Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Top Level
Prolif will be rapid and destabilizing-, states will just buy
unsafe tech from countries unconcerned with proliferation.
No offenseoptimists are wrong
Matthew Kroenig, Assistant Professor, Government, Georgetown University and fellow, Council on Foreign
Relations, The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have a Future? Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,
526 12, http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182&tid=30
Proliferation Optimism: Proliferation optimism was revived in the academy in Kenneth Waltzs 1979 book, Theory of International Politics. 1[29] In this, and subsequent works, Waltz
argued that the spread of nuclear weapons has beneficial effects on international politics. He maintained that states, fearing a catastrophic nuclear war, will be deterred from going to
war with other nuclear-armed states. As more and more states acquire nuclear weapons, therefore, there are fewer states against which other states will be willing to wage war. The
spread of nuclear weapons, according to Waltz, leads to greater levels of international stability. Looking to the empirical record, he argued that the introduction of nuclear weapons in
1945 coincided with an unprecedented period of peace among the great powers. While the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in many proxy wars in peripheral geographic
regions during the Cold War, they never engaged in direct combat. And, despite regional scuffles involving nuclear-armed states in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia, none of
these conflicts resulted in a major theater war. This lid on the intensity of conflict, according to Waltz, was the direct result of the stabilizing effect of nuclear weapons. Following in the
path blazed by the strategic thinkers reviewed above, Waltz argued that the requirements for deterrence are not high. He argued that, contrary to the behavior of the Cold War
superpowers, a state need not build a large arsenal with multiple survivable delivery vehicles in order to deter its adversaries. Rather, he claimed that a few nuclear weapons are
sufficient for deterrence. Indeed, he even went further, asserting that any state will be deterred even if it merely suspects its opponent might have a few nuclear weapons because the
costs of getting it wrong are simply too high. Not even nuclear accident is a concern according to Waltz because leaders in nuclear-armed states understand that if they ever lost control
of nuclear weapons, resulting in an accidental nuclear exchange, the nuclear retaliation they would suffer in response would be catastrophic. Nuclear-armed states, therefore, have
strong incentives to maintain control of their nuclear weapons. Not even new nuclear states, without experience in managing nuclear arsenals, would ever allow nuclear weapons to be
used or let them fall in the wrong hands. Following Waltz, many other scholars have advanced arguments in the proliferation optimist school. For example, Bruce Bueno de Mesquite and
William Riker explore the merits of selective nuclear proliferation. 2[30] John Mearsheimer made the case for a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. 3
[31] In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt argued that we should not worry about a nuclear-armed Iraq because a nuclear-armed Iraq can be deterred. 4
[32] And, in recent years, Barry Posen and many other realists have argued that nuclear proliferation in Iran does not pose a threat, again arguing that a nuclear-armed Iran can be
deterred.5[33] Whats Wrong with Proliferation Optimism? The proliferation optimist position, while having a distinguished pedigree, has several major problems. Many of these
weaknesses have been chronicled in brilliant detail by Scott Sagan and other contemporary proliferation pessimists. 6[34] Rather than repeat these substantial efforts, I will use this
section to offer some original critiques of the recent incarnations of proliferation optimism. First and foremost, proliferation optimists do not appear to
understand contemporary deterrence theory. I do not say this lightly in an effort to marginalize or discredit my intellectual opponents. Rather, I make
this claim with all due caution and with complete sincerity. A careful review of the contemporary proliferation optimism literature does not reflect an understanding of, or engagement
with, the developments in academic deterrence theory in top scholarly journals such as the American Political Science Review and International Organization over the past few decades. 7
[35] While early optimists like Viner and Brodie can be excused for not knowing better, the writings of contemporary proliferation optimists ignore the past fifty
years of academic research on nuclear deterrence theory. In the 1940s, Viner, Brodie, and others argued that the advent of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
7
rendered war among major powers obsolete, but nuclear deterrence theory soon advanced beyond that simple understanding. 8[36] After all, great power political competition does not
end with nuclear weapons. And nuclear-armed states still seek to threaten nuclear-armed adversaries. States cannot credibly threaten to launch a suicidal nuclear war, but they still want
to coerce their adversaries. This leads to a credibility problem: how can states credibly threaten a nuclear-armed opponent? Since the 1960s academic nuclear deterrence theory has
been devoted almost exclusively to answering this question. 9[37] And, unfortunately for proliferation optimists, the answers do not give us reasons to be optimistic. Thomas Schelling
was the first to devise a rational means by which states can threaten nuclear-armed opponents. 10[38] He argued that leaders cannot credibly threaten to intentionally launch a suicidal
nuclear war, but they can make a threat that leaves something to chance. 11[39] They can engage in a process, the nuclear crisis, which increases the risk of nuclear war in an attempt
probability that the conflict will spiral out of controland result in an inadvertent or accidental
nuclear exchange. As long as the benefit of winning the crisis is greater than the incremental increase in the risk of nuclear war, threats to escalate nuclear crises
are inherently credible. In these games of nuclear brinkmanship, the state that is willing to run the greatest risk of nuclear war before back down will win the crisis as long as it does not
end in catastrophe. It is for this reason that Thomas Schelling called great power politics in the nuclear era a competition in risk taking. 12[40] This does not mean that states eagerly bid
up the risk of nuclear war. Rather, they face gut-wrenching decisions at each stage of the crisis. They can quit the crisis to avoid nuclear war, but only by ceding an important geopolitical
issue to an opponent. Or they can the escalate the crisis in an attempt to prevail, but only at the risk of suffering a possible nuclear exchange. Since 1945 there were have been many
high stakes nuclear crises (by my count, there have been twenty) in which rational states like the United States run a risk of nuclear war and inch very close to the brink of nuclear
war.13[41] By asking whether states can be deterred or not, therefore, proliferation optimists are asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is: what risk of nuclear war is a
specific state willing to run against a particular opponent in a given crisis? Optimists are likelycorrect when they assert that Iran will not intentionally commit national suicide by
launching a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack on the United States or Israel. This doesnot mean that Iran will never use nuclear weapons, however. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable to
think that a nuclear-armed Iran would not, at some point, find itself in a crisis with another nuclear-armed power and that it would not be willing to run any risk of nuclear war in order to
achieve its objectives. If a nuclear-armed Iran and the United States or Israel have a geopolitical conflict in the future, over say the internal politics of Syria, an Israeli conflict with Irans
client Hezbollah, the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf, passage through the Strait of Hormuz, or some other issue, do we believe that Iran would immediately capitulate? Or is it possible
that Iran would push back, possibly even brandishing nuclear weapons in an attempt to deter its adversaries? If the latter, there is a real risk that proliferation to Iran could result in
nuclear war. An optimist might counter that nuclear weapons will never be used, even in a crisis situation, because states have such a strong incentive, namely national
pressures. Leaders in nuclear-armed states also have very strong incentives to convince their adversaries
that nuclear weapons could very well be used. Historically we have seen that in crises, leaders purposely do things like put nuclear weapons
on high alert and delegate nuclear launch authority to low level commanders, purposely increasing the risk of
accidental nuclear war in an attempt to force less-resolved opponents to back down. Moreover, not even the optimists first principles about the irrelevance of
nuclear posture stand up to scrutiny. Not all nuclear wars would be equally devastating. 14[42] Any nuclear exchange would have devastating consequences no doubt, but, if a crisis were
to spiral out of control and result in nuclear war, any sane leader would rather be facing a country with five nuclear weapons than one with thirty-five thousand. Similarly, any sane
leader would be willing to run a greater risk of nuclear war against the former state than against the latter. Indeed, systematic research has demonstrated that states are willing to run
greater risks and, therefore, more likely to win nuclear crises when they enjoy nuclear superiority over their opponent. 15[43] Proliferation optimists miss this point, however, because they
depending on the context, she would almost certainly be willing to risk one.Nuclear deterrence theorists have proposed a second scenario under
10
11
12
13
14
15
which rational leaders could instigate a nuclear exchange: a limited nuclear war. 16[44] By launching a single nuclear weapon against a small city, for example, it was thought that a
nuclear-armed state could signal its willingness to escalate the crisis, while leaving its adversary with enough left to lose to deter the adversary from launching a full-scale nuclear
response. In a future crisis between a nuclear-armed China and the United States over Taiwan, for example, China could choose to launch a nuclear attack on Honolulu to demonstrate its
seriousness. In that situation, with the continental United States intact, would Washington choose to launch a full-scale nuclear war on China that could result in the destruction of many
If
more American cities? Or would it back down? China might decide to strike hoping that Washington will choose a humiliating retreat over a full-scale nuclear war.
