Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Framework
The rez is a question of state obligations since the state alone has the
power to prohibit nuclear power prefer actor specific obligations since
they differ police have a duty to arrest criminals but civilians dont.
This is different from individual morality the state doesnt have an
intent since policymakers pass laws for different reasons, and doesnt
have the reflexive capacity of individuals so it cant be valued
intrinsically. Policymakers have to use util. Goodin
Robert Goodin 90, [professor of philosophy at the Australian National University college of arts and social sciences], The Utilitarian Response,
pgs 141-142
makes it so special about public officials and their situations that make it both more necessary
Consider,
first, the argument from necessity. Public officials are
obliged to make their choices under uncertainty, and
uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices public and
private alike are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course . But in the
nature of things, private individuals will usually have more
complete information on the peculiarities of their own
circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative
possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in
contrast, are relatively poorly informed as to the effects
that their choices will have on individuals, one by one.
What they typically do know are generalities: averages
and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most
people as a result of their various possible choices, but that is all. That is enough to
allow public policy-makers to use the utilitarian calculus
and more desirable for them to adopt a more credible form of utilitarianism.
this way,
Plan
Plan Text: Countries ought to prohibit the production of Russian state
owned nuclear power. Blomme 15
Brian Blomme (Climate and energy communications manager for Greenpeace International), Count on the nuclear industry to have strange
things happen, 7/7/15, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/Rosatom-Finnish-nuclear-project/blog/53456/
VC
There's more. Mikhail Zhukov heads up Inteco, which used to be owned by the richest woman in
Russia, Yelena Baturina. She happens to be married to Yuri Lukov, the former mayor of Moscow.
Baturina sold Inteco to 50% state-owned Sberbank and to billionaire Mihail Shishkanov. Sberbank
Greenpeace
warned the Finnish government to carefully examine the
license application by Fennovoima to ensure it meets
ownership criteria and is in best interests of the country.
But the concerns are bigger than Finland. As our Finnish program
manager, Sini Harkki, said: "This game that Fennovoima and Rosatom
appear to be playing should be a concern to any country
that is in discussions with Rosatom regarding building
nuclear reactors. If the state corporation is ready to play
a game with something as simple as ownership rules,
what else will it play games with in building a dangerous
reactor?" Rosatom is actively pursuing nuclear contracts
around the world. And this warning is something many
is an essential financier of Rosatom. Given these unsettling findings,
it
is time to reconsider that strategy, listen to the will of the Finnish citizens,
But with ample renewable resources to be developed and the usual mess with nuclear projects,
and move into the nuclear-free clean-energy future.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The bulk of Russias reactor fleet in operation has
been commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s and has already been through lifetime extensions
As a Russian state-backed entity that oversees almost every aspect of Russias civil and military
predecessor entities oversaw the worlds worst nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Although the
take back spent-fuel waste from reactors supplied by Rosatom but operated overseas not only
fails to remove the risk at a reactor site since spent fuel must be cooled onsite prior to transport
but significantly increases the risks to the public, including during transportation. At the same
Ukraine has highlighted the vulnerability of the nuclear industry to political developments. One
major current problem arising from recent developments is that Rosatom could be prevented from
nuclear accidents have occurred in the U.S., refuting the notion that severe accidents are relegated to the past or to countries
accidents have involved meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolant, and have occurred during both normal operation and
extreme, emergency conditions such as droughts and earthquakes."4 6 One index of nuclear power accidents that included
costs beyond death and property damage-such as injuring and irradiating workers and malfunctions that did not result in
shutdowns or leaks--documented 956 incidents from 1942 to 2007." 7 Using some of the most advanced probabilistic risk
assessment tools available, an interdisciplinary team at MIT identified possible reactor failures in the U.S. and predicted that the
In terms of the
expected growth scenario for nuclear power from 2005 to
2055, the MIT team estimated that at least four serious
core damage accidents will occur and concluded that
"both the historical and the PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] data show
an unacceptable accident frequency."" 9 Further, "[tihe potential impact on the
best estimate of core damage frequency was around one every 10,000 reactor years." 8
public from safety or waste management failure... make it impossible today to make a credible case for the immediate
US Heg
Russia and the US are breaking off ties in nuclear energy, each trying
to prove their dominance and get an edge over the other. Kelly 10/5
Lidia Kelly. Russia suspends nuclear agreement, ends uranium research pact with United States. Reuters. October 5, 2016.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN12521J JJN
The
regular
government said on its website. In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the United States had not
received an official notification from Russia although he had seen media reports of the suspension of the
research agreement. "If they're accurate, we would regret the Russian decision to unilaterally suspend
cooperation on what we believe is a very important issue that's in the interest of both of our countries,"
agreement on co-operation in nuclear and energy-related scientific research, signed in 2013, provided the legal
framework necessary to expand work between U.S. and Russian nuclear research laboratories and institutes in
nuclear technology and nonproliferation, among others. The uranium agreement, signed in 2010, provided for
feasibility studies into the conversion of six Russian research reactors from dangerous highly enriched uranium
reactors to low-enriched uranium, it will carry the work itself. But it warned the conversion may not be "an end
in itself." "In some cases, including in the production of medical isotopes, highly enriched uranium is the most
effective and renouncing its would be technically and economically inexpedient," the ministry said. The West
imposed economic sanctions on Russia over its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula in 2014, followed by a
pro-Russian insurrection in the east of the country. The breakdown of a ceasefire in Syria, where Russia backs
government forces and the West supports rebel groups, has added to tensions.
