancing themselves from electoral responsibility
for the Court and denouncing it for its actions. Elected officials have an incentive to bolster the
authority of the courts precisely in order to distance themselves from the responsibility for
any of its actions. As long as the Court is acting in concert with basic regime commitments, and thus not
imposing serious electoral or policy costs on pother affiliated political actions, it may enjoy substantial
autonomy in interpreting those commitments.

Courts allow politicians to avoid controversial issues

Solum, Professor of Law, 05
(Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, "Legal
Theory Lexicon 047: The Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty" 6-19-2005
http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2005/06/legal_theory_le_1.html)
There is another side to this story. There may be reasons why elected

politicians prefer for the Supreme

Court to take the heat for some decisions that are controversial. When the Supreme Court
acts, politicians may be able to say, It wasnt me. It was that darn Supreme Court. And in
fact, the Supreme Courts involvement in some hot button issues may actually help political
parties to mobilize their base: Give us money, so that we can [confirm/defeat] the Presidents nominee
to the Supreme Court, who may cast the crucial vote on [abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, etc.]. In
other words, what appears to be counter-majoritarian may actually have been welcomed by the political

branches that, on the surface, appear to have been thwarted.

States CP
A clear national framework prevents patchwork state
regulations
AIA 13 Aerospace Industries Association, the premier trade association
representing major aerospace and defense manufacturers and suppliers in the
United States. (5/6/13, Aerospace Industries Association, Unmanned Aircraft
Systems: Perceptions & Potential, http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/AIA_UAS_Report_small.pdf)
One of the greatest threats to UAS airspace integration is a growing number of
states and communities that have passed laws the majority of which appear to be
focused on personal privacy concerns banning or restricting the use of UAS. A
national framework must be identified to address the concerns of these
communities while avoiding the creation of a national patchwork of conflicting rules
that may ultimately limit UAS use for public service missions. An appropriate first
step would be the creation of national privacy objectives and guidelines.

FBI surveillance is a huge concern for privacy means the CP

cant solve anything
Guliani 15 Neema Singh Guliani, American Civil Liberties Union Washington
Legislative Office, focusing on surveillance, privacy, and national security issues.
Prior to joining the ACLU, she worked in the Chief of Staffs Office at DHS,
concentrating on national security and civil rights issues. She has also worked as an
adjudicator in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department
of Agriculture and was an investigative counsel with House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, where she conducted investigations related to the
BP oil spill, contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Recovery Act. Neema is a
graduate of Brown University where she earned a BA in International Relations with
a focus on global security and received her JD from Harvard Law School in 2008,
2015 (Unchecked government drones? Not over my backyard, The Hill, March 24th,
Available online at http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/236701unchecked-government-drones-not-over-my-backyard, accessed on 7-13-15) GIE
Right now, the federal government doesnt have a clear picture of how its using
drone technology across agencies and departments, nor does it have clear,
consistent standards in place to protect Americans privacy.
For example, at a hearing last June, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller III
acknowledged that the bureau was using drones for surveillance. When asked about
policy and procedures to regulate this use, he confessed that the agency was only
in the initial stages of creating them. If the federal government doesnt have clear
rules in place for drone use, how can citizens be sure that their privacy is being
protected?
Hopefully this will begin to change with the new presidential memorandum.
Mandating that agencies describe their drone use is a necessary first step, and the
Obama administration deserves credit for taking it, but this is not a sufficient

protection for Americans privacy. Given the potential invasiveness of this

technology and how frequently it is used, letting government agencies set their own
drone use guidelines, is a recipe for failure.
Instead, Obama should require all federal agencies to meet strong minimum privacy
standards, and close the following privacy loopholes in his existing guidance.
First and foremost, absent an emergency, law enforcement agencies should only
use drones to conduct surveillance or gather information with a warrant. This is not
a rule that should be left to the discretion of individual agencies. Second, the federal
government should restrict the purposes for which drones can be used by agencies .
The guidelines allow drones to be used for any authorized purpose, which is not
strictly defined. Drones should only be used in emergencies, by law enforcement
with a warrant, or in situations where they are unlikely to substantially intrude on
peoples privacy, such as environmental surveys.
Third, information collected by drones for one purpose shouldnt be used for other
purposes. In other words, if the government uses drones to help identify forest fires,
this information shouldnt be passed on to the FBI for law enforcement. The
guidelines should make clear that information can only be shared between agencies
if it specifically relates to the original purpose for which it was collected.
Finally, the government should put in place more stringent restrictions on the
retention and use of information collected by drones. Under the presidents
memorandum, information collected by drones must be destroyed within 180 days,
unless it is necessary to the mission of the agency. Safeguards should be put in
place to ensure that this exception is not used to allow the government to store vast
amounts of information on citizens.