launching a limited nuclear war could be rational, it follows that the spread of nuclear
weapons increases the risk of nuclear use. Again, by ignoring contemporary developments in scholarly discourse and relying exclusively on
understandings of nuclear deterrence theory that became obsolete decades ago, optimists reveal the shortcomings of their analysis and fail to make a compelling case.The optimists
also error by confusing stability for the national interest.Even if the spread of nuclear weapons contributes to greater levels of international stability (which discussions above and below
suggest it might not) it does not necessarily follow that the spread of nuclear weapons is in the U.S. interest. There might be other nationalgoals that trump stability, such as reducing to
zero the risk of nuclear war in an important geopolitical region. Optimists might argue that South Asia is more stable when India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, but certainly the
risk of nuclear war is higher than if there were no nuclear weapons on the subcontinent. In addition, it is wrong to assume that stability is always in the national interest. Sometimes it is,
but sometimes it is not. If stability is obtained because Washington is deterred from using force against a nuclear-armed adversary in a situation where using force could have advanced
national goals, stability harms, rather than advances, U.S. national interests. The final gaping weakness in the proliferation optimist argument, however, is that it rests on a logical
contradiction. This is particularly ironic, given that many optimists like to portray themselves as hard-headed thinkers, following their premises to their logical conclusions. But, the
contradiction at the heart of the optimistargument is glaring and simple to understand: either the probability of nuclear war iszero, or it is nonzero, but it cannot be both. If the
probability of nuclear war is zero, then nuclear weapons should have no deterrent effect. States will not be deterred by a nuclear war that could never occur and states should be willing
to intentionally launch large-scale wars against nuclear-armed states. In this case, proliferation optimists cannot conclude that the spread of nuclear weapons is stabilizing. If, on the
other hand, the probability of nuclear war is nonzero, then there is a real danger that the spread of nuclear weapons increases the probability of a catastrophicnuclear war. If this is true,
then proliferation optimists cannot be certain that nuclear weapons will never be used. In sum, the spread of nuclear weapons can either raise the risk of nuclear war and in so doing,
deter large-scale conventional conflict. Or there is no danger that nuclear weapons will be used and the spread of nuclear weapons does not increase international instability. But, despite
the claims of the proliferation optimists, it is nonsensical to argue that nuclear weapons will never be used and to simultaneously claim that their spread contributes to international
stability. Proliferation Anti-obsessionists: Other scholars, who I label anti-obsessionists argue that the spread of nuclear weapons has neither been good nor bad for international
politics, but rather irrelevant. They argue that academics and policymakers concerned about nuclear proliferation spend too much time and energy obsessing over something, nuclear
weapons, that, at the end of the day, are not all that important. In Atomic Obsession, John Mueller argues that widespread fears about the threat of nuclear weapons are overblown. 17
[45] He acknowledges that policymakers and experts have often worried that the spread of nuclear weapons could lead to nuclear war, nuclear terrorism and cascades of nuclear
proliferation, but he then sets about systematically dismantling each of these fears. Rather, he contends that nuclear weapons have had little effect on the conduct of international
diplomacy and that world history would have been roughly the same had nuclear weapons never been invented. Finally, Mueller concludes by arguing that the real problem is not nuclear
proliferation, but nuclear nonproliferation policy because states do harmful things in the name of nonproliferation, like take military action and deny countries access to nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes. Similarly, Ward Wilson argues that, despite the belief held by optimists and pessimists alike, nuclear weapons are not useful tools of deterrence. 18[46]
In his study of the end of World War II, for example, Wilson argues that it was not the U.S. use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced Japanese surrender, but a
variety of other factors, including the Soviet Unions decision to enter the war. If the actual use of nuclear weapons was not enough to convince a country to capitulate to its opponent he
argues, then there is little reason to think that the mere threat of nuclear use has been important to keeping the peace over the past half century. Leaders of nuclear-armed states justify
nuclear possession by touting their deterrent benefits, but if nuclear weapons have no deterrent value, there is no reason, Ward claims, not to simply get rid of them. Finally, Anne
Harrington de Santana argues that nuclear experts fetishize nuclear weapons. 19[47] Just like capitalists, according to Karl Marx, bestow magical qualities on money, thus fetishizing it,
she argues that leaders and national security experts do the same thing to nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence as a critical component of national security strategy, according to
Harrington de Santana, is not inherent in the technology of nuclear weapons themselves, but is rather the result of how leaders in countries around the world think about them. In short,
she argues, Nuclear weapons are powerful because we treat them as powerful. 20[48] But, she maintains, we could just as easily defetish them, treating them as unimportant and,
therefore, rendering them obsolete. She concludes that Perhaps some day, the deactivated nuclear weapons on display in museums across the United States will be nothing more than
a reminder of how powerful nuclear weapons used to be. 21[49] The anti-obsessionists make some thought-provoking points and may help to reign in some of the most hyperbolic
accounts of the effect of nuclear proliferation. They remind us, for example, that our worst fears have not been realized, at least not yet. Yet, by taking the next step and arguing that
nuclear weapons have been, and will continue to be, irrelevant, they go too far. Their arguments call to mind the story about the man who jumps to his death from the top of a New York
City skyscraper and, when asked how things are going as he passes the 15th story window, replies, so far so good.The idea that world history would have been largely unchanged had
nuclear weapons not been invented is a provocative one, but it is also unfalsifiable. There is good reason to believe that world history would have been different, and in many ways
better, had certain countries not acquired nuclear weapons. Lets take Pakistan as an example. Pakistan officially joined the ranks of the nuclear powers in May 1998 when it followed
India in conducting a series of nuclear tests. Since then, Pakistan has been a poster child for the possible negative consequences of nuclear proliferation. Pakistans nuclear weapons
have led to further nuclear proliferation as Pakistan, with the help of rogue scientist A.Q. Khan, transferred uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. 22[50] Indeed,
part of the reason that North Korea and Iran are so far along with their uranium enrichment programs is because they got help from Pakistan. Pakistan has also become more aggressive
since acquiring nuclear weapons, displaying an increased willingness to sponsor cross-border incursions into India with terrorists and irregular forces. 23[51] In a number of high-stakes
nuclear crises between India and Pakistan, U.S. officials worried that the conflicts could escalate to a nuclear exchange and intervened diplomatically to prevent Armageddon on the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
subcontinent. The U.S. government also worries about the safety and security of Pakistans nuclear arsenal, fearing that Pakistans nukes could fall into the hands of terrorists in the
event of a state collapse or a break down in nuclear security. And we still have not witnessed the full range of consequences arising from Pakistani nuclear proliferation. Islamabad has
only possessed the bomb for a little over a decade, but they are likely to keep it for decades to come, meaning that we could still have a nuclear war involving Pakistan. In short,
Pakistans nuclear capability has already had deleterious effects on U.S. national security and these threats are only likely to grow over time. In addition, the anti-obsessionists are
incorrect to argue that the cure of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is worse than the disease of proliferation. Many observers would agree with Mueller that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003 was a disaster, costing much in the way of blood and treasure and offering little strategic benefit. But the Iraq War is hardly representative of U.S. nonproliferation policy. For the
most part, nonproliferation policy operates in the mundane realm of legal frameworks, negotiations, inspections, sanctions, and a variety of other tools. Even occasional preventive
military strikes on nuclear facilities have been far less calamitous than the Iraq War. Indeed, the Israeli strikes on nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria in 1981 and 2007, respectively,
produced no meaningful military retaliation and a muted international response. Moreover, the idea that the Iraq War was primarily about nuclear nonproliferation is a contestable one,
with Saddam Husseins history of aggression, the unsustainability of maintaining the pre-war containment regime indefinitely, Saddams ties to terrorist groups, his past possession and
use of chemical and biological weapons, and the window of opportunity created by September 11th, all serving as possible prompts for U.S. military action in the Spring of 2003. The
claim that nonproliferation policy is dangerous because it denies developing countries access to nuclear energy also rests on shaky ground. If anything, the global nonproliferation
regime has, on balance, increased access to nuclear technology. Does anyone really believe that countries like Algeria, Congo, and Vietnam would have nuclear reactors today were it
not for Atoms for Peace, Article IV of the NPT, and other appendages of the nonproliferation regime that have provided developing states with nuclear technology in exchange for
promises to forgo nuclear weapons development? Moreover, the sensitive fuel-cycle technology denied by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and other supply control regimes is not
even necessary to the development of a vibrant nuclear energy program as the many countries that have fuel-cycle services provided by foreign nuclear suppliers clearly demonstrate.
Finally, the notion that nuclear energy is somehow the key to lifting developing countries from third to first world status does not pass the laugh test. Given the large upfront
investments, the cost of back-end fuel management and storage, and the ever-present danger of environmental catastrophe exemplified most recently by the Fukushima disaster in
Japan, many argue that nuclear energy is not a cost-effective source of energy (if all the externalities are taken into account) for any country, not to mention those developing states
least able to manage these myriad challenges. Taken together, therefore, the argument that nuclear nonproliferation policy is more dangerous than the consequences of nuclear
proliferation, including possible nuclear war, is untenable. Indeed, it would certainly come as a surprise to the mild mannered diplomats and scientists who staff the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the global focal point of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, located in Vienna, Austria. The anti-obsessionsists, like the optimists, also walk themselves into logical
contradictions. In this case, their policy recommendations do not necessarily follow from their analyses. Ward argues that nuclear weapons are irrelevant and, therefore, we should
eliminate them.24[52] But, if nuclear weapons are really so irrelevant, why not just keep them lying around? They will not cause any problems if they are as meaningless as anti-
obsessionists claim and it is certainly more cost effective to do nothing than to negotiate complicated international treaties and dismantle thousands of warheads, delivery vehicles, and
their associated facilities. Finally, the idea that nuclear weapons are only important because we think they are powerful is arresting, but false. There are properties inherent in nuclear
weapons that can be used to create military effects that simply cannot, at least not yet, be replicated with conventional munitions. If a military planner wants to quickly destroy a city on
the other side of the planet, his only option today is a nuclear weapon mounted on an ICBM. Therefore, if the collective we suddenlydecided to defetishize nuclearweaponsby treating
them as unimportant, it is implausible thatsome leadersomewherewouldnotindependentlycome to the idea that nuclear weapons could advance his or her countrys national security and
thereby re-fetishize them.In short, the optimists and anti-obsessionists have brought an important perspective to the nonproliferation debate. Their arguments are provocative and they
raise the bar for those who wish to argue that the spread of nuclear weapons is indeed a problem. Nevertheless, their counterintuitive arguments are not enough to wish away the
enormous security challenges posed by the spread of the worlds most dangerous weapons. These myriad threats will be considered in the next section. Why Nuclear Proliferation Is a
spread of nuclear weapons poses a number of severe threats to international peace and U.S. national security
Problem The
including: nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, emboldened nuclear powers, constrained freedom
of action, weakened alliances, and further nuclear proliferation. This section explores each of these threats in turn.