US and Russia fight for influence in the Middle East is highly unstable
with power capable of flipping for either side. Klapper 9/8
BRADLEY KLAPPER - Associated Press. Russian Mideast push could hurt US influence, if talks occur. US News. September 8, 2016.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-08/russian-mideast-push-could-hurt-us-influence-if-talks-occur JJN
happen. Russia has clamored unsuccessfully for years to host such a gathering and the Russian Foreign
Ministry's announcement on Thursday included no date or agenda for the future get-together. Making the
meeting even more uncertain: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' demands that Israel first halt all
settlement construction in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, and release about two dozen Palestinian
If the meeting
occurs, it would surely rattle the region's tumultuous
ground further. The United States has maintained a
stranglehold over all Mideast peace processes since the
Oslo Accords in the 1990s, seen by Israelis and Palestinians alike as the
indispensable mediator and only power that could guarantee a two-state solution. But
the Obama administration doesn't appear to enjoy that
recognition any longer. The degradation of America's
standing coincides with its difficulty projecting its vision
across the Middle East. On Syria, Washington has pleaded
with Russia for a ceasefire even as Moscow advances the
position of the Russian-backed government over U.S.supported rebels. In the war against the Islamic State,
the U.S. has been unable to secure a quick victory and is
challenged by fighting among allies such as Turkey and
the Kurds. In Yemen, the U.S. has lost hope of ally Saudi
Arabia pushing Iranian-backed Houthis out of the capital
by force. State Department spokesman Mark Toner on Thursday rejected the notion that the U.S. is
prisoners. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects the preconditions.
losing primacy in the region. But he appeared skeptical that it was the right time for such a meeting in
Moscovow. "We need to make sure that any face-to-face talks have the right climate in which to succeed in,"
Toner told reporters. He specifically cited Israel's ongoing settlement activity and Palestinian glorification of
violence as hindrances to a peace settlement. Abbas has been fishing for the last couple of years for an
alternative peace process, frustrated with President Barack Obama's inability to make any progress on a peace
deal. He has welcomed a new French initiative that foresees a separate Israeli-Palestinian peace conference
before year-end, but involving more global powers like last year's Iran nuclear diplomacy. He also wants U.N.
Security Council action. Netanyahu, too, is making a statement by tentatively accepting the overture from
Russia, which has traditionally pitted itself as the strongest advocate of the Palestinians among the Quartet of
Mideast peace mediators. Washington is Israel's champion. The United Nations and European Union are
anonymity. He has discussed a new track with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi and floated different
ideas to European leaders. None of these endeavors has been clearly defined. Netanyahu "likes the idea of a
counter-initiative," said David Makovsky at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, while Russian President
Vladimir Putin gets another opportunity to "poke the U.S. in the eye." The Palestinians seek to establish an
independent state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem territories Israel captured in the 1967
Mideast war. Netanyahu refuses to accept Israel's pre-1967 lines as a basis for border talks. There have been no
meaningful Israeli-Palestinian talks since Netanyahu took office in 2009. The last round broke down in 2014 after
If a
Moscow meeting takes place, the chances for substantial
progress would seem slim. And that also may explain why
American officials are tempering their comments. Aaron David
months of fruitless, primarily indirect negotiations brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Miller, a former Mideast negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations, questioned whether Putin's
peacemaking offer was serious. Nevertheless, he said in a recent opinion piece, the U.S. should let the Russian
leader try. "Putin would almost certainly fail, tarnishing his vaunted image and likely angering Israelis and
Palestinians," Miller wrote. But he said
signed an agreement
that Russia would build four nuclear power plants in
Egypt with a capacity of 1,200 megawatts each. Indeed, the discovery of a substantial reservoir of natural
northwestern Egypt. On November 19, 2014, the two countries
gas in Egypts economic waters will diminish the incentive to switch to nuclear energy production, as will the
improved relations between Washington and Cairo; recently a rapprochement between the two countries
occurred, with the removal of some of the American restrictions on arms sales that had been imposed on the
regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. However, after the agreement with Russia was signed, Sisi
declared in a speech recorded on Egyptian television that, This was a long dream for Egypt, to have a peaceful
nuclear program to produce electricity. This dream was there for many years and today, God willing, we are
taking the first step to make it happen. The main stumbling block in the way of the project is the question of
financing. Egypts economic situation does not enable it to carry out a venture of this size, and it is doubtful that
Saudi Arabia, which economically supports the Sisi regime, can finance this ambitious project, given the
considerable budgetary pressures it is experiencing due to the drop in oil prices. Sisi declared that Egypt would
repay the loan by selling the electricity produced by the reactors after they begin operating in 2022.