FBI budget sequestration is destroying FBI counterterror

abilities
Garver 15 Rob Garver, national correspondent for The Fiscal Times, based in
Washington, D.C. A longtime reporter on the intersection of the federal government
and the private sector, he previously reported on the FDAs botched oversight of
drug trials for ProPublica and worked as senior researcher for Bob Woodward during
the writing of Woodwards New York Times bestselling book, The Price of Politics.
Garver holds a masters degree in public policy from Georgetown University and a
bachelors degree from the University of Vermont., 2015 (FBI Anti-Terror Efforts
Severely Hindered by Forced Budget Cuts, The Fiscal Times, March 25th,
accessible online at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/25/FBI-Anti-TerrorEfforts-Severely-Hindered-Forced-Budget-Cuts, accessed on 8-1-15)
Washingtons messy budget battles have taken a toll on the Federal Bureau of
Investigations counter-terrorism capabilities, according to an outside panel created
by lawmakers to analyze the agencys performance.

Even though the FBI more than doubled its budget from 2001 to 2014, a new report
claims the inability of Congress to reach a budget deal in 2011 severely hampered
the agencys ability to deal with terror threats.
The budget crisis led to sequestration in 2013, which resulted in a hiring freeze at
the FBI and other agencies at a time when many agents were retiring.
The FBI 9/11 Commission, an outside panel created by lawmakers to review the
agencys performance, also found that despite recommendations from a previous
panel more than a decade ago, the Bureau is still in need of additional reform.
The FBI faces an increasingly complicated and dangerous global threat
environment that will demand an accelerated commitment to reform. Everything is
moving faster, the commissions report, released today, finds.
The commission was created to examine the FBIs compliance with the
recommendations issued in 2004 by a previous 9/11 Commission. The three
commissioners are former Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese III;
former six-term Indiana Congressman and U.S. Ambassador to India Tim Roemer, a
Democrat; and Professor Bruce Hoffman, the director of the Center for Security
Studies at Georgetown Universitys School of Foreign Service.
The commission found that in the years following the original 2004 report, the FBI
restructured itself, both fiscally and operationally, but in recent years has been
hindered by the mandatory budget cuts known as sequestration. It is important to
note that sequestration in FY14 severely hindered the FBIs intelligence and national
security programs, the report said.
The funds appropriated for the FBI fell slightly in fiscal 2013, but in the beginning of
fiscal 2014, when the sequester cuts kicked in, the consequences were more dire.
Anticipation of the cuts had already placed some programs on hold, and once the
budget changes took effect, the bureaus training division saw its budget slashed by
50 percent in 2014. The Bureaus training facility in Quantico, Va. went quiet,
cancelling virtually all classes except mandatory firearms training and going more
than a year without graduating a new class of special agents.
The Bureau was also forced to start furloughing 5,500 field agents, without pay, for
20 works days, and to begin offering early retirement to others. The result was a
loss of experienced personnel and a reduction in person-hours on the job for those
who remained, made worse by the discontinuation of training for more junior agents
and analysts and a the elimination of the flow of new recruits into the Bureau.
That meant that, even when a bipartisan budget deal in Congress restored the FBI
budget for the remainder of fiscal 2014, programs had gone unfunded or underfunded for a significant period, and instructors with no classes to teach were
reassigned.