Nuclear War. The greatest threat posed by the spread of nuclear weapons is nuclear war. The more states in possession of nuclear weapons, the greater the probability that somewhere,
someday, there is a catastrophic nuclear war. A nuclear exchange between the two superpowers during the Cold War could have arguably resulted in human extinction and a nuclear
exchange between states with smaller nuclear arsenals, such as India and Pakistan, could still result in millions of deaths and casualties, billions of dollars of economic devastation,
environmental degradation, and a parade of other horrors. To date, nuclear weapons have only been used in warfare once. In 1945, the United States used one nuclear weapon each on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing World War II to a close. Many analysts point to sixty-five-plus-year tradition of nuclear non-use as evidence that nuclear weapons are unusable, but it
would be nave to think that nuclear weapons will never be used again. After all, analysts in the 1990s argued that worldwide economic downturns like the great depression were a thing
of the past, only to be surprised by the dot-com bubble bursting in the later 1990s and the Great Recession of the late Naughts. 25[53] This author, for one, would be surprised if nuclear
weapons are not used in my lifetime. Before reaching a state of MAD, new nuclear states go through a transition period in which they lack a secure-
second strike capability. In this context, one or both states might believe that it has an incentive to use nuclear weapons first. For example, if Iran
acquires nuclear weapons neither Iran, nor its nuclear-armed rival, Israel, will have a secure, second-strike capability. Even though it is believed to have a large arsenal, given its small
size and lack of strategic depth, Israel might not be confident that it could absorb a nuclear strike and respond with a devastating counterstrike. Similarly, Iran might eventually be able
to build a large and survivable nuclear arsenal, but, when it first crosses the nuclear threshold, Tehran will have a small and vulnerable nuclear force. In these pre-MAD situations, there
are at least three ways that nuclear war could occur. First, the state with the nuclear advantage might believe it has a splendid first strike capability. In a crisis, Israel might, therefore,
decide to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to disarm Irans nuclear capabilities and eliminate the threat of nuclear war against Israel. Indeed, this incentive might be further increased
might feel
by Israels aggressive strategic culture that emphasizes preemptive action. Second, the state with a small and vulnerable nuclear arsenal, in this case Iran,
use em or loose em pressures. That is, if Tehran believes that Israel might launch a preemptive strike, Iran might decide to strike first rather than
risk having its entire nuclear arsenal destroyed. Third, as Thomas Schelling has argued, nuclear war could result due to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack. 26[54] If there are
advantages to striking first, one state might start a nuclear war in the belief that war is inevitable and that it would be better to go first than to go second. In a future Israeli-Iranian crisis,
for example, Israel and Iran might both prefer to avoid a nuclear war, but decide to strike first rather than suffer a devastating first attack from an opponent. Even in a world of MAD,
there is a risk of nuclear war. Rational deterrence theory assumes nuclear-armed states are governed by rational leaders that would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. This
assumption appears to have applied to past and current nuclear powers, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to hold in the future. For example, Irans theocratic government,
despite its inflammatory rhetoric, has followed a fairly pragmatic foreign policy since 1979, but it containsleaders who genuinely hold millenarian religious worldviews who could one day
ascend to power and have their finger on the nuclear trigger. We cannot rule out the possibility that, as nuclear weapons continue to spread, one leader will choose to launch a nuclear
war, knowing full well that it could result in self-destruction.One does not need to resort to irrationality, however, to imagine a nuclear war under MAD.Nuclear weapons may deter
leaders from intentionally launching full-scale wars, but they do not mean the end of international politics. As was discussed above, nuclear-armed states still have conflicts of interest
and leaders still seek to coerce nuclear-armed adversaries. This leads to the credibility problem that is at the heart of modern deterrence theory: how can you threaten to launch a
suicidal nuclear war? Deterrence theorists have devised at least two answers to this question. First, as stated above, leaderscan choose to launch a limited nuclear war. 27[55] This
23
24
25
26
27
strategy might be especially attractive to states in a position of conventional military inferiority that might have an incentive to escalate a crisis quickly. During the Cold War, the United
States was willing to use nuclear weapons first to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe given NATOs conventional inferiority in continental Europe. As Russias conventional military
power has deteriorated since the end of the Cold War, Moscow has come to rely more heavily on nuclear use in its strategic doctrine. Indeed, Russian strategy calls for the use of nuclear
weapons early in a conflict (something that most Western strategists would consider to be escalatory) as a way to de-escalate a crisis.Similarly, Pakistans military plans for nuclear use
in the event of an invasion from conventionally stronger India. And finally, Chinese generals openly talk about the possibility of nuclear use against a U.S. superpower in a possible East
By playing
Asia contingency. Second, as was also discussed above leaders can make a threat that leaves something to chance. 28[56] They can initiate a nuclear crisis.
these risky games of nuclear brinkmanship, states can increases the risk of nuclear war in an attempt to force a
less resolved adversary to back down. Historical crises have not resulted in nuclear war, but many of them, including the
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, have come close. And scholars have documented historical incidents when accidents could have led to war. [57] When we think about 29
future nuclear crisis dyads, such as India and Pakistan and Iran and Israel, there are fewer sources of stability that existed during the Cold War, meaning that there is a very real risk that
a future Middle East crisis could result in a devastating nuclear exchange.
Clark 97
(Mark T., associate professor of political science and director of the national security studies program at California
State University Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age-book reviews: Neorealism versus Organizational Theory,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0365/is_n1_v41/ai_19238111)
Sagan's critique is a healthy antidote to Waltz's optimism. In his view, there are two principal arguments that
suggest pessimism about any future with a greater number of nuclear-armed adversaries. From his study of
organizational behavior inclines them towards deterrence
militaries, Sagan finds that their
failure. It is not that militaries want war but that, of all groups in a society, they are the most likely to
believe war is probable and are most inclined to adopt preventive or preemptive strategies.
Military officers are more skeptical of nonmilitary solutions to conflicts than are their civilian counterparts, according
to Sagan. It also makes sense, in classical military terms, to adopt preventive or preemptive strategies, since no
military prefers to fight on its adversary's terms. Taking the offensive alleviates some of these problems. Secondly,
Sagan argues that newly armed nuclear states will lack the positive mechanisms of civilian control.
Here, Sagan's critique is very strong. By examining the history of the U.S. nuclear safety record he is able to
document many near accidents and bureaucratic snafus that could have led to catastrophic accidents, and in this
way he points out the weakness in Waltz's arguments. Sagan comments: Waltz asked why should we expect new
nuclear states to experience greater difficulties than did the old ones? The evidence of the number of near-
accidents with U.S. nuclear weapons during the Cold War suggests that there would be reason enough to worry
about nuclear accidents in new nuclear states even if their safety difficulties were "only" as great as those
experienced by old nuclear powers (p. 80). He adds six reasons why new nuclear powers are unlikely to compile the
if the problem is acute for newly emergent nuclear powers
safety record of the United States. But
that develop their programs indigenously, it will be doubly so for those that inherit or
buy their programs. They will lack even the discipline that a new nuclear nation will
accrue by investing enormous amounts of time, talent, and treasure into developing
its nuclear program.
28
29
50 years of studies conclude high risk of deterrence
breakdown - few warrants from Kroenig 12
- optimists dont understand the risks of nuclear coercion,
nuclear blackmail, and nuclear crises
- new proliferators are more likely to adopt high-alert
status and delegate launch authority
- rational actors may use nukes to prove willingness to
escalate
Knopf 02
(Jeffrey W, Department of National Security Affairs, Teaches at Naval Postgraduate School, Ph.D. in Political Science
from Stanford University. Recasting the proliferation optimism-pessimism debate Security Studies 12, no. 1
(autumn 2002): 4196. Published online Aug. 03 2006)
Lavoy, in a review of the Waltz-Sagan debate that sides with Waltz on many of
Even some nonpessimists acknowledge this point. Peter
the issues, nonetheless concludes on a cautionary note: Policymakers must worry about exceptions to the rule.
[O]ne exception would dwarf the significance of the theory. Even if Waltz is correct 99 percent of the
time, the 1 percent of exceptional cases is what U.S. policymakers must worry
about. 23 Richard Betts argues that this concern also follows from a classical realist outlook, which he takes pains to distinguish from Waltzs neo- or
structural realist approach. Betts notes further that it is not clear what else might happen once there is even a single exception to the
prediction of stability and that this is a further reason for caution. As he puts it, the ramifications of the first
breakage of the half-century taboo on nuclear use are too unpredictable to tempt us to run
the experiment.