Rosatom's stated, if not intangible, goals in 2010 have gained traction over
foreign orders totaled $74
billion. In September 2015, Rosatom estimated the value of export
orders reached $300 billion with 30 plants in 12 counties.
In addition, Russia has memorandums of cooperation and deals
at various stages of negotiation across the globe. From South
Africa to Argentina to Vietnam to Hungary to Saudi Arabia, there appears to be no
region where Russia does not seek to send its nuclear
exports. Russia is no novice when it comes to using energy exports for political gain see Russian
natural gas exports to Europe. But as the game of pipelines continues in
Europe, Russia is in a bitter standoff with the United
States. In Russia's political chess strategy, numerous
pieces are currently in motion. Economic pressure to lift sanctions seems to be
hastening de-escalation in the Ukraine conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow is strengthening
its presence in Syria through its more aggressive military
stance. With hydrocarbon exports vulnerable, especially
at times of low oil prices, exporting nuclear technology
can provide Russia with another means of exerting
influence. Nuclear power may never become as important
Russia's Nuclear Ambitions
early stages, to 16 reactors over the course of the next 20 years. And Russia, naturally, is more than willing to
expand its Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant in 2014, and Moscow will not eliminate nuclear cooperation it has
already established. Iran, however, could become the first battleground between China and Russia in terms of
nuclear exports because Beijing has agreed to construct two plants in the southern Iran. Europe: Hungary and
Finland One of Moscow's geopolitical imperatives is to have clout in Eastern Europe to ensure the security of the
Russian core, a strategy especially evident during the Cold War. Hungary, once behind the Iron Curtain, is now
part of the European Union. But growing anti-European sentiment in the country could provide Russia the
opportunity to gain a better foothold there. Rosatom was selected to expand Hungary's Paks Nuclear Power
Plant facility despite European objections. Finland, on Russia's northern border, also ignored EU objections and
agreed to have Rosatom come in to build a nuclear power plant in the north. Given last year's rumblings about
Sweden and Finland possibly joining NATO and how close Finland's borders are to St. Petersburg, Russia will
remain vigilant in maintaining its influence in Helsinki. Rest of the World Moscow's nuclear export campaign has
also touched the rest of the world. South Africa has a non-binding memorandum of understanding with Russia.
Rosatom is believed to be one of the leading candidates, along with China, to build a new nuclear plant in the
country, which has seen recent blackouts due to insufficient power. Elsewhere on the African continent, Ghana
and Nigeria are also potential sites for future Russian-built nuclear power plants. Russia's push east for energy
exports is not limited to hydrocarbons to China. Rather, several Southeast Asian countries Laos, Vietnam,
Myanmar and Indonesia have signed either agreements for construction of plants or at least memorandums
of cooperation for nuclear power. Finally, the export of nuclear power facilities follows Russia's broader plan of
investing in Latin America. Moscow could potentially cooperate with countries for the mutual goal of countering
U.S. influence in the region. Still, Russia and China could compete directly to bring nuclear power to the
by the suspension of the Export-Import Bank's charter on June 30. While reinstating the Export-Import bank
could come to a vote later this month, Russia's financial flexibility should continue to give it an edge. Some
countries such as China and Iran pay for Russian power plants directly. Others such as Belarus, Bangladesh and
Hungary depend on favorable loans. Jordan brought in Chinese banks to finance roughly 30 percent of its project
in addition to the Rosatom's 35 percent share, and India has certainly benefited from Russian finance.