The plan would free up millions of dollars for the FBI budget
USNews 13 USNews, 2013 (Report: FBI Spent $3 Million on Drones byline
Ethan Rosenburg, September 27th, accessible online at
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/09/27/report-fbi-spent-3million-on-drones, accessed on 8-1-15)
The FBI has spent more than $3 million on unmanned aircraft from 2004 through
May 2013, according to an audit released Thursday by the Inspector General.
The Department of Justice's law enforcement entities have spent $3.7 million on
drones between four of its agencies, according to the report, though the FBI
accounted for 80 percent of the amount. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives had spent nearly $600,000 on drones to use in future operations.
The FBI told the Inspector General's Office they did not believe there was any
difference between collecting evidence through a drone or a manned aircraft.
However, the audit described the FBI's drone use as "uncoordinated." Extended
drone flights could track an individual's movements for hours and such pervasive
surveillance could have legal ramifications if the tracking crossed over into private
property, according to the Inspector General.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in June, then-FBI director Robert
Mueller admitted the FBI had been using drones on U.S. soil in isolated instances
that warranted specialized surveillance.
"Our footprint is very small," said Mueller. "We have very few and limited use and
are exploring not only the use but also the necessary guidelines for that use."
Guidelines for drone use are particularly loose. The Federal Aviation Administration's
2012 Modernization and Reform Act will not require drone integration into the
national airspace system until Sept. 30, 2015.
Both the Drug Enforcement Agency and the United Marshals Service have tested
unmanned aircraft but have no plans to use them operationally. The USMS has
spent $75,000 on drones, while the DEA acquired them from another federal agency
at no cost, according to the audit.
Furthermore, the Justice Department awarded $1.2 million to fund drone testing for
seven local law enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations.
The Justice Department's watchdog recommended forming a working group to
differentiate drone capabilities from those of manned aircraft and address policy
concerns shared among various federal agencies.

Terrorism guarantees extinction

Hellman 08 (Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, Risk
Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI,
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
* Cites CT experts

The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the
threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An
explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a
nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: A 10-kiloton
bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill
some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic
damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages
viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of
Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident
within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David
Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one
percent, but notes, We would never accept a situation where the chance of a
major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear
terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we cant live in a world where its
anything but extremely low-probability. [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85
national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20
percent for the probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring
somewhere in the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent of the respondents
believing it more likely to be carried out by terrorists than by a government [Lugar
2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear
terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because
terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war,
the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear
terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both
are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to
reduce which-ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of
other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). His
article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and
neglected the threat of full-scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an
effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In
fact, societys almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes
studying that risk all the more important. The cosT of World War iii The danger
associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the
failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and
the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are
possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of
all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed
World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World
War. World War IIs fatalities were double or triple that numberchaos prevented a
more precise determination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today
bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore
implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an
extrapolation of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III,
while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it
will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the
situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the
Philippine Congress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, Global war has become a

Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win,
you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a
duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide. Former Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara expressed a similar view: If deterrence fails and conflict
develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western
civilization will be destroyed [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George
Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns
when they quoted President Reagans belief that nuclear weapons were totally
irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of
life on earth and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less
emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact:
The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch
calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million
dead) a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30
million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths
during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would
eventually die from lack of adequate medical care millions of people might
starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to estimate how
many. further millions might eventually die of latent radiation effects. [OTA
1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological
damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the
TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly
simultaneous nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a
nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as
many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs
resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or
comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still
no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear
war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even a limited nuclear
exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and
Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the
large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities.
While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that
we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge
from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that preventing World War III is
a necessitynot an option.

Daniels Block (Dont have to read everything)

Perm: do both. You can pass the plan and have states agree to
also enforce implementation. State support means the plan
would be shielded from PC loss.
50 state fiat bad
1. Af only gets one actor whereas the neg can get
advantages of of simultaneous action of 50 diferent
actors
2. Skirts debate about the plan and devolves into a
comparison among a litany of potential actors rather than
the merits of the plan
3. Moving target our disads would have to apply to all
states in order to defeat the CP
Voter for fairness and education
c

Extend AIA 13: State laws have a tendency to create a

patchwork where regulations from state to state are unclear.
This destroys investor confidence.
Additionally, only Congress can ensure that laws are followed
because they can threaten subordinate law enforcement
agencies with budget cuts thats the 1AC Michaels evidence.
The CP alone will be circumvented.
The CP still links to politics because Obama takes the blame
for state decisions
Kiely 12 [EUGENE KIELY, Washington assignment editor USA today, February 17,
2012 Factcheck.org Did Obama Approve Bridge Work for Chinese Firms?
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/did-obama-approve-bridge-work-for-chinesefirms/]
Whos to blame, if thats the right word, if the project ends up using manufactured
steel from China? The National Steel Bridge Alliance blames the state
railroad agency. The Alliance for American Manufacturing says the federal Buy American laws have been
weakened with loopholes and various exemptions that make it easier for bureaucrats to purchase foreign-made