A2- Prolif Key to Deterrence
Evans 9
Gareth Evans 9, President of the International Crisis Group & Former Foreign Minister of Japan
(Co-chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and
Professorial fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences @ University of Melbourne) &
Yoriko Kawaguchi (Co-chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and
Disarmament), Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers, International
Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Report, December 15, 2009, pg.
reference/reports/ent/ downloads.html
3.1 Ensuring that no new states join the ranks of those already nuclear armed must continue to be one
of the worlds top international security priorities. Every new nuclear-armed state will add
significantlyto the inherent risks of accident or miscalculation as well as deliberate use
involved in any possession of these weapons, and potentially encourage more states to
acquire nuclear weapons to avoid being left behind. Any scramble for nuclear capabilities is bound to
generate severe instability in bilateral, regional and international relations. The carefully worked checks
and balances of interstate relations will come under severe stress. There will be
enhanced fears of nuclear blackmail, and of irresponsible and unpredictable leadership
behaviour. 3.2 In conditions of inadequate command and control systems, absence of
confidence building measures and multiple agencies in the nuclear weapons chain of
authority, the possibility of an accidental or maverick usage of nuclear weapons will
remain high. Unpredictable elements of risk and reward will impact on decision making processes.
The dangers are compounded if the new and aspiring nuclear weapons states have , as is likely to be the
case, ongoing inter-state disputes with ideological, territorial, historical and for all those reasons,
strongly emotive dimensions. 3.3
The transitional period is likely to be most dangerous of
accompanied by sabre rattling and
all, with the arrival of nuclear weapons tending to be
competitive nuclear chauvinism. For example, as between Pakistan and India a degree of stability might
have now evolved, but 19982002 was a period of disturbingly fragile interstate relations. Command and control
and risk management of nuclear weapons takes time to evolve. Military and political leadership in new
nuclear-armed states need time to learn and implement credible safety and security systems. The risks of
nuclear accidents and the possibility of nuclear action through inadequate crisis control mechanisms
are very high in such circumstances. If this is coupled with political instability in such states, the risks
escalate again. Where such countries are beset with internal stresses and fundamentalist groups with
trans-national agendas,
the risk of nuclear weapons or fissile material coming into
possession of non-state actors cannot be ignored . 3.4 The actionreaction cycle of nations on
high alerts, of military deployments, threats and counter threats of military action, have all been witnessed in the
Korean peninsula with unpredictable behavioural patterns driving interstate relations. The impact of a proliferation
breakout in the Middle East would be much wider in scope and make stability management extraordinarily difficult.
Whatever the chances of stable deterrence prevailing in a Cold War or IndiaPakistan
setting, the prospects are significantly less in a regional setting with multiple
nuclear power centres divided by multiple and cross-cutting sources of conflict.
A2- Prolif Solves Conventional War
Prolif makes conventional wars more likely because great
powers will be blackmailed to get involved, empirically proven
by the Yom-Kippur War. Bigger risk of offense from the aff
because these could trigger great power wars that go nuclear.
Thats the last two Kroenig cards
Nuclear states would still fight wars with non nuclear states-
makes the impact inevitable
Nuke war leads to extinction
Krieger 4/30/12
(David, holds MA and Ph.D. degrees in political science from the University of Hawaii as well as a J.D. from the
Santa Barbara College of Law, Assistant professor at University of Hawaii, founder of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation and has served as its president since 1982. He is a councilor on the World Future Council, chair of the
Executive Committee of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, and a
member of the Executive Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative. NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND A SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE Nuclear Peace Foundation, http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/publications/2012_prepcom.pdf,
SEH)
Nuclear war would preclude a sustainable future. It would destroy the global environment,
leading to the extinction of many forms of plant and animal life. Complex forms of life, such as
humans, would be particularly at risk. A nuclear war fought with existing nuclear arsenals
could leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans. Leading atmospheric scientists, who warn of
the utterly catastrophic effects nuclear war would have upon global climate and the environment, argue, The
combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics may constitute one of the
greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of humans. Only abolition of nuclear weapons will
prevent a potential nightmare. 23 The scientists call for immediate reductions in US and Russian arsenals to a
few hundred nuclear weapons to reduce the possibility of nuclear winter and encourage the rest of the world to
continue to work toward the goal of elimination. 24 It is necessary to ensure that nuclear weapons will not be
used again as instruments of war, risking the destruction of civilization, nuclear famine and the extinction of most
or all humans and other forms of complex life. Exposing the dangers of launch-on-warning nuclear policies and the
dysfunctional and counterproductive nature of nuclear deterrence theory is essential for awakening policy makers
and the public to the imperative goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a goal that demands
boldness by all who seek a sustainable future for humanity and the planet. The non-nuclear weapon states that
are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty have both the right and the responsibility to assert leadership in
assuring that the nuclear weapon states fulfill their obligations for good faith negotiations for complete nuclear
disarmament.
A2- Small Arsenals Solve
( ) Small arsenals dont deterperceived as weak
James 2k [Carolyn C., prof at Department of Political Science at Iowa State University, Nuclear Arsenal
Games: Coping with Proliferation in a World of Changing Rivalries, Canadian Journal of Political Science, ebsco]
Mini-arsenal presents more specifically a minimal nuclear capability and its relation to crisis behaviour. This is
perhaps the most complex, and therefore difficult, level to describe. First, a mini-arsenal state is capable of
acquiring, at best, two or three, crude Hiroshima or Nagasaki-style warheads. Fat Man, the bomb dropped on
Nagasaki, was about 20 kilotons, the more powerful of the two used by the United States in 1945. This pales in
comparison to thermonuclear weapons, that are measured in megatons. India, Israel and Pakistan, which can
project significant nuclear threats, are beyond this category since the arsenals they are believed to possess contain
qualitatively and quantitatively much more destructive power. Second, the most critical distinction of the mini-
arsenal is that, while potential damage may be extreme, destruction of stute or society is not assured . A strike from
a mini-arsenal state may be survivable-militarily, politically and socially. This perception, which may be held both by
the mini-arsenal state leadership and its potential enemies, is expected to result in preferences and behaviour that
do not match actions of states with more deadly arsenals. Leadership that is more willing to risk domestic
populations may consciously choose to escalate wars to nuclear levels if the state and its government may survive.
Of the four levels of nuclear capability, mini-arsenal dyads promise to be the most unstable during crises as the
deadliest of cost-benefit analyses are expected to take place.
A2 Infrastructure
Wont Pass
Wont pass If it does it will be later and smaller
Calmes 11/29 (Jackie, staff @ NYT, Traders Bet on Big Stimulus Spending. Congress May Not Go Along,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/traders-bet-on-tax-cuts-and-new-spending-congress-may-not-go-
along.html)
The hope, reflected in financial firms postelection tip sheets for investors, is for a robust program of tax cuts and
new spending, especially for infrastructure projects. But Republican leaders in Congress who in 2009
opposed President Obamas stimulus program amid the worst recession since the Great Depression, and have
blocked his proposed infrastructure investments ever since are not rushing to embrace stimulus
spending now. And Democrats, who had quickly offered to support Mr. Trumps bid for more
than $100 billion a year in additional public works spending, have turned hostile since his team
began emphasizing tax breaks for private developers instead of direct government spending.
That combination could bring soaring stock prices back down to earth. Market expectations of quick
fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities, Alec
Phillips, a Goldman Sachs economist, recently cautioned clients in an analysis, a point he
reiterated in an interview. Mr. Phillips suggested to clients that a modest infrastructure package is
more likely. But even that probably would not come as soon in 2017 as markets seem to
anticipate, given the political and budgetary hurdles ahead.
Ryan blocks
Calmes 11/29 (Jackie, staff @ NYT, Traders Bet on Big Stimulus Spending. Congress May Not Go Along,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/traders-bet-on-tax-cuts-and-new-spending-congress-may-not-go-
along.html)
As forinfrastructure, such an initiative is not even on Mr. Ryans agenda, as he pointed out at
a September forum in Washington after laughing at the suggestion that he might help Mr. Trump
pass a $550 billion, five-year spending plan. He has countered that Congress last year passed, and Mr.
Obama signed, the largest highway bill since the 1990s . But the roughly $60 billion a year the
law provides over five years for roads and mass transit is far less than Mr. Obama wanted or Mr.
Trump has proposed and would not cover public works unrelated to transportation, like water systems,
levees and schools.
For Republicans, the bigger fight will be over Mr. Trumps proposed infrastructure plan. The
president-elect has been passionate about rebuilding roads and ports but sketchy on the details of
how to pay for it, stirring concerns among Republicans who are uneasy over approving a
costly stimulus program. A fairly nonideological Donald Trump will bump up against some
fairly ideological members of the House conference, says Rep. Charlie Dent (R. Pa.), a moderate
Republican who didnt back Mr. Trump.
GOP blocks
Plumer 11/17 (Brad, staff @ Vox news, Donald Trump's infrastructure plan wouldn't actually
fix America's infrastructure problems, http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2016/11/16/13628382/donald-trump-infrastructure-plan)
Democrats have said theyd be receptive to working with Trump on an idea like this. We
can work together to quickly pass a robust infrastructure jobs bill , Nancy Pelosi, the House
minority leader, said after the election. But the Republicans who control Congress seem
much more divided on this idea. On the one hand, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
said hed consider it as long as any new spending did not increase the deficit. Infrastructure in America is
lagging far behind, he told the Hill. I think this is going to be a priority, and I think it will be a bipartisan issue.