High
years. South Africa is also an example of a country in which the build, own, operate model could fail, the big
question being who will pay. While the Russian model may be attractive for Pretoria, which is not able to
independently provide the capital for such facilities up front, it still requires the potential for a return on
investment for Rosatom. South Africa has a poor track record of having consumers pay and that could prove a
sticking point for its Russian partnership. Russia's own financial situation, while it has not yet hurt Rosatom,
could eventually limit Moscow's ability to offer attractive financing options. But even with these obstacles, much
threats of secession by the United Kingdom and Greece and waning allegiance in much of Europe; and NATO
offers Ukraine no more than its good wishes as Russian President Vladimir Putins military swallows the country
bit by bit. Our allies are far from steadfast. Their governments are weaker, and vivid world leaders are hard to
find among them. Putin, the insane leaders of the Islamic State and the Iranian mullahs have put fear in the
hearts of our allies. Why are these second- and third-rate powers able to intimidate their neighbors far more
effectively than did the far more powerful Soviet Union? Our democratic allies in Europe, lacking a clear sense of
direction, are ruled by unstable coalitions. Even Germany, perhaps the strongest of our European allies, refuses
and religious fanaticism have left Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen virtually ungovernable. Iraq, left to its won
devices by Obamas withdrawal after American troops sacrificed so much to establish a nascent democracy, is
now falling apart. In Egypt, a military regime is trying to forcibly contain the boiling pot that is the Muslim
and chaos becomes normal state of affairs absent a strong centripetal leadership. In the last half of the 20th
Belarus/Lithuania
Belarus-Lithuania relations rocky now time is running out before
Lithuania lashes out against the Russian built power plant. Sputnik
8/29
Sputnik News, Belarus's Russian-Built Nuclear Reactor Driving Lithuanian Officials Insane, 8/29/16,
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20160829/1044745037/belarus-lithuania-nuclear-plant-conflict.html VC
Hinting that physical security and environmental concerns aren't really the central issues on her
of clarifying what she meant, the president vowed instead to discuss the issue in meetings with
Baltic leaders, and with US Vice President Joe Biden, who visited the region last Tuesday. Vytautas
Belarus
Belarus is
economic projects. And Minsk is unlikely to look kindly at the attempts to interfere with its
Conflict in the Baltics goes nuclear before NATO even gets involved and
spills over into the rest of Europe. Goldmanis 16
Maris Goldmanis (Masters Degree in History, currently getting PhD, Russian Invasion in the Baltic States: Nightmare or Reality? 7/09/16,
https://latvianhistory.com/2016/07/09/russian-invasion-in-the-baltic-states-nightmare-or-reality/ VC
There are two possible scenarios for invasion. First: full-scale invasion. Second: limited, non-direct
like its happening in Eastern Ukraine. Full scale invasion would require much use of land, sea and
region would be used to blockade the land route trough Suwalki, Poland to Vilnius and Riga.
Russia would not necessarily need to assault Suwalki itself, but rather secure
control over Lithuanian towns of Kybartai, Marijumpole, Kalvarija and
Druskinskai. First cities to fall would be Narva, Tartu, Balvi, Krsava, Rzekne, Krslava and
and using it NATO would eventually break the blockade and force Russia to retreat. So NATO
objective is to prevent the Baltic blockade and cut off Russia from Kaliningrad. Air, Naval and
tactical superiority is in need. A logical question then arises what about nuclear weapons? First no
country has ever had experience of using nuclear weapon against country that also have them.
However, the common sense and most military doctrines is to use nuclear weapons after the
warring country has exceeded all conventional means. Their forces are defeated and are on rout
and country is on breakdown. That is one of the actions Russia would possibly choose. However,
may avoid discussion of using nuclear weapons, however, Russia would have hard time to prove
that there are no Russian troops in Latgale. The Consequences In both case of full and limited
invasion Russia would fall under tougher sanctions and isolation. Russian populace at first would
support the invasion., however basing on military success or failures it would change drastically.
Victory if such is possible would lead to Russia as totalitarian fortress in opposition against
western block for times to come. Defeat would cause an unpredictable series of events, like state
breakdown, civil war and foreign intervention. Limited frozen conflict in Baltic states will lead to
same Russian totalitarianism and isolation only to hope find agreement over the conflict. Failure
and loss of national prestige will leave its regime vulnerable. For Baltic States its means great
loses of lives, destruction of infrastructure and economical breakdown. In some ways the limited
For
the world it would mean the danger of WW3. Not to
mention fear of use of nuclear weapon, the conflict might
spread to Poland, Caucasus, Moldovo everywhere where
invasion and frozen conflict would be more crucial as it would be a constant bleed out.