how did Obama get

blamed for the decisions by state agencies and for state projects that , in
at least one case, didnt even use federal funds? The answer is a textbook
goods instead of those made in American factories with American workers. So,

lesson in how information gets distorted when emails go viral. We looked at the
nearly 100 emails we received on this subject and found that Obama wasnt mentioned at all in the first few emails.
Typical of the emails we received shortly after the ABC News report aired was this one from Oct. 11, 2011: I just
got an email regarding Diane Sawyer on ABC TV stating that U. S. Bridges and roads are being built by Chinese
firms when the jobs should have gone to Americans. Could this possible be true? The answer: Yes, its true. End of
story, right? Wrong. Days later, emails started to appear in our inbox that claimed ABC News reported that Chinese
firm were receiving stimulus funds to build U.S. bridges even though the broadcast news story didnt mention
stimulus funds at all. (The report did include a clip of Obama delivering a speech on the need to rebuild Americas
bridges and put Americans to work, but said nothing about the presidents $830 billion stimulus bill.) Still, we
received emails such as this one on Nov. 4, 2011, that included this erroneous claim language: Stimulus money
meant to create U.S. jobs went to Chinese firms. Unbelievable.

It didnt take long for Obama to

be blamed. That same day Nov. 4, 2011 we received an email that made this leap to Obama: SOME
CHINESE COMPANIES WHO ARE BUILDING OUR BRIDGES. (3000 JOBS LOST TO THE CHINESE FIRM)..AND NOW
OBAMA WANTS MORE STIMULUS MONEY..THIS IS NUTS ! ! ! If this doesnt make you furious nothing will. This

Obamas name started to surface in the subject line of such critical emails raising
the attack on the president to yet another level and perhaps ensuring the email will be even more
year,

widely circulated. Since Jan. 17, we have gotten more than a dozen emails with the subject line, ABC News on
Obama/USA Infrastructure, often preceded with the word SHOCKING in all caps. The emails increasingly contain
harsh language about the president. Since Jan. 11, 23 emails carried this added bit of Obama-bashing: I pray all
the unemployed see this and cast their votes accordingly in 2012! One of those emails a more recent one from
Feb. 8 contained this additional line: Tell

me again how Obamas looking out for blue

collar guys. He cancels pipelines, and lets Chinese contractors build our
bridges And so it goes, on and on. All from a news report that blamed
state officials not Obama for spending taxpayer money on Chinese
firms to build U.S. bridges.

The NCCUSL fails at uniformity too much bureaucracy

Koyabashi and Ribstein 12 Bruce H. Koyabashi, Professor of Law, George
Mason University School of Law, Mildred van Voorhis Jones Chair, University
of Illinois College of Law, 2012 (The Non-Uniformity of Uniform Laws, The Journal
of Corporation Law, available online at http://lesliecaton.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/A3-Kobayashi-Ribstein.pdf, accessed on 8-3-15)
NCCUSL is organized as a private legislature with representatives from every
state.39 This large membership helps incorporate all states views into the process,
and thereby gives NCCUSL the necessary political legitimacy and credibility to
promote passage of its proposals. However, such a large group cannot effectively
draft laws. Thus NCCUSL must delegate responsibility for each law to a drafting
committee. The logistics of drafting dictate that the committee should have the
basic power to formulate proposals, leaving the general legislative body with the
power to accept or reject proposals and to generally indicate its preferences. As
elaborated by the model in Part B, this bifurcation of power affects the substance of
NCCUSL proposals in a way that compromises NCCUSLs uniformity goal . Drafting
committees consist of NCCUSL commissioners, including experts in the relevant
area, representatives from various interest groups, and a law professor who serves
as reporter.40 The drafting committee is constituted to combine general drafting
skill and specific expertise. As with the general legislative body, these
characteristics are intended to maximize NCCUSLs influence on state legislatures
considering its proposals.41 Work on the committees is time-consuming because
drafters have several multi-day meetings at geographically dispersed locations.
Since drafters are not compensated, one might expect that the committees will