The problem is that paying for infrastructure spending has been a sharply divisive
idea among Republicans in the House . It took years of squabbling and knock-down
fights before Congress finally agreed to a five-year, $305 billion transportation
reauthorization bill last December that would fund highways, bridges, roads, and transit. Because
no one in Congress wants to raise the federal gas tax, they had to scrape together
funding from a variety of oddball sources like raiding other trust funds or new custom fees. Many
Republicans arent eager to go through that process again. As Russell Berman notes at the Atlantic, in the week
Ryan has spoken often about working with Trump on
since Trumps election, House Speaker Paul
repealing Obamacare and cutting regulation s. Hes said nothing on
infrastructure. In the Senate, meanwhile, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has shrugged
off this infrastructure talk, calling it not a top priority, according to NPR. Right now,
Republicans control the agenda in Congress. And infrastructure doesnt seem high
on that agenda.
In theory, it will be easy, with command of Congress and the White House, to pass a budget.
Republicans will roll over and deal with the deficits that Trump's proposals will
create because the GOPers overwhelmingly favor the huge tax cuts that will accompany
them. But what if that budget contains significant new spending for infrastructure
projects? Many House Republicans will face significant pressure to fight against
government spending tooth and nail. Senate Republicans will chafe against Medicaid
cuts, which would hurt the poor.
Republican fiscal hawks in Congress shot down an economic stimulus program built
on infrastructure work when Obama was the person proposing it. The tolls that
might be needed to make highway work profitable are unpopular , impractical, or both
in many areas of the country. And the bond market is sending reminders that Americas
creditors wont sit idly by while public spending rises. Yields are already rising,
making it more expensive for the U.S. to borrow.
Trump was
Asked Thursday what's on the top of his political list after his Jan. 20 inauguration,
characteristically upbeat, but also short on details. "A lot of really great priorities .
People will be very, very happy,'' he said. "We're going to move very strongly on immigration . We
will move very strongly on health care. And we're looking at jobs. Big-league jobs.'' But one of the keys
to the president-elect's job plan is his promise to put millions of Americans to work on a 10-year, $1
trillion effort to rebuild the country's highways , bridges and airports. That big-ticket
spending plan isn't likely to go over well with Republicans eager to slash the size of
government. Massive infrastructure improvements won't be a top priority with
Congress, McConnell said.
will
President-elect Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were on the same page on one issue infrastructure. But
Trump be able to convince Republican lawmakers to pony up a trillion dollars for his
proposed plan? And if he does, how will the country pay for it? Marketplace's Washington Bureau Chief Andrea
Seabrook says it puts the GOP in a bit of a quandary : For people like Paul Ryan and the
traditional Republican Party that is in place for the House and Senate, this is not just
a rhetorical shift. Their entire ideological base, the things they truly believe in, are
based on not running up any more debt and deficit and shrinking government and
frankly when you cut taxes, no matter how much they would like to do that and how
much they believe in this idea that cutting taxes stimulates the economy, you drain
the treasury. So how do they do it? I dont know. I think theres a very good case to be made
that Donald Trump may be more fractious to the Republican Party than any Hillary
Clinton or any other Republican candidate wouldve been . While Trump may have an uphill
battle on spending, his hard-stance on trade seems to be working on some level already. Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau says that he is now willing to begin talks to renegotiate NAFTA. But Seabrook says unwinding
decades worth of trade negotiation policy isn't something that can be done with a pen.
During her campaign, Hillary Clinton called for about $500 billion in infrastructure spending .
Donald Trump promptly promised to double it, which is how the president-elect is
pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan his own party does not particularly
support. Trump says his proposal will be like the New Deal or Dwight Eisenhower's development of the national
highway system, and it will create millions of new jobs for Americans. Many Democrats like the idea,
but conservatives, including leading advocacy groups and at least some
congressional Republicans, aren't so enthused. "Conservatives do not view
infrastructure spending as an economic stimulus, and congressional Republicans
rightly rejected that approach in 2009," Dan Holler of Heritage Action for America told Politico. "It
would be a mistake to prioritize big-government endeavors over important issues
like repealing ObamaCare, reforming our regulatory system, and expanding
domestic energy production." The key sticking point for many on the right is where
that $1 trillion would come from, and on that point Trump has so far been vague. The language in
Trump's agenda for his first 100 days in office claims the American Energy & Infrastructure Act will be "revenue
neutral," but only offers a two-sentence description from which it is difficult to divine exactly how that would be
achieved.
McConnell blocks
Kelly 11/9 (Amita, staff @ NPR, Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100
Days, http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-
in-his-first-100-days)
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump but also
shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans . On Trump's proposal to
impose term limits on Congress, McConnell said, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate." McConnell has
been a long-standing opponent of term limits , as NPR's Susan Davis reports. "I would say we
have term limits now they're called elections. " McConnell also threw some
cold water on Trump's infrastructure plans, calling it not a top priority.
Wont Solve
Wont solve economy
Stiglitz 12/19 (Joseph, Nobel prizewinner, university professor at Columbia University, chief
economist of the Roosevelt Institute, a former senior vice-president of the World Bank, What the US
economy doesn't need from Donald Trump, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/19/what-
the-us-economy-doesnt-need-from-donald-trump)
The forecasters expect Trump's infrastructure spending plan, what I tagged as welfare for Mexican
immigrants last week, to boost the economy while a shortage of workers will restrain its impact. However, there is
no shortage of workers south of the border and many will wade through the Rio Grande for those jobs. But the
plan will do little to boost the economy for several reasons. Any bill won't get through
Congress for probably six months or longer. When it does pass, and it will because Keynesian
(medieval) economics is all politicians understand, it will include thousands of additions that
politicians use to pay off their campaign contributors. That will make it even less
efficient. Then federal regulations will bog down implementation until sometime in 2018.
Socialists can call spending on roads and bridges "investment" if they want to abuse the language, but pork by any
The US has too many bridges to nowhere. Adding more of them
other name is still pork.
will not increase productivity and can in no way be considered investment.
PPP fails
CBS News 11/29 (A Potential Pothole In Trump's Infrastructure Plan,
http://www.news9.com/story/33812149/a-potential-pothole-in-trumps-infrastructure-plan)
Public-private infrastructure deals are prone to devolve into crony capitalism -- with
developers securing bailouts when their projections for toll-collection totals prove too rosy, the EPI
added. And often the most-needed improvements -- say lead-free water pipes in Flint, Michigan -- are
unlikely to attract interest from private investors. Trumps plan frames the
infrastructure problem as a lack of innovative financing options , EPI analysts Josh Bivens
and Hunter Blair wrote in the report. This is nonsense. The problem is that politicians dont
want to ask taxpayers to pay for valued infrastructure. Capital Economics is bullish on a Trump
administration and Republican Congress, forecasting GDP growth of 2.7 percent for 2017 versus its pre-election
forecast of 2 percent. But its projection is built on tax cuts it expects for high-income earners and a lower corporate
tax rate. It gives no credit to Trumps promise of infrastructure investments. Capital Economics expects the eventual
infrastructure investment is likely to be much smaller than the headline number, and it noted
that even $100 billion per year in new spending would represent a tiny fraction of U.S.
GDP and fall well short of the $200 billion China spent on infrastructure in the first nine months of 2016. In
practice, it takes a long time for most investment projects to deliver any major benefits,
with costs typically overrunning in the meantime, the firm stated in a research note. Experience
from many countries, including Japan and China, also shows that resources are often diverted to
politically appealing schemes with limited economic return .
Trump's plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It's a tax-cut plan for utility-
First,
industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for
contractors. The Trump plan doesn't directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports,
as did Hillary Clinton's 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump's plan provides tax breaks to private-sector
These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or
investors who back profitable construction projects.
might already be planned or even underway . There's no
energy pipeline expansion)
requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction
efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned
projects.
Trump's plan isn't really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan
Second, as a result of the above,
subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because
there's no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded , there is simply no
guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring . Investors may simply shift
capital from unsubsidized projects to subsidized ones and pocket the tax breaks on projects
they would have funded anyway. Contractors have no obligation to hire new workers , or expand
workers' hours, to collect their $85 billion. To their credit, the plan's authors don't call it a jobs plan; ironically, it is
Democrats looking to align with Trump who have given it that name. They should not fool themselves.
A2: Dems Key
Dems wont block Trump
Muse 12/28 (R., staff @ Politics USA, Democratic Opposition to Trump Already Shows Signs of
Fracturing, http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/28/democratic-opposition-trump-shows-signs-
fracturing.html)
For a significant segment of the population, 2016 will go down as a very bad year. There has been some good news, but it always
comes from the lone Democrat with authority to prevent a totally bad year from becoming much, much worse. It was, quite frankly,
Trump enters the White House he will face
hilarious to hear Democrats claim that when Donald
powerful opposition that no other president has experienced. No matter how much
anyone wanted that fierce opposition to be true, it was historically unlikely and
yet it was worth waiting to see just how oppositional Democrats in Congress would
be towards Trump. For the second time in a week, it is glaringly apparent that the leading
Democrat in the Senate, Charles Schumer, is embracing Donald Trump like a long lost
Democratic lover. Of course Schumer, a senator representing Israel, harshly criticized and condemned fellow Democrat
and President Barack Obama for not ardently supporting Israels illegal aggression against Palestinians because it is precisely what
when Schumer embraced Trumps remarkably
one expects of a politician representing Israel. But
transparent infrastructure improvement scam, he revealed what many already knew was on the
horizon; a fracturing in the so-called Democratic opposition to Trumps agenda . That
fracturing just came quicker than expected and before the Trump is in the White
House.