Belarusian annexation leads to Russia cutting the Baltic States off from
the rest of Western Europe causes conflict with NATO. Goldmanis 16
Maris Goldmanis (Masters Degree in History, currently getting PhD, Russian Invasion in the Baltic States: Nightmare or Reality? 7/09/16,
https://latvianhistory.com/2016/07/09/russian-invasion-in-the-baltic-states-nightmare-or-reality/ VC
allied states to Russia, not to mention Armenia. It has force of 62,000 active men
and woman, sizable tank and air force. Whats more to add to importance is that Belarus
hosts Russian troops and probably will host more as
answer to NATO buildup. While Belarusian president Alexander
Lukashenko officially seeks a partnership with EU countries he has stated many
times that in case of Russian conflict with NATO Belarus
will side with Russia and take direct part . That means
Belarusian army is a threat to Latvian eastern region of Latgale and to
Lithuania particularly to Lazdijai and Druskinkai municipalities along the Polish border that
have Belarusian border on the east and Russian border on the east. Presumably both forces
could attempt to take the region to cut off Baltic States
from Poland and Western Europe.
opposition towards Russian military presence among Belarusian society. That could change if
economic difficulties deepen for Belarus. Two nearby Scandinavian countries Sweden and Finland
with sizable military, but are not NATO members are concerned over worsening security issues in
the region. There are many in both countries who advice to join NATO or at least expand the
cooperation with NATO. Sweden that has maintained long history of neutrality and now it as the
crossroads. Russia knows this and ha begun campaign of intimidation against Sweden to weaken
their will to join NATO. Finland has very long border with Russia and historical policy of keeping
neutrality with Russia, however that may change at some point and how Finland would react to
the assault against ethnically close Estonia? So involvement of these two countries remains a
question. Russias reasons for invasion. For and against. Baltic States provides almost no valuable
natural resources for Russia to plunder. Financial gains might be the worth, however Russia
carcasses of abandoned factories and war bases but what was left as inheritance was large
numbers of Russian speaking immigrants in Latvia and Estonia. Both countries in early nighties
did crucial and disputable actions to deny citizenship for most of these people creating a massive
disappointment towards Latvian and Estonian ethnic population. The creation of large non-citizen
community had political reason Latvian national parties feared that Russian speaking voters
could elect anti-western political force that would disrupt Latvian and Estonian path to NATO and
US. In last 20 years the naturalization laws have allowed non citizens to obtain citizenship and
indeed most of them vote for parties supporting Russia. While still significant size of non citizens
remain and they are material for Russian special foreign policy to support Russian speakers
outside Russia.
2004, the United States has been committed to defending their freedom and territorial integrity under Article V of the North
extended deterrence remains a pillar of U.S. global strategy. Although the credibility of extended deterrence ultimately resides in
the U.S. strategic "triad" of long-range bombers and missiles, the posture review explicitly stated that the U.S. would preserve the
ability to deploy nuclear weapons with suitably equipped tactical fighters in places like Europe. According to Hans Kristensen of the
Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. currently deploys about 200 B61 nuclear gravity bombs in Europe for use by American
or allied forces in a future East-West war. The weapons are receiving life-extension modifications that will allow their use for
decades to come, first on F-16 fighters and later on the stealthy F-35 fighter. Russia also deploys a sizable number of so-called
"non-strategic" nuclear weapons in the European theater, although like the U.S. it does not disclose numbers or locations .
both
sides in any such conflict would have military doctrine
potentially justifying the use of nuclear weapons to
prevent defeat. In the case of Russia, it has stated repeatedly
that it needs non-strategic nuclear weapons to cope with
the superiority of NATO conventional forces, that it would
use such weapons in order to protect its core assets and
values, and even that nuclear weapons might sometimes
be useful tools for de-escalating a conflict. Successive U.S. administrations
conflict along the Russian periphery could escalate to nuclear-weapons use through miscues or misjudgments. Sixth ,
have stressed that nuclear weapons underpin alliance commitments. Seventh, both sides have non-strategic nuclear weapons in
theater ready for quick use if tactical circumstances dictate. For example, Hans Kristensen noted the presence of several nuclearcapable military systems in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad located between Lithuania and Poland. Although the Russians have
not disclosed whether nuclear warheads are also located in the district, there is little doubt that hundreds could quickly be
elsewhere on its territory could severely impede NATO use of local air space in support of ground forces, and Russian electronicwarfare capabilities could impede coordination of ground maneuvers.
The high stakes assigned to the outcome of such a conflict and the ready availability of "non-strategic"
nuclear weapons in a context where either side might view their use as strategic in consequences is a prescription for catastrophe.