include people who seek to gain from NCCUSLs ability to achieve enactment of
their preferred state laws. Other members likely participate in the lengthy NCCUSL
process not necessarily because they are devoted to NCCUSLs goal of uniformity,
but because they have an interest in reforming the specific law involved in the
project and have strong views about what the law should be. These include
academics and academically inclined lawyers who have written on the relevant law
and would gain reputation from the enaction of their ideas. The reporter may also
have strong substantive views and may bring those views into the proposal through
close involvement in the drafting process. These participants may favor proposals
that are less likely to be widely adopted than laws that would spread among states
without NCCUSL. Although drafting committees have significant power, the broader
body of NCCUSL commissioners must ultimately approve their recommendations.
These commissioners play an ongoing role through multiple readings of drafts at
successive annual meetings, rather than merely approving the final product. In
contrast to some of the drafting committee members, NCCUSL commissioners are
involved in NCCUSL as an institution. Therefore, commissioners will likely be better
attuned to NCCUSLs goals than drafting committees. NCCUSL commissioners
approval of proposals would seem to serve as a conservative check on any reform
or interest group excess at the drafting committee level that might deviate from
NCCUSLs uniformity objectives. However, in practice the NCCUSL process does not
necessarily work that way. The problem is that the interaction between the drafting
committee and the general legislative body produces additional compromises. For
the reasons modeled in Part IV.B., this process can make the drafting committees
proposals even more idiosyncratic than when the proposals emerge from the
committee. The drafting committee may try to resolve disagreements within both
the committee and the broader legislative body through convoluted rules that
delegate substantial discretion to the courts.42

The counterplan links to politics. All states acting at once to

curtail all drone surveillance will create a massive dispute in
congress over states rights that will require PC to resolve.
Extend Guliani 15: A major cause of public concern is agencies
like the DEA, ICE, and FBI using drones at a whim. States do
not have jurisdiction over these.
FBI budget sequestration is destroying FBI counterterror
abilities
Garver 15 Rob Garver, national correspondent for The Fiscal Times, based in
Washington, D.C. A longtime reporter on the intersection of the federal government
and the private sector, he previously reported on the FDAs botched oversight of
drug trials for ProPublica and worked as senior researcher for Bob Woodward during
the writing of Woodwards New York Times bestselling book, The Price of Politics.
Garver holds a masters degree in public policy from Georgetown University and a

bachelors degree from the University of Vermont., 2015 (FBI Anti-Terror Efforts
Severely Hindered by Forced Budget Cuts, The Fiscal Times, March 25th,
accessible online at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/25/FBI-Anti-TerrorEfforts-Severely-Hindered-Forced-Budget-Cuts, accessed on 8-1-15)
Washingtons messy budget battles have taken a toll on the Federal Bureau of
Investigations counter-terrorism capabilities, according to an outside panel created
by lawmakers to analyze the agencys performance. Even though the FBI more than
doubled its budget from 2001 to 2014, a new report claims the inability of Congress
to reach a budget deal in 2011 severely hampered the agencys ability to deal
with terror threats. The budget crisis led to sequestration in 2013, which resulted in
a hiring freeze at the FBI and other agencies at a time when many agents were
retiring. The FBI 9/11 Commission, an outside panel created by lawmakers to review
the agencys performance, also found that despite recommendations from a
previous panel more than a decade ago, the Bureau is still in need of additional
reform. The FBI faces an increasingly complicated and dangerous global threat
environment that will demand an accelerated commitment to reform. Everything is
moving faster, the commissions report, released today, finds. The commission was
created to examine the FBIs compliance with the recommendations issued in 2004
by a previous 9/11 Commission. The three commissioners are former Reagan
administration Attorney General Edwin Meese III; former six-term Indiana
Congressman and U.S. Ambassador to India Tim Roemer, a Democrat; and Professor
Bruce Hoffman, the director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown
Universitys School of Foreign Service. The commission found that in the years
following the original 2004 report, the FBI restructured itself, both fiscally and
operationally, but in recent years has been hindered by the mandatory budget cuts
known as sequestration. It is important to note that sequestration in FY14 severely
hindered the FBIs intelligence and national security programs, the report said. The
funds appropriated for the FBI fell slightly in fiscal 2013, but in the beginning of
fiscal 2014, when the sequester cuts kicked in, the consequences were more dire.
Anticipation of the cuts had already placed some programs on hold, and once the
budget changes took effect, the bureaus training division saw its budget slashed by
50 percent in 2014. The Bureaus training facility in Quantico, Va. went quiet,
cancelling virtually all classes except mandatory firearms training and going more
than a year without graduating a new class of special agents. The Bureau was also
forced to start furloughing 5,500 field agents, without pay, for 20 works days, and to
begin offering early retirement to others. The result was a loss of experienced
personnel and a reduction in person-hours on the job for those who remained, made
worse by the discontinuation of training for more junior agents and analysts and a
the elimination of the flow of new recruits into the Bureau. That meant that, even
when a bipartisan budget deal in Congress restored the FBI budget for the
remainder of fiscal 2014, programs had gone unfunded or under-funded for a
significant period, and instructors with no classes to teach were reassigned.