Such choices are fraught with disagreement, as the centrist and progressive arms of the party prepare to battle for
the Democrats have relatively little leverage as Mr. Trump seeks to push
its future. Also,
through his agenda. He has said he intends to dismantle or overhaul some or all of President Barack
Obamas signature achievements, including the health-care legislation known as Obamacare. But Democrats also
note that Mr. Trumps victory is more tenuous than it seems. Ms. Clinton is on track to win the popular vote with
some ballots still to be counted, and voter turnout appears to be the lowest since the 2000 election. Donald Trump
wont be the first president to misunderstand and over-read his mandate, said Geoff Garin, a Democratic strategist
and pollster who advised a political action committee working to elect Ms. Clinton. Democrats need to be
strong and smart in taking action when Trump oversteps his mandate , as he most
certainly will. In the short run, Democrats must decide how they will deal with Mr. Trump. Two
leaders of the progressive wing of the party Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts said this week that they would be willing to co-operate if his proposals
would improve the economic situation of working-class families . But they vowed to oppose
any effort to deepen the divisions created by Mr. Trumps campaign. If Donald Trump takes peoples anger and
turns it against Muslims, Hispanics, African-Americans and women, we will be his worst nightmare, Mr. Sanders
In Congress, the Democrats position is bleak, said
said in a post on Twitter on Thursday.
Republicans are likely to package
Thomas Mann, an expert on U.S. politics at the Brookings Institution.
the toughest parts of their legislative agenda using a special process called budget
reconciliation, he said. In the Senate, such measures involve a limited period of debate and are not
subject to filibuster, meaning they can pass with a simple majority, which the Republicans possess if they
are unified.
Dem Unity Down
Democratic unity is low
Hopkins 12/23 (Douglas, staff @ The Hill, Obstructionism is the path to disaster,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/311684-obstructionism-is-the-path-to-
disaster)
How is America going to respond to Donald Trump? Cronyism is on the ascent. Our president-elect is packing his
Cabinet with billionaires who bring complicated history and conflicts of interest to the relationships they are
expected to monitor and negotiate and have been openly dismissive of the departments they will be expected to
lead.The Democratic Party is in disarray. The worst fears of liberals and progressives seem to be
coming to fruition. How are they going to regroup and respond ? So far, they appear to be choosing
the worst possible response. Continuing to pursue Hillary Clintons failed campaign strategy they persist in
challenging Trumps fitness to serve and pledge to undermine his efforts on all fronts; essentially duplicating the
Obstructionism led the GOP back to power; Why
GOPs anti-Obama strategy of obstructionism.
shouldnt Democrats pursue a similar strategy? Because it didnt really work for the
GOP. Republicans are in nearly as much disarray as the Democrats . More importantly, it
isnt working for America. The tribal politics of obstruction and conflict are eroding the structure of civil and
productive society. A functioning Democracy requires respect and cooperation among its citizens. An electoral
majority of Americans has chosen Donald Trump in the hope that he can be an agent of change. Its hard to
generalize as to the precise elements of his campaign they found most compelling because his policy proposals and
promised effects were frequently contradictory. For some it may actually have been his xenophobic and
protectionist rhetoric. But for most it was more probably his ephemeral promise to Make America Great Again and
Much of
devote all his energy to restoring the American Dream of upward mobility for the middle class.
America feels ignored and betrayed by our political class. The disdain toward The Donald
exhibited by that class became Trumps strongest recommendation.
If the DNC leaders had been even-handed in their approach, there is no doubt that
numerous candidates would have emerged in 2014 and 2015 . Multiple candidates would
have contributed to a lively debate of the issues that face our country. Multiple candidates would have made the
party stronger. The integrity of the delegate selection rules and their implementation are paramount to nominating
a candidate who can energize and unify the party. The process engineered for one candidate, by
party leaders, resulted in an uninspired and fractured party, which led to the 2016
loss, which has put America and the free world in these dangerous uncharted
waters. Every day we are witnessing the consequence of a detached Democratic
Party. Forget the notion that the party is in relatively good shape (Clinton won the popular vote, and the party
won seats in the House and Senate). Good shape relative to what? The party is now at a low ebb in
the number of Democratic office holders at the local, state, and national levels. The
party has a tremendous amount of work to do before it can reclaim its status as the
Party of the People. To win elections, the Democrats need to get back to representing the interests of
working families, and, in turn, must run a nominating process that will offer a leader who can be elected on his or
her qualifications and message. The partys nominating process is integral to a healthy democracy and a stable
world politic.
The manipulation of the nominating process by the DNC hierarchy can
never be allowed to happen again, nor must the DNC ever fail the people of the
United States again.
NUQ Israel abstention
Rubin 1/1 (Jennifer, staff @ Wash Post, How Trump can partially undo Obamas harm to Israel,
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion/statenationalcolumnists/how-trump-can-partially-undo-obamas-harm-to-
israel/)
Susan, I want to ask you about Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate. Politico had a story this week
saying, on some things like infrastructure spending, Schumers closer to Donald Trump than Mitch McConnell, the
Republican leader, is. Whats Schumers role in life going forward? PAGE: You know, I think Schumers role is to align
with Donald Trump on stuff like infrastructure that he might agree with and which, by the way, has the subsidiary
Democrats
effect of diving Republicans. I think he likes that. But he is also clearly the leader of the opposition.
are divided. They need to decide who they are. They need to develop a new
generation of leaders. But their -- their clear leader at this point is Chuck Schumer, who
has the only piece of real leverage they have against the president and the Republican
Congress, and that is the Senate filibuster.
But this may be a high-water mark for Republican unity. While they are clearly in line on major
issues and Ryan, who clashed with Trump during the campaign, is working closely with the incoming leader to bring
there are fights ahead that could quickly complicate the realities of
their agendas together,
governing. Republicans -- in deference to Trump -- are moving to pass a continuing resolution by
Dec. 9 to fund the government at current levels only until March, rather than pass appropriations extending until
October 2017. That means that after working to confirm Cabinet appointments, fill a Supreme Court vacancy and
undo major Democratic programs, Republicans will face a fight over funding the government and
potentially raising the debt ceiling just several months into the new administration. Theyre likely to face
major opposition from Democrats who, despite some calls to work with Trump on areas of agreement,
have been vocal in their frustration with some of his earliest decisions as president-elect. Very upbeat, but also
very realistic that theres a tough job ahead, Rep. Peter King said earlier this week when asked about the mood of
House Republicans. Not euphoria at all. Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican who criticized Trump during the
the incoming president might run into significant
campaign but has vowed to work with him, said
roadblocks in getting his agenda through Congress despite unified GOP control . Asked
if Trump understood the realities of working with Congress, he replied, I dont know, but he will soon enough.
While all Republicans appear to agree that they should move swiftly to repeal
Obamacare, disagreements are already surfacing over how quickly to act on a replacement
the conservative Freedom Caucus, said he wants a replacement plan
plan. Meadows, a leader of
to pass within 14 legislative days of repealing the law in early January. Weve been talking about it for
four years, so if its not a quick time frame, shame on us, the North Carolina lawmaker said. We should be
prepared to do it. Others have laid out a timeline to replace the law next summer or later ,
after perhaps six to eight months of evaluating options. Rep. Raul Labrador, another Freedom Caucus member,
cautioned against moving too quickly to fill the void that will be left after repealing the ACA. He said he expects
Republicans to go through a full committee process to evaluate different replacement plans, saying that GOP
lawmakers need to be really careful that we dont make the same mistakes that the Democrats made, that they
Other major differences could also divide different
ram-rodded something through the House.
Republicans and their incoming president. Ryan suggested making
factions of congressional
changes to Medicare at the same time as replacing the Affordable Care Act, but Trump campaigned
on protecting entitlement programs. Meadows, who agreed with Ryan that there needed to be
significant changes to save Medicare, said it would take a herculean effort to do so at the same time as replacing
Obamacare. And Trump has talked about a massive infrastructure program e arly in his
administration -- something Democrats say they are eager to work with him on, hoping to drive a wedge between
Trump and Republicans in Congress. Many conservatives are wary about such undertakings unless they are
fully paid for, and new infrastructure spending without significant cuts elsewhere or increased taxes could drive up
the deficit. There are also questions about trade , Trumps most consistent policy position. Though
many Republicans came around to share his frustration with NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership during the
the GOP orthodoxy of supporting free trade agreements is out of step with the
campaign,
president-elect.
The GOP wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, and want to make sure that not even a
Democratic filibuster can stop them. Congressional Republicans are eyeing a lightning-strike
rollback of Obamacare for early 2017, according to Bloomberg Politics. If successful, the rollback would mark a
major victory for conservatives in the first 100 days of Donald Trumps presidency. While a fitting welcome to the
the rollback has the potential to cause a rift in the GOP. Senate
bloodthirsty president-elect,
Republicans could potentially compromise their 52-seat majority if the terms of the
rollback include far-right aims such as defunding Planned Parenthood .