The plan would free up millions of dollars for the FBI budget
USNews 13 USNews, 2013 (Report: FBI Spent $3 Million on Drones byline
Ethan Rosenburg, September 27th, accessible online at
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/09/27/report-fbi-spent-3million-on-drones, accessed on 8-1-15)
The FBI has spent more than $3 million on unmanned aircraft from 2004 through
May 2013, according to an audit released Thursday by the Inspector General. The
Department of Justice's law enforcement entities have spent $3.7 million on drones
between four of its agencies, according to the report, though the FBI accounted for
80 percent of the amount. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
had spent nearly $600,000 on drones to use in future operations. The FBI told the
Inspector General's Office they did not believe there was any difference between
collecting evidence through a drone or a manned aircraft. However, the audit
described the FBI's drone use as "uncoordinated." Extended drone flights could
track an individual's movements for hours and such pervasive surveillance could
have legal ramifications if the tracking crossed over into private property, according
to the Inspector General. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in June,
then-FBI director Robert Mueller admitted the FBI had been using drones on U.S. soil
in isolated instances that warranted specialized surveillance. "Our footprint is very
small," said Mueller. "We have very few and limited use and are exploring not only
the use but also the necessary guidelines for that use." Guidelines for drone use are
particularly loose. The Federal Aviation Administration's 2012 Modernization and
Reform Act will not require drone integration into the national airspace system until
Sept. 30, 2015. Both the Drug Enforcement Agency and the United Marshals Service
have tested unmanned aircraft but have no plans to use them operationally. The
USMS has spent $75,000 on drones, while the DEA acquired them from another
federal agency at no cost, according to the audit. Furthermore, the Justice
Department awarded $1.2 million to fund drone testing for seven local law
enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations. The Justice Department's
watchdog recommended forming a working group to differentiate drone capabilities
from those of manned aircraft and address policy concerns shared among various
federal agencies.

terrorism guarantees extinction

Hellman 08 (Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, Risk
Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI,
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
* Cites CT experts
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the
threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An
explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a
nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: A 10-kiloton
bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill

some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic
damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages
viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of
Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident
within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David
Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one
percent, but notes, We would never accept a situation where the chance of a
major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear
terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we cant live in a world where its
anything but extremely low-probability. [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85
national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20
percent for the probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring
somewhere in the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent of the respondents
believing it more likely to be carried out by terrorists than by a government [Lugar
2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear
terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because
terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war,
the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear
terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both
are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to
reduce which-ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of
other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). His
article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and
neglected the threat of full-scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an
effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In
fact, societys almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes
studying that risk all the more important. The cosT of World War iii The danger
associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the
failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and
the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are
possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of
all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed
World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World
War. World War IIs fatalities were double or triple that numberchaos prevented a
more precise determination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today
bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore
implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an
extrapolation of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III,
while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it
will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the
situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the
Philippine Congress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, Global war has become a
Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win,
you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a
duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide. Former Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara expressed a similar view: If deterrence fails and conflict
develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western

civilization will be destroyed [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George
Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns
when they quoted President Reagans belief that nuclear weapons were totally
irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of
life on earth and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less
emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact:
The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch
calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million
dead) a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30
million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths
during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would
eventually die from lack of adequate medical care millions of people might
starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to estimate how
many. further millions might eventually die of latent radiation effects. [OTA
1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological
damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the
TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly
simultaneous nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a
nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as
many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs
resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or
comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still
no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear
war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even a limited nuclear
exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and
Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the
large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities.
While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that
we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge
from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that preventing World War III is
a necessitynot an option.