Infrastructure thumps
Riddell 11/29 (Kelly, staff @ Wash Times, Trump indicates hes serious on
infrastructure spending, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/29/trump-
indicates-hes-serious-infrastructure-spendin/)
It looks as though President-Elect Donald Trump is serious about delivering on his campaign promise
for increased infrastructure spending. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump pledged to spend $1 trillion over
the next 10 years to repair and build the nations roads, bridges and other projects more money than Hillary
Clinton had planned. The proposal is at odds with many Republicans, who fought President Barack
Obamas 2009 stimulus plan. House Speaker Paul Ryans Better Way agenda includes no
spending on the nations pipelines and airports , and the Speakers office has noted Congress
passed a $305 billion, five-year infrastructure bill late last year. But, Mr. Trump is a master negotiator and it
looks like hes setting up his administration so hes able to twist some arms to get his
domestic spending agenda done.
Ideological clashes inevitable
Heer 11/23 (Jeet, staff @ New Republic, What Happens When Trumps Populism
Collides with Ryans Austerity?, https://newrepublic.com/article/138955/happens-trumps-
populism-collides-ryans-austerity)
Democrats see Obama as one of the only people who can still unite what has become a
fractured party. There is a vacuum right now . Hillary Clinton is moving off the stage and there
isnt time for someone else to step on and take over, said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. But
Trump opponents might not get their wish. The president did not say exactly what would trigger him to speak out,
although he did sketch out a basic scenario. White House press secretary Josh Earnest indicated Tuesday it is in part
contingent on whether Trump obeys the basic tenets and principles of American democracy, including freedom of
speech and religion. But Earnest stressed that Obamas preference isnt to spend the bulk of his time disparaging
There are risks if
his successor, saying the institution of the presidency is not well served when that occurs.
Obama eventually decides to play Trumps foil. It would break with the decades-long tradition of
relative political silence for ex-presidents, a move that could damage his legacy and reputation . No
ex-president has directly and publicly criticized a president in a sustained way since
[Herbert] Hoover, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a presidential historian at the University of Houston. If he does it
in a way thats in a partisan fashion, his outgoing approval rating would fall, he added. If he gets into the
dirty, day-to-day critique of Trumps policies , it makes it look like sour grapes.
U.S. Rep. Timothy J. Ryan, our Democratic congressman from Howland, is delivering the right message at the
right time, and we support his aggressive and enthusiastic run for minority leader in the U.S. House of
Ryan understands well that the existing position is not working for
Representatives.
Democrats because it is dividing the party, not unifying it. We support his message because we
know, after all, that a strong Democratic Party, as well as a strong Republican Party, is vital to a solid two-party
system and a strong democracy. Thats a point we have made often on this page, and it applies to all levels of
government local, state and national. On Wednesday, the Democratic Caucus in Washington, D.C., will
make its decision on minority leadership, choosing from between Ryan and longtime Democratic
leader U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Ryan, dissatisfied with the direction the national party has
been taking, saw an opportunity and stepped up aggressively to seize it.
Despite generally
The troubles of the House GOP since they secured the majority in 2010 are well known.
high levels of party voting cohesion and strong polarization between the parties, the
House Republican leadership has struggled with divisions over substance and
strategy on major legislation. These conflicts ranged from the debt ceiling crisis of
2011 to the budget and appropriations bills this year. Battles between mainstream
conservatives and Freedom Caucus members precipitated the 2013 government
shutdown and the leadership crisis that led to the departure of Speaker John A.
Boehner (R-Ohio) in 2015. Those troubles are hardly history. When the 115th Congress
convenes in January, the Republican conference in the House will be slightly smaller, and
Freedom Caucus members remain a force that can prevent the majority party from
passing bills. Those members have signaled some sharp differences with other Republicans, and Trumps
agenda may divide congressional Republicans further if it ranges beyond traditional conservative priorities. Parties
having Trump in White House is unlikely to solve the
like unified government, but
conferences divisions; it may even worsen them.
Less than 24 hoursafter House Republicans unanimously elected Paul Ryan as their
speaker for the next Congress, the GOPs unified front was already showing cracks . A number
of conservatives, including some leaders of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, signaled
Wednesday they are not willing to compromise on some top priorities, sending a warning
to Ryanand to President-elect Donald Trump. We need to repeal Obamacare in its
entirety, Idaho Representative Raul Labrador, one of the Freedom Caucuss leaders, said at a lunch Wednesday
with reporters on Capitol Hill. Then we can do a bill to replace it. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last
week, Trump said hed be open to amending the 2010 health care law, as opposed to the
full-scale repeal he called for on the campaign trail. And he reiterated in an interview with CBSs 60
Minutes Sunday that he wants to keep key parts of the law , including barring insurers from
discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Labrador and other House conservatives said Wednesday
they, too, support some of those provisions, but said they could be inserted into a new health care law. It needs
to be something completely divorced from Obamacare so that its a Republican health care
bill, said Labrador.
In the afterglow of Donald Trumps unexpected triumph, Republicans exulted over what they could accomplish with
control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. Butbehind the public show of unity, a
stark difference looms. House Speaker Paul Ryan is a fiscal hawk who wants to couple tax cuts with
deep spending cuts. Trump catapulted himself into the presidency talking about tax cuts too, but he also is
proposing a multibillion-dollar infrastructure plan and has vowed to protect
entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Such gaps went unmentioned when Trump met
with Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week. But ultimately, one side will have to
bend, whether Trump ends up moderating his spending and tax-cut plans, or congressional fiscal hawks relent on
their opposition to new spending. The signs of a looming clash are already there . One day after
meeting with Trump, McConnell poured cold water on Trumps spending plans , telling
reporters that a government stimulus wasnt going to help the economy . A government
spending program is not likely to solve the fundamental problem of growth," he said Friday. But Trump
mentioned only one policy proposal during his victory speech last week: his
infrastructure plan.
An early debate looms next year over how to address the debt-limit moratorium, which expires
this spring. A House Democrat, Gerry Connolly of Virginia, predicted in an interview that, over time, rifts will
emerge with the House and Senate Republican leaders over Trumps proposals .
Those tensions will grow, he said, as campaign promises arent kept and fights brew ,
and voters will see him as the "snake oil salesman he is."
Thumpers
Health Care
Health care repeal is top of docket
Ferrechio 12/26 (Susan, staff @ Wash Examiner, The new Congress: Housekeeping, then
right to Obamacare repeal, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-new-congress-housekeeping-
then-right-to-obamacare-repeal/article/2610293)
The House and Senate Republicans are planning an aggressive agenda that will
begin with repealing Obamacare in the first few days of the new Congress. For the first
time in more than 15 years, Republicans will hold majorities in both chambers and will
control the White House, which virtually guarantees they will be able to turn some
major agenda items into law.
Ensures a fight
Cassidy 12/29 (Christina, staff @ NBC News, Following Trump's Victory, GOP Hopes to
Overhaul Medicaid, http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/health/President-Trump-GOP-Hopes-Overhaul-
Medicaid-408612515.html)
Republican control of Congress and the presidency means the GOP can act on its
long-held priorities of reining in entitlement programs and repealing President Barack
Obama's health care law, which allowed states to expand the number of people eligible for Medicaid.
Thirty-one states have opted for the expansion. It is not clear what the GOP's replacement plan will look like.
Democrats have warned of dire consequences, and any proposed changes are likely
to trigger a fight in Congress.
Incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt that the first nine
months of 2017 will be "consumed" by health care and tax legislative pushes .
"Now, it's time for being in the majority, " Priebus said, "and I can tell you President-elect Trump is
going to lead the way to put up and show up." Democrats are skeptical Republicans will go through with it. Despite
years of unanimous opposition to the law, the GOP has never found consensus on how to replace it. "They don't
know what to do," incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters before Congress adjourned for
the year. "They have nothing to put in its place and, believe me, just repealing
Obamacare, even though they have nothing to put in its place and saying they'll do
it sometime down the road, will cause huge calamity from one end of America to the
other." Retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid warned Republicans against dismantling the health care law. "It
will lead you into a quagmire that will cause pain for millions of Americans and bedevil you for the next four years,"
he wrote in a New York Times opinion piece. Is a Medicare overhaul coming? Democrats like Reid and Schumer
believe Republicans have misinterpreted the results of the 2016 election, with Trump claiming a mandate despite
Many Democrats say
losing the popular vote and entering office with historically high negative ratings.
GOP efforts to dismantle Obamacare will hurt the party in the same way Bush's
2005 push to overhaul Social Security damaged the party and played a role in the
Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. "We had a plan. We stuck with it. It was
unified, strategic and unwavering," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., of the 2005
entitlement fight. Pelosi said Democrats won that legislative fight despite Bush enjoying high approval ratings at the
That fight provides the blueprint Democrats are expected to follow next year to
time.
defend Obamacare and, potentially, GOP efforts to reshape Medicare.
ACA repeal is first
Gale 12/30 (Luke, staff @ Healthcare Dive, GOP Congress members eye ACA repeal
vote in early January, http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/gop-congress-members-eye-
aca-repeal-vote-in-early-january/433119/)
Republicans appear ready to move forward shortly after Congress convenes in early
January on a budget reconciliation bill that will dismantle parts of the ACA . In addition to
Rep. Walden, other elected Republican politicians , including Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker Paul Ryan, (R-WI), and President-elect Donald Trump have indicated
they support the approach.
ACA repeal thumps Top of the docket & the vote itself is
controversial
Dennis 11/29 (Steven, staff @ Bloomberg, GOP Eyes Lightning Strike on Obamacare to Kick
Off Trump Era, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-29/gop-eyes-lightning-strike-on-
obamacare-to-kick-off-trump-era)
Republicans aim to immediately start work on an Obamacare repeal . A full repeal would
require Democratic support, so its more likely theyll pursue a partial repeal using an obscure budget
process called reconciliation, which would only require 51 votes for passage instead of a supermajority of 60.
Democrats, therefore, wont be able to stop this one. Last January ,
after months of negotiations
among Republicans in the House and Senate, they sent an Obamacare repeal using
reconciliation to Mr. Obamas desk, which he vetoed. The measure would have repealed the health-care
laws tax hikes, insurance exchange subsidies and the Medicaid expansion. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
it likely will
estimated that the plan would lead to 22 million people losing their healthcare insurance. Since
take a while for Republicans to coalesce around a replacement plan , its possible
Republicans might try to delay the repeal from taking effect until they have the new plan
ready. Trump told 60 Minutes just days after the election that Republicans would do it
simultaneously.
He also told reporters House Republicans are eyeing a strategy that would tee up two
reconciliation measures, a procedural tool that allows budget measures to bypass possible Senate
filibusters and pass both chambers with simple majority votes. The first would repeal and replace
the 2010 health care law, among other things, he said. The contents of the second are still
subject to internal deliberations, he said with a grin. House Budget Chairman Tom Price of Georgia
echoed that, saying dealing with the health care law is the first thing Republicans want to
tackle using reconciliation. Price is being considered for Health and Human Services secretary in the
incoming Trump administration.
Less than 24 hours after House Republicans unanimously elected Paul Ryan as their
speaker for the next Congress, the GOPs unified front was already showing cracks . A number
of conservatives, including some leaders of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, signaled
Wednesday they are not willing to compromise on some top priorities, sending a warning
to Ryanand to President-elect Donald Trump. We need to repeal Obamacare in its
entirety, Idaho Representative Raul Labrador, one of the Freedom Caucuss leaders, said at a lunch Wednesday
with reporters on Capitol Hill. Then we can do a bill to replace it. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last
week, Trump said hed be open to amending the 2010 health care law, as opposed to the
full-scale repeal he called for on the campaign trail. And he reiterated in an interview with CBSs 60
Minutes Sunday that he wants to keep key parts of the law , including barring insurers from
discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Labrador and other House conservatives said Wednesday
they, too, support some of those provisions, but said they could be inserted into a new health care law. It
needs
to be something completely divorced from Obamacare so that its a Republican health care
bill, said Labrador.
Medicare
Medicare thumps Happens during appointment phase, prior
to their impacts
Sargent 11/29 (Greg, staff @ Wash Post, Get ready for a big, messy, explosive battle
over Medicares future, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-
line/wp/2016/11/29/get-ready-for-a-big-messy-explosive-battle-over-medicares-future/?
utm_term=.bef3f787d784)
If House Speaker Paul Ryan has his way, the 115th Congress wont just repeal Obamacare, it
will dramatically reform Medicare, turning the program into a form of private insurance. Ryan has long
supported the controversial idea and, immediately after the election, he suggested that any Obamacare reform
House Budget Chairman Tom Price, said
should include Medicare reform. Another key player,
Medicare reform was a top priority for the unified Republican government . President-
elect Donald Trump has yet to commit to further privatization of Medicare which could
cause a tidal wave of unease among senior citizensand a Trump spokeswoman did not respond to a request for
comment. At a minimum, though, Ryans Medicare plans are a topic of negotiation between
the speaker and the president-elect. Could it actually happen? The tools appear to be
in place. Even with the threat of a filibuster by Democrats in the Senate, GOP leaders could use a
parliamentary maneuver to make big Medicare changes on a simple majority vote in
both chambers. But the path remains fraught with challenges. Trump has never shown much
interest in entitlement reform and, at times, even has spoken about protecting Medicare .
And Ryan also must navigate a maze of competing interests among GOP lawmakers,
including Senate Republicans who have voiced lukewarm support , at best, for Ryans
favored Medicare changes.
It looks as though President-Elect Donald Trump is serious about delivering on his campaign promise
for increased infrastructure spending. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump pledged to spend $1 trillion over
the next 10 years to repair and build the nations roads, bridges and other projects more money than Hillary
Clinton had planned. The proposal is at odds with many Republicans, who fought President Barack
Obamas 2009 stimulus plan. House Speaker Paul Ryans Better Way agenda includes no
spending on the nations pipelines and airports , and the Speakers office has noted Congress
passed a $305 billion, five-year infrastructure bill late last year. But, Mr. Trump is a master negotiator and it
looks like hes setting up his administration so hes able to twist some arms to get his
domestic spending agenda done.
The battle over infrastructure could set the tone for the next four years of intraparty
Republican warfare. It will likely come early in Trumps term: He indicated in his victory
speech on election night that his first big priority is infrastructure , saying: We are going to fix our
inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. Aside from the Senate picking
this may be the first big clash pitting Trump and
bones with some of his cabinet appointments,
Bannon against Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell. A showdown on infrastructure
would also, of course, pit Republican populists against conservatives in Congress . And it
would pit both sides of Trumps 2016 coalition against one another. At the very least, this would give us an early
foretaste of which force may prove stronger in the GOPthe new economic nationalism of Trump and Bannon, or
itll show how politically thorny it
Ryans austerity-for-all-but-the-wealthy brand of conservatism. And
will be for the Trump forces to find politically acceptable compromises with the
conservatives, to get even reduced versions of their grand dreams passed.
Immigration
NUQ Immigration thumps
Cadei 12/12 (Emily, staff @ Newsweek, Warnings signs for Republicans in final
days of 2016, http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/warnings-signs-for-republicans-in-
final-days-of-2016/)
A bipartisan group of senators introduced new legislation Friday to protect
undocumented DREAMers if Trump terminates Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,
known as DACA. The bill would grant participants in DACA three years of legal status
while the government tries to work out a more permanent immigration compromise.
The issue is likely to be a flashpoint among Republicans in the next
Congress, many of whom supported Trumps hardline stand on immigration . And its
just one of many that promise to test GOP unity even before the next president is
sworn in on January 20.
Live Streaming
Live streaming thumps Causes war w Dems
Stucky 12/30 (Phillip, staff @ Daily Caller, House Dems Promise War Over Paul Ryans
Proposal, http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/house-dems-promise-war-over-paul-ryans-
proposal/)
House Democrats are prepared to go to war over a new rule proposed by Speaker of
the House Paul Ryan, according to a letter sent to Ryan late Thursday. Reps. John Lewis and John Larson
oppose the new rule that would allow the sergeant at arms of the House of
Representatives to formally punish a member for taking a picture or video on the
floor of the lower chamber of Congress . The pair wrote a letter outlining their opposition to the
measure, which was a response to a sit-in over gun control Lewis staged last summer.
Republicans
There has always been a rule against video streaming on the floor with items like cell phones.
were furious that Democrats defied those rules and have been brainstorming a way
to stop Democrats from doing something similar in the future by adding a
punishment mechanism to the rule. The newly proposed rules change, which must
be approved by the full House during a vote next Tuesday, would sanction members
for taking photos or videos on the House floor by giving the sergeant-at-arms the power to fine
lawmakers up to $2,500. The change, while not retroactive, is a direct response to lawmakers using their phones to
live-stream the sit-in.
Larson saidDemocrats arent going to back down and didnt rule out another sit-in,
although he made clear that idea hasnt been discussed broadly within the caucus. Let us hope that
reasonable minds prevail. I dont think Democrats are going to sit idly as the
majority abuses its authority, he told POLITICO. Who knows? We might even have to protest
this, he added.
Russia Sanctions
Tillerson confirmation ensures fights over Russian sanctions
Gehrke 12/29 (Joel, staff @ Wash Examiner, Ryan and McConnell back Russia sanctions,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ryan-and-mcconnell-back-russia-sanctions/article/2610549)
Trump will have the authority to rescind the sanctions when he takes office, but Obama's team thinks that
their decision to target Russian intelligence officials will make it politically-difficult
for him to do so. "I don't think it'd make much sense to invite back in Russian intelligence agents," a senior
administration official told reporters on a conference call Thursday afternoon. " The officials who were
sanctioned were participating in malicious cyber attacks on U.S. critical
infrastructure and interfering [with] our democratic process so, again: Hypothetically, [Trump]
could reverse those sanctions, but I don't think it'd make a lot of sense." Ryan and McConnell argued
that Obama's policies created the conditions for the Russian cyberattacks . "For eight
years the foreign policy of the Obama administration has rested upon an effort to drawdown America's conventional
military capabilities, commitments and forward presence, and increased reliance upon international organizations
and rhetoric," McConnell said. "Aggressive behavior short of a military attack upon our country will only stop when
And clearly the Obama administration has not yet
it is deterred. The Russians are not our friends.
dissuaded them from attempting to breach our cybersecurity systems , or harass our
diplomats in Moscow." The debate over confirming Secretary of State nominee Rex
Tillerson could be a battleground for fighting over those sanctions, given that some
Republicans have urged him to endorse future sanctions on Russia . "Here's what I'm
looking for from the new secretary of state: Do you understand that Russia is a bad actor all over the world?" Sen.
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said before Christmas. "Are you willing to do something about it? You opposed sanctions in
the past. If you oppose sanctions in the future, then you're letting Russia get away with it, you're inviting more
aggression by Iran and China and North Korea, and I don't think you have the judgment to be secretary of